Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FL candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). One of the FL directors, either Dabomb87 or The Rambling Man, determines the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a week longer)—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. After the 10-day period has passed, a director will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{ArticleHistory}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Shortcut: WP:FLC Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list log Former featured lists Removal candidates log

Nomination procedure Toolbox disambig links edit count external links alt text Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that Peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page). To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Grammy Award for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles the other Grammy-related lists with FL status, including Grammy Award for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance and Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance. I realize second FL nominations are discouraged, but the other Grammy list is co-nominated and I am trying to squeeze in my last Grammy lists that I believe meet FL criteria before the New Year begins. Thanks to reviewers for your feedback! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Is it possible to move the pictures more to the left?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? The thumbs are aligned against the right side of the page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to this correction: To maintain consistency with all of the other Grammy-related featured lists, I think that it is best to keep to the image column along the right side of the page. For most of the lists I do not define column widths, allowing the table to become as wide as needed to accommodate the text. However, since this list contains two separate tables, I want the column widths to equal so that they align properly. If you or any other reviewers believe different column widths are in order, feel free to offer suggestions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Nashville Vols all-time roster

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the critera to be recognized as a Featured List. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I see some last-name-only players in the list; when I went to a general reference to find out more about them, I was presented with five general references, with no indication what was different between them. Are they proper for a specific timespan? If so, that needs to be clarified. You can't expect the reader to surf five similar links to find a bit of information. --Golbez (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Would providing references to Baseball-Reference profiles for players who are only known by last names be an acceptable means of identifying these players? NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't want to say yes and encourage you to do that before the main issue of having five general references that are indistinguishable from another is dealt with. :) If I knew which reference to look at for which time period, I might not need specific references for the ones with no first names. But I don't know which to go to; the article doesn't state when the team was in what class, and the references should themselves state, I think, what years they're relevant for. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I now see that the leagues are mentioned at the top of the article, and that's good and I apologize for not noticing that before; however, you're now asking people in the middle of the list to have to shoot to the top of the article, read the prose to find which league is relevant, and then jump to the bottom and find with reference to go to. The relevant years should be added to the five reference citations, so we don't have to hunt. --Golbez (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I added year ranges to the general references and sorted them in chronological order. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "the team was inactive in 1962" why?
• What does the affiliation mean (sorry, I'm a non-expert) and are the various affiliations referenced?
• Career columns don't sort correctly for me in Safari. I expect it's to do with some being pure numbers and some having commas/en-dashes.
• "Vols pitcher from 1913 toi 1914" typo.
• You may also benefit from being aware of the on-going "discussion" at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (B)/archive1 with regard to the use of baseball-reference.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes

Nominator(s): Hylian Auree (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC), --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the problems previously stated have been addressed. Hylian Auree (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As author of the list, I am co-nomming. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments Now supporting. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose – There are a number of issues I see. Some are minor, but a lot of stuff brought up in the first FLC have not been fixed, which leaves me wondering about the claim that "problems previously stated have been addressed". I would suggest reviewing The Rambling Man's comments from the first FLC before continuing. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC) United States Weather Bureau should be National Weather Service as the former is no longer an existent entity. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Oops, got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC) "As of now" should be "As of 2010" or "As of November 2010". "Now" can change, and if an off-season storm forms without the article being updated it'd be inaccurate. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I changed it to 2010. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Sourcing for the background, for example the statement that "Regardless, off-season storms prior to 1964 are still defined by the current seasonal span and are still considered part of the annual season outside which they develop." On that note, I'd also remove the word "regardless", it seems to be unnecessary. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I removed that sentence, since I wasn't really sure how to handle it. I replaced it with a note - does that make sense? --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Is there any single source for the entire table, or for the individual entries in it? I assume refs 4 and 5, heavily used in the records and statistics section, is what's being used for this? If so, would it make sense to add a {{small}} after the table with "Sources: [4][5]"? Likewise for monthly statistics. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Well, all of the names, seasons, dates, and winds are based off the two links. That's why at the top of the table, I have a ref next to winds (not to names, seasons, and dates so it's not cluttered). I could put the ref on the bottom, but I don't want people thinking that the deaths and damage came from there. I did add the ref to the monthly stats. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC) And on that note, if you do take up that suggestion, you could remove [4][5] from the list column headings, too, making it look cleaner. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Numbers or Unnamed? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Numbers for storms within HURDAT, unnamed for TD's that weren't numbered. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Please solve the issues brought up in the first FLC, including sorting issues with the names, damage, deaths, and WP:ACCESS issues with the coloured backgrounds. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I believe the sorting issues were fixed, and I'm not sure what the concern is over WP:ACCESS. The previous comment was: "if I can't discern color, I can't use the key." If you can't discern color, then you don't need the key. The color is just another little thing added to the article. Unless, do you mean that a column should be added for "Category"? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC) If you can't discern color, then you have no way of knowing the category. --Golbez (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC) OK, I got it now. Does that work, what I added? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC) It's fine by me. As for the sorting, it's not fixed. Try sorting by name. #18 and #19 are appearing before #5 and #6; #13 and #14 before #2; Unnamed before any of the A storms. Sorting by deaths produces a horrible mess where sorting in descending order has 0 on top and sorting in ascending order has "several", followed by 80 on top. Suggest you use {{sort}}. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Alright, I've sorted so that the numbers are first, then unknown, then the names. Hope that works. Anything more that you object to? --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Deaths and damage still don't sort properly. I'm getting $78.9 million listed before $9.46 million, and 25 deaths before 5. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Ugh, fucking sorting :P I'm not sure how to fix the damage, since the damage is auto-inflated. Any suggestions? --Hurricanehink (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC) The sorting should now be sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ "Several" means more than one and should be sorted as such. Also, could you fix sorting for the category status? Other than that, no other issues for me. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC) OK, the "several" issue has been fixed, as was the category status. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The chronology table seems to be unsourced in certain areas where information may challenged. The note isn't referenced. The timeline in the Monthly statistics section seems terribly out of place. Afro (Talk) 00:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Where does such info appear unsourced where it could be challenged? And how does that timeline seem out of place? It is the same as the data on the left, just in graphical format. Lastly, I don't know how to cite the note, but I'll look into it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Dates, Regions affected for starters. Then if not out of place the timeline is useless as its already conveying information in the table besides it. Afro (Talk) 03:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fine, I put the sourcing at the bottom. Also, I don't consider two forms of data as useless, if they provide different ways at looking at something. And, I figured out how to cite that note. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• If two forms of data had different content it wouldn't be useless, however the only difference between the two is that one of the left has references. Also looking over the sources for the table I am finding that some of the items within the table aren't listed as presented in the table, as an example and I have no idea if I'm interpreting the source correctly but for the first item Ref 4 lists a hurricane which is Not Named, while Ref 20 says "No track available, only one point." which leaves me being unable to verify whether this entry is listed in the source, I also do not see any information on either regarding regions affected, you may want to look over the content in the table as I'm sure there are similar entries to this. Afro (Talk) 10:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I personally think the two tables should stay, since they are different ways at looking at the data. As for the sources, it's a bit difficult to discern for people unfamiliar with it. For all tropical storms and hurricanes (and TD's after 1970), they are in the best track, which is ref #4. For all tropical cyclones before 1925, they are in ref #20. The first storm (the one in 1865), can thus be found in ref #4 (as well as #20). You can find it easily by doing a search of "1865". It yields:

AL##65 NOT NAMED 053000 1865 13.0 80.0 50 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *

• In laymen terms, that's the 1865 season. The storm was unnamed, and it existed on May (05) 30th. It was at 13.0N, 80.0W, and had peak winds of 50 knots. For all storms, locations affected refers to the areas it affected along its track (the track being its latitude and longitude). Does that make sense? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• So the storm was unnamed? so why is it listed in the table as #1? Also listing the deaths as "Several" in the column isn't helpful and I am confused at the sorting, they should at the very least be higher than 0. Afro (Talk) 11:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, storms before 1950 were unnamed. Those with numbers are in the best track as official tropical cyclones. Those without numbers ("unnamed"), are either unnumbered tropical depressions, or they were tropical/subtropical cyclones after 1950 that didn't have a name. The sorting issue (for now) has been fixed. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The references need to be gone through with a fine toothcomb as you have several publishers as authors. Also i note these problems need to be fixed.

NOAA needs to be spelt out in references.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference 5 is lacking Author information and publication info despite it being listed on the page.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Depression 01 Preliminary report is lacking author info despite it being listed on page 2 of the report.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelled out NOAA, added authors, and went through refs. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of Spice and Wolf episodes

Nominator(s): NocturneNoir (talk · contribs), Juhachi (talk · contribs)

A legendary wolf deity joins a wandering merchant on a trip to find her ancestral home. This episode list has had its first half checked in a peer review. I feel this list passes all featured list criteria and I will make any necessary improvements. Thanks. I have acquired permission to run two simultaneous FLCs. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 06:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of the 2004 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): Dylan620 ^{(t • c)}, Iune(talk), 01:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Completing a job started by User:Iune (with whom nomination credit is shared) back in August 2009; added sources, made tidy-ups to comply with modern TC season timeline standards, etc. Special thanks to User:Jason Rees for copyediting after the main body of cleanup efforts. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – why is only one paragraph in the lede sourced/cited? StrPby (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Adding citations from monthly weather summaries to the lead; will finish tomorrow. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Comments:
        • "Even though three storms affected land (Hurricane Javier, Tropical Storm Lester, and Tropical Depression Sixteen-E), impact from the season was minimal; in fact, the 2004 season was the first since 1990 not to produce any deaths." This line is still unsourced. Personally, I'm also unsure of the necessity of the "in fact" in that sentence. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Removed the whole line; coming to think about it, it's really just superfluous. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
        • "July was considerably more active" – "considerably" seems like an unnecessary buffer word here. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
        • "(Hurricane Howard formed in August, but became a major hurricane in September.)" I would unparenthesise the sentence and re-write it to fit into the flow better. Suggest "Hurricane Howard, which had formed in August, only became a major hurricane in September." Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
        • "1-minute peak sustained windspeeds" could do with some explanation, maybe as a footnote. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC
          • Removed mention of minutes per Hurricanehink below. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Maybe add a sentence to the lede about the two different warning centres and the areas they are responsible for? It's mentioned a lot in the timeline that the "NHC passe[d] the primary warning responsibility ... to the CPHC as [storm] crosses 140°W." Making this clear in the lede would be nice. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
        • On that note, the first mentions of the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center need (NHC) and (CPHC) behind them as only the abbreviations are used in the rest of the article. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Added. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Standardise the hurricane categories. They're either Category One, Two, Three; category one, two, three; or Category 1, 2, 3. As it stands there are all three versions in the article. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Can something weaken "into" an intensity rather than weaken "to" it? I can understand saying a hurricane has weakened into a tropical storm, but if you're using the word "intensity", it sounds weird. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - All the refs need to follow the same date format. You don't source 2 items, in July 4 and July 28, any reason why these aren't source? Afro (Talk) 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. The two missing citations were accidentally overlooked. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    • All references should follow the same date format. Afro (Talk) 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Done, misunderstood the first comment. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. It is a content fork of 2004 Pacific hurricane season.
  • If it's a content fork because it's a timeline, then wouldn't all the featured timelines also be forks? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• With the above issue notwithstanding, I have other concerns.
  • "Tropical Storm Agatha reaches its 1-minute peak sustained windspeeds of 60 mph (90 km/h)" - first, the grammar is poor. "Agatha reaches its windspeeds" is how it basically reads. Also, that is the only place in the article where you mention anything about minutes, so it has no context. Finally, 60 mph is not 90 km/h, that is incorrectly converted. Please fix all conversions in the article, if the article is even to stay.
    • Removed mention of minutes. My argument for that conversion staying is that 60 mph is a rounded estimate of the conversion from 50 knots, which converts into 90 km/h. If that's an insufficient argument, however, I would be glad to fix that conversion. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, 50 knots is 57.5 mph, which is 92.9 km/h, which is rounded to 95 km/h. Please be more careful. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Hurricane Darby intensifies into a Category 3 major hurricane and becomes the first Pacific major hurricane since Hurricane Kenna (2002)" - try rewording so the year isn't in parenthesis
  • Strange, I thought parentheses weren't there to begin with... oh well, fixed anyway. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Several of the storms don't have a location where they attained peak winds.
  • I don't remember this being consensus; could you please direct me to such a discussion that declared so? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Does there have to be a consensus? It doesn't do anything if a long-lived storm has a location where it formed, and there is no indication where it moved and where it peaked. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• There is an inconsistency between using miles and nautical miles - why?
  • Because there's also inconsistency between that information in sources. For instance, Blas' TCR doesn't use either for where it formed, so I had to use latitude and longitude. Also, the report on One-C gives the information in miles. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You do know that nautical miles and miles can be easily converted, right? The project agreed that nautical miles shouldn't be used. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Tropical Depression Eight-E becomes a tropical storm and is named Frank, one of the few times a storm has survived crossing from the Atlantic to the Pacific" - it didn't though
  • Maybe I'm interpreting incorrectly, but both the AMS annual summary and Frank's TCR say so. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • But Earl didn't actually survive crossing from Atlantic to the Pacific. It dissipated, and the wave crossed. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Tropical Depression Ten-E forms about 525 nautical miles (972 km)" - why is it not rounded?
  • Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hurricanehink (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think this article is a content fork. They are slightly different. This has recently been a hot topic at WP:TROP and has added on to the drama issues there. Even so, any further discussion goes at WP:AFD. Once Hinks comments are addressed, ill support but for now I am neutral. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "The timeline also includes ..." just "It also includes..." is fine.
• "information" appears three times in that sentence, reads very awkwardly to me.
• Hurricane Darby can be linked in the lead.
• In fact, you could link all named hurricanes with articles.
• Graphical timeline needs en-dashes for the speed ranges.
• There seems to be two explanations in close proximity of the Saffir-Simpson scale (one in the timeline, one below the timeline) - are both needed?
• Agatha image caption needs no full stop.
• "1200 UTC" missing a colon.
• "1125 km" missing a comma.
• No need to relink Cabo San Lucas.
• Avoid red links in See also sections.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Brown discography

Nominator(s): Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For some reason the first FLC was closed as all current comments had been resolved and was waiting for feedback from the reviewing editors. The previous corrections from the first FLC have been made and it the discography should meet FL criteria as of now. Candyo32 19:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• No period/full stop in infobox caption, as it's not a complete sentence

Done.

• "Peaks above 100 are peaks of the singles on either the Bubbling Under Hot 100 or Bubbling Under Hot 100, 25 song extensions of the Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, respectively." - any reason for two "Bubbling Under Hot 100"s? I see they don't link to the same place, but then why do they have the same name? — KV5 • Talk • 19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. Candyo32 20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

:*"Superhuman" needs notes (under 100 in US) Done Why isn't "Better on the Other Side" mentioned (except for videos)? It was not released officially for download or radio as a single or on an album. Refs 29 + 30 should be in headers Done Either link all albums in singles table or none Fixed. I had linked Fan of a Fan at the time when I thought mixtapes couldn't be included. Is there a release date (or year) for F.A.M.E.? Added confirmed 2011 date. Candyo32 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Something is wrong with ref 51 ("Shawty Get Loose" video). Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I had noticed that, but I can't seem to find what is wrong with it. Also, would the sorting thing added interfere with WP:OVERLINK? Candyo32 01:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Sortable tables can be exceptions to overlinking. If you wish to unlink them, though, you can use the nolinkparameter in the template. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Another comment: '"—" denotes releases that failed to chart or was not released.' I have always detested the many different types of notes here. What if something was not released, but did chart? Is it marked with a dash? Why not simply: '"—" denotes items that failed to chart.'? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Because something should have the chance to chart before it fails to chart. In other words, if it wasn't released, it can't chart, so saying "it failed to chart" is misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I see your point. What about "has not charted"? This needs rewording somehow, as it is grammatically incorrect, anyway. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I actually think the current is fine as "has not charted" will imply to the reader that the song will chart when surely, even if so due to Billboard rules I'm sure some songs of his that are +5 years old that never charted will anytime soon. Anyway, I have corrected the statement so it is not grammatically incorrect. Candyo32 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Can you see my point, though, about items that were not released, but charted? Do they receive dashes or are their positions listed? It is confusing. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I see what you mean now. Well I guess that would just mean that "Other charted songs" wouldn't receive "did not chart" rather than remove not released. Candyo32 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Support I'm still not convinced with the "did not chart" notes in the tables, but they are used WP-wide. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The Canadian positions are not all supported by the reference given. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Candyo32 01:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC) That page doesn't give peak positions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC) They are there it is just behind a login wall, which I cannot do anything about. And the only other alternative is to use acharts.us, which is discouraged on featured articles. Candyo32 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I would prefer that you use aCharts, as everyone can access their data. aCharts is OK to use if there is no alternative source. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Ok, should be done now. And I assume you were just talking about the features as the Billboard should cover his solos. Candyo32 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC) "Crawl" and "Yeah3X" are still behind the billboard.biz login wall. Can you use aCharts for them as well? Also, did "What Them Girls Like" chart in Canada? Sorry to keep posing problems, but with WP:DISCOGSTYLE not finished yet you have to keep up with recent amendments: table captions should be shorter. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Done. And yes it is. It should be sourced in the Canadian references and it is in the table. Candyo32 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think I'm done for good now :). Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Note the first nomination was closed as WP:FLC is not WP:PR. The initial quality of the list was of great concern. Please don't nominate lists of that nature again. Glad to see it back in a better state. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My confusion was that all corrections had been made at the time of closure. Candyo32 12:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well when I archived it, there were many, many issues. Just took Gimmebot nearly 12 hours to close it formally. Anyway, we're here now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies. I forgot about the Gimmebot. Candyo32 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - The lead is totally unsourced why is this? Ref 4, 7 need language parameters. Swiss isn't a language. Ref 14 has no publisher. Ref 70 looks and probably is incomplete. "No Air" has a few unsourced Certifications. In Mixtapes, you source "In My Zone" but not "Fan of a Fan" why? Afro (Talk) 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

We established on the previous review that the lead is source as all chart positions and certs are sourced. Per WP:LEAD, refs are discouraged in the lead if sources are present in the other parts of article. No sales or anything are posted that would require sourcing. Fan of a Fan is sourced because its notability criterion is established because it has its own page, while In My Zone does not, and if not sourced, its establishment could be questioned. That's just like F.A.M.E. being sourced while all the other albums aren't. All refs in question are fixed. Couldn't find sources for other "No Air" peaks so removed. Candyo32 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok Fair enough. "Fan of a Fan" is fine without a reference but "Chris Brown's Journey", "BET Presents Chris Brown" and "Exclusive: The Forever Edition Bonus DVD" need one? Granted "Chris Brown's Journey" and "Exclusive: The Forever Edition Bonus DVD" are basically section redirects but "BET Presents Chris Brown" is its own actual article, I hate to sound uncivil but consistency please. Also on the Music videos I'm a bit confused as to what The directors column is meant to be sorting by. Afro (Talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the refs for all the ones that redirect to sections or have articles of their own. I'm also confused as to what you mean with the videos. I guess just to sort the names, if that is what you are asking. This was modeled after FL's that have been converted to the new style. Candyo32 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you an idea just to clarify what I'm asking. Sorting Up, Bryan Barber, Chris Brown, Chris Robinson, Jim Jones, Kevin Custer and James Franck, R. Malcolm Jones, Joseph Kahn, Alex Nazari, Chris Robinson. Am I clear in my point that it sorts weirdly? Afro (Talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. I have no idea as to why it is sorting this way. Candyo32 00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well until its sorted I am opposed to the articles promotion. Afro (Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I sorted the names and missed one. It's fixed now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it'd be better if the names were in alphabetical order in the cells, maybe that'd be less confusing for me. Afro (Talk) 03:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry Candy, I came here to comment on the discography, but in seriousness I cannot support this at present. I see some persistent issues with the discography, issues which I had pointed out in the Ciara discography nomination which you submitted. Might I say that there is a pattern to it? Here are some of it for instance.
  • The first line in the lead doesnot include the mixtape, promo singles or the music video count, as well as the infobox.
  • Internationally, the single either charted at the top, or inside the top ten, of several charts -> extremely vague

I originally had "worldwide top-ten" as I did in the Ciara discog, but a user in the first review was against it.

• • "Dreamer", a single for the AT&T Team USA Soundtrack reached the top twenty in the US. --> missing comma after soundtrack.

Done

• • In 2009, Brown's fourth album, Graffiti --> Graffiti is the third studio album.

Done

• • multiple international countries. --> doesnot mean anything

I don't understand what you mean by "doesnot mean anything", but, I originally had "international top-ten", like in the Ciara discog, but a user in the first review was against it

• • which peaked within the top twenty of several countries --> No it didn't. Either source this or leave this.

Well it is sourced in the tables, I thought that would cover it. Anyway I did have "top-twenty hit" or something like that as in the Ciara discog, but a user in the last review was against it.

• • Correct the title of "Yeah 3x" to "Yeah 3×".

The proper title is "Yeah 3X" as it is on the digital download and on the official single cover.

• • There is no mention of the release of the DVDs or the mixtapes. Are they non-notable?

Not really notable as they never charted, and I didn't want to lead to be so excessive. Do you think they warrant inclusion?

• • The music video section needs a thorough run down for merging the cells, removing overlink from them, artist names etc.

Cells can't be merged because it is a sortable table and I was told sorting tables are an exception to overlink.

• • Usage of en-dash is non-existent in the reference titles.

I still get confused about en-dash.

• • Please avoid using abbreviations like ARIA, CRIA etc.

Done

• • Check online sources and their italicizations

Done

• • Reference 32, for Canadian Hot 100, is screwed up. Please correct.

Done

• • Some references miss accessdate.
  • Can we not have the discogs link in EL, and add something from Rollingstone or Allmusic please?

Done

• • The chart providers being used. Shouldn't you have a consistency across the page? Why the sudden use of the Rap chart?

I thought it would be better to use charts that his featured singles have appeared in rather than a list of dashes all the way down of where the songs haven't charted. Candyo32 00:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall I feel that the lack of consistency is the major issue with the article. Feel free to ping me with clarifications you need, and not a talkback please. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please check the internal link rot and the dab links pointed out by the bot in the talk page. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Good now. It says #52 redirects but it does not. Candyo32 08:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Infobox caption should not have a full stop.

Done

• thirty six should be thirty-six.

Done

• "promo" should be spelled out in full.

Done

• "Brown's self-titled debut album was released in 2005. The album ..." merge these.

I'm confused....

• You have "in the US" and "in the U.S." both are acceptable but I would expect this to be internally consistent.

Done

• Link "certified" appropriately.

Done

• "and Gold in other countries" not specific enough. how money countries?

Done

• " and it spent a month atop the chart." no need for "it" and did it spend "a month" or four weeks? I would guess that Billboard updates weekly.

Done first thing. Month as Billboard updates weekly.

• "Internationally, the single either charted at the top, or inside the top ten, of several charts" again, very vague.

What would you suggest as explaining every single charting might be a bit redundant.

• "US R&B top five singles " what is "US R&B"? i.e. link it.

Done

• "international top thirty song "Superhuman"" what does "international top thirty" mean?

Re-worded

• "During the Exclusive period" I thought Exclusive was an album? What does this mean?

The time during which singles were released during that album. I had "era" but an editor above was apposed to it.

• I see no mentions of music videos in the lead. The lead is supposed to adequately summarise the whole article.

Music videos are mentioned, if you mean in the first sentence. I haven't seen an FA to explicitly detail videos in the lad except for in the first part.

• Seems like "Yeah 3x" should be "Yeah 3X" according to our own article.

Done

• That's the lead reviewed. Plenty of spaced hyphens in the references (should be en-dashes per WP:DASH), Long Gone isn't referenced, two DVDs have no citations...

Confused about en-dash, I'll fix Long Gone, and as stated before like the albums, they are on Wikipedia pages, and this is why they are not sourced. This is why F.A.M.E. is linked but Exclusive is not. Candyo32 03:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (B)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. The list was recently updated to meet the concerns raised regarding accessibility of lists in table format at the prior FLC in this series, including the addition of "scope=row" parameters and such. I will make every effort, as always, to be as expedient as possible in addressing reviewers' comments. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Why is there no section heading for the list? Afro (Talk) 23:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • See the linked prior FLC. This discussion also. — KV5 • Talk • 13:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose All sources bar one are primary. Sandman888 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • How are these primary sources? Baseball-Reference.com is not affiliated with the Phillies, to my knowledge. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The spirit of WP:PSTS is to base prose statements on other evaluations, not make novel interpretations based on what is a primary source. The distinction between secondary and primary is not merely on affiliation, but also, and 'primarily', on the analytical level. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • There have been no "novel interpretations" made here. The all-time roster is sourced to multiple pages within a a reliable secondary source. I heartily disagree with your interpretation stating that sources are primary based on their "analytical level", as this is not an accepted academic practice. — KV5 • Talk • 12:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Luckily there exist semi-official definitions of a secondary source. University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event". my emphasis. Taken from the above link to secondary sources. What you consider an "accepted academic practice" must be taken up to revision. Sandman888 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Princeton adds: "A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. ", again, my emphasis. 1 Cheerio. Sandman888 (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Baseball-Reference is a work that analyzes historical events and phenomena (baseball seasons and games) and is at least one step removed from the event (in this case, Major League Baseball), so thank you for proving that it is a reliable secondary source. — KV5 • Talk • 12:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• (OD) the notion that baseball-reference analyses anything is outright ludicrous; it is nothing but a list of stats. Earlier on you said that the definition of secondary sources was not "an accepted academic practice" and you "heartily disagree[d]". When that proved to be wrong you simply tried to force baseball-reference into the definition of secondary sources, but that is not acceptable. Sandman888 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• You're absolutely incorrect in this point, as Baseball-Reference takes statistics provided by primary sources and extrapolates them to categories like Wins above replacement player, just to name one. — KV5 • Talk • 19:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Baseball-Reference is obviously a reliable secondary source, per any/all of KV5's arguments above. Arguing otherwise is simply a waste of everyone's time. I offer this question: in your definition, what is a reliable secondary source for MLB statistics? — Timneu22 · talk 19:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree as well baseball-reference is not a primary source Secret ^account 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed, BR is not a primary source. It is independent of MLB and provides sabermetric statistics MLB.com does not. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is no issue with the use of a primary source for statistical information, in any case. From Wikipedia's guidance on primary sources: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Since no interpretation is being done and the accuracy of the referenced information is easily verified, there is no issue. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What he said.oknazevad (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What they said.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thirded. Stats are stats are stats. Isaac Lin's statement is bang on. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Any chance of discussing the list itself now? :-D — KV5 • Talk • 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Since you discovered it is indeed primary: "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." - From the relevant policy. Original emphasis. Sandman888 (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
            • No, we agreed that use of primary sources is okay in some circumstances. And I see at least two non-BR references so you cannot say this article is based entirely on primary sources. My emphasis. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Actually, I believe from the definitions of primary and secondary sources, Baseball Reference fits the definition of a secondary source:

              Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

              Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

            • Since Baseball Reference is not collecting the basic accounting of events itself, nor is the official agent for those collecting the data, and is getting its information either directly or indirectly from the official agent, it is a secondary source. However, for an article that is a dry recitation of simple occurrences, I believe the most accurate source is the primary source and there should be no bar to making use of it for its information. For example, an article such as the Results of the 1994 Sri Lankan general election by electoral district is best sourced by references to the official documents published by the chief electoral officer. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• I know this isn't part of the FL criteria, but I'd like to see articles created for the still-redlinked players. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • An ongoing project. My first goal is to make sure that all of the players who appear in the leads of the articles are bluelinked by the time the list reaches FLC (hence my creation of Frank Bruggy last week). Beyond the completion of the lists, these will basically become linkfarms for me to create the redlinked articles, as it is an eventual long-term goal of mine to have these all be blue links. — KV5 • Talk • 12:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments (on the list... ;D)

• "in 1883, 1,881 players" reads odd to me, but don't add "a total of" because that's redundant too. Is there a better reword where we don't end up with these numbers in quick succession?
• Don't think you need to link the letter B.
• Pitcher is overlinked in the lead (you linked it from pitching)
• "whose career with the Phillies encompassed the 1896 season" pardon my ignorance, but is this significant?
• "whose number 14 is the only one retired by the Phillies for a player on this list" (1) for non-experts, what does retiring a number mean? (2) do you mean this B list, or the overall list?
• "catcher Mack Burk has the highest batting average, at .500; he had one hit in two career plate appearances with Philadelphia" now then, this is "statistically correct" but what a pity that this pretty much discounts the fact he batted only twice, compared with others who batted hundreds of times. I don't think you can argue with your sentence but it seems such a shame... Maybe resort to that statistic last, and stick with those that reflect the longevity of the player?
• What does "player's primary team" mean? Do you mean he played for the Phillies more than any other team combined? For a longer duration?
• I would (personally) prefer more engaging image captions than "name, position".
• Note a is unreferenced. And since it calls another source into question, it's probably worth sorting that out.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of singles which have sold more than one million copies in the UK

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So here we go. I'm really quite proud of this (not sure why). Revamped from former state to where it is now. Hope you enjoy the read and any comments are greatly appreciated. Only query is the name (which is inherited) but haven't come up with anything substantially better. Perhaps List of million-selling singles (UK) or List of million-selling singles in the UK, much less wordy but bit less precise. Hopefully you'll let me know your opinion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Nice list. I prefer List of million-selling singles in the UK if you are to change the title, even though it doesn't say "over"

• I'll bare this in mind and see what others say. Mainly because I also have to move the FLC etc. and don't really want to do it more than once. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• The opening sentence is a bit abrupt, and it doesn't really introduce the list.
  • Re-written, let me know what you think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• "At the start of the century" --> "At the start of the 21st century"
• "nineteen singles released in the prior century" --> "nineteen singles released in the 20th ::century" -- both for clarification

• For both of these I deliberately didn't use that. Mainly because the 20th century ends on 31 December 2000 but I think that the source actually means before 2000 (i.e. 31 December 1999) reflecting a fairly common misapprehension, I believe. Any suggestion? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• One Robson & Jerome entry says just that, the other, their full names. I don't think they were ever credited with "Green" and "Flynn"
  • Actually their first single was released under their full names - see here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes single covers dictate it is correct as is [1][2]. I was going to correct to Robson & Jerome to match Wikipedia, but then the OCC credits both to Robson Green & Jerome Flynn[3]. The only consistent thing seems to be the ampersand. Suggestion? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't have time right now for a complete review. Hopefully I'll be able to do one later though. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. Sad to see the influence Simon Cowell has had on the charts! I count 10.

Twice so for Bleeding Love. Matt Cardle's performance of Bleeding Love on The X Factor gave the original a 58.5% jump in sales week-on-week and put it over 1 m. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Nice work. Opening paragraph is a bit choppy and picture of Diana is not really needed (Elton John would be more appropriate). I agree the title is overlong, I would prefer List of million-selling singles (UK). Other than that, good.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'll bare this in mind and see what others say. Mainly because I also have to move the FLC etc. and want to get a consensus not have to move it multiple times. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Took a stab at the lead. Hopefully it is better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you for your comments. Hopefully I've addressed or responded to them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "A million-selling single is regarded as one that has sold over one million copies in the United Kingdom" not true, it's not just in the UK that "a million-selling single" means that. Done Could you consider linking "platinum" to "record certification"? Linked "classified" instead as platinum record redirs to Music recording sales certification. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "million" features nine times in nine sentences in the lead. Repetitive. I'll see what I can do. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Removed four instances. Sufficient? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Give Disc a little intro (e.g. "British popular music magazine Disc ...") Went for periodical (per the mag vs paper issue I've discussed before) and without "popular" for NPOV. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "In 1973, Disc introduced an initiative in 1959 ..." hey? Whoops. A fragment from when I was going to start with the BPI awards (1973). Good spot. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) This may be controversial, but I thought ENGVAR (for Brits) would say that disc should be disk? May be adoptive usage but Media Week seems to use disc (Sorry a PDF was the first thing I found) Also wiktionary notes a "c" is used for optical media (e.g. CDs) and thus it had become common usage in recent times (just like ize is the correct OED spelling but we now see it as an Americanism). As an Englishman "disc" seems more correct here. Not sure why. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Put (BPI) you-know-where. Done " 2 × platinum" - prose so why not "double platinum", "triple platinum" etc.? Done BBC Position singles which aren't i that list should have an em-dash (or something) rather than just a grey background. Lazyness. With an mdash or n/a, the cells don't sort properly on multiple clicks and I thought greyed out might be a valid substitute instead of 100 nts templates; I'll get on it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Should "(Everything I do..." list alphabetically first? Not sure. It is on my iPod. Anyway went for "E" just in case. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "Notable omission". Always get twitchy when there's a section called "notable... something-or-other". I'd cover this in the lead. And I wouldn't bullet-point a single item. Into lead Only added section yesterday as it is something that clearly needs mentioning. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Note 2 - can you make refs in numerical order? No longer an issue Some "spaced hyphens" in the references. Done, wasn't sure if we preserved original title typographics or not. As far as I recall, we don't. The Rambling Man (talk) BBC Radio 2 is a publisher while BBC News is a work. Why? Done The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments as always. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Belive it is all done. Can I ask for on a opinion on the name (Tuzapicabit and Matthewedwards differ). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Title... "List of United Kingdom million-selling singles" is my choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on this as MoS allows UK. Additionally, it's been the status quo at List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK) etc. for a while. Anyway with three different opinions I'll wait to see if anyone else has anything to say. Hopefully all other issues are resolved and let me know if not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that UK is allowed in the title, but this is a "pretty unique" list, so I don't see a problem with it being the way I suggested. Anyhow, no great shakes, let's see what the consensus is. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment could you double-check the BBC ref for "Blue Monday"? It says "Although it sold half a million copies it didn't get a Gold disc...", but nothing about over 1 million sales.—indopug (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, maybe the positioning of the ref was misleading and I've moved it. That ref just references the explanation of why they weren't awarded gold/platinum discs. The million sales is referenced three fold – the two general refs and by the inclusion on the BBC top 100 million sellers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'd feel more comfortable if the list was retitled something along the lines of "List of singles certified as selling more than one million copies in the UK". Anything to play up the actual relevance of the number, and its acknowledgment as noteworthy in of itself. Otherwise, this page could technically be nominated for deletion for being based around an arbitrary subject (there's nothing more notable about selling a million copies of a record than there is about selling 1,098,376 copies). Make it explicitly clear from the outset that this is an actual threshold acknowledged by the British music industry, rather than a number that gets a list just because it's a nice big round one with lots of zeros at the end. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the lead where the second sentence explains the historical significance of 1m. The name will be changed it is just a question of to what. Each user above has made a different suggestion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph doesn't establish that one million copies sold is a notable threshold in of itself. Furthermore, the "History" section gets into unnecessary discussion about the breakdown of UK certification levels and best-selling singles in the UK (only mentioning why they're relevant to the list in a few cases). The best rationale that you have that a million copies is a noteworthy benchmark worth cataloging in list format is the sentence "The highest threshold is "platinum record" and was then awarded to singles that sold over 1,000,000 units". Still, that only goes up to 1989, and then it'd be better to title the list "List of singles certified platinum in the UK before 1989" if you were going to categorize by that threshold. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was careful to try and establish notability with "the seven-figure mark has retained its importance"[4] where the Beeb describes it as the all important million mark. Furthermore, surely notablility is covered by tertiary reliable sources covering the subject [5] and The Official Charts Company also regard it as notable. Are you actually suggesting this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the page needs to make it clearer that it isn't. Right now it assume too much before getting onto business. Furthermore, why is it "the all important million mark" in the first place? Establish that in the page, because it's integral to this list being around, much less reaching FL status. The way I see it, it's part a source issue and part a prose issue. Until my concerns about the list are addressed in the article, I'll have to oppose. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Transparency. Two following posts took place on talk pages [6][7] but it was requested all discussions were kept here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC), Jaespinoza

I am nominating this for featured list because it closely resembles other Grammy-related lists with FL status (see profile page) and I believe that it meets all FL criteria. I am co-nominating this list along with Jaespinoza, who assisted with its expansion. Thanks, as always, to reviewers and directors for all of the work you do! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Thought the infobox had a most recent winner field? If so, you could use it. Not that I know of, unless "Holder" is what you are referring to. However, to me at least, this seems more applicable to awards that are transferred from one recipient to the next (such as a crown for Miss America). This template is used for all of the Grammy lists I am working on. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Seems a little odd to have two images of Haden, especially when the second one is Camilo! Woops! Good catch! Thanks so much. (Corrected.) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Not keen on the differences in date formats between {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} (one is in parentheses after the author, the other isn't), so would be happy to see all being cite web's? Just me though. In the past I used "cite web" formatting for everything, but I have been asked enough times to change news references to the "cite news" format. If there is a preference for using "cite news" for news sources and "cite web" for non-use web sources, I am going to comply by that preference. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Miguel Zenon is missing a diacritic (or our article on him is wrongly titled..) Done. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of Premiers of the Soviet Union

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe this lists meets the FL criteria. --TIAYN (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: I removed this nomination as it contradicted the FLC instruction "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of leaders of the Soviet Union/archive2 had no such consensus at the time and had only been open 2 days). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My other nominee has received support.. --TIAYN (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comments:
  • Done Soviet Union not linked in introduction.
  • Done "Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (1917–1946)" yet the first person listed took office in 1922. I understand the USSR was only formed in 1922, but some mention needs to be made about the 1917 bit.
  • Done The table makes no explanation of the extra cell below the term of office; I had to find one with a link to discover it meant the election.
  • I see no reason to include their birth/death dates. If people want to know, they can click through.

You are not suppose to need to click through when you read this article! It is staying. --TIAYN (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to need to click through for information not relevant to the list. Lifespans, hometowns, professions, etc. are not relevant to a list of office holders. --Golbez (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Done The coloring also seems superfluous, since they were all the same, and party affiliation is only sparsely mentioned.
  • Done No reason for the dates to be small and separated from the years.
  • Done I'm guessing there was no method of automatic succession? Explaining why there was a delay between Lenin's death on January 21 and Rykov's succession on February 2.
  • Done Does not mention the ones that died in office.
    • Only one did, and that was Stalin. --TIAYN (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Lenin? --Golbez (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I ment Lenin and Stalin, sorry for that one.. even so, it is already mentioned by including the birth death years. --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Not really. If someone died in November 1924 but left office in February 1924, it would say they died in 1924, and you wouldn't know if they died in office. --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done Another date discrepancy: Stalin died on March 5 but his successor did not take office until March 6

No specific reasons. --TIAYN (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Done Khruschchev left office on October 14, 1964, and his successor Kosygin took office ... eight months earlier?
  • Done Pavlov left office August 22, Silayev took office September 6?
    • Pavlov supported the August Coup of 1991, in its aftermath Gorbachev had a hard time finding his replacement. --TIAYN (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done A direct link to the relevant Soviet constitution(s) is needed in the references.

It is? --TIAYN (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Done The introduction only mentions the 1977 constitution; you need to go in to how the previous constitutions and positions were handled.
    • No difference between, the exception is that the organisation the Premier headed was named something else. --TIAYN (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why are two different pictures of Stalin used?
    • One for him in the 1930s (commissars) and 1940s (ministers). --TIAYN (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done "Chairmens"
• That's all I see in a 5 minute skim. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - Inconsistency with the date formats in the references (Ref 1 and 2 use D M Y. Ref 14, 16 use M D, Y). the dates violate MOS:TEXT as far as I'm aware in other words the small html tag shouldn't be used. Afro (Talk) 15:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches

Nominator(s): Jweiss11 (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's an excellent, well formatted and sourced list. Its structure differs, but may be superior in some ways, to similar featured lists such as List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from WFC:

• The prose below the table is a good addition, and really enhances the list IMO. Nonetheless, the lead needs to be longer, so as to provide a summary of the rest of the list.
• Don't really see the point of the "#" column; it's redundant to the date column.
• Schembechler's profile is noticeably short.
• I had to remove the unsourced Rodriguez info per BLP policy. If the material can be reliably sourced, it might be worthy of re-inclusion, although beware of making that section disproportionately large.
• Ninety years of Hall of Fame inductees is in a somewhat random place.
• It's not obvious at a glance, what is sourcing the table itself? I'm not suggesting that everything in the table needs inline citation, but I can't see any referencing in the Coaches section.

The above points notwithstanding, this does look promising. —WFC— 15:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• WFC makes good points, and I won't review the list in detail quite yet.
• My instinct is that instead of 18 sub-sections "profiling" the coaches, these should be incorporated into a lead section, and I would look at List of Manchester City F.C. managers for inspiration.
• I'm not sure I need the statistical lead section as I can sort the table for myself. Is there anything there which isn't in the list?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Ref 51, 52 don't use {{Cite web}}. also you overuse align=center in the table coding, it'd be better to add style="text-align:center" in the table head. Bit confused also as to why there were no coaches from 1879-1890, a note wouldn't hurt. Afro (Talk) 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I fixed the refs that weren't using a citation template. Looks like it was actually #50 and #51. I also fixed the style="text-align:center issue. This looks like code that was pulled over from featured lists of the same type like the List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches. I suppose those should all be updated. I'm going to work on something regarding a note for no coaches before 1891. This was typical of college football teams in the early days before the 1890s. I think the explanation is something along the lines that football in those days was more of an ad hoc student activity as opposed to a fully sanctioned and budgeted university program. Many coaches in the late 1800s and early 1900s were unpaid, often students or recent graduates who had, perhaps, played on the team the year before. The editor who created this list (User:Cbl62) has done a ton of research on this era of football and can probably explain this best. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The idea of professional football coaches did not gain wide traction until after 1900. In writings from that time, it appears that the notion was frowned upon as something inconsistent with the nature of collegiate sports. In the early days, teams did select a captain and there was also a student manager. It appears that the captain and manager performed many of the functions (including developing game strategy and arranging for practice sessions) that would later be considered "coaching" duties, but historical sources do not treat captains and managers as being equivalent to coaches. Cbl62 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This type of information needs to be made available somewhere in the article for the average reader who might stumble across this. Afro (Talk)

• Oppose - I'm going to oppose as no progress has been made to address any problems within this article, almost seems that the nominator is just content on updating the list. Afro (Talk) 23:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just made a little progress and will keep at it! Jweiss11 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'll strike it until further notice. Afro (Talk) 10:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – As far as I can tell, the table isn't being cited by anything. Is the external link meant to be a general reference for the table? If so, you'd be better off to format it as such. If the references used in the prose section are meant to also cite the table, it would be wise to include them there in a seperate Ref. row. In addition, I think the lead should be longer than it currently is, especially for a list of this length. I was looking forward to reading the profiles of the coaches (unique for lists of this type), but until these basics issues are resolved I don't feel comfortable reviewing further either. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have added a general reference for the table in line with what has been done for List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Switching to weak oppose for now. While I'm happy to see that the table now has a general reference, the size of the lead still concerns me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why we want a big lead for lists. The meat and potatoes of these list articles are the tables, aren't they? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Grace was the first cricketer to pass 100 centuries, and was a turning point in the history of cricket. The list is modelled on the international century lists. Harrias ^talk 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

*"He scored over 50,000 first-class runs" is it possible to put this into context for non-expert readers? This may be useful? Reworded this sentence, how is it now? "including over 120 centuries,[5][6] becoming the first cricketer to score 100 or more centuries" reads a little awkwardly... Reworded with above. "Disputes and variations in first-class cricket statistics centre around a number of matches in which W. G. Grace played, resulting in varying career statistics." this is in trouble too - you say "variations" then "varying" and repeat statistics too. It's not ideal I'm afraid. Reworked this too, any better? Last four sentences of para 2 all have "Grace" in them, I think you could substitute two of them for he or his or whatever's appropriate, as you never wander far from the subject. Removed a few counts of 'Grace' ", appearing for the Gentlemen" not sure you need the comma or "appearing". Gone. "but did not score his first century until his tenth match, scoring an unbeaten 224" score, scoring... repeat... Removed the repitition. MCC overlinked in lead. Delinked on second use. Not sure you should have two blank cells for the two yellow No. - they ought to sort in the same numerical order as date. I'm not so sure, the date column allows sorting by date, and most statistics count 124 not 126 centuries these days. Leaving them blank allows them to sort together, making it easy to locate the two matches via sortability. No 107 has a missing [ Fixed. Ref 1 needs an endash for the year range. Fixed. Compare ref 8 with 11 vis-a-vis cricinfo/espn etc. Be consistent. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, have reworked a few of the sentences and fixed a lot of niggly bits I missed! Harrias talk 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Very picky prose point: in "a feat only achieved by six other cricketers", the "only" would be better positioned right before "six".
• No need for two Cricinfo links in the lead. You're better off with one Cricinfo link and one CricketArchive link; the latter currently isn't linked in the lead.
• In the table, I see an extra bracket in the location of Grace's 107th century. Sort the venue column and you'll find it easily. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, fixed all three issues. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• A very good list which is highly accurate and I like the way you have dealt with the two disputed centuries without excluding them. I have just three points to make:

• You can provide links to articles about the North and South cricket teams via North of England cricket team and South of England cricket team

• Done, linked. Harrias ^talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think you should also link to Gentlemen and Players for consistency although the two teams do not have individual articles

• Done, linked. Harrias ^talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Where Grace played for and against Rest of England teams, these should be shown as such because they were not the England national team as the entries signify and the England flag is inappropriate for these teams too. I know CricketArchive calls the teams "England" but they were actually "The Rest". You could call them England which would be historically correct.

• I'm not sure about this. Both Altham and Grace refer to these matches as being 'England', and in addition to CricketArchive, that is what is verifiable.Harrias ^talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well done, though, and maybe one day the parent article itself will be featured. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• I might add re "(Grace) is generally considered one of the greatest cricketers of all time" that in fact he is widely regarded as THE greatest cricketer of all time (see the main article).
  • I looked at the main article, but the looking around a number of websites and written sources, and I would say that generally he isn't considered THE greatest. I might be able to find one or two sources that claim it, but generally he has paled away behind Bradman and Tendulkar. I feel what I have put reflects the general mood better. Harrias ^talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Another point is "many modern statisticians" which should be "some modern statisticians". Remember that Wisden and Playfair still hold with the "traditional" figures and they have far more influence and credibility than the little-known ACS which has influenced the CricketArchive figures. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, changed to 'some'. Harrias ^talk 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. Where Harrias and I differ is on subjective points that cannot be resolved and so his approach is satisfactory. How to define "England" outside international cricket is one to ponder. Overall, this is good work and deserves to be featured. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of Governors of Maine

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm giving this another shot, as it came pretty close last time. I updated the format to match the rest. Designate (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - File:DavidDunn.jpg doesn't exist. Afro (Talk) 08:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed.

• "Maine Legislature[4]," ref after the comma. Does Note 1 need some type of reference. Also I'm sure most of the notes need a full stop. Afro (Talk) 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree about the full stop. I'm not sure about the references (see below).

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose as it presently is; it does not conform to the higher standards of the current governor FLs. Specific concerns: Why did you remove the "all congressmen represented Maine except where noted", causing a huge repetition of "from Maine" in the table? I think this one would benefit from the H/S style of congressional table used in some of the other lists. I'd rather just have it written out. There's going to be repetition anyway ("Republican", "Democratic"), and abbreviating some of the positions with letters and symbols just seems a little obstructive. The list is the same size whether you use abbreviations or not, since most of them only had one or two positions. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I'll have to agree on Golbez with this. It is a huge repetition and kind of disguises those who weren't a Representative. Having a H/S style of table would present the information better at a glance and more cleanly Bgwhite (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC) OK, I switched the format. —Designate (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC) This needs to be upgraded to current prose standards, which is to 1) Move the constitutional information into the Governors section, so that's not so barren, leaving the intro to be about the extremes (longest, interesting, etc.). And the other high offices section needs a prose upgrade, see the California list for examples of both. I'll do that tomorrow. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC) The top needs an image; I can understand not having an infobox, since there's a "main" article, but it's kind of barren up there. OK, I threw in the state house. I think that's an appropriate image. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC) We use {{stack}} instead of divs now. Done. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I can work on some of these later today. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Why did John Fairfield resign?
  • Was there anyone in power between January 3 and 19, 1838?
  • The note about Burton Cross being governor for 25 hours needs a reference. --Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Would look at two paras in the lead since you have three relatively short ones right now, which looks a little odd. OK, I moved one of them per Golbez above. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Ensure refs are post-punctuation where possible (e.g. look at [4]) Fixed, I think. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Sortable tables need every linkable item linked every time. Fixed. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC) "As of January 2010"... it's 10 months down the road now... Fixed. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Maine was admitted to the Union on March 15, 1820, as the 23rd state. Before then, it was the District of Maine, part of the state of Massachusetts." is unreferenced.
  • Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Most notes are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • To me it looks like all the ones that need referencing are done, except for "Resigned" and the one about acting governor Burton Cross, and those indeed need it. --Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have The Rambling Man and Golbez been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] References

I think we should have a discussion about references. Right now most governor lists reference the "Other high offices" section but not the biographical details (except the unusual ones). That's the scheme I used for this article, but I'm not sure it makes sense. How should we handle this? —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused. Does listing references in the "biographical details" section mean listing references in the notes section? If so, based upon the last three FL governors lists ( Utah, Kentucky and Idaho), referencing is confusing. Kentucky doesn't have most notes referenced, but Idaho and Utah was asked to have notes referenced. My opinion:

Notes 9 and 15 should be referenced for sure. If those notes were in the main article, a reference would be needed.

Notes 5, 10, 12 and 13 should be referenced. They resigned under unusual circumstances... ie didn't die or resign for a higher office, so they should be referenced.

Usual resignation circumstances, ie resigned for a higher office or died... I think they should be referenced, but I'm not sure.

Other notes should not be referenced. For example, the governor's death is easily looked up on their own article. President of Senate acts as governor is already referenced in the article on why this happens.

Bgwhite (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the last comment Bgwhite, we aren't reviewing other articles so all information relevant should be presented within the article being reviewed. All content such as deaths should have the relevant references if the claim is likely to challenged. Afro (Talk) 10:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not. Sometimes we simply have to let people click through. We don't need to reference when someone died in office; we have abundant general sourcing of their terms and their lifespans, so to source that they died in office is a bit too much. --Golbez (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, why do we need sorting in the other offices table? Sorting is a way to reorder information; to find out which people won a race from a particular country, or find out which cities have the most population. There's zero use to sort the other offices table except to alphabetize, and I may be in the minority here but I just don't see that as terribly useful. It's slightly more useful to allow sorting of the main table (and since there's no broken cells, it should be made sortable) but to add sorting to the other offices table seems useless. (To the living governors table makes a little sense, to sort by age) --Golbez (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • We can sort the main table but we'll have to get rid of the colspan for the color bars. —Designate (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep, see List of Governors of Arizona on how it's been done. --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I fixed the other offices table and made the main table sortable. —Designate (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This list follows the same pattern as the successful lists for Spain and Peru. It should certainly be comprehensive as it contains details of all the sites, details of the nomination process, and prospective candidates. There is a departure from those two as the UK list doesn't include a map; instead there's a prominent link to Bing and Google which does the job and is a method used in other FLs (eg: castles in Cheshire and Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester). Each site – there are 28 – has a brief description to make things interesting for the reader (hopefully). The tentative list (sites which are proposed to become fully fledged World Heritage Sites) is just a list of names as otherwise it would imbalance the article as there are more candidates than actual WHS. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read the list. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments I know we avoid bold links but I don't see a reason why you can't link UNESCO and World Heritage Site in the opening sentence of the lead. Caption of Stonehenge image is a complete sentence so a full stop. Would lower than expected be better as lower-than-expected? You use WHS only once throughout. I wouldn't bother, or, be consistent and use the expanded version only once with (WHS) after it. And keep reminding me that it isn't WH Smiths. Last sentence of lead, you link all of "Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast" - you've already linked Giant's Causeway (on its own) earlier, and in the table you do the same (i.e. don't link "and Causeway Coast") so I'd be consistent. "Inaccessible Islands" links to just the singular. Which is correct? Not sure the small text is really necessary nor desirable, but I won't complain if nobody else does. UNESCO data - numbers over 999, why not have a comma to separate the thousand? "five to ten year " would hyphenate myself. There seems to be a variety of "Tentative list", "Tentative List" and "tentative list" so I guess we need consistency. Ref 27 needs a {{cite web}} Ref 51 needs an en-dash, not a spaced hyphen. Ref 6 - inconsistent date formats in the refs. FCO can be linked since you link other publishers. Be consistent on linking UNESCO in the references. Benvie's book has isbn number according to Amazon. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC) The opening sentence isn't bolded, so I've added the links in any case. Full stop added. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I think you're right about hyphenating. Fair point about the abbreviation, since it's only used once I suppose it's a bit unnecessary and have expanded it. It should now be consistent (ie:just "Giant's Causeway" linked in the lead and table). The site's name is "Gough and Inaccessible Islands", individually they are Gough Island and Inaccessible Island. I can see there might be some confusion as it might sound like there's more than one Inaccessible Island, but even UNESCO does it that way. I think the slightly smaller text makes the table look neater but would welcome other opinions. Can't think of a good reason why there weren't any commas, so there are now. I'm not sure about this. If five and ten were numbers I wouldn't mind either way, but MOS:NUM does encourage spelling out numbers below ten, and putting a dash in there doesn't look quite right. I'm not too fussed either way to be honest though. I removed ref 27 as another editor introduced it while adding some info on the legend associated with Giant's Causeway. Many of the sites have legends attached to them but there just isn't space in this list for that kind of information. UNESCO mentions that the causeway has inspired legends of giants in Ireland, but I don't think it's worthwhile going into lots of detail about the legend of it being formed. You're quite right about the hyphen in ref 51 (now 50). The dates should now be consistent. Didn't realise there was a link for the FCO, but I've added it now. I've delinked the two times UNESCO was linked in a reference. I opted not to link it as it would make the reference section a sea of blue and distract from the hyperlinks; guess I forgot about those two. ISBN added. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Doncram I'll collapse the following as i don't have time to develop my thoughts further, and there's no clear impact for this list article right now. --doncram (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments about site articles indexed

I would prefer to see the full official WHS name wikilinked, e.g. "Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast" rather than seeing "Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast". It should usually link to the one article which provides the WHS infobox, if one is used. In the Giant's Causeway case, there already is a redirect, so this could definitely be done, and I believe it would look better, clearly conveying that the full WHS description will appear at that one article. About WHS listings that are not covered in a single article, but rather are covered in two or more separate articles, each with a similar WHS infobox, I am not completely happy. These ones have several separate wikilinks within one WHS title, as presented. I would rather, in a way, see a new combo article at the full WHS name, with info on the WHS designation, which could be linked to. This combo article could possibly reflect a merger of the material now in separate articles, in some cases, and in other cases would consist of a short statement and linking to the multiple separate articles that exist on each component of the combo WHS listing. But, i know that attempting to comply with this would cause complications as there do exist separate articles for many WHS combo listings. I have myself struggled with this in some drafted, not-yet-in-mainspace WHS list-article work. Great looking list-article, overall! Maybe i will be able to comment more later. --doncram (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Your points about name linking and articles for WHS are linked so I'll address them together. In the case of Giant's Causeay and Causeway Coast and Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal I have expanded the link to so that the whole name is linked as each article does discuss the site. For ease of reference, the remaining names which have multiple links are: Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church Durham Castle and Cathedral Gough and Inaccessible Island Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications, Bermuda Old and New Towns of Edinburgh Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church Since there's no single article which covers the subject, there are multiple links. One option to address this would be to create a lot of stub articles, but I don't think it's a satisfactory solution. Some subjects lend themselves well to that approach. Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites is one such example where ideally the article would look at the ritual landscape of the sites and how they fit together; there's already a lot of literature on the subject and the monuments are rarely treated in isolation. However, taking an example I know, Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd is an example of the pitfalls. It's a poor article in any case, but as it explains Edward I built more castles in Wales than are included in the site. An article on Edwardian castles in Wales – a very valid subject and perhaps one I'll get round to some day – would need to include castles beyond those in the listing. Otherwise it would be difficult to fully understand the subject; once you include those extra castles, there'd be no point in giving the article the official name of the WHS as that would no longer adequately describe it. That's a particularly frustrating examples as I know there's a better way to treat the subject because I'm familiar with it, but a UNESCO site would give the appearance of being comprehensive to those who don't know otherwise. Another situation is that there are articles on both Durham Castle and Durham Cathedral, and both should ideally mention each other, but is there any point in having one article for both? They are separately notable and can be best addressed separately. Although occasionally overlapping, not all of the history of the castle is relevant to the cathedral and vice versa. An article at Durham Castle and Cathedral would be a mash of the two, doing neither justice. If it wasn't for the fact that UNESCO has grouped the two, you wouldn't even think about writing an article on the subject. I don't think we should fall into the trap of creating articles under UNESCO names if they are not the best way to address their subject, and I believe that would be the case for those listed above. There's something similar at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland, although the result of that AfD was keep. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your thoughtful commenting. About the "Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd" one, I would think that the article title does not have to be kept at the WHS listing name, but the WHS name can be a redirect to a more broadly titled topic. If the article includes a WHS infobox, especially, then it should be very clear to readers that "This is the article where the WHS site of this name is covered!". About the Durham Castle and Durham Cathedral separate articles, i actually like how the Durham Castle article uses a WHS infobox that displays title "Durham Castle and Cathedral", succinctly conveying that a) The WHS listing is the combo, by the complete title, and b) "This is the article covering the Durham Castle part" and c) See the linked Durham Cathedral article for that part. If the idea is to split the WHS coverage, then it could be elegant and complete if the Durham Cathedral article likewise had a WHS infobox with title "Durham Castle and Cathedral". There is a section late in the Durham Castle article on the WHS listing, but it isn't clear to me whether that is the place for the WHS to be officially covered, or if it is half and there should be an equivalent half over in a section over in the Cathedral article. The section itself does not name the WHS listing. And actually i notice that Durham Castle and Cathedral is a redirect to the Cathedral article, which does not clearly cover the combo WHS listing. Can you just clarify here, where is the WHS listing to be covered, in your view? If it is to be covered in a section in the Castle article, then at least the redirect should be changed to point to that article and specifically to that section. I'm still struggling to see what is best, how to treat these combos. In the U.S. National Register of Historic Places register, there are very few combo situations like this (and I dealt with several by setting up short combo stubby articles, which hold the corresponding NRHP infobox and proclaim "here is where the combo as a combo is addressed"). But I am aware there are many of these combos in the WHS register and that it is not clear how it is best to handle them. --doncram (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• About the last column in the table "References", why not drop it, moving the UNESCO footnotes into the UNESCO data column (or into the description column) and moving the other footnotes to the description column. I do note some descriptions have a footnote and others do not. I know that References is a column in some other list-articles but i don't get that. It's not a column that i see as being useful for readers. In fact the footnotes should support specific material. There is not a separate references column in any U.S. historic sites list (only a couple of which are featured) that i am aware of. --doncram (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have been persuaded in the past that a Reference column is not really of much use, and I now usually add the citations at the end of the Description (or whatever) column.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Originally I expected the vast majority of the information to come from the UNESCO website, so rather than adding a reference to each column, a new column was created to reduce clutter. Other sources have been used, but for the most part UNESCO is the key source. I do like that it would free up some space though, so I'm a bit torn. I could redistribute the references into each column if there's consensus; take a look at Blaenavon's entry in this link for roughly how it would appear (the last column would obviously be dispensed with). Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This appears to me to be an example of how a FL should be.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: great -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - Ref 8 and 10 have an inconsistency with the date format. Afro (Talk) 18:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Inconsistency fixed. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comments –
  • Blenheim Palace: Drop second "the" from "the residence of the John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough"?
  • Tower of London: "Additions were made by Henry III and Edward I in the 13th century made the castle...". Feels like "that" should be put in somewhere, because the sentence isn't flowing right at the moment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I reckon this should fix those problems. Nev1 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Owens Award

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I found it interesting, sourced everything nicely and hopefully did a reasonable job of sorting etc.. Thanks for your time in reviewing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

CommentsSupport

• On my screen the image of Jesse Owens is longer than the text next to it, creating some annoying white space between the lead and the table.
  • I guess this is because you are operating at a reasonably high horizontal resolution. The only possible solution is to make the lead image a bespoke size (it's currently an upright|thumb) or delete it altogether. Which would you prefer to see? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... I guess! I never really think of my work laptop as being that wide, but I suppose 1280 is larger than the norm! I should probably stop using my PC screen (1680 width) to design pages! I'm not too sure to be honest, because having the image much smaller would limit its value I think. I suppose I just have to put up with having a bit of white space when using a wider monitor. I'll give it some more thought, but I've switched my comment to support in the mean time anyway, it's a nice list. I won't hide this under a resolved header so that other people can offer any opinions on this topic.Harrias ^talk 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's easily done. And some people don't like the space between the table and the column of images, but it's either that or stick them right to the side of the table which looks odd if you have an image in the lead which is over on the right-hand side. Difficult...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Can you make the reference column unsortable.
  • Done, good spot (I blew it when I added accessibility code!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise no real issues from me. Harrias ^talk 15:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Harrias! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support The only problem I have is whitespace between end of lead and first header (I use Chrome). It's not that nice. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support – Only issue I see is that reference 2 doesn't include a publisher. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Dang, it was there but there was no = sign between it and publisher. Fixed now, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of Oslo Tramway and Metro operators

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This list presents the 14 companies that have operated the various tramway and metro lines in Oslo. With a complicated history of the operators, I hope this list helps make it easy for readers to get an overview of the field. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Nice list, but I think the image File:Oslo tram forskningenparken.JPG is a bit overused here on enwp. In addition to illustrate the Forskningsparken (station) article, is it used as a lead photo in History of the Oslo Tramway and Metro and as illustration in the body text of the articles Sognsvann Line, Ullevål Hageby Line, SL95, List of Oslo Metro stations and List of Oslo Tramway stations. Although a very nice photo, I would suggest replacing it with File:Tram in Drammensveien 1919.jpeg, File:Holmenkolbanen entrance at Nationaltheatret.jpeg, File:Tram at Egertorget in 1907.jpeg or one of the other nice images from the articles on the list. --Eisfbnore (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the perfect picture! Or more accurate: it is the only picture we have that shows both a metro and tram in it, which, as far as I am aware, is only phototechnially possible at that one station. I'll see if I can replace the image, though. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is a very nice picture, but I think the Tram at Egertorget in 1907.jpeg pic is somewhat more "operatorish" with the ads in the upper right corner. --Eisfbnore (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It was (and is, when it reopens) possible at Jar station also. Probably at Majorstuen if you take the picture from high ground which is more difficult. We/I could also take some other photos of the same object at Forskningsparken. Geschichte (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a really nice photo of Majorstuen station with the trams and metro trains from above, so that's absolutely a possibility. Someone with great photographing skills, could be capable of taking a photo of Storo station with the tram and metro from Grefsen Station. Also a picture of Johanne Dybwads plass taken from Saga kino with the tram stop in the foreground and the blue-white metro sign in the background would be nice. --Eisfbnore (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, seeing that you both live in Norway and are interested in this stuff, couldn't just one of you take a new image and upload it to wikipedia commons? --TIAYN (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, maybe. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm a mediocre photographer, and I've already taken som pictures of Forskningsparken. I think the pictures talk for themselves. --Eisfbnore (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added two new images, one old of a tram and one new of the metro. There aren't that many good pictures of the system—images that I'd proudly put in a featured article or list. Then again, taking good images is a challenge. I tend to reuse the good ones a bit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Caption - "meets an" perhaps "passes" instead. Otherwise the results would be undesirable! New images, new captions. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) You link " Oslo Vognselskap" but it redirects back to Kollektivtransportproduksjon which is already linked. A touch confusing. Kollektivtransportproduksjon owns Oslo Vognselskap, and I havn't so far gotten around to making an article about the latter. Will look into it. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "of whcih three" typo. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "large parts of Oslo and parts of Bærum.[3][2]" parts is repetitive, and order those refs numerically. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Link Akershus on the first use. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) " who operates the ticket system and manages public grants" Ruter is singular so this should be "operate the" and "manage public" shouldn't it? I would have said it the way it was written, but perhaps my grammar is off. I've done as you suggest. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "parts of all of the network." do you mean "or" instead of "of"? If not, then just "parts of the network" is fine. Done. It was 'or'. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Note: "Kollektivtransportproduksjon" is the best word I have ever seen at FLC. That's what happens when you mix compound words with new public management. The word is just as silly in Norwegian as in English ("Collective Transport Production"). Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "company only was an infrastructure owner" - do you mean "company was only an ..."? Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Repeated use of Aspenberg's reference, I'd be happy with "Aspenberg, p. 9" since there doesn't appear to be a need to disambiguate which Aspenberg reference you're using (i.e. you have only one) Done. It makes it impossible to "link" from the refs to the bibliography, but I guess that is a bit redundant here. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) format=PDF seems to be missing from PDF refs. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba

Nominator(s): Grsz¹¹ 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all of the critera. It is modeled after List of World Heritage Sites in Peru and List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, both recently promoted. The main list only has nine items, and I know some reviewers tend to look for ten, but with the "Tentative list", I feel this is sufficient. Thanks. Grsz¹¹ 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments I see no problems with nine elements at all. This is a standalone list in my mind. I think the map would be a better lead image. But that's my opinion. "meet natural criteria" may not be obvious to readers. Reworded. Not convinced we need a 90% font size (which on Safari looks more like a 60%) Made 100%. Don't think you need to link Spanish to Spain. Done. "The complex of magazines, bastions, and batteries is amongst the most complete and well-preserved Spanish-American example." doesn't read quite right to me. Reworded. Criteria numbering is given in italics in the intro to the table, but plain text in the table. Why the difference? Though italics would be helpful making it stand out, but I've removed it for consistency. Avoid bold links (in the tentative list section). Done. Note 1 is unreferenced. Added a source. You've used only UNESCO as sourcing throughout. This appears to be a primary source. It's a shame you couldn't find alternatives. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Introduced some new references with the comments below. Grsz¹¹ 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comments - The center alignment of N/A seems unnecessary. wouldn't the UNESCO data in the key need some type of citation? Afro (Talk) 08:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Thanks. Grsz11 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Why isn't the 3rd paragraph in the lead referenced? It just summarizes the contents of the list. Alejandro de Humboldt National Park, "as well as animal species such as the endangered Cuban Solenodon." Cannot verify this in the source. Added a source. Desembarco del Granma National Park, "The national park is named for the yacht which carried Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, Che Guevara and the other 79 members of the 26th of July Movement to Cuba to overthrow Fulgencio Batista." Cannot verify this in the source. Added an explicit source. Historic Centre of Camagüey, "is distinct from the more common, organized style of the Spanish settlements." I reworded it a little, if that was the problem. The goal was to convey that the Spanish typically had a very orderly design to their cities (plazas, streets) but Camaguey was not. Old Havana and its Fortifications, you wrote that it was one of the main cities however in the source it says specifically it was the main city for ship building I would think this needs some clarification. Reworded this. Trinidad and the Valley de los Ingenios, The sugar industry is obviously a period of significance which Ref 7 states began in the 18th centuary, any reason why this isn't included in the description or period column? In the column I started with 16th, when the city of Trinidad was founded. Added a bit in the description. Urban Historic Centre of Cienfuegos, "It became prominent.." no mention of prominence in the source only that it was a trading place (which I assume only means that its notable). Afro (Talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Reworded this. Grsz11 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC) On the third paragraph, I would repeat some of the references you've used in the table, it may be a summary of the table but it does contain details which I would think need citing. Afro (Talk) 13:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Grsz11 15:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of National Basketball Association player-coaches

Nominator(s): Martin tamb (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Another NBA list about the player-coaches that were common in the NBA until the league prohibited them in 1984. — Martin tamb (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "as the teams'" as their teams'? Fixed. "the league" is repetitive in the lead, used at least three times in quick succession. Changed some of them into BAA or NBA. "Coach of the Year award(s) won[a]" is completely "None" and hence the [a] is irrelevant too. Any need for this col? Column removed. Yrs - is that complete years? Complete seasons? Would you really consider Dischinger to have a 1-year coaching career for two games? Suggest this col is axed. Column removed. You have a mix of spaced and unspaced slashes used within the article. Be consistent. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the reviews. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Any reason why not to split the tenure(s) into its own column?

I could split them, but it would not work well with Wilkens who have two separate coaching stints.

I don't see a problem with two tenures separated by a line break. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've split them, but on a quick glance at the table, it looks like Guerin had two stints with two different teams. I still think the previous arrangement is better. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks better. But I'll leave this discussion open so people can make their own minds up. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am indifferent about both arrangements.—Chris!_c/t 00:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This is a really cool little list, I like it a lot. One question, though none of them has won Coach of the Year, what do you think about including a general awards column to include any player honors (MVP, DPOY, etc, etc) if anyone won those? I'd be just as interested to know about exceptional player-seasons while coaching as I would be interested in outstanding coaching while playing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, I'll work on that soon. — Martin tamb (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Added the honors and awards column. I'm still looking on the All-Star Game coaching honors and will add them as soon as possible. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, lemme know when you've checked that and I'll support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

All done. — Martin tamb (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Waiting on the below, I missed that source issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I buy MT's argument below on this source, and beyond that it looks great! Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Please check the sorting in the playoff columns. I'm getting some random oddities in the form of numbers sorting by one digit only.

Added hidden sortkey, sorting should be fine now. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• What makes http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm a reliable source? It looks like somebody's personal website. If a better source wasn't out there for this fact, it would surprise me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it qualifies as a RS. The site is maintained by Larry Coon, who is often called an expert on NBA salary cap by media including The New York Times. He also writes for the ESPN.—Chris!_c/t 03:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Larry Coon's self-published website should qualify as reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH which says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Enough editors have come forward to convince me that the source is decent, though I still think something of a higher quality could be out there. I don't have any further issues. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to find a better source. I've been looking through the complete CBA documents here but I couldn't find anything about coaches' salary. Then it occurs to me that coaches are not part of the National Basketball Players Association, which explains why their salary are not counted in the salary cap. So far, Larry Coon's CBA FAQ is the only source I could find which clearly stated this information. — MT (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of National Basketball Association season steals leaders

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Haven't done this in a while. So here goes... —Chris!_c/t 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - The key looks awkward can't it be formatted like the second table? if not why is "Pos., SPG, Ref." bolded and not "G, F, C"? Afro (Talk) 08:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• You should repeat some of the references for the second paragraph in the lead. I'm a bit confused about Scottie Pippen in the 1994–95 since you list his position as "F/G" how does this differ from "G/F"? Afro (Talk)

Is repeating the refs necessary? From my experience, this is not the case. As for positions, the one listed first is primary.—Chris!_c/t 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess not after looking over the para again. Afro (Talk) 12:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

[Note9] doesn't direct me anywhere when I click it. Afro (Talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Caused by a typo, now fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "ball by a defensive player" what if an offensive player takes the ball, is that not a steal? FIBA's definition was that it was simply a "defensive action" which resulted in a turnover... Offensive players already have the ball as they are the side that try to score. A steal occurs when players of the other team (defensive players) gain possession either take the ball away or through a turnover. Does that make sense?—Chris!c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Ah, I think this is because where I'm from, someone without the ball with be a "defending" player, not a defensive player (as defensive would indicate his usual role in the team). Is it different for NBA? FIBA's definition seems clearer to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Ok, I use FIBA's definition.—Chris!c/t 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "This is the requirement since the 1974–75 season, with requirements changing with the schedule length several times before that." Maybe "Although this has been the entry criteria since the..., requirements have changed with the..."? Fixed—Chris!c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Funny split key, not keen on that at all. Fixed—Chris!c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Captions are a little, well, dry and repetitive. Suggest you fluff them up a little if possible? Done—Chris!c/t 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC) The lead refers to season as a single year while the list refers to it as spanning two years. I'd be consistent. The single year links are linked to Finals article instead of the seasons.—Chris!c/t 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Where is the proof that active players are, well, active still? And does that mean active in the NBA or active anywhere? It means active in the NBA. I forget to update the page. Now fixed.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "with requirements changing with the schedule length several times before that." TRM's proposed text makes for a better read, but it doesn't solve the main issue I have with it: how could the requirements have changed several times (before 1974–75) when the stat had only been monitored for one season before that point? Fixed—Chris!c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Is Iverson still considered an active player when he's about to go play in Turkey? This might be what TRM means; if that's the case, consider this the same question in a different fashion. Now fixed.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I see that he is no longer treated as an active player in the table, but he's still listed in the lead as the active player with the most steals in a season. This should be changed too. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 23:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "are the only players to win more than one steals titles." Believe "titles" should be singular, not plural. Oh, and wouldn't this statistics include the players with three titles? Maybe it should be "only other players"? Fixed.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Can the position column be made sortable? There are only a few forwards included, but I do think there are enough for sorting to be useful, if possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Done.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of leaders of the Soviet Union

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status for a second time. --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (not supporting or opposing yet):

• Done You should have a sentence at the start that mentions that which office served as the "leader" changed sometimes before launching into what those offices were.
• Done The dates in "terms of office" in the table should be centered, not left-aligned.
• Done Khrushchev- reword "removed from power after a trip to Scandinavia" to something that emphasizes that going to Scandinavia wasn't the cause/reason for the removal, they just did it while he was out of the country.
• Done Gorbachev- "and resign on 24 August", "the following the day the Soviet Union" - please get someone to copyedit the text, I doubt that these are the only two examples, just the ones I happened to spot as I skimmed the table.

• --PresN 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment the table should be sortable. To do that, you will have to get rid of all the rowspans.—Chris!_c/t 01:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Were does it say that that is a must? I don't see it anywhere an there are many articles which don't use sortable tables.. In other words, I'm not changing it! --TIAYN (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sortability allows readers to sort the info on the table. Since all the rowspans is gone, it is quite easy to make the table sortable now. This is a simple request, so I don't understand why you refuse to do it.—Chris!_c/t 05:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I looked at making the table sortable, from a usability point of view. Unfortunately, it would only sort properly on the 'Name' as it stands. It could be made to sort on 'Term of office' or 'Congress' by using sort keys, but I'm not sure of what usability value any of that would add. Obviously, neither 'Portrait' nor 'Notes' will sort in a meaningful way. I've amended User:RexxS/List of leaders of the Soviet Union so that you can see what I mean. Given all that, in my humble opinion, I don't think this table would benefit from being sortable. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment talking accessibility, User:RexxS kindly knocked up this as an example of what that part of the project would hope to see. I rather like it, and would appreciate TIAYN and the community's comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done I can't say that I'm fond of the idea, but i've added his version... Question, should i add an image of a Troika member in each bar or should i leave it empty? --TIAYN (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done The only thing I see there that I really despise is the bolding of last names. Seems to me to be nothing but extra work that makes the page ugly, and adds nothing. Courcelles 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All six of the leaders in the two troikas have PD or CC-BY-SA images, so I think it would be possible to create a collage for each troika, as the table looks like it's missing something where those portraits would be. You could perhaps just add images in each case of the two members whose image is not already in the list, if space is a problem. Please let me know if you want any help, should you decide to add such images. --RexxS (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, I think the surnames were bold before the changes for accessibility were made, judging by the article history... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I deliberately preserved the original text formatting for my example (that's why the style="font-weight:normal" is there) in order to respect the author's intention. That's not to say I thought it was the best way of doing it. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've solved the image problems regarding the Troikas now... I created an entirely new section for them... Are these new changes acceptable? If not, please say so ;) --TIAYN (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Few questions - You use the dashes to signify information missing in the congress column, shouldn't it be used in the same manner for the image column? can a better section header be provided other than "list"? you seem to begin to explain the process of how the leaders were elected to this position in the lead and "list" section, I was wondering if maybe this could be elaborated on more for the benefit of the user. Afro (Talk) 05:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Changed the header too "List of leaders", is that better? Secondly, there was no formal line of succession; the leader did however need the support of the Politburo, Central Committee and the Secretariat to hold power. --TIAYN (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 13:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we include Gennady Yanayev into the list? I mean, he was Acting President of the Soviet Union; the most important and strongest office in the USSR at the time of the August Coup of 1991. Should we include him into the list??? --TIAYN (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Man, I'm confused. Aren't you the nominator? The champion of the article, its shepherd? Shouldn't you have answered this question for yourself before you brought the list to FLC?

Also, regardless of you marking my comments up above as done, you haven't gotten a copyedit. Please get someone else to look over the entire list, not just the few points I mentioned. The third sentence in the lead has a huge comma splice- I will leave it to the editor to figure what it is but it's not hard to see. Also! "tried out" is unencyclopedic, and the last sentence of the lead is uncited and, more importantly, just kind of dangling there, unconnected to anything.

I also don't like how the troikas are divided out into a different section. I know its a pain to slot them into the table, but given that its unsortable and arranged by chronological order, I feel that the troikas should be in the same table. --PresN 07:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But we will get the image problem again, which some other editors pointed out... When it comes to the inclusion of Gennady Yanayev into the list I am really, really unsure. On the other hand, I will try to find another editor to copyedit the article! --TIAYN (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User Tuscumbia has copyedited the article; is the list well-enough written now? --TIAYN (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support and comment - I would like to see term "Gerontocracy" mentioned somewhere in the article because it was a real problem in the seventies and early eighties. Article already mentions the ridiculous age of some of the latter leaders so why not make this article bit more academical. In addition I fixed a typo. Utinsh (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks for the support. --TIAYN (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose lots of things, mostly very simple to fix though! Done Consider # linking President to the appropriate section of that page, i.e. President#Presidents_as_head_of_state Done Link Stalin in the lead. Done And Khrushchev. Done Perhaps a personal preference, but " which in turn played" would seem more appropriate as " which, in turn, played" Done "Lenin's health..." replace Lenin's with His. Done "Lenin's health at the age of 53, declined " comma before at. Done "from continuous effects" why "continuous"? Not necessary in my opinion. Done Which ENGVAR are you using (industrialization vs hospitalisation)? Done "pushed for rapid industrialization, nationalization" perhaps an "and" missing here. Done No need to abbreviate things if you don't use the abbreviation (e.g. NEP). Done "Stalin died in March 1953.[19] In the power struggle triggered by Stalin's death in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev, after several years, emerged victorious against Georgy Malenkov.[20]" would merge these two sentences. Done "Many saw his de-Stalinization policy" no need to repeat this, perhaps "Many saw this approach as..." Done "A group known as Anti-Party Group tried to oust Khrushchev from office in 1957." and what happened? Done "First Secretary the very same day " remove "very", no need. Done "of the politburo" shouldn't that be Politburo? Done "Henry A. Kissinger falsely believed t.." there's no context to understand who Kissinger was and why his opinion counted for anything. Done "Mikhail Gorbachev" is overlinked. Done "1988 and 1989 saw the..." avoid starting a sentence with a number. Done (Birth–Death) -> (birth–death) Done Question: what happened in the 20th and 21st congress? Done "The following day of Gorbachev's resignation ..." ->"The day following Gorbachev's resignation as ..., " Done "Lasting" is not a good column heading. Done Ref 20 needs to be pp. not p. Done Ref 27 needs to be p. not pp. Done Ref 33 seems to repeat the year range. Done Ref 35 needs to be pp. not p. Done Ref 57 should be pp. 423–24 for consistency with others, not pp. 423–424. Done Bibliography doesn't need page numbers because you're stating those in the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have The Rambling Man and Chrishmt0423 been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of X-Men video games

Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 ^talk, Nomader, and -5-

Not sure what else to say other than that I believe that the list meets the Featured list criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

Also, for tracking purposes, I am co-nominating this article with User:Nomader and User:-5- who helped improve the list to its current form. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments A one-para lead is inadequate for a list of this length. Is there a good reason for the video game title to be (1) big (2) bold (3) italicised? I'm sure the answer will be "that's what the template does", if so, transfer my question to "why does the template do this to game titles"? "an eponymous comic book series, The X-Men" if it's eponymous, you don't need to repeat the name, just pipelink "eponymous comic book series" (or similar). Your lead avoids the cancelled 1985 effort. You link superhero, is there an equivalent for super villain? Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop. "Release years by system:" for "Arcade" is there a good link to "arcade machine" or something similar? Sometimes X-Men is in italics. Mostly it's not. Why? Xbox isn't linked. Nor Xbox 360. Nor Wii. If you had proposed system release in the first one which was cancelled, why not the same for those which are yet to be released? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I addressed your comments except the ones related to the template: title formatting and "proposed system release". I did not create the template ({{VGtitle}}) so I don't know the original reason. However, I've worked on the template extensively and can guess. The title is not bold, that is just how the font looks at that size, which is 125% of the default font size. As to why it is that size, I can only guess it was to make it stand out more. The template creates an html-anchor, so the increased size can mimic a heading. The title is italicized because WP:ITALICS says to do so for creative works like video games. Currently the template does not support something for future games, but I think I could work it in there. I'm a bit rusty on template code, so if you could I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know if these are deal breakers, and if so, what exactly you'd like changed. Like decreased font size and "proposed system release" for future games? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

Comment from RexxS

The template {{VGtitle}} creates a separate table for each entry. I count 38 tables in the list. None of the tables have either column or row headers, so the "list" would not be easy for a visually-impaired reader to navigate using a screen reader, other than entry-by-entry. Although I would wish that our best lists were more fully accessible, I don't think it would make sense at present to object to this candidate, simply on the grounds of accessibility. There really needs to be a wholescale review of templates such as {{VGtitle}}, and (in my humble opinion) this is properly a task for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RexxS, if you leave me a note on my talk page outlining your concerns, I'll bring them up at the VG project. Standardizing the format of our lists has been a point of contention for a while now and some guidelines to adhere to could get the ball rolling in the proper direction.

This particular template could be possibly retooled to a different format, or retired if need be. But I've sure a solution can be worked out down the road. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

• Comment Have TRM and RexxS been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I dropped a note just now at TRM's page-- sorry, I haven't been around Wikipedia lately, college has been getting the best of me. I haven't left one at RexxS's page though, I felt like his comment was more aimed at redoing the entire table format for the video game lists than any objections to this particular one. I might drop a line at WT:VG myself if I get the chance about changing up the table format though. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the second order of battle I've nominated for Feature List consideration. The first was the Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton (review), passed in July; it is the only featured order of battle for a land battle. The format I used is pretty much the same, although there are minor differences due to what sort of figures are available to report. I hope it meets with your approval; it has been through a MILHIST A-Class review. Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment

• I presume that the battalions of light infantry and grenadiers were assembled from those companies of the individual regiments? Otherwise looks nice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would presume so, yes. I've added some words explaining how those units are formed (sources don't identify which units contribute to which brigades, alas). Magic♪piano 16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment. The British forces, under the overall command of Lieutenant General William Howe, successfully flanked Continental Army positions on western Long Island ... This sentence repeats the following sentence from the second paragraph: The British forces, ... made a successful flanking maneuver around the American left while occupying the American right with diversionary battle. Ruslik_Zero 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead is generally not written in chronological order and its first and second paragraphs partially duplicate/contradict each other. Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you thought was contradictory, but I've rewritten the lead. Magic♪piano 13:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is much better now. I have another problem, however. In the last table I read Glover's regiment, stationed on Manhattan during the battle, was sent over to Brooklyn on September 28, and was instrumental in evacuating the army on the night of September 29–30.. What is this sentence about? As I understand Brooklyn was abandoned on 29 August when the army was evacuated from Long Island? Was there the second evacuation at the end of September? Ruslik_Zero 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for catching that; it was supposed to be August, of course. Magic♪piano 16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed to support. Ruslik_Zero 11:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - "Maj." and "Brig." do not fall under WP:ABBR#Widely used abbreviations in Wikipedia so should be written in full. Some of the rows are empty this is acceptable for the notes row but not the others. I am a bit confused over your use of the column spans example "British units" wouldn't this be best used as a section header? you've explained in the prose (though official titles should be added) who the Commander-in-cheif and Second in command were do you need a column span for this? I think it would also be more beneficial for the reader to convert the casualties row into a more suitable format such as seen here. I would suggest the removal of any small html tags in the tables to comply with MOS:TEXT. Afro (Talk) 05:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'm leery about dis-abbreviating only "Maj." and "Brig.", because you end up with ugliness like "Brigadier Gen.". I see a few options:

1. Dis-abbreviate all titles. This adds text, and will probably wrap most of the text in the commander fields (I abbreviate the titles to minimize occurrence of this).
2. Identify the abbreviations when they appear in the text ("Brigadier" does not currently appear in the text), or in an explanatory paragraph in the key.
3. Leave it as is.

Preferences? Magic♪piano 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think if you still want to keep the abbreviations 2 would be the best option. I see you've taken into account my comments on some of the column spans, however you haven't addressed the other comments about the column span for example on "commander-in-chief". Afro (Talk) 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting to the other items, just wanted to clarify the above. Currently the text does not explicitly identify the second in command; I need to figure how to work that in. Magic♪piano 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've redone the British table to detail the casualty numbers in separate columns. Because of the way this affected column spacing, I expanded the ranks to full spelling there, putting the commanders and some units onto two lines. I've also reformatted the notes for brigades that didn't have more specific notes for the subunits so that they occupy the space beside the subunits as well, which helps reduce the size of the tables some. I've also added text explaining the rank abbrevations to the key, and removed the column-spanning banners at the top of each table. Magic♪piano 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In the list "1 missing" looks out of place wouldn't it be better to formulate this type of information in a note? Why is ther e an excessive use of bold in the Unit column? also I don;'t understand the use of valign=top in the table head. I'm also a bit confused over the rowspan for the notes, is there not a better way to formulate this information in the table it just seems excessive. Also the occasional center alignment seems out of place surely theres a better way to convey this information. Afro (Talk) 08:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The unit column needs to differentiate three levels of hierarchy (division/brigade/regiment) in a fairly restricted space. If you don't like the bolding and centering as a means of differentiation (as explained in the key), feel free to propose an alternative. The notes spanning rows is intended that the note applies to the hierarchy of units covered by that span; why is this confusing? As to the "valign=top" in the table head, the next reviewer will probably complain that "Unit", "Commander", and "Notes" don't line up with "Casualties" if I remove it.

I've shortened "missing" and "captured" to "M" and "C", with explanation in the key. Magic♪piano 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

First off on the "valign=top" issue, the alignment of the table head hasn't been issue on the discographies, why it is here I do not know. On the center alignment of the off rows, it may be better to formulate this into a colspan. Also you may have unabbreviated the British units section but Hessein's units and the American units. Not sure if I've mentioned or not but the Command staff in the American units looks terribly un-organised not to mention there's a column missing on the right. Afro (Talk) 16:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there's a column missing? Please explain. Ditto on the "terribly un-organised" American command staff; this is the order in which they are presented in sources. Magic♪piano 15:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see the missing column directly under the American Units column span? Afro (Talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd call that a missing cell; it's not like an entire column was missing, something I've seen before. (And no, I didn't see it because it had no visible effect when rendered in my browser.) Magic♪piano 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made further changes to address your issues. I've changed the division headings on the British units; please tell me what you think. If this is acceptable, I'll propagate the style to the other tables. Magic♪piano 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine without the centering. Also on "Royal Artillery" in the british table you use valign=top again but don't seem to use it anywhere else. Also 3rd and 5th Pennsylvania Battalion have the same note for consistency I don't see why you haven't used the rowspan. Also I don't understand the use of the break you use for many of the commanders ie "Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich von Minnigerode", "Doctor John Morgan", I don't see what advantage the user gets by these breaks. Afro (Talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Artillery was aligned to top because it is the only place where the casualty figures are only available as an aggregate; however, I've removed the alignment. As far the line breaks in the commanders, I would prefer, if the table is sized in a narrower-width window, that the line break between the title and the name, rather than between the first and last names. I should probably try experimenting with non-breaking spaces in the names to control this behavior rather than forcing breaks. Magic♪piano 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed to forced breaks and replaced them with non-breaking spaces, so table resizing works smoothly. Magic♪piano 17:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am very iffy regarding format for the American Units command staff I would think this could be formatted a different way right now it looks out of place on the table. Also I don't understand the column span for as example "Major General Israel Putnam", is Israel Putnam the Unit as well? Afro (Talk) 10:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I've removed the command staff, and denoted the division commanders with "Commander" in the Unit column. Does that work for you? Magic♪piano 17:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Should the Hessein and American units have the same Casualties format in their tables, just for consistency. Also the American units column span isn't needed. Afro (Talk) 11:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the American units header; you're right it's no longer needed. As for the casualties, do you really think adding four columns that are blank to the Hessian and American tables will improve them (on the altar of consistency)? The sort of numbers that are available is already documented, and really makes such columns unnecessary. Magic♪piano 14:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have Afro, Sturmvogel and Ruslik0 been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support- I dont think there is much more detail out there unless one starts researching through primary sources.XavierGreen (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Abingdon Boys School discography

Nominator(s): NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)

Hello all. It's been a while. I'm back again, but this time with a unique discography from the underrepresented section of Japanese bands. I believe this page meets FL criteria and will do my best to make any improvements as necessary. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment いらっしゃいませ！
  • LEAD The band's two studio albums both reached #2 on the Oricon charts; singles such as Blade Chord and From Dusk Till Dawn have peaked at #2 and #3 respectively on the Oricon charts. what about Both of the band's first studio albums reached #2 on the Oricon charts...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Done the fix. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 21:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments (quick look) Why is "video album" a red link here, something I've not seen in any other discog? No images at all? "one compilation," ... album. "was started in 2005 " formed in 2005. "named the band ABS after Ebisu, Tokyo, Japan" not clear to a non-expert. Is this a linguistic thing? " signed under Epic Records Japan" I think conventionally bands are signed "to" not "under" a label. "Their music.." (etc) you seem to use singular and plural "Abingdon Boys School" interchangeably. As a Brit I have no problem with this, but others may. "#2" - MOS says avoid this use of #. Ensure reference title comply with MOS, i.e. no OVER-CAPITALISATION for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Done most of those. No images of the band are available on Wikipedia or Commons, though I suppose there must be a way to port one over via Flickr. I'm unfortunately not an expert at that process, though I would welcome instruction and guidance. I'll have a look on Flick for suitably licensed images. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I checked Flickr myself; no such luck to suitably licensed images of the band. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭ 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC) A-B-S is pronounced similar to Ebisu in Japanese. 'A' would be "eh", 'B' would be the standard English "bee", and 'S' could be "esu". The trick here is that "bi" would be pronounced "bee" as well. Not entirely sure how to clarify this however. A note would be very useful because to non-Japanese speakers, this is far from clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Take a look at the note at the bottom; I think this should be sufficient. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭ 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Let me know what you think. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭ 21:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose All of the notes are full sentences, so need full stops JP: Gold - while we, contributors, may know that this is a certification, some readers who have not read many WP discographies in the past may not Why does 'Compilation albums' table have a column for Orion chart position, but no entries? Per MOS:TITLE - singles should not be italicised, but enclosed in quotation marks Every single has a note, 'The title track...'. Obviously, being a single, they are title tracks. These need rewording, ie for "Innocent Sorrow" write 'The single is used as the first opening song to the anime series D.Gray-man' What on Earth are 'Contributions'? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Responses: Notes like "Only released in Europe" are not full sentences and thus cannot have periods after them; I would much rather have conformity with regard to punctuation, so I prefer no full stops. I still don't find this acceptable, but I'll wait for others' opinions Have clarified JP: Gold. I put the Oricon chart positions for all sections for the sake of conformity. Fixed the singles bit. Japanese singles almost always include additional songs, or B-sides. While "The single" would refer to the title track, the clarification, "The title track..." solidifies the claim that the title tracks are the opening song The lead notes that the discography includes "seven contributions to releases not under its name"; how may I clarify this further? How about 'Other appearances' or similar? You need to clarify what each album is. Are they all compilation albums? I suppose? Contributions was used both here and here while this, this, and this use Other appearances. I've switched it, regardless and yes, they are all compilation albums with the exception of "Buck-Tick Fest 2007 on Parade", a live video album. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your review. I hope I've answered all of your concerns. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk 07:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC) There is also an excessive use of boldface in the 'singles' table. I've debolded, but I honestly think it looks quite terrible now. This discography does not share the format with the large majority of other discographies; the single chart follows the album chart layout and I thus think the formatting should remain the same: bolded titles to highlight them. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Hmmm, I don't seem to mind, either way now. However, the 'Album' column in the singles table definitely needs unbolding. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Ah, now that makes sense. Apologies for the misunderstanding; I've done that now. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk 23:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I still don't like the layout of the notes, but I suppose I'm just being fussy. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hardly. It's a legitimate concern; one I'd like very much to clarify at some point. Thanks for the review and the support nonetheless. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] ICC Cricket Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's been a while since I tried a cricket list, and this is crying out for becoming featured. Cheers, as ever, for your comments and interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support Harrias ^talk 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

* As I've already commented on the talk page after a request to look at this article, I think the lead is a tad on the short side, but on the other hand I can't really suggest anything to expand it with. The paragraph regarding Heyhoe-Flint is a single sentence, which is frowned at, could it maybe be merged in with another paragraph, or maybe some more information added to that one (though as I say, don't ask me what!) Working on this now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Had a bit of a go, what do you think now? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Much better now I think! Harrias talk 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) The table sorts fine, and after fixing a couple of the references they all seem okay. It's a pity that the playing role couldn't be referenced, it would have been interesting to have it included. Thanks for those fixes. Yes, the role would have been interesting, but not directly relevant I suppose. These players were inducted for as "legends" and not against a particular criterion. And the difference between batsman/all-rounder and all-rounder/bowler is always going to lead to some subjectivity... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Could the '+' be super script, to stop it appearing that they were inducted some time after 2009, ie 2009 plus. Superscripted, much easier than I thought! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Otherwise, all looks good, nice work. Harrias talk 16:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your initial comments and those here. I'll work on expanding the lead a touch more. Any suggestions wouldn't go amiss! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—the link to Rodney Marsh leads to a dab page. No dead external links. Ucucha 11:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oopsie, haven't done that in a while. Fixed now, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Gave a talk page review before the nomination, and I thought everything was fine even then. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments relating to licensing problems at Commons with images that were formerly used in the list

Comment quickly looking at File:Keith Miller.JPG it seems to be PD, but it is not clear why. Could you update the description with sources to match the criteria in the PD template. Also the OR operator in type A is rather weird; how can something be published prior to 1955 but not taken prior to 1955. Sandman888 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC) It's a Commons image perhaps you could ask the uploader. If it's a problem for this list, I can replace it. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Source is also a deadlink. If it's not possible to verify as PD it should be tagged for deletion. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC) As I said, it's a Commons image so take it up there please. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Image also replaced in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC) The other pictures has similar problems. Sandman888 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC) As I said, these are Commons licence issues, so please take your concerns there. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) (OD) Normally the nominator is responsible for pictures used in the list/article are correctly licensed and sourced. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC) If you are confused.. by licenses at Commons, please take it up there. If you object to the use of specific images here, say so. They can easily be replaced. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC) In any case I think I've removed any images whose licensing issues may have confused you. They are used in many other articles but I admit I have no energy whatsoever to argue with you about license semantics at commons. Cheers for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC) it's not semantics, but a question of proper licensing: all PD claims must be sourced. I am not confused by any of the licenses, but your retort seem to confuse constructive input with ad hominem attacks. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I trust this is no longer an issue with this list. Feel free to contact the uploader at Commons to continue discussion over any further license concerns you may have. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC) File:WGGrace.jpg is still missing source, publication date and author. Sandman888 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Replaced. Thank you for your diligence. I trust you will chase up the various uploaders at Commons now? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Since you asked, no I will not. I trust that you were already on it since you are now aware of how PD claims of images ought to be sourced? Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC) No, Commons and Wikipedia are different, and I work in Wikipedia. You seem to be very diligent in finding PD problems at Commons, so I suggest you get an account there and state your case. If an image exists at Commons with a problem, you have to go to Commons to solve it (especially as I removed these images from this list). In any case, I assume you have no further issues with the images in this list? If that's all then please collapse these comments as they've become rather lengthy for no gain other than replacement of a couple of Commons images. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of I Zingari first-class cricketers

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements. It is modelled off lists such as List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers and List of South Africa women Test cricketers that have already attained FL status. Harrias ^talk 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Our own I Zingari article seems to imply there were Australian "gypsies" too? There were, but they didn't play any first-class matches, and to be honest I'd call them seperate sides; I suppose I could add a note in though. I think something needs to be added because you link to that article in the lead, and it'd be odd not to at least mention it in passing. With a ref, obviously! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Added something in now, what do you think? Harrias talk 11:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I think you mean "Old Harrovian" rather than "old Harrovian". I do indeed, fixed! "opposition; the Gentlemen of England and county sides became frequent opposition" opposition too quickly repeated for me. Changed second usage to 'opponents', if that is still too similar, I'll change it further. " who included W.G. Grace and two of his brothers in their side." maybe "whose team included W.G. Grace and two of his brothers."? Changed as suggested. "Their next first-class" - lost who "they" is (last team mentioned is The Gentlemen)... Changed to "I Zingari's next first-class.." "although the highest " perhaps "while the highest..."? Changed as suggested. The ? need a note to explain what they mean. Will add one in. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks, as always, for your comments, some of my responses probably needs replies back from you! Harrias talk 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Just a few nit-picks in an otherwise fine list...

• Little redundancy here: "while the highest score for I Zingari was 147, scored by Teddy Wynyard." The "score" and "scored" is what I'm referring to.

• Removed "scored". Harrias ^talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Members of the peerage also played for I Zingari; including...". The semi-colon should probably just be a regular comma.

• Changed to comma. Harrias ^talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• The publisher for reference 1 should be in italics, since the Wisden Almanack is a printed work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is now italicised! Harrias ^talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the only comprehensive list of the relevant churches, under the care of the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England, and provides locations, graphics (where available), coordinates and additional information about each of the 62 entries in the list, supported by extensive references. It is based on a list format by User:Peter I. Vardy and copy edited by User:Malleus Fatuorum. — Rod ^talk 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment 4 dead links: here-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wow that was quick - The four Wiltshire "get churches" URLs were working this morning & still give the same URL after searching though the list at http://history.wiltshire.gov.uk/community/church_search.php. I believe this is a temporary server glitch. Working on the others.— Rod ^talk 21:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• They had changed their server path today - I believe they are now fixed.— Rod ^talk 21:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

*Not too fond of the parentheses in the first sentence. Can it be rephrased/removed somehow? Reworded What is the meaning of "safe" in: "The trust's primary aim is to ensure that the buildings in its care are weatherproof and safe."? Reworded Is the definition of "South West England" due to the Churches Conservation Trust or only used in this list? The CCT use a definition of SW England which doesn't include Gloucestershire whereas South West England and West Country include it (based largely on government department definitions). The ongoing debates on their talk pages demonstrate there is no single definition. I don't want to join the discussions on this issues. Just wanted to make sure that the CCT uses the same partition in SW England, N England,... as this list. They do, right? Yep these lists are all being based on CCT regions. Their list of SW England is here OK. Please remove doubled information: "Rural churches dominate the list" and "The majority are rural village churches..." Reworded Some overuse of "largely" could be copy-edited. Some reworded Empty cells should be filled with {{center|—}} AFAIK. Added The link for footnote "C" does not work. Fixed Should "St Nicholas (old)" be replaced with "Old Church of St Nicholas"? Done (& also in a few other cases) What is Thurlbear in "St Thomas, Thurlbear, Orchard Portman"? A church, village or town? Same for a couple of other entries ("St Mary, Maddington, Shrewton",...). The column heading suggests that there are only two things appearing while sometimes there are three. Maybe reword the heading to something like: "Church name and location". I've changed the column header as suggested. these are often where a tiny village within a parish doesn't have an article & therefore the parish is wikilinked. I am a bit confused by the note in the reference section ("The Heritage Gateway website is published by...). What is it supposed to tell me? We are supposed to give the publishers of the sources used. Heritage Gateway is published by a consortium of three bodies. The note is intended to prevent the repetition of this information in every reference, which would make the section large and ugly. It was deemed acceptable in the FL Friends of Friendless Churches.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I can add the full publisher info to eeach of these references if that would be preferable? I see and it is perfectly fine with me not to repeat the publisher information. However at the moment I have a problem locating the Heritage Gateway references. The term "Heritage Gateway" only seems to appear in the note and not in the references. I have removed this as heritage Gateway is not used in this list. Categories referring to the Churches Conservation Trust such as "Charities based in London" should be removed as this is a list about churches and not about the trust. These cats removed Thanks. If you wish, you could also get rid of category "Conservation in England" since the category "Churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust" is in that category already. Removed.— Rod talk 10:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC) A navigation template for other similar lists (Northern England) might be a good idea for the future. Yes that would be a good idea - but several of the lists haven't been written (yet) But hopefully will be written. In any case it is not essential at the moment. bamse (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for you comments. I hope they have now been addressed.— Rod talk 08:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Some more comments mainly on the notes column... (to be added to as I read along) bamse (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC) The main table is currently in the section "Key". Maybe create a special section "Churches". Done Should "over looking" be one word? Taking advice on this one Done - all one word "...there is evidence of a wooden church in about 700 AD...". Surely the evidence is not from 700 AD. Possibly "in"->"from"? Done "Outside the tower is a stone dedicated to John Coumbe, said to have lived from 1484 to 1604 – outliving the entire Tudor dynasty." Is this essential for the church? Removed "The 15th-century tower houses three bells, two of them medieval and one 17th century", maybe add something in the second part of the sentence. I don't understand what is wrong with this one Reworded Same for: "The nave of Whitcombe Church dates from the 12th century, with the chancel being added in the 15th" Again this seem allright to me - what needs changing? Reworded "...and altar rails, and the remains of wall paintings", maybe get rid of the first "and" Done Capitalization in "St Antoninus King and Martyr." correct? Changed What's a "Gurney Stove"? Maybe add a footnote. named after inventor added "The presence in the floor of the church of trapdoors..." reads cumbersome. Reworded "a ... tree in the churchyard suggest it was", maybe "suggests that it was..." Reworded "The manor was held by Shaftesbury Abbey's manor of Tisbury". The manor was held by a manor, correct? 2nd "manor" changed to endowment Taking a break (at "St Mary, Maddington, Shrewton") now. Will continue later today or tomorrow. bamse (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for all comments so far - I will try to catch up with you.— Rod talk 11:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC) You use "28 feet (8.5 m) by 17 feet (5.2 m)" and on the other hand "62 by 12 feet (19 × 3.7 m)". Use the same way throughout (also check other occurrences. I'd prefer the second version. This will take a little while. I think I've done all these now. I think so too. Capitalization of "Perpendicular" correct? There seem to be both small and capital versions in the list. Also at least one of the "perpendicular" is linked to perpendicular and not to Perpendicular Period. Please check. Changed What is a "rectar"? Typo - changed Something should be changed in: "A church was established on the site, overlooking the River Parrett, in the 12th century, was valued at £5 in 1291,[122] although the majority of the fabric of the current building dates from the 14th." several full stops added "It is now in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust." Isn't this redundant given that the church is mentioned in this list? Removed Something is missing in: "It is currently on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register,[128][129] flood damage from the River Chew in 1968." added "following" flood damage Something should be changed in: "It has a perpendicular three-stage tower has an octagonal stair turret on the south wall." "with" and octagonal... Unify spelling of medieval/mediaevel. This will take a little while.— Rod talk 18:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Standardised Done with the notes column. I also fixed some obvious things, but please check that I did not change any meaning. bamse (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC) There is likely a typo in ref 104. bamse (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Done.— Rod talk 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I think there is at least one "Heritage Gateway" reference, so you might want to put the note back or add publisher information directly to the reference. I can't find this one Edit the whole article and search for "www.heritagegateway.org.uk". I find two occurrences, one at "[St Giles' Church, Imber" and the other at "St Mary's Church, South Tidworth". Thanks - now done.— Rod talk 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC) There is something missing or amiss in the sentence: "It includes a collection of medieval carvings, in the form of elegant corbel-heads, roof bosses, and externally in the form of fearsome gargoyles" Reworded "Fearsome" might violate WP:NPOV, though personally I don't see a problem here so I leave it up to you to decide what's best here. fearsome removed (even though it was supported by the ref). Welcome, and on it goes... "The first record of the church is an agreement dated 1226 between William, son of Arthur de Clopton and Richard of Keynsham Abbey." If possible, can you add what kind of agreement or in which way the church is mentioned in this agreement. Detail added Thanks. Possibly it should be "in an agreement"!? "in" added. I will try to get to the references this evening.— Rod talk 12:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC) What makes [8] a RS? The Newton Ferrers & Noss Mayo is a non-profit organisation and has a mechanism for correcting any errors (from home page) I have removed this one the info is covered by the Images of England ref already included What makes [9] a RS? Nadder Valley Focus is "a non-commercial site maintained by volunteers" and has a mechanism for correcting any errors from Contact us page) I have removed this one and sourced the information by reuse of the British History Online reference What makes [10] a RS? Replaced with a ref from North Wiltshire Council What makes [11] a RS? Replaced with ref from Pastscape (English Heritage) What makes [12] a RS? Ref removed as info already covered by RS What makes [13] a RS? I've removed the info re minton reredos at Fisherton as I couldn't find an alt source What makes [14] a RS? I've removed the claim re the plaque at Holcombe as I can't find an alt source What makes hiddendorset a RS? "Hidden Dorset was initially funded by Leader+ Chalk & Cheese; Arts Council England; a partnership of Dorset County Council, and the six borough/district councils in the county. It is now independent of these bodies." from About page Unfortunately this does not tell anything about the current situation or who is writing material for the site. If they were still funded by those bodies, I'd believe that they are reliable. The fact that they "are now independent" could mean that the funding bodies were not happy with the content for instance. bamse (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I have removed the claim about the bells which was supported by this reference.— Rod talk 10:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC) What makes [15] a RS? Ref removed as info already covered by RS There are still two refs using this site. Thanks I hadn't spotted them - now replaced/removed.— Rod talk 10:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC) What makes [16] a RS? See their Policy page What part of the policy page should I look at? Apparently about-bristol is written by several members of the Stiles family according to About us. How do I know that they are reliable? I have replaced the ref supporting the quote about a "Wedding Cake Church" with one from the Churches Conservation Trust.— Rod talk 10:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC) What makes everythingexmoor a RS? Everything Exmoor describes itself as 'by the Community for the Community' but does undergo editorial control before publication About Page. It is a stable site already used as a source on multiple wp pages including List of museums in Somerset (FL), Exmoor (FA), Somerset (FA), Minehead (GA) and Geology of Somerset (GA) without any problems, Material can be submitted by everybody. Not sure where it says that there is editorial control. I guess it would also matter who the editor is. bamse (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC) What makes megalithic.co.uk a RS? According to wikipedia article The Megalithic Portal "Its listings are often referenced by noted web sites[2] and in recent books on megaliths[3] and Holy Wells[4]...Founded by chartered engineer Andy Burnham, ... The Megalithic Portal has existed in its current form since February 2001. .. In 2002, Archaeology Magazine reviewed the Megalithic Portal, describing it as 'useful, fun, and accurate'.[6] As of January 2010 the Megalithic Portal has been constituted as a non profit making membership society[7]. From the site About page under terms and conditions and see The Charter of Responsible Megalithic Webmasters. According to terms and conditions, they cannot guarantee the accuracy of material submitted by third party contributors. Is the material cited in this list by third party contributors? I've removed lots of the non RS sources and either removed the accompanying information or used other (RS) sources which cover the same information. I am convinced "Everything Exmoor" and "Megalithic Portal" should be allowed as Reliable. "Hidden Dorset" and "About Bristol" have suitable policies in place about quality controll etc and I think are probably RS but would be happy to compromise on these two.— Rod talk 18:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I will have another look as soon as I get time. bamse (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I am far from an expert on RS issues. However Hidden Dorset and About Bristol look less reliable to me than the other sites (see comments above). To make sure I asked the experts at WP:RSN. bamse (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC) On Everything Exmoor the About page states in "the only limiting factor will be the time available for the volunteer editor to process the incoming information." this leads me to question how they factually check the information. Also in the About is "All the information is provided 'by the Community for the Community'" considering what you're sourcing with the information it leads me to believe it may not be factually accurate. I'm not sure on Megalithic however the information which you are citing appears to be user submitted with no expert knowledge in the field. Afro (Talk) 07:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Although it pains me to do so (because it means I should go & check all the other FAs, FLs & GA which use it) I have replaced the reference to everything exmooor with the reuse of the Images of England one which has the same information. I have also replaced the megalithic reference with one from British History Online.— Rod talk 19:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I will support after the display problems of refs 119 and 131 are fixed and "church" is capitalized in ref 130. bamse (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I must be getting too close to this I didn't even spot those - now fixed.— Rod talk 18:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Support bamse (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "It was legally established ..." - you've talked about several things between the Trust and this sentence, so suggest you make this "The Trust was established..." Done Any ideas if the Trust has been affected by the recent austerity measures to be implemented by our gracious orange/blue government? If it's partly financed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is it likely to see this funding disappear? (Just a question really). This was discussed at Talk:Churches Conservation Trust with various people checking different published lists - but it appears to have survived (so far) For anyone interested,the latest info is here. Basically the grant from the DCMS has been cut by 20%.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "2,000 volunteers" spare space here. Done.— Rod talk 21:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Table captions (and well done for giving the ACCESS thing a go here) should not be bold (but that may not be your fault) and, if incomplete sentences, shouldn't have full stops, like the one for the Key currently does. This comes from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#tables which was recently pointed out to me & I can't see how to change bold. Full stop is gone Caption says "year of construction" but you sometimes have just the closest century. I've changed this to year or era Not keen on bold at the start of each row, but hey... "The church is now one of three in the care of the priest-in-charge of Gerrans and Philleigh." no ref. Removed as I can't find a reliable source I seem to remember asking about this once before but Ham stone redirects to Hamstone. Is there a reason you use the former? I think about stone from Ham Hill but now changed "with 4 bells" four. Done " 1833[92] during " I see no major problem with dropping this ref to the end of the sentence. Done Ref 1 title - The Trust, not "The trust". Done Similarly for ref 3, trust is capitalised in the page title. Done Check all ref dates are in the same format - ref 5 has an ISO date while rest (or, at least, the majority) are human format. This was a date of publication as opposed to accessdate but changed, I hope I've got them all now BBC refs, in general, have publication dates, like ref 82 was published 12 April 2009. Please add these. Hope I've got them all PDF refs should have format=PDF I've never understood the rationale for this but Done Ref 121 needs an en-dash for page ranges. Check others. 121 was a reuse of 119 so have reused that. I've looked for others but having never understood the rationale for this one either they don't jump out at me. Ref 132 has a bare URL, a bit odd. This was the same with 119 - neither used the cite web template - now fixed Do you need Category:Churches in England when the Churches preserved by... is a much more specific category which is a second-level sub-cat of the former? Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Hopefully done but a couple I didn't understand eg As in lead & ? ALT or what for images Any chance of an update to the As of in the lead? Sorry I don't understand this Sorry, the date after "As of..." in the lead, i.e. November 2010 now.. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks I see now - I have removed the "as of.. date" it is not an exact number "over 340" and unlikely to change frequently Nicholas's vs Nicholas' - source says one, table says t'other. This has been debated in several places for what to do with the apostrophe when the saints name ends in "s" - eg Talk:Churches Conservation Trust#Apostrophes I don't think a final solution has been achieved. I just want internal consistency within the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Thnk I've got this now.— Rod talk 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC) If we persist with these captions, (and again, this is a question, not a directive), what do we do about purely visual columns, like the "Photograph" column here. Photos aren't mentioned in the caption, but there's no alt text, so I'm not sure what a screen reader would make of this. I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I thought ALT tags hadn't become required but will add them if you think they are needed? The caption still appears to have a full stop, but what I mean about using it for access purposes, you should mention that there are also photographs of each church in the caption for it to be explicit and complete. The boldness will soon be okay with MOSBOLD, so not to worry there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I had removed the full stop from one table caption but not the other - now done, & added "with photographs".— Rod talk 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Rod, per those bold row headers for each church, if you're not already aware, it may be worth having a glimpse at this discussion. You can now "unbold" those and keep it accessible, should you wish to do so. Next up is a discussion about captions... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks but I think I'll wait for consensus to emerge (everywhere) before making more changes & tackling all the other lists (FL & otherwise) I've been involved in.— Rod ^talk 17:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, and rightly so. I think this list is probably the one of the first to take these changes into account, so I just wanted to ensure you were aware of changes/discussions going on here and there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 10:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comment - I'm glad to see you've added symbols to grade "II" however where are the symbols for grade "I" and "III"? Afro (Talk) 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry I don't understand that comment. The grades are I, II* & II - there is no grade III. Do you mean the asterisk "*" - if so this is a part of the grading - see Listed building#England and Wales or the English Heritage web site. What are you asking me to do?— Rod talk 14:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry grade 3 was me jumping ahead of myself, anyway per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons. Afro (Talk) 15:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC) But the text in each of the boxes is different ie I or II* or II, so the colour is not the only way of differentiating them, therefore I can't see why a symbol is needed as well. If the colour were removed the cells would still provide the relevant information.— Rod talk 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry I seem to be jumping ahead of my a lot lately, ignore my previous comment. Afro (Talk) 16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Can Note B, be phrased better the thing which confuses me is "or the exact years over which it was built if known". Grammatical error on Ref 179. Ref 183 I can't find where it cites this information in the source. Coding error in Ref 190. Afro (Talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I have attempted to reword note B. English capitalised on ref 179. Ref 183 moved as it supports the POWs buidling the chu8rch but not being the only one. cite web coding sorted on ref 190.— Rod talk 19:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Since the article is over 100,000 bytes wouldn't it be better to remove one of the images in the lead? maybe the bigger of the images. Afro (Talk) 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Removing an image will not reduce the file size much, however I can do this if required, although I was advised that for a long list it would be useful to have a couple of lead images.— Rod talk 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Who were you advised by may I ask? Afro (Talk) 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I disagree. When I tried removing a lead image it reduced the size of the list from 102 kb to 102 kb. It's not one image that makes it a big list, it's the amount of info it gives — and that's not the nominator's fault!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC) It was just a query on whether it'd be better in reducing the loading time, no worries. Afro (Talk) 19:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 13:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor

Nominator(s): PresN 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite saying that I was done for a while, I'm back with the Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor. As always, comments from previous FLCs have been incorporated into this list. This one is a bit different from the others, though, in that not only is it given for a person, not their work, but also in that the work that they did isn't even mentioned. That is to say that Ben Bova won the inaugural year (1973, to coincide with the removal of the "Best Professional Magazine" category) but what it was that he was editing wasn't listed. Since I found that a bit boring and uninformative, I've added in a (non-comprehensive) list of what the editors worked on in that year, and then cited it, which balloons the ref count to 108. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • Hugo Award nominees and winners are chosen by supporting or attending members of the annual World Science Fiction Convention, or Worldcon, and the presentation evening constitutes its central event. delete Worldcon, because it links there
  • Starting with the 2007 awards, the Professional Editor award was split into two categories: Best Editor (Long Form) and Best Editor (Short Form). The Long Form award is for "The editor of at least four (4) novel-length works primarily devoted to science fiction and / or fantasy published in the previous calendar year" in the official Hugo Award rules (in paragraph Long Form) the "(4)" should be deleted
  • The Best Editor Short Form award, also started in 2007, is defined as being for "the editor of at least four (4) anthologies, collections or magazine issues primarily devoted to science fiction and/or fantasy, at least one of which was published in the previous calendar year. the same here

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can't delete "Worldcon"; the term is used afterward in the text as shorthand. Removed the two "(4)"s, though those were direct quotes. --PresN 19:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments En-dash in infobox for year range. Done, I always forget those. Any reason why infobox has Short Form and Long Form capitalised while the rest of the lead doesn't? Not one that stood up to scrutiny when I thought about it, now all capitalized. " The two editors which have won three..." agh. Perhaps "The two editors tow have won three..."? Fixed. "received the greatest number of total nominations" why not just "received the most nominations"? Fixed. Ref -> Ref(s) and please, if possible, put them in numerical order. Ow, reordering them was a non-trivial matter. Fixed. Note 1 should be Note A and needs reference. The reference is in the text/table directly after the note; not sure how to nest references or change the numbering scheme. I'll look into it. Alright, the nested ref is done (I have a ref in a ref in a reflist!) but I still don't know how to make a ref group use letters instead of numbers. --PresN 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Replied in-line. --PresN 21:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as the first of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently also under FLC review), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Any reason why 58 and 164 seem to be sorting by name by "von" while all other "von"s sort by the bit after the von? Oops, fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC) "from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a "low ranking" soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry" this looks a little like a quotation from the award? not really! See the Enactment regarding the renewing of the Iron Cross for the original wording please MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Not sure you need to link paradigm. What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Nor Army, Navy or Air force. What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Prefer "Image" over "Picture" as a column heading. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Think the title should have 1942 in parentheses rather than after a spaced colon, so "...with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)" good idea! done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Isn't "commander in chief" normally hyphenated? I linked it to commander-in-chief, does this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) For "Unit", you have, for instance, "pilot in the .." this isn't unit, it's role/unit really isn't it? doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC) What does the 4./ mean in " the 4./Jagdgeschwader 77" ? I tried addressing this with the article Nomenclature used by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, which is a note to the "Role and unit" column.MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Note 1 - "(Only leadership and organisational achievements, no personal bravery)" was this part of the note? If so, why not in quotes? Note 3- you suddenly use JG as an abbreviation. fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Note 6 - you explain JG. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Note 9 - you say II. but just III without the full stop. To full stop or not to full stop, that's the question. done full stop is correct! It denotes the German naming convention for 2nd or 3rd group of a fighter or bomber wing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Surprised the template at the bottom doesn't include the year lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC) "What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links." - this is precisely the reason not to have multiple nominations about the same subject matter simultaneously at FLC. Do what I ask here, and read across to the other lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Point taken! Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - You only use RSD to in pointing out the abbreviation, is there any point in having it in the article? Same with JG 3. WASt doesn't need re-abbreviating in Note 11. AKCR is also abbreviated in the lead, I hardly think it needs re-abbreviating in the notes. Afro (Talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment

The list starts at number 58 a note could be added to the indicate that 1–57 were issued between 1940–1941 or whenever.

In note 2 handled the case in 1981 and decided: Swords yes, can this be reworded handled the case in 1981 and decided to award him the Swords ?

In note 4 According to Scherzer as Staffelkapitän of the 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 - should that not be III./Jagdgeschwader 77 ?

Nope, 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 is correct, it denotes the 3rd squadron, I double checked MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In note 6 and others there is no need to link the ranks they are already linked in the table

In note 7 while Prien states who is Prien.

Translate some of the more obscure German Aufklärungs-Abteilung for example.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games

Nominator(s): ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This list is similar to articles such as Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Thank you for taking the time to review. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment—At least on my screen, the table in the "Competition venues" section starts below the column of images that appears along the right-hand side of the screen. The results is a large amount of white space above the table. I am not sure of the exact cause--maybe try designating the images as right, upright thumbnails like seen here ("right|upright|thumb|" in the image coding)? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I've used {{Fix bunching}}. You can check again; it should be fine now. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 16:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Problem still exists, at least for me. I have no idea what the best solution is, just pointing out the issue. I will let other reviewers decide if the issue needs to be resolved or if the list meets FL criteria. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC) The problem comes from the navbox placed in the lead section just below the image. It's too big and pushes the images in the section below aside and thus the table gets pushed down. I really think these navboxes should be converted to horizontal collapsible templates at the bottom of the page. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Would it help if the stadium image located in the lead is decreased in size? --Another Believer (Talk) 04:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think it would. At least, the image would have to be pretty small (smaller than default size) so that the navbox doesn't cross into the section below. Parutakupiu (talk) Should be fine now. I just reinforced stacking by adding new parameters. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Still problematic for my computer (and my work computer), but perhaps it is a personal settings issue. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Oh it didn't work for my computer after a while. I've decreased column width, please do tell me its alright now. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 06:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, better. Well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
• Hockey venues seats 20,000 i thought. Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes you are correct. 2,500 refers to one of the two pitches in the stadium. Updated, thanks. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 13:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Has Aaroncrick been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "A total of five venues were newly constructed for the games; the Dr. Karni Singh Shooting Range, the Siri Fort Sports Complex, the Thyagaraj Sports Complex, the Yamuna Sports Complex as well as a rugby sevens facility in Delhi University." Why semi-colon instead of a colon?
• The is used a ridiculous number of times in the prose.

Aaroncrick ^TALK 23:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments - I'm a bit confused over the "type" column for the competition venues section, also per WP:COLOR colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) to comply with WP:ACCESS. Ref 24, 25 have no publishers. Afro (Talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Changed; I've used footnotes to explain. I've also removed the colors, even though I kind of miss it. Regarding refs 24 and 25, the error's been corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC) After looking at the previously featured 2010 Winter Olympics medal table I think the sections need to be more descriptive, and it shows the table could be better formatted. I'm just throwing this out there. Afro (Talk) 14:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC) You mean add more prose to the "Competition venues" and "Training venues" sections? Sorry what do you mean by the table can be better formatted? Thanks. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 06:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Well it doesn't have the dubious type column which could be explained better if it were to be in text, plus it has the location of the venue. Afro (Talk) 10:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I don't know, I was just thinking since its a recently featured list that maybe this FLC could be modelled more after it. Afro (Talk) 02:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Haha so to add prose or not to add? Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics on the other hand does not have prose in the respective sections (and its a newer FL). So? ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 10:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I do think it would help the article, my suggestion would be to add them. Afro (Talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The sorting function on the Competition venues table seems to be sorting everything by max capacity, would it be better to sort these by minimum allowed rather than maximum allowed? Shouldn't the notes come before the See also section? Afro (Talk) 08:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC) It is sorted with regards to the venue's seating 'potential'. It makes more sense to sort by the maximum rather than the minimum. As for the placement of the Notes section, I believe the protocol is to have the See also section above "Notes". ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I see no problems which would discourage me from supporting. Afro (Talk) 14:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "The venue which had the largest venue was the Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Complex". Prose redundancy with the multiple "venue"s; is one of them supposed to be a different word? Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC) The opening and closing ceremony links seem to be reversed from their intended order. Corrected, didn't realise argh. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Commonwealth Games Village: The em dashes should be made unspaced per the Manual of Style. Done. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC) "adopted by the OC CWG Delhi 2010." Are all the abbreviations short for something, or is this the name of an organization? For those who may be unfamiliar with the Commonwealth Games, like myself, this is more than a little confusing. (P.S.: Okay, I've read a little further now and see where the abbreviation is explained. Still, I think it should be given with the first full use to avoid such issues) Sorry, now corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC) What is the CGF? This is another unexplained abbreviation. Explained. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Concerns over readiness and state of venues: "Delays in the construction of the Games' venues was linked to...". "was" → "were". Done. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Note 2: "it is taken that training for the sports of athletics and aquatics were provided in that venue". "were" → "was". Exactly the opposite of the suggestion above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Done. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments No bold links please. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "in Delhi and India" well, Delhi is in India, so just "in India" would be fine. Done. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "namely, the" not convinced that you need "namely, " here. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Type column should be left-aligned. Is that necessary? Centre-alignment seems fine to me. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "total of twenty training venues were used in the Games. Of these 20," - twenty v 20? Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I dislike "(see above);" in an interactive, clickable encyclopedia. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Connaught Place is overlinked. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "as Canada found" - had found? Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Is it Times of India or The Times of India? And why link the last one in the refs, but not the others? Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Note 3 is unreferenced. I have removed Note 3, and I have no recollection how those information came about. Since the two venues involved already existed prior to the games, they are henceforth noted as "Existing". The "new" things in Note 3 actually refers to facilities within the venues. It does not affect the standing of the two venues as "existing" venues. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire

Nominator(s): White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list has just recently passed a ACR under Wikiproject Military History and follows the established pattern for battleship related lists. (see List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, another FL of mine for a comparison.) Questions and comments are welcome. Thanks :) White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• List looks good but I have some comments:

• The lead says that the German gift significantly contributed to the Ottoman decision to join Germany, but later in the article this is not expanded upno. Meanwhile, the text says that the two ships seized by the Brits had a major role in the decision. Which one is it? And if the former, then please expand in the text.

• They were both major factors to the Ottomans joining the Central Powers. I'll add that later today :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I believe this issue has been fixed now. Please check back to make sure that you like it :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• These ship articles always lead me wonder why were their name chosen that way, but rarely say it. Here it is obvious that is the origin for Sultan Osman I but I would still like a note here on when did this person rule, or what sort of role he had. As for the likes of Reshadieh I have absolutely no idea for the origin of the name. Since it is the name of a class, some indication should be given.

• I'll try to add some notes about the names if I can find them.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• For example Barbaros Hayreddin came surely from Hayreddin Barbarossa. If you can't find a reference for it, try to add a footnote at least with the Pasha. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• These things are generally addressed in the individual articles. I could still add them in but one or two names may not be known...--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Try to improve the caption for the lead image. It is really dry right now. Also, the date in the image page is listed as 1911. Nergaal (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Added the date. Is there anything else that you want added?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried to expand the lead caption a bit. I don't know if it is really better, so feel free to change/revert it. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support all of my major concerns have been addressed. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Per MOS, lead images shouldn't be more than 300px in general. "in total failure" is "total" strictly necessary? siezure - typo. "By the dawn of the 20th century" - very emotive, not very encyclopedic. What's a keel block? Where's Thrace? "4, Parsons" why comma? "She was scrapped on the slipway in 1914 along with Reshad-I-Hammiss" - you already said the Reshad-I-Hammiss was scrapped in 1912... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC) All you're comments have been addressed/fixed.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment.

Same table issues that were at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/archive1. To save a repeat conversation, a discussion can be found in my resolved comments there with detailed info on what the problem is (see also the list's talk page) and how to fix it. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Switching the abbr to mos does not work for the displacement and armament....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Displacement should now work following my request here. Main guns seems flawed as is "6 × 28 centimetres" is a bit ambiguous and could be a main gun 28cm long and 6 cm wide. Note the other list resorted to a manual "6 × 28-centimetre" style as it was deemed better (not by me). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the displacement.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I think the inclusion criteria for the list should be mentioned on the page since it excluded the Ottoman battleship Mesudiye. While I understand your reasoning for excluding her, several notable naval publications such as Brassey's Naval Annual list her as a battleship. It would be extremely helpful to the reader to mention why she is not included on the page (because she was a coversion), despite the fact that several sources list her as a battleship. For example Lawrence Sondhaus's Naval warfare, 1815-1914 specifically states that she was converted into a pre-dreadnaught from a casemate type ship.XavierGreen (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have Rambo's Revenge and XavierGreen been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, Exactly what i was looking for has been added, article is now complete in its scope.XavierGreen (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Reshadieh class: "However, Reshadieh was seized by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of the World War I...". Don't see the need for "the" right before World War I.
• Sultan Osman I: "the British government seized the vessel for fear of it being used against her in the conflict." Should we really be used "her" in reference to a government? I understand using it for the ships, but this might be a bit much.
• Yavuz Sultan Selim: "The German transfer of Goeben to the Ottoman Empire fulled public support...". Should "fulled" be something else?
• There doesn't appear to be anything citing the two footnotes.
• Since reference 3 has a page range, it should be formatted with pp., not p. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • All issues have been addressed save for one footnote.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 30 Rock (season 4)

Nominator(s):  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE), Staxringold _talk^contribs, and Courcelles 22:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Behind schedule and over budget, this is the nomination for the fourth season of 30 Rock, hopefully just squeaking in time to save the FT. Courcelles 22:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "8.4 out of 10 rating, noting it was "Impressive" and..." - any reason 'impressive' is in caps? I see the reflist specifies two columns, but I it only appears as one for me (I'm on Mac / Firefox). When I click 'edit' and 'preview' I see two, but not in normal view. Is there a fix? Jujutacular talk 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) First one fixed. I tried something on the refs, but on Windows/Firefox it made no difference. I've no access to a Mac, so I've no idea what you're seeing, but maybe it fixed the problem. However, per usual, the columns doesn't work when I try in IE. (And there is no fixing that.) Courcelles 23:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC) That seems to have fixed it, thanks! Jujutacular talk 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC) "With Avery deciding not to be his date at Cerie's wedding, and getting an unexpected visit from Nancy, results in Jack becoming more entangled in his love triangle between Avery and Nancy." Grammar seems a bit rocky here. Jujutacular talk 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Tried to smooth it out, see if I made it any better or worse. Courcelles 23:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Much better, thanks. Jujutacular talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks in order, good work. Jujutacular ^talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I see no problem with the list. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 10:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments good luck with the FT save! Infobox image caption is a complete sentence so needs a period. Done. Courcelles Crew section - do you need to repeat first names of producers (for instance) that you've already mentioned, e.g. John Riggi's second mention could simply be Riggi, right? There seems to be quite a lot of this sort of repetition. It's not a mandate, but usually once we've mentioned someone unambiguously, we go with surnames thereon after.... Fixed. Courcelles "deemed "Season 4" as " mildly confusing, perhaps "deemed the first episode of the season, "Season 4" as..."? Done. Courcelles "6.684 million" and " 4.216 million " seems unnaturally accurate for me. That's down to the thousands. I'm sure viewing figures aren't that accurate. In the UK we don't go much beyond the nearest 10,000 and that's with a population that's a sixth as much as the US. Well, the source does go that deep, but it doesn't match the rest of the numbers, so rounded it off to one decimal to match the rest. Courcelles "the United Kingdom (UK)" do you really need to abbreviate this? Nope, should have seen that. Courcelles "personal relationships due to a relationship-advice" not the greatest with such a quick repeat of "relationship". Reworded. Courcelles "Jack becomes infected with bedbugs " do people really become infected with bed bugs? Changed to "inflicted" as they're not technically an infection, you're right. Courcelles You link elitist, but not "carbon footprint" for example. What's the general approach here? Linked carbon footprint. Courcelles Do you really believe that you need to link Christmas? Unlinked Courcelles Perhaps add (EGOT) after the explanation. Reworked. Courcelles I don't think you need 30 Rock as a category since 30 Rock episodes is obviously a better cat and a subcat of 30 Rock. Removed. Courcelles The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, I've responded to all of them. Courcelles 19:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: "The next couple of weeks the episodes would decrease its ratings, until the season's eighth episode—"Secret Santa"—was the highest-rated episode of the season with 7.5 million viewers." which was the. Only issue I found, once fixed I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Cast: "the NBC network executive Jack Donaghy. Donaghy's...". Try to avoid having repetition like this from the end of one sentence to the start of another.
• "and Damn Yankees, the latter that starred Jane Krakowski." Don't like the construction of this bit. How about "and Damn Yankees; the latter starred Jane Krakowski." The "that" is really the problem in the original.
• Ratings: I still see "The next couple of weeks the episodes would decrease its ratings". I don't think this is fixed at all, and it's not of the standard that FLs should be at.
• Awards and nominations: "Alec Baldwin won up his second Golden Globe Award...". What is "up" doing here?
• Missing word in "including fourth consecutive nomination for Outstanding Comedy Series".
• Distribution: The Comedy Central link goes to the U.S. station, not the U.K. one, as seems to be the intention.
• Episode 7: "and appoints Frank the head writer, who enjoys...". The "who enjoys" part is meant to be about Frank, and "the head writer" is getting in the way somewhat. I'd recommend moving it before Frank somehow, leaving the name directly before the comma.
• Episode 8: "and a woman Jack had feeling for while in high school." Normally it would be "feelings", right?
• Episode 9: "Jack decides to break into her into her house...". Get rid of the repeating.
• Episode 17: "Liz forces herself to attend as many singles events...". I don't understand this. As many as who? Or as many as possible?
• Episode 20: "by having the moms of its cast and staff arrive and to participate in the Mother's Day themed episode." To me, it reads better without the "to".
• Reference 41 needs a PDF designation, like the one ref 38 has. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've worked on all of these, thanks for the feedback. Courcelles 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The summaries are way too short. They should each be at least a couple hundred words. Ωphois 00:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple hundred words? That would fail the NFCC by a country mile. Given that each episode has its own article, with a plot section that is around 300-400 words, the list keeps the plot information short. See WP:TVPLOT, and compare with teh prior two seasons. The plot summary is a derivative work of the show itself, even though written by us, and it is limited by the NFCC to absolutely no more than necessary. (And, let's face it, these aren't hard episodes to understand... more detail is readily available in each episode's article, where a better NFCC case can be made for including it.) Courcelles 03:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The guideline you recommended still says a plot for lists such as this should at least be 100 words. Take "Audition Day", for example. The summary is: "Liz and Pete attempt to rig the TGS auditions to guarantee that their preferred candidate (Nick Fondulis) will be selected by Jack. Meanwhile, Jack becomes inflicted with bedbugs and learns a valuable lesson about humanity as most of the cast ostracises him." This reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic summary. Simple details such as what lesson did he learn and why he is being ostracised need to be included. Ωphois 03:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Family Guy (season 8)

Nominator(s): Gage (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. As a part of a project to improve Family Guy articles related to each season, I am nominating the season eight list. I will try my best to make any improvements as they are brought up. It is largely modeled after the season five article, which was promoted to featured list status not too long ago. Gage (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Since it is a recent season there should be some sort of Ratings column in the table. Nergaal (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been opposed to adding ratings info to the table, especially since it is already summarized in the reception section, and is available on each respective article. I'm not sure on its neccessity. Gage (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see no reason to deprive a reader of information so easily include-able in the article, after all the inclusion of the ratings column hasn't seemed to of hindered other recent FLs such as Glee (season 1). Afro (Talk) 21:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Because I'd prefer to move away from this issue, I've added a ratings column. Gage (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose File:Family Guy Volume 8 - DVD box cover.png fails NFCC #8. I've amended the fair use rationale for the image. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) No, you've used a cookie cutter template. Why is this image so important to the article that we need non-free content to get it across? Using a cookie-cutter also runs afoul of NFCC 10. (Quite possibly 1, as well. "They made DVDs. They had an image of an animated guy on them." carries the same message as this image. (Also note that despite that guy taking up 60+% of the image, you've neglected to tell us which character it even is.) Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I've removed the image, since that seems to be your ultimate goal. Gage (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC) The plot summaries are way too long for a season article- the few I spot checked were over 150 words long. This is excessive when each episode has its own article. I've already cut down the summaries significantly, before submitting this list for featured list status. If you would like to provide an independent look over to remove some of the unnecessary details, I'd be all for it, as I am at a loss as to what else should be removed. Gage (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I've never seen these episodes... or even this show, so I would not be a good judge of what is important. Considering we're talking about 22 minutes of footage for each episode, though, it feels like each summary is discussing every plot point of the episode, instead of being a broad overview. Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I've specifically requested several times that people who have never watched any of these episodes, or this show to remove the unnecessary details, and they seemed to have had no problems. Gage (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Really don't think the DVD's are worth a paragraph in the lede. Done, but the volume 8 and 9 info should be left, in my opinion. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "Eight of the twenty-one episodes are included in the volume. The remaining eleven episodes of the season will be released on the Volume Nine DVD box set." 21-8 does not = 11... In general, though, this paragraph should be cut to a sentence and merged with the one prior. Three regional release dates don't all belong in the lede. Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Because I was instructed to remove the paragraphs dealing with two of the season's episodes being independently released on their own DVD. 8 in the first volume + 2 independently released + 11 in the second volume = 21 episodes. And I strongly disagree with your assessment that the regions should be eliminated, and merged with the previous paragraph. Gage (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

:Really don't think the DVD's are worth a paragraph in the lede. Done, but the volume 8 and 9 info should be left, in my opinion. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Reading the lede... I have no idea we're talking about television here. Done. Gage (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "Joseph Lee received his first directing credit for the season." Is this a complete sentence? And presumably, everyone that directed in the season had a first episode. Do you perhaps mean this was his first directorial credit for the series? Done. Gage (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I'm really finding the Production section hard to get through. It's long, rather boring, and confusing in places. Try to get an independent copy-edit. Consider if there's some stuff here that really doesn't matter and/or would be better left to the episodes individual articles. I'm unsure what should be removed. It largely mimics the production section of the fifth season featured list. Gage (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "The episode was inependently released on DVD on September 28, 2010, shortly after the ninth season premiere of Family Guy.[18]" Inependently? Spellcheck, please, that's not the only typo. Done. Please alert me of any other errors. Gage (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC) How many times do we need to be told Road to the Multiverse is the season premiere? Done. Gage (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Think about your linking. For an example, instead of "Both of these figures were significantly higher than those of the seventh season finale." containing a link to the seventh season article, which we've seen before, link to the actual episode's article. Done. I'm not aware of any other links that should be changed. Gage (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "On July 24, 2010, MacFarlane gave a live performance of the song at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con International," Do we really need the year twice in that sentence? Done. Gage (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I know the ratings for each episode are available, there would be a nice addition to the chart. They were unknowingly removed by another user. If they are removed again, it will not be because of me. I added the ratings after a previous user requested that they be included as well. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Are we a DVD sales guide, now? There's entirely too much information on the DVD releases here. Done. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 5 has an author available. Check all. Not that I'm entirely sold on using The Huffington Post as a reliable source, actually... Done. Gage (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC) FLC isn't PR, so don't consider this an exhaustive list of issues, but that should be enough for you to work on. Courcelles 04:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support Would really like someone who has actually seen the show to look at the episode summaries. Asking non-viewers to try to identify what is important in a season is not going to work well, as we do not know what became important and what was a throwaway padding scene never mentioned again. Courcelles 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Looks ready.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

*Is is "boxset", "Boxset" or "box set"? I'd suggest the latter but be consistent throughout (including the infobox). Done. Gage (talk) "As production began, Steve Callaghan, Alex Carter,..." no real need to repeat the first names as long as there's no other Callaghans or Carters in the section. I removed Callaghan's first name, but I'm not sure why Carter's first name should be removed, as he is only mentioned once, to my knowledge. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "as Quagmire' daughter" missing an s? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "received the lowest amount of viewers"-> "received the fewest viewers" would be much nicer. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "won and were nominated for " seems the wrong way round to me, after all they had to be nominated to win, so why not "were nominated for and won...."? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "as the "worst show of the week."" - you refer to six episodes, is this a recurring award, it's not clear to me. References seem to imply this but capitalise the title as well. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I see Goodman's image narrower than the other upright images, is there a reason for this? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Should Family Guy be in italics in Rizzo's quote? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "a remote that " could you patronise the Brits and say "remote control"? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "The test comes back negative" benign? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Vladmir -> Vladimir. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "that Miley Cyrus is having a concert in Quahog" just reads odd to me "is having a concert"? There must be a better way... I've altered the sentence. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "Chris the captures" missing an n. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "but when the monkey helps Chris write" -> helps him write. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "Cleveland left the group," sorry, I missed this, what group? I've altered the sentence. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "a Hispanic maid" -> "an Hipsanic maid". Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) " bachelor party. Peter then takes Carter to " -> party, so takes him to... Done. I think you left out "he" after "so," though, and I added it to the article. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Don't think you need to link janitor. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "research for the article, " what article? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "but soon back out" backs out. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "and Angela tries to seduce him" -> "where she tries..." Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "He tries a few different things" remove "a few". Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "he simply buys the kids an " -> "he buys them an" Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "Vader goads Luke to join the dark side" -> Vader goads him... Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "marking the first time an episode has premiered in the United Kingdom before the United States" is this claim referenced? I was not aware of the statement. I've removed it. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Rating sorts four ways in Safari. A user readded the ratings table, instead of listing it in the episode list, so I'm not sure your concern still applies, as I've reverted it. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) So does Share. Same as above. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Any reason for the bold text in the table (apart from the headings, of course)? Same as above. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 15 looks like it has a spare " Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 21 vs Ref 22 for inconsistent formatting of TV by the Numbers. And refs 66 to 68 look different again. Done with 21 and 22. Not sure what you're referring to with "66 to 68." Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) What is UNCCD and what makes its criticism specifically relevant? I've replaced the reference. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) IGN in the references is sometimes italicised, sometimes not, be consistent. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 63 is missing most parameters besides title. There are no other parameters that are able to be filled. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Is "television seasons" really necessary if you have Family Guy seasons (which must have "television seasons" as a super-category?) Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Would suggest a merger of the very short lead para into the subsequent para. Which paragraphs are you referring to? Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Second and third... The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Gage (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC) " Eight of the twenty-one episodes are included in the volume. The remaining eleven episodes..." perhaps I'm tired but that adds up to 19 in my mind, not 21... If you look at the previous user's concerns, I was instructed to remove two episodes that were independently released on their own DVD. Because of this, 8 in the first volume + 11 in the second volume + 2 independent releases equals 21 episodes. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I find it confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Well, I see no problem in readding the two independent releases to the DVD release info in the lead, especially since you're the second person to question the math. Gage (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC) It just needs to be clear, that's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I've added to the statement. Gage (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. I looked over the references, and was unable to locate anywhere that I had mixed the dates in the references, please point out what needs to be fixed. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, can't see any problems now! The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Production: What is citing the second and third paragraphs of this section?
• Reception: How could Family Goy have reached "a high for the eighth season" when it's stated earlier that the season premiere had the highest ratings, which the given statistics seem to back up?
• In the key, the second bulleted point has a space before its period. And why does one note have a period when the other doesn't?
• Episode 5: "He sneaks in backstage, Miley becomes Stewie's best friend." First, it feels like an incomplete sentence. Second, why is Miley's first name being used?
• Episode 6: "and introduces the clone to Brian. Brian...". Try to avoid repetition like this from one sentence to another.
• Episode 11: "Luke then breaks out of jail and tries to hide in the Griffin's home." "Griffin's" → "Griffins'".
• Episode 15: "Stewie finds an old script that Brian wrote, suggests Lois read it." Feels like "and" is missing after the comma. That might help the Miley sentence too.
• Episode 19: "Peter questions where Quagmire heard the joke and eventually find...". "find" → "finds".
• DVD release: Is the spelling of "Karoke" correct?
• General reference needs a period after the publisher.
• References 2, 22, and 24 should have designations that the links are in PDF format. The format= parameter of the cite templates is useful for this purpose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Co-nominator: Strange Passerby (talk · contribs)

The article satisfies the FL criteria. You may refer to other Olympic medal table FLs. Just a question, will credits be given to significant contributors to the article? Thanks in advance for reviewing, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose You should invite significant contributors to be part of the process, or add them in their absence as "nominators" (but it's best to check first). Not sure we need a link to "medal" to be honest. At least, not a generic one. Removed. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Would prefer a more imaginative intro so you don't just repeat the title of the list so you can get some bold in the opening sentence! Lede should be captivating enough now :) ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Avoid "see footnote", just use normal notes/references where appropriate. Removed. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Context - what edition of the 2010 SYO is this? Edited article. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Mixed-NOC needs explanation as this is, perhaps, unique? Explained. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The term is overlinked as well. Resolved. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Do you have a reference for the date of "dissolution" of Netherlands Antilles? Yes. I'm not sure if its absolutely necessary, but its there anyway. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Mildly unstable based on the 15 October 2010 announcement... Haha its stable as the table I feel. Only one actual "disruption" so far. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "for a gold medal[4] and a bronze medal,[5]" prefer "for a gold and a bronze medal,[4][5]" See Strange Passerby's comments below. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "in these events are bound to be swept by " sorry but I don't know what this means. See Strange Passerby's comments below. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Avoid "Refer to the main article for further information." as well. You've already linked this... Removed. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Just for some more context, how old are the competitors in this? Clarified. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Changes... section uses expanded version of IOC, just use abbreviation once you've abbreviated it. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Remove the overcapitalised title in refs 4 and 5. Removed. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. Resolved. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Refs 7 and 9, are they WP:RS and why is one a work and the other a publisher? Both are credible websites covering the Olympics. Used often by WP:OLYMPICS too :) In Safari, I got an error when looking at ref 6... Is is still there now? ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Re. RS: [17][18] Seems to meet criteria for RS. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Re. (old ref 6) ref 7 error: it's because there was a Google Maps app in the original link which webcite couldn't handle. The ref is from the text though. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Citation added for dissolution of Dutch Antilles. Overcapitalisation in refs fixed. Refs moved to end of sentence. Reworded mixed-NOCs events "swept by" mixed teams Refs have a single date format now. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment there is no real need for the second table. Just update the entry in the main table and add a note to explain the situation. Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The second table was added based on precedent at 2008 Summer Olympics medal table#Changes in medal standings. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I personally think it clarifies the change clearly. Whether the table should be removed because only one medal change was made is something I've no comments on. Fine either way. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Apologies for my clumsiness. I should have done a more thorough check! I have one issue that warrants its discussion here. Is or are the Olympics singular or plural? The recently promoted Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics (see FLC) had me convincing reviewers it was singular, and so it stuck. However Strange Passerby believes the Olympics are in plural form and not singular. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:ENGVAR. All our articles on Games in British English-usage countries use the plural. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay then. Which means I would have to make the according changes to Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics as well. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 10:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Don't think the bolding in the lead is necessary. Once you seperate the bolded items for the purpose of creating a better intro, it doesn't look that attractive to leave the bolding in.
• Medal table: the dashes in the third paragraph should either be made unspaced or turned into smaller en dashes; I recommend the latter for consistency throughout the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Both done. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose

"A total of nine nations – Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Jordan, Nauru and Turkmenistan – won their first ever medals at an Olympic event. Puerto Rico, Vietnam and the U.S. Virgin Islands won their first gold medals." Besides pouring over ~50 medal tables, what is sourcing this information?

• Would provide indendent sources for each, give me a day or two. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've managed to find sources – and add them – for Bolivia, Eq. Guinea, Jordan, Nauru and Puerto Rico. You'll have to forgive me but I'm unable to find sources for the others. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I have to oppose over unsourced statements, then. Courcelles 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Would a link to a search for all medallists from an NOC at www.olympic.org showing no medals be considered a source? E.g. http://www.olympic.org/en/content/All-Olympic-results-since-1896/?AthleteName=Enter%20a%20name&Category=&Games=&Sport=&Event=&MenGender=false&WomenGender=false&MixedGender=false&TeamClassification=false&IndividualClassification=false&Continent=1310290&Country=346682&GoldMedal=false&SilverMedal=false&BronzeMedal=false&WorldRecord=false&OlympicRecord=false&TargetResults=true 85.164.140.22 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:"The concept of mixed-NOCs was newly introduced in the games" Not quite- see Mixed team at the 1896 Summer Olympics. The first three Olympiads (and perhaps 1924 Chamonix) had mixed teams. Actually, both are different, which explains their different names. This has been roughed out thoroughly in Archive 1 of the article's talk page; and in fact, Archive 2 and the current talk page. A number of sources also introduce mixed-NOCs as a new concept in the Olympics. From the official Singapore 2010 website: " It is the first time in Olympic history that there will be mixed-NOC events." From the official Olympic website: "introduction of innovative events, such as the mixed NOC team fencing competition", "created especially for the YOG" ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Read that a little more critically. Events specifically for mixed teams? New concept. The idea of folks from different nations making up a team? Not new at all. They're different, though somewhat related, concepts. Courcelles 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I was unsure of it myself at first, though the talk page debate with other editors eventually led me to believe mixed-NOCs is a new concept. I will find time tomorrow to comb through the talk page archives to review what happened then; don't think I got it wrong, but we'll see. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 14:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I have now reworded the offending sentence. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Prose, "(202 gold, 200 silver and 221 bronze)" Table, "199 silver". Also compare 623 versus 622. Sorry about the mistake. I've corrected it. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC) not a mistake. 1 silver medal stripped. --Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC) You are right. Now I know why I thought I had made a mistake when I hadn't. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 14:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I have included a short mention of the stripped medal in that paragraph now, although the main information is still in the "changes in medals" section. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 8, why is this a reliable source? Ditto ref 11. Courcelles 04:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC) AroundTheRings (ref 8) has its own article on WP, and is well-cited by other news sources. And if you read up on Morethanthegames (ref 11), there is absolutely nothing to suggest its unreliability. If I'm not wrong, it is one of the top sports news providers in the UK. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Any response to the rest of my comments, then? Courcelles 08:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 07:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
{{{2}}}

• Support - I have no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 1994 College Baseball All-America Team

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is of similar caliber to the 1991 and 1992 FLs and the 1993 FLC that seems likely to be promoted. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I am competing in the WP:CUP and hope this nomination can be closed by the end of the month.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Image caption should comply with WP:MOS so "four no-hitters" and prose should be used, so "two-time" rather than "2x". Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "team" is mentioned three times in the first sentence. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "A total of 5 players " - five. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "unanmous" typo. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "The team included four future Major League Baseball All-Stars Garciaparra is a two-time American League batting champion" grammar.. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "All-star" or "All-Star"? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "per 9 innings pitched" nine. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "Cruz, who won a Gold Glove in 2003 in the National League, has led the National League in putouts as a rightfielder (2003) and the American League in putouts as a centerfielder (2000), but has also led the American League in errors committed as a rightfielder (2004)" - repeats of National League and American League make this sentence poor. I have abbreviated the leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Don't use "x" as a multiplier. Look at recently promoted discographies where they use another character similar to x to make the point. Fixed on all four (1991-1994) lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Retrieve dates (in fact, all dates in references) should be in the same format. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments – No need for two Jay Payton links in Accomplishments. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) In parentheses: "when he led the NL in wins with 22 and winning percentage .846". Don't think the last part works grammatically. How about "and a winning percentage of .846."? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC) De-capitalize Home Runs in the sentence following the above. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) "He accumulated over 1100 hits and 200 home runs." Comma needed for the hit total, I believe. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support – For the second comment I made up there, when I saw the fix on the page I didn't think it was the improvement I originally believed, so I tweaked it further (basically the old text plus some parentheses). Sorry about that. Anyway, everything looks fine to me now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active." Sentence fragment, and active where, exactly? (I know you mean MLB, but needs to be clearer). Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Adding what you did fixed everything. Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) "A total of five players were selected by all three" Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 16:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "Although the honorees generally do not compete together as a unit" - Italicized part appears to be redundant. (Won't mind if you keep this.) O.K. and fixed for 91-93 as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active in Major League Baseball." - Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd put a comma after 2010. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active in Major League Baseball." - Use present tense. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "The team included four future Major League Baseball All-Stars." - You may want to mention their names in this sentence. Perhaps along the lines of "With A, B, C, and D, the team included four future..." Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "Varitek is a three-time All-Star (2003, 2005 & 2008)" - Don't use an ampersand here. See WP:&. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Serial comma usage is inconsistent. Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "Hampton is a two-time All-Star (1999 and 2001), Gold Glove-winner, and five-time Silver Slugger-winner" - The and is a bit premature. The list goes on. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "(when he led the NL in wins with 22 and winning percentage (.846))" - The inconsistency makes this awkward to read. Put both figures in parentheses or neither. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "who was a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004)" - He's not a two-time All-Star anymore then, I take it? Perhaps you mean "who was an All-Star twice (2000 and 2004)". Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "was the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - The tenses again. He still is the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner, or is he not? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "He led the NL in putouts as a leftfielder in 2003 and in assists as a centerfielder in 2004" - Adding an in there aids the reader's understanding. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "but has also led the AL in errors committed as a rightfielder" and "but he has also led the NL in errors as a centerfielder in 2000." - Italicized words can be cut. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC) The table would probably look better with the hooks and dashes in the ABCA, BA, and CB columns being centered. Thanks. I did it for 1991 and then forgot to do it for 92-94. I have fixed them all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "POY – Player of the Year" - This key is used only once in the table and only in the notes column (where space isn't limited). Just write it out. O.K. But it is now inconsistent with the 1991-93 lists.-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC) I really think this should be changed back for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "Major League Baseball number one overall draft pick (1994)" - Source? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - Source? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Several commas missing in the notes column. Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Don't end notes with periods unless they are complete sentences. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Opposing for now. May also have a few more comments regarding the accomplishments section. Goodraise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC) These two are resolved as far as I'm concerned. I'm keeping them uncapped for the time being only so that I can reply to them. "Various organizations selected All-American lists of the best players for the 1994 NCAA Division I college baseball season." - The italicized part is redundant. Isn't it? Goodraise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Although All-Americans and best players are somewhat synonymous, many casual readers would not understand this to be the case. I think it is actually helpful expecially, since there are some specialized All-American lists such as Academic All-American or USILA Scholar All-American where All-American does not necessarily mean best player, but may mean something slightly different. This is strictly a best player selection and clarifying that is not wasteful, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. I'd like to note though, that I'm about as "casual" a reader as you're going to get. I'm not living in the US and I have virtually no knowledge of baseball. And seeing as both the page title and the first sentence make it clear that this article is about a team, confusing readers seems unlikely to me. Well, you probably know best. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "He has caught a major league record four no-hitters." - I don't get this. Isn't a no-hitter something you throw (as opposed to something you catch)? Please explain or clarify. Goodraise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC) The catcher calls the pitches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) He "calls" them? OK, I give up. As you apparently know what you're writing about and since the sentence isn't essential to understanding the rest of the article, I'll just let this go. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) In baseball, the catcher (using a system of hand gestures called signs) tells the pitcher what pitches to throw and in what locations. Courcelles 06:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Some more: "MVP" - Unnecessary abbreviation. Please expand it. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC) José Cruz, Jr. vs Jose Cruz - Pick one. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Why is MLB (sometimes) used in the table's notes column, when AL and NL are not? Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "but he also led the AL" - Unnecessary he. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think the accomplishments section would benefit from some sort of introduction, one or two sentences.
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by "accomplished college baseball players" and in what way are they the most so? Goodraise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I have tweaked this with "highly-regarded".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• The sentence "As of 2010, Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remain active in Major League Baseball" does not really fit into that paragraph. It also strikes me as odd to start the section with this. Intuitively, I would place ongoing developments at the end of the paragraph or section. Moreover, this doesn't appear to be an accomplishment in any sense of the word. How about removing it?
  • I have tried to clarify its purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Now I understand the purpose of that sentence, but the paragraph as a whole no longer satisfies "professional standards of writing". I'll try to help with that once I understand what you mean by "accomplished college baseball players". Goodraise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Is there a particular reason why the first column lists the positions? In a list of people, I'd normally expect the first column to contain their names.
  • The very first WP:FL I loooked at in response to your query (2007 NFL Draft) has names in the fourth column. I don't think there is any policy regarding this so I am just using the same format as the other three College Baseball FLs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Hardly a good list to compare this one with (draft picks vs team members). The three columns preceding the "player" column have no equivalent in this list. Not to mention that the NFL list places a player's position after his name. As for the other three college baseball FLs... In the absence of a "policy", you'd repeat somebody else's mistake rather than think for yourself? Well, leave it like this, if you must. Goodraise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I opened up three more lists and 2.5 of them did not have names in the first column. (List of Atlanta Falcons first-round draft picks and Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award, plus List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches sort of doesn't either) I don't see any reason to move this around and since the change will affect four lists, I am going to leave it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Danny Graves, who is a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004), is the only Vietnamese-born player in MLB history and is the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - Might be better to move his place of birth out from in between his baseball achievements, like so: "Danny Graves, who is a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004) and won the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award in 2002, is the only Vietnamese-born player in MLB history."
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• The abbreviation MLB is not being introduced.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Should be introduced on first occurrence. Goodraise 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Seeing as neither Jason Varitek nor Nomar Garciaparra appear in the lead, it would seem appropriate to mention their membership in the team in the captions. You might be able to avoid redundancy by using {{multiple image}}'s footer parameter to make both images use the same caption.
  • I think it goes without saying that the subjects of the main images are members of the team and adding the long team name would make long captions longer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Nothing wrong with having longer captions. As far as I'm concerned, they're too short. Neither of them "establishes the picture's relevance to the article" and they also leave unclear why you've chosen these two to be the only ones with pictures. For example, why is there no picture of Mike Hampton? It's not like you'd have to go far to get one. Goodraise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No longer opposing, not yet supporting. Sorry about the wait. I didn't find much time for editing this week. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Some of my comments may apply to multiple lists. Please make changes to those articles as well, when necessary.
• "This list only includes players selected to the post-season All-American first-team for each selector." No hyphen in "first-team"; it's not a compound adjective.
  • I am never sure about that, but I take your word for it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• "highly-regarded" No hyphen in -ly adverbs, see WP:HYPHEN.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• No mentions of the colleges played for in the prose? Also, Georgia Tech had three All-Americans that year (and not surprisingly made the CWS); is that not worth mentioning (not a rhetorical question, I don't follow baseball so I don't know if it's a regular occurence or not).
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• "(i.e., 1 – pitcher, 2 – catcher, etc.)" "i.e."-->e.g. (yes, there is a difference!) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have studied latin and know what these phrases mean. In this case, i.e. seems correct to me because we are explaining the prior statement instead of giving an example.

[edit] List of Buso Renkin episodes

Nominator(s): DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list since I believe it is also on the same level of quality as other featured anime episode lists. Criticism will also help improve the article for it to reach the featured standards. The sources are reliable and archived. Thanks for the time. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Quick comments I think Xebec (studio) is what you mean to link to (refs, etc.) not the Mediterranean sailing ship. Fixed. Per MOS:NUMBERSIGN you can't use "#" in "EP#" Replaced with Ep No. Where are the references for Title, Director, Writer, Animation Director? They're the same references used for the dates, I didn't want to spam the same reference onto the three directors since its messy. Can I suggest adding a "Ref" column then, and put the references in Aux4= (use aux4 not aux3 so it goes to the end). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I went with that so I think its fixed. Basically, these don't reference the Director/Writer/Anim. Dir. or if they do it is in Japanese. You are giving English names so the cite should be of English names. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I got the English names through the English episode's credits, I could source them directly to the episode or to their DVDs, which would be a better choice? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Is the information on DVD notes or the back cover?If so use {{Cite DVD-notes}}. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC) It is only found on the episode credits. I could add a Template:Cite episode to every episode later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Okay. Seems a bit strange, but I guess primary source is better than no source. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I went with sourcing the episodes to their DVD sets since they would be too empty with the cite episode template as the episodes were not aired. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC) This has come up before but I can't remember the outcome. The majority of this is WP:NONENG which states that they should include "both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote". So there may be concerns about the abundance of Japenese sources here. I added the Viz Anime website to the episodes so their contents can be verified for non-Japanese speaking people. I was thinking more for director/writer/an. director which Viz doesn't seem to cover. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC Yeah, the only English translation I've seen for them is from the English DVDs, I could source them with that if needed. No English sources of equal quality and relevance are available for the information otherwise. Per above, whatever is needed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Done this. Not sure what the precedence for this is, but I notice this is effectively the main article Buso Renkin (anime) as it is the only article predominently about the show (Buso Renkin#Anime is the only brief mention elsewhere). As such should there be a history of how the series was proposed, who voice actors are that kind of thing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Typically the episode list is a sub-topic of the article and there is only certain information that goes into the list article, the primary coverage is in the main article. Although the Buso Renkin animated adaptation is only specifically mentioned in that one paragraph, the article in its entirety is about both the manga and the anime. We can only really include production information if its available. --Kraftlos (Talk

• Takao Kato or Nobuhiro Watsuki need sources. They aren't mentioned (in English) in any of the sources.

• I might have gotten these from the episodes, I will investigate further when I get the chance

• Are these now properly sourced? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• They should be properly sourced with their DVDs now; they were found in the opening credits of the episodes.

• I find the themes 真赤な誓い, ホシアカリ, 愛しき世界 in the reference, but the transliteration and litary translation are unreferenced. The WP:NONENG rules are not clear cut as to how far we must go with this in featured content. Might be worth asking directors about this.

• The romaji were taken from the episode credits themselves, but the literal translations were done by me, I could remove them if suggested.

• I have sourced the romaji's with the DVD and could remove the literal translations if necessary. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• The same goes for all of the first production paragraph which I can't verify myself. Assuming good faith it is there in Japanese, but I don't really know.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• These might also be from the episodes and I will investigate by Monday. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I sourced them with the DVDs after confirming the names were on the opening credits. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• From a brief readthrough, this article seems like it's at the same quality level as the other FL episode lists. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Link Buso Renkin in the opening sentence (but don't bold it) Done Should you be consistent with italicising Buso Renkin? I think I got it all Consider linking "Alchemic" to something relevant. Linked to Alchemy In prose I consider leading zeros to be pointless, so avoid "04 October" for instance. I think I got it all "were later collected by Geneon Universal Entertainment" what do you mean by "collected by"? Reworded to "The episodes were later released in nine DVD compilations between January 25, 2007 and September 21, 2007 by Geneon Universal Entertainment." "The episodes use three pieces of theme music: " perhaps add "each" after "episodes" here. Reworded to "The series use three pieces of theme music" Is "Animation Director" really capitalised that way? Replaced Director with director Refs in episode titles should be outside the quotation marks. Couldn't be done since its a template so I took the refs out and placed them in the reference section under the general heading. "uses a Kakugane to " does that need to be a capital K? Replaced all Kakugane's with lowercase k. L.X.E. or L.X.E - be consistent. Replaced with LXE as dubbed by Viz. You link " in his great-great grandfather's" and " Dr. Butterfly," to the same thing, it's confusing to non-experts. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I've done what I can, I think I got most of it. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs)

Comments: The list looks to be in good shape. Here are the issues that stood out to me. Grammar issues Not necessary, but I'd switch "which" → "that". "That" is a stronger word that is more appropriate than "which" for definite statements. In the lead: "...Viz Media announced the release of the English dub which would be released in two DVD sets..." In EP 4: "Koushaku explains he intends to turn himself into a Homunculus with a specially made Homunculus matter which will turn him into a Human-type Homunculus;" Switch "that" → "the" in EP 4: "...to be that the monster from his dream..." Excess words (struck out) In EP 1: The second part of the sentence after "and" sounds like it is being quoted, while the first part is not. "These monsters are created from alchemy and that they can only be destroyed by specialized weapons..." In Ep 8: "While" in this case suggests that the two verbs should match in tense"...while Tokiko is given the task of protectings the kakugane..." Missing commas: Commas are necessary for introductory phrases and words (underlined). EP 3: "After learning that the Homunculus creator is a student at Kazuki's school Kazuki and Tokiko attempt..." EP 9: "However the twins are actually humans..." Commas are necessary when connecting two independent clauses (underlined) with a conjuction. EP 3: "Kazuki and Tokiko attempt to search for him on the school grounds but they fail to find him." EP 3: "A Plant Homunculus appears and prepares to finish off Kazuki but Tokiko intercepts its attack and kills the Homunculus." Missing "that" (underlined): I'm not sure on the grammar rule, but I believe that "that" is necessary after certain words depending on the usage, like describing dialog rather than quoting it. I'm not certain on this, so please double check me on it. EP 3: "...promises to Tokiko that he will work harder..." EP 4: "...Koushaku explains that he intends to turn himself into a Homunculus..." EP 8: "...declares that he will defeat Kazuki and then leaves the scene." EP 16: "...tells her that Kazuki will be killed." Pronoun order: I would consider moving Kazuki's name earlier in the sentence and them reference with a pronoun at the end: EP 17: "Tokiko manages to find his Kazuki's body in the ocean and is able to revive Kazuki him." Structure The "Production team" section seems more appropriate for an article rather than a list, but I don't see any problem with it being here. Images An image expert may need to be consulted on this, but File:Buso Renkin Staff.png is a non-free image of living people. Since they are not actors portraying a character, I believe this fails WP:NFCC number 1: "No free equivalent". As such, it should be replaced with a free image of the people or removed. Once the items above have been addressed, I'll be happy to support. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)) As for the production team, it was suggested to be added to the list, but if there's a general consensus to move it to the article, I wouldn't mind. And for the image, I'm having it checked out right now, if it is suggested to be removed, I'll remove it. Thanks for the review. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Support: my concerns have been addressed and I believe this list meets the FL criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

• Comment Have all reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about this. I'll go ask. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 04:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Kouhei Tanaka directed the opening and ending themes while Gyo Yamatoya composed the music used in the episodes." - a comma would be nice to break up this sentence Done "... he is killed by a monster after trying saving a mysterious girl" - trying saving? Done "After a long enduring battle" - wording seems strange, with 'enduring' describing the battle. Should it be "After enduring a long battle"? (I'm open to comments). Took your suggestion, I thought it sounded okay to begin with. "The Butterfly of Black Death" summary. Ambiguous use of "he" and "him" etc. Who turns into a Homunculus? I think its fixed. "having been resurrected by the LXE's leader whom is also his great-great grandfather" should be who Done, thanks "to return Kazuki back into a human being" - how about turn him back? Done "Tokiko and Gouta are able to defeat the enemy, Shinobu Negoro and proceed to search and regroup with Kazuki" - probably needs another comma before 'and'. Done I noticed some of the titles do not include Japanese counterparts. Any reason? The titles were presented in English even in the Japanese version. I could add a note if needed. I believe a note would be beneficial. Jujutacular talk 04:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I added a note beside the titles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular talk 00:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for catching the missed grammar mistakes. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - great work all around. Jujutacular ^talk 04:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, I see no further issues beyond what's already been fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Quick ones from the episode summaries... Episode 2: "that someone was using the lab to create Homunculus matter." From later description, it sounds like this should either be "Homunculus matters" (if more than more were being created) or "a Homunculus matter" if only one was created. Of course, you'd need to have seen the show to know for sure, and I haven't. Done Episode 10: "while at the same time, receives Shusui's wound on her own body." For a little better flow, try "while at the same time receiving Shusui's wound on her own body." Done Episode 26: "Papillion, uses his white kakugane restore Victor's humanity and the two begin their long awaited duel." The comma would be better placed after "kakugane", though this is a minor point. Done Decapitalize Human later in this summary, unless the capitalization is intended. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Done, thanks for the review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments late, so apologies, but some things: "announced by the release of..." what form did that take? Was it cinematic/internet/something else? Added internet before trailer. Second para is a little clunky to read. Lots of single-fact, stubby sentences. Consider merging a couple to make it flow better. Just tried my best to fix it, it should be a little better. "In December 20, 2009," should be "On". Got it. "uploaded weekly henceforth" not keen on henceforth, and since it was historical, shouldn't it really be thereafter? Replaced with thereafter. "for the rest of the episodes is" perhaps "for the remaining episodes"? Thanks. "coordinated the colors" I'm by no means an anime expert. Is this phrase commonplace? I was unsure how label someone who chooses what colour this and that object should be. Would be good to say where Salami studios is (I assumed Japan, but it turned out to be Hollywood). Added "located in Hollywood" at the end. Picky - table headings - Ep. No. should be Ep. no. (no need to overcapitalise that No) and Ref. should really be Refs. Fixed. "the leader Homunculus" would make more sense to me if was "the Homunculus leader". Fixed "using the lab to" ->laboratory. (and other instances of this) Fixed. "parasitic embryos that turn its host into" shouldn't that be "turn their host" since embryos is plural? Fixed "but they fail to find him" no need for "they". Fixed "intercepts its attack and kills the Homunculus" "and kills it" is fine, no doubt in the subject here. Fixed "turn himself into a Homunculus with a specially made Homunculus matter that will turn him into a Human-type Homunculus; a humanoid Homunculus" reads poorly to me, Homunculus is noted four times in this sentence, "turn ... into" twice. And no need to capitalise H of Human, is there? Rewritten "and declares that he will defeat Kazuki and then " replace first and with a comma. Fixed A number of uses of "proceed to" which usually seems quite redundant to me, e.g. "Tokiko proceed to defend the..." could be "Tokiko defends the..."? Fixed some, should be less now. "and is soon overwhelmed" perhaps "but" instead of "and". Fixed "is able to pierce through Bravo's buso" why not just "pierces Bravo's buso"? Fixed "accepts the fact Kazuki has become" just "accepts that Kazuki has become" would be tighter. Fixed Episode 21, "battle" is repeated three times in a single sentence, not great. Rewritten, should be better now. Note A should go outside the quotation marks. I don't know how to get it outside the quotation marks since its a template. Again, apologies for popping by so late in the day, but I think these are mainly trivial so shouldn't be too difficult to resolve. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for removal

[edit] Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons

Notified: RandomCritic, Urhixidur, Serendipodous, Wikiproject Solar System, Wikiproject Physics, Wikiproject Astronomy

Promoted some time ago, this list is showing its age. I've asked a couple of the primary contributors to fix the issues listed on the talkpage, but little has been done since I notified them that the list was "at risk". So, formal process, here we are. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Typical WikiSilliness. The point of the article is to present information, not to meet some arbitrary standards of prettiness dreamt up by editors with far, far too much time on their hands. The list is being condemned, inter alia, for having blank cells (e.g., in the image column where no image is available) and for using bold letters in what is claimed to be a non-standard way! The whole thing is ridiculous. RandomCritic (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the list on the talkpage contains more than just a recommendation not to have blank cells, e.g. failure to comply with WP:MOS (one of the basic criteria for WP:WIAFL), dead links, WP:ACCESS issues etc. It's not a condemnation of anything, it's an opportunity to improve the article, thanks for your input to the process of trying to keep our featured material up to the highest standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And furthermore the author of this nomination hasn't even bothered to understand the content of the list he's critiquing. "WP:ACCESS says we shouldn't just use colour to express a particular property, we need a symbol (or something which isn't colour-dependent) as well." But in fact the use of color is entirely redundant to the information provided in the cells: the Designation and Planet/Number Designation columns. You could monochrome the entire table and no essential information would be lost. I don't understand the purpose behind this entire rigmarole of a process -- for any real issues with the list -- e.g. broken links -- why not simply either fix the link, or make a note on the talk page asking to have the link fixed? Why does anybody think that this process is the first step to be taken? RandomCritic (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this subject so that's why it's here for improvements to be made. And yes, now you've added planet names to each of the rows without planet names in, colour has become redundant. Thanks for fixing the links. And as for this being the "first" step, you know 100% that it was not. I placed this "at risk" a week ago, (and notified you) and none of my comments (which I gave the following day) were addressed. This is the second step. And if the article is improved to meet our current criteria (including compliance with WP:MOS) then there should be no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The names I added are redundant; if you look at the Designation column you will see the letters "J", "S", "U", "N" indicating the planet to which the moon belongs. That information has always been there; I didn't just add it.

And no, putting something on an 'at risk' page which has no formal or official status isn't a "first step", it's not a step at all. You never linked to this page, so as far as I know it exists only in your mind. And you never produced a list of problems until I insisted on it; you put them first on my talk page, not on the Timeline talk page; and you never gave sufficient time for the editors to consider and discuss the problems (or, mostly, pseudo-problems) which you purported to identify. This entire procedure has been bass-ackwards from the beginning.RandomCritic (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can tell you feel indignant that someone would try to keep the standards of this featured list up to the current criteria. You were aware of the issues since 10 November. If you don't want to help, don't, but please stop filling this page with unhelpful rhetoric. I've tried to do this in a friendly, slow build-up way, but you just want to argue about it, rather than address the "pseudo-problems" (as you put it). If the problems are so trivial then I would imagine you could have fixed them in the time it's taken for you to explain what a foul-up I'm making of Wikipedia. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't linked to this discussion from the talk page. How do you expect editors of the article to respond when you aren't even letting them in on the discussion?RandomCritic (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Morning, just popping in before I fly. Actually, you're wrong again. The talk page of the article has a big notice right at the top, letting the world know about this discussion. Also, you and the two other major contributors were personally notified of this nomination. So, I think you need to re-think your point of view. And as for me not contributing anything of substance, well I suppose if you discount the 37 featured lists, 9 featured articles, 2 featured topics, 1 good article, 7 DYKs and 4 ITNs, yes, I suppose you're right. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Delist - just to be clear, this list's primary contibutors have had plenty of opportunities to fix these issues, but nothing has been done. Several other lists have gone through the experimental "at risk" process and improvements have been made accordingly. The advice here has been rather unfortunately vehemently rejected and treated like some kind of personal attack, when all it was trying to achieve was ongoing excellence in our featured lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues

Okay firstly get over yourself. There are some issues here and you were given adequate notice, crying about it helps no-one. The one thing you can hopefully change is standard of the list and, if so, there will be no problems in keeping this list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Massive WP:V issues.
  • Or "Metis" ref 63 doesn't mention March 4, 1979, its name, or the designation S/1979 J 3 or Synnott Voyager I, or designation XVI
  • Take "Puck", ref 75, same problems
  • I'm finding these throughout.
• The majority of the "lead" is actually a key. I'd make a ==Key== section for that info. Also consider using {{Col-2}} templates to reduce the space the colour legend takes up
• That would leave your lead consisting of This timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their natural satellites charts the progress of the discovery of new bodies over history. Historically the naming of moons did not always match the times of their discovery. Just provide some introduction. Influence of technology on discoveries, using imaging instead of observations. Issues with the naming not matching. Reasons and references.
• I'd consider moving the one 1950s entry into the following section. As "Early" and "Late" 20th C. are not strictly defined it might as well be split down the middle.
• "References/Notes" is a suitable header in prehistory when they are written about but for alot "Herschel^[xy]" isn't a Ref or Note. I assume this is who (or what) discovered it but I shouldn't have to. Try and find a more suitable header.
• The "Planet/Number Designation" heading is also confusing. Especially later when there is also a "Designation" column as well.
• What does "(Jupiter)" or "(Saturn)" mean? Is it speculated it belongs to that planet, is it that is just hasn't been designated a roman numeral (if not, why). Inform the reader.
• "January 16, 2007 (?)" – what is the ? about.
• Later there are some empty "o: ". Why?

The state this is in is not what one would expect of an FL and without improvements I would recommend delisting. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these are very sound critiques.RandomCritic (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion that those aren't "very sound critiques" is truly laughable. Do you think I spent half an hour making up problems to amuse me? More specifically, are you saying there aren't massive problems with the referencing. If so care to point out where the couple of unreferenced examples I pointed out are verfiable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

One entry into Rambo's Revenge's list, the insufficient reference, is enough to complain about. Your comment that it's not a "sound critique" is just... incomprehensible. It's not a sound complaint to point out insufficient referencing? Really? --Golbez (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the list is somewhat far from current standards, but could we NOT make contributing to wikipedia the opposite of fun? This lis more tricky that the 100th discography FL, so could reviewers care to have some understanding? Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware this isn't a "cookie-cutter" but I'm not going to let a sub-standard list through because it is unique. I have plenty experience working with unique lists so I don't really grasp why I'm being told to have "understanding". Furthermore, what would be the correct reaction to being told my review isn't sound. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist - It fails WP:ACCESS at the very least, but also fails WP:LEAD. Many of the references also don't use the correct reference templates {{Cite web}}, {{Cite book}}. Although an easily fixable issue a lot of the references seem to be formatted weirdly (examples Ref 6, 160, 168). Also not a big issue, entries "Epimetheus", "Helene" and "Janus" look to be unnecessarily over referenced. I'm confused over the Prehistory formatting as well it appears to be inconsistent with the rest of the article to say the least. Afro (Talk) 13:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Addressing some of the issues :
  • I'd consider moving the one 1950s entry into the following section. As "Early" and "Late" 20th C. are not strictly defined it might as well be split down the middle.

"Early"/"Late" normally means first fifty years, last fifty years, so there is little doubt where the 1950s entry should go.

• • What does "(Jupiter)" or "(Saturn)" mean? Is it speculated it belongs to that planet, is it that is just hasn't been designated a roman numeral (if not, why). Inform the reader.

Fixed.

• • "January 16, 2007 (?)" – what is the ? about.

It means we're not sure. What else could it mean? I guess it could be expanded to "(uncertain)". A note has been added in the key.

• • Later there are some empty "o: ". Why?

Because we have not been able to find those dates. These empty entries are an appeal to contributors to fill them in. I guess they could be filled with "(uncertain)".

How does a non-expert understand what a blank "o" signifies? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• • A lot of the references seem to be formatted weirdly (examples Ref 6, 160, 168).

I fail to see the alleged weirdness. Please explain.

Very odd (in my mind) to link to a known dead link (e.g. ref 6). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen a reference say "if an error occurs, go to this URL" or "freely available copy". Afro (Talk) 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The former case is because the direct URL will not work, for reasons beyond me; the workaround is unavoidable until someone figures a direct URL that will work. The latter case occurs because recent IAUCs are accessible by subscription only, but since this is a sliding time window, they will eventually be freely accessible. Urhixidur (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Entries "Epimetheus", "Helene" and "Janus" look to be unnecessarily over referenced.

Quite necessary: the references are all brief, and these objects took literally decades to get figured out. Urhixidur (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless the references are referencing different elements of the row, then there are many over-referenced items here. The time taken to "figure out" these objects is irrelevant to how they should be referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITEKILL. Afro (Talk) 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood. There is no single source that ties together the story of these discoveries: the series of brief telegrams referenced must be read in sequence to understand what went on. Urhixidur (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Some additional comments

• "found in Voyager photographs" link "Voyager" appropriately for non-experts.

Fixed.

• Prehistory section is almost entirely unreferenced.
• Typo - millenium.

Fixed.

• Other Designation in that table (a) should be Other designation and (b) according to whom? What qualifies for "other designation" in this case?

I think you refer to those cases where the column shows "nth Planet" as well as IAU-approved permanent designations such as "Saturn VII". The former designation enjoys no "official status" but has nevertheless seen extended use.

• Permanent Designation ->Permanent designation, similar for Discoverer(s)/Notes - make it ../notes.

Fixed as "...and notes".

• References 4 and 5 (and maybe others) are footnotes, not references, and should themselves have references.

Fixed.

• Ref 91, MPEC links to a disambiguation page.

Fixed.

• Ceres unreferenced.

Fixed.

• Same for Haumea, Hi′iaka, Namaka...

Fixed.

• Some entries have multiple names, e.g. Himalia, this should be explained in the key.

See the expanded paragraph. Does it address this point satisfactorily?

• Don't superscript "th" or "st" or "rd" e.g. 9^th per the WP:MOS.

Actually, that's in Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Typography; WP:MOS only bans superscripts from centuries and millennia. Fixed. (I don't like that rule, for the record)

• Is the Douglas Currie you link really the one you mean to link to?

Disambig page created.

• Same question for Aaron Evans.

Disambig link created.

• Reitsema is overlinked in 1980s.

Fixed.

• Cassini–Huygens should have an en-dash separating the words, not a hyphen.

Fixed.

• Can you explain how, for instance, ref 169 is definitively the first time anything was published about S/2009 S 1? Is there definitive evidence somewhere that ciclops.org is the de facto origin of such publications? Bear in mind we are non-experts...

IAUCs are definitive references, and this one just happens to have been mirrored on ciclops.org. Otherwise it'd be another one of those "subscription required" links.

• Avoid mixture of date formats in the references, e.g. Ref 1 has 2010-03-12 while ref 6 says 5 March 1656.

Fixed. (Although I would think using a more compact format for "access dates" is better; enhances their different nature)

• Structure your sections per the manual of style (e.g. external links come after references).

Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Urhixidur (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In a significant procedural violation, not this page but my talk page was linked to from the article under discussion. Accordingly the following material was placed on my talk page, from which I have removed them. It should be apparent that the fact that this discussion is ongoing is still only apparent to two or three editors (apparently randomly chosen) of the article.RandomCritic (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect again, as I said to you above, this page is linked to from the banner at the top of the talkpage of the article and has been done since the start of this FLRC. Please stop deliberately deceiving people. Gosh, this isn't easy is it? The people I personally notified were the top active editors in the article history, found here. Please don't fill this up with ongoing vitriol, just try to save the list, eh? And for what it's worth, you got exactly what you asked for. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The below is 6 revisions originally at RandomCritic's talk page which they C&P here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of Kylie Minogue concert tours

Notified: WikiProject Kylie Minogue, Underneath-it-All

The list was nominated 3 years ago, it has a number of dead links which I have taken the time to mark accordingly. I feel its lead isn't engaging nor is it comprehensive to define the scope of the article. It also fails a number of MOS guidelines, including internal consistency and MOS:TEXT. Afro (Talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the list probably deserves further scrutiny you could have pasted the urls into Wayback and fixed the dead links which only takes marginally longer than tagging them as dead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

De-list

• Aside from the dead links, which should be fixed, there are other issues.
• Image caption should not have a full stop.
• Intro sentence needs updating to match current standards (i.e. not "This is a list of...") and avoid bold links.
• "Asia and South America, And her first ever tour" poor grammar.
• "Her 2006/2007 extravaganza," bad year range format and very much POV with "extravaganza"
• "sold-out across" no need for hyphen. If it said "was a sell-out" then fine, otherwise "sold out".
• Lead is weak and needs expansion to meet current expectations of a featured list.
• Overuse (and unnecessary use) of bold in the notes for each tour.
• "Notable concerts" - what makes these more notable than any other concert she's performed? Pure POV.
• Mixed date formats in the references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of Indianapolis Colts seasons

Notified: TheHoosierState89, Manningmbd, WikiProject National Football League, WikiProject Indianapolis Colts

This list was promoted almost three years ago, and it has not aged terribly well. There are several areas in which it fails to meet modern criteria:

• The most glaring is the lack of references in the list. The lead is citation-free, and there are a few places where references are needed, like the team's background. Also, the links listed as references don't seem to verify any of the content in the table. Even if a Pro Football Reference team page link is added to cover the season records and playoff scores, the award winners will need citing as well, in addition to the notes.
• The lead begins with an old-fashioned "This is a list of", which isn't the most engaging writing possible. On a brief scan, I also see a hyphen that should be an en dash (99-29). Also, the notes at the end of the lead would likely work better as footnotes.
• Bolding is discouraged for text in tables; if the desire is to highlight something, italics are the way to do it without violating the MoS.
• All of the playoff scores should be using en dashes instead of hyphens.
• Per WP:ACCESS, colored items should be accompanied by a symbol.

It sounds like a lot of work to do, but I think the list is saveable. I'm willing to pitch in and offer a helping hand if serious work is being done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Update: I fixed the first sentence and removed bolding. Courcelles fixed dashes.—Chris!_c/t 00:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Added a couple general references that verify most of what is in the table. More citations are still needed, though. Oh, and "By winning Super Bowl XLI the Colts became the only dome team to win a Super Bowl in an outdoor stadium" is no longer accurate, since the Saints won earlier this year in Miami. Just noticed that after I added the refs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments - good to see folks pitching in to help with this and hopefully my comments will do nothing but continue the improvement.

• Would suggest an elegant rephrase of the 1953 thing so you say the franchise formed then, and don't explicitly mention "the list" as it currently does...
• Lead is wholeheartedly unreferenced. Most of this would be fine until I read things like "Colts owner Robert Irsay moved the team to Indianapolis." and "By winning Super Bowl XLI the Colts became the only dome team to win a Super Bowl in an outdoor stadium." which may be common knowledge to some in the US, but is completely mystifying to me.
• AFL is abbreviated before it's explained.
• Dungy is overlinked.
• "The Finish, Wins, Losses, and Ties columns list regular season results and exclude any postseason play"...
  • Wins->Won
  • Losses->Lost
  • regular season (referred to as Regular Season)
  • postseason (referred to as Post Season Play)
  • Work on that consistency.
• What does a blank "Division" mean?
• Notes are unreferenced.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed several. The blank "Division" is already explained by one of the notes.—Chris!_c/t 00:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of Northwest Territories general elections

Notified: WikiProject Canada

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's showing its age, but hopefully a few fixes and the bronze star stays:

• Very weak intro, no "This list.." etc, compliance with WP:MOSBOLD too is needed.
• No bold linking.
• Capitalisation needs work (FPTP).
• References - the lead, first para both completely unreferenced.
• Notes are really References, and they lack comprehensive source information, like publisher, publication date etc, and should really use {{Cite web}} or similar, where appropriate.
• Explain NWT before using it as an abbreviation.
• List of elections appears to have just one in-line reference, there are no general references, where are the rest cited?
• References "section" is just a maintenance tag.
• Two of the five ELs are not directly relevant, and the one with the date range should use en-dash, not spaced hyphen.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist - Lack of references to verify information. Seems to also be an inconsistent use of colour in the actual table. The table also seems to be formatted in a confusing manner. Afro (Talk) 14:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] List of Survivor contestants

Notified: Scorpion0422, Plastikspork, Gogo Dodo

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I found a few issues with current criteria. I believe these can be fixed relatively quickly...

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

*Don't start with "This is a list..." Fixed. Sole Survivor is capitalised, is this a quote? What is it? Suggest "Sole Survivor". Fixed. You say in the lead there's been 21 seasons, but I find it difficult to see, say, who was in season 3. The list default sorts to seasons. But, I went through and made it that it is now sortable by season order rather than season name. No, I still can't see that Australian Outback was season 2 (if, indeed, it was). I suggest season number vs location is explained or added somewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I see what you mean, but all of the Survivor seasons are better known by their location/name than their season number. It isn't like The Amazing Race (U.S. TV series) or Big Brother (U.S.) which are known by the season number. I suppose we could add in a lookup table like Survivor (U.S. TV series) has, but it might be rather ugly. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC) " one of the most popular castaways" any proof of that? Fixed. Colour alone is used to designate repeat contestants, against WP:ACCESS. Fixed. Key appears to be broken. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Fixed by Nergaal. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Captions need work per MOS. Could you be a little more specific? Using periods only for complete sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Names should sort by surname using the {{sortname}} template. I think its best not to. Most of these people are best known by their first names. So, to most readers, being able to sort by last name would mean absolutely nothing. Since the table is sortable, you need to repeat the wikilink for each row each time. (In particular, the Season column). Done. Mixture of date formats in the references is against WP:MOS. Fixed. No ref for note A. Why does it need a reference? The age information is based on the general refs, and they only include that persons age when the show was filmed. Refs 3, 5 and 6 lack publishing information. Fixed earlier. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC) CBS pages take an eternity to load and don't appear to have the title given here. Not much can be done about the load time. Originally, the contestant lists were different, with the given titles. But, the site was changed and now those pages don't really have titles. So, the old ones work to differentiate them. The list was missing one, fixed that. The HTML source for the resulting links all have the same TITLE tag: "Cast Bios for the CBS Primetime Reality TV Show "Survivor" - CBS.com", so I think the existing title is reasonable instead of having 21 references with the same title. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC) "Fairview, NC" is a dab. Fixed. The "200x in television" links all head to dab pages. There must be a problem with the template. No, just a problem with the call. Fixed. Courcelles 00:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion0422 23:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) What makes asapblog or realitytvworld WP:RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I have switched to a TV Guide ref, and fixed the captions. Is there anything I missed? -- Scorpion0422 20:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably needs renaming to List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants or just List of Survivor (U.S.) contestants similar to main article which would distinguish it from contestents on Survivor (UK TV series). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep and thank you for making the suggested changes in a friendly and professional manner. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Rihanna discography

Notified: JohnFromPinckney, WikiProject Discographies, Ericorbit

I am nominating this for featured list removal because...

... well, I was quite proud of getting this to FL standards 18 months ago. Now it's something I don't quite want to put my name to. I must admit, that my involvement in the article since it was promoted has not been great, but I'm always wary of being too involved in my promotions and try not to WP:OWN them.

What do I think is wrong? Well, it's gone through a lot of changes since its promotion diff and its current dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rihanna_discography&diff=394796874&oldid=273946162 (be aware, this URL may be a strain on some computers). Not that an article should sit stagnant, but I think many of these changes have neither benefitted the article nor kept it inline with the FL criteria. To top it all off is the reformatting per WP:DISCOGSTYLE and ACCESS that nobody has really explained. This was the main reason I wanted to nominate this, but looking deeper I've found plenty of other issues with it, too:

FL?#1 and #2 Prose and Lede (I'll bunch these together because it's practically the same):

* The prose no longer leans towards a professional standard. * There are frequent sentences wedged in via parentheses "It spawned the number one singles "SOS" (number one in three countries) and "Unfaithful" (number one in two countries)" is a stand-out example. * Sentences such as "Her debut album Music of the Sun had distinct Caribbean reggae rhythms" indicate either that the album has been deleted from the catalog and all copies in the world destroyed, or that somehow the recorded music has miraculously changed its style. * Take a deep breath: "It was certified multi-platinum in several countries following a number of re-releases and seven singles including the worldwide number-one hit "Umbrella" which became the longest sitting number-one single on the UK Singles Chart of the 21st century (at that time)." -- I can't say much about this until I get my puff back, but when did songs get arses to sit on? * "Other singles included the top-twenty song "Shut Up and Drive" and the top-ten hits "Don't Stop the Music" and "Hate That I Love You" with Ne-Yo." -- implies all three singles featured Ne-Yo * "Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded produced three more singles including two number-one singles, "Take a Bow" and "Disturbia", and the top-twenty single "Rehab"." -- Huh? Who? What? I fail to see how this sentence is an improvement on the original "In 2008, Good Girl Gone Bad was re-released and retitled Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. It featured three new songs, "Take a Bow", "Disturbia", and a rerecorded Maroon 5 song, "If I Never See Your Face Again" — all were released as singles." * "The album reached ... the top-twenty elsewhere." -- Where? * "top-forty", "top-twenty" et al, AFAIA shouldn't be hyphened, and whenever these are used, it's done so in a very misleading way: "top-twenty single "Break It Off"", (top ten in some places); "top-thirty single "We Ride"" (Didn't make top 40 in some markets); "top-twenty song "Shut Up and Drive" (top five in certain countries); and the top-ten hits "Don't Stop the Music" (number 1 in the majority of the charts we give) and "Hate That I Love You"" (top 20 in most of the charts we show) * What is "US D/E"? * What is "BE-F" and "BE-W"? Certainly not ISO codes * Why does GRC link to a non-specific page?

I have run through the lead and semi-rewritten it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FL?#3 Comprehensiveness: * The discography is including titles that haven't been released, and are therefore not a part of the discography * Is there a reason that component charts or whatever they are such as US Dance/Electronic are bulking up the tables? Just stick to the main US chart, like it is with all the other countries.

Loud will be released in two days, and if I remove it now some IP will probably add it back. I'll leave that for now. As for component charts, I don't really see the issue, unless you want consistency with charts (ie the same ten charts used throughout) like at Lady Gaga discography. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FL?#4 and #5a Structure and Style:

• I have no problem with articles complying with WP:ACCESS, but the recent changes this merry band has insisted that WP:DISCOG follow make little to no sense to many of us. They claim "an expert" told them to do this, yet none of us can communicate with this expert, and he hasn't come onto Wikipedia to state his case. Was there even a centralised Request for Comment on this matter? I'm not going to rehash points everyone else made, just link to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 14#Manual of Style Issues.
• The first point that Criterion 4 makes is "It is easy to navigate". There is an insistence for the proposed WikiProject Discog's style guide to be followed to the letter; however, recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Look and feel and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#New Style is Hard to Read highlight how this new-and-improved style is poorly thought out and is in fact not easy to navigate.
• Why are album and singles titles treated as row headings? They're really not headings in a traditional sense
• As I wrote this nomination yesterday, I've stricken these points due to what appears to be renewed discussions. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

* Is it necessary to plaster "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications" or whatever before each and every table? Any halfwit knows what they are. Bold face is being used in vio of the MOS, too. It's especially bad on entries such as "All of the Lights" :Urrgh, this new discography style drives me around too. I believe that the bolding of row headers has ceased now, though.... Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FL?#5b Files: * The current infobox image being used File:Rihanna LGOET 16-08-5-2.png, although being more recent, is of poorer quality than the previous one File:Rihanna-brisbane-cropped.jpg. It's in the wrong file format for a photo, it's blurry and all sorts of wrong colors. I know that "high quality images" is not a requirement, but when her style hasn't changed much between the two pictures, there's no real need to backstep.

I agree. Image changed. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FL?#6 Stability:

• There's all sorts of discussions scattered around MOS talk pages, article talk pages, FL talk pages, meta talk pages and no one is in agreement with these changes ACCESS are insisting upon, even with the best of intentions. Nobody likes them, nobody understands them, and applying them to articles is premature. It's not exactly stable.

I am willing to convert it back, but I will need some backing as there is a whole crew of the DISCOGSTYLE waving their wands left, right and centre. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, don't do that. It seems that concessions have been made on both sides, and FLC, MOS and ACCESS are now in somewhat of an agreement. I'll just strike the concern. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

• "In 2007 Rihanna released her most successful album to date, Good Girl Gone Bad" -- This should certainly be sourced
• The US sales figures I've never understood why they're now included. They weren't vetted in the FLC, and they can never be current while the albums are still available for purchase. Are we sure these are actual sales totals and not shipping totals?

* Crap like www.rihannanow.com and acharts are not Reliable sources

• Ref 55 needs attention

I know it might seem a bit pointy based on current discussions dotted around the site, especially considering that some have named this one, but there are plenty of other issues with it, besides the DISCOGSTYLE/ACCESS factor. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist You're right, the article totally sucks. In fact, <sarcasm>it should be deleted right away</sarcasm> (although I don't see what your problem is with ref 55, and you didn't say what attention it needs). <sarcasm>I hope you'll be nominating the other discographies that have been adjusted for conformance to WP:ACCESS so we don't have to look at ugly bold face headings for the 3 days it might take to get the CSS changed, or <shiver!> suffer table captions on tables. Delete it now, quick, before somebody sees it. Or, you know, has it read to them by their screen-reader.</sarcasm> struck by JohnFromPinckney 06:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already stricken any concerns with ACCESS and DISCOGSTYLE, you patronising little wanker. Care to address any of the other 30 points I raised? Maybe I've spent too much time on elsewhere, because I can't help but think of the phrase "Obvious troll is obvious" at this point. Ref 55 has three refs in one. They should be separate. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Itemized comments on nominator's points

• For me, the lede is about two paragraphs too long. It was even longer, until somebody did some pruning in the last month or so.

I once tried to address what I think is an oversized lede by trying to separate it into an actual, short lede followed by the TOC, followed by whatever analysis we had, but my edit didn't fly. Even better (IMO) would be an emphasis on the discography rather than the career arc or commercial success of the artist. There's an enormous and refreshing difference when I look at The Beatles discography. The intro there doesn't say anything about which single was the 12th number-one song or how many units were sold. And that's The Beatles, fercripessake.

• The text has been written by a committee of fans (which I think partially explains the difference I mention above), so not only is there a lot of new stuff added every week, for every release (or every rumored release), there's also an abundance of insert-it-here and oops-now-that's-changed. Over time, the overview gets lost. It needs rewriting by one individual who speaks standard English.

BTW, and FWIW, this article suffered from the attention of one fan-editor in particular who, while eager to contribute and aware of all the latest miscellany relating to Rihanna, had a poor grasp on the differences between an encyclopedia, a newspaper, and a gossip rag; had no idea how to format a reference citation (or when one's needed); and exhibited generally disorganised and unconcentrated behavior. The results were often sloppy, and my "contributions" to this article are perhaps best summarized as "janitorial". Also BTW, Matthew, it seems you notified me before anyone else, which is both appreciated (by me) and depressing (to me).

• I think "top-forty", "top-twenty" et al., are fine (correct, even) when used as adjectives. "It's her second top-forty single..." but "it's her first single in the top ten."

• What is "US D/E"? I suppose this is a rhetorical question, as it's linked, and you mention "US Dance/Electronic" five lines lower down.

• What is "BE-F" and "BE-W"? Certainly not ISO codes. True, but then, neither are SWI, GER, or UK. Would you like them better if they were "BE-V" and "BE-W"? Also not complete ISO codes, AFAICT, but close, and clear enough, no? Or would you prefer the official but lengthier BE-VLG and BE-WAL? Personally, I wish all the discogs used ISO-3 codes exclusively, but that's a task I'm saving for after the acceptance of WP:DISCOGSTYLE.

• Why does GRC link to a non-specific page? I don't know why, especially as there's an IFPI Greece.

• The discography is including titles that haven't been released, and are therefore not a part of the discography Do you mean Loud, the album due out next week, or particular songs or singles?

• Is there a reason that component charts or whatever they are such as US Dance/Electronic are bulking up the tables? Yes: we had the info. With refs, even. Okay, it's not a good reason, but that's why.

• FL?#6 Stability: Any stability problems on this article are not related to WP:ACCESS, to "all sorts of discussions scattered around", nor to your unproven claims that, "nobody likes them, nobody understands them, etc." The article might be considered unstable because it is constantly being edited by people who have little comprehension of or interest in the concept of verifiable references (and who don't know what an edit summary is). As long as Rihanna is charting and selling big, this page in the encyclopedia anybody can edit will keep churning random numbers in and out of the peaks and certs columns.

• The US sales figures I've never understood why they're now included. They weren't vetted in the FLC, and they can never be current while the albums are still available for purchase. Are we sure these are actual sales totals and not shipping totals? They're included because WP:DISCOGSTYLE suggests they be included. There has been some discussion about excising that suggestion but consensus was lacking on complete removal, so we settled for a downgraded mention with cautionary notes. The sales figures now shown in the article weren't vetted in the FLC from 18 months ago because they're newer. If you insist sales figures be always current at every instant, then you'll have to doing some loud arguing in more places than just here. Newspaper circulation figures would be equally unusable, like automobile sales for current models, video rental numbers for movies, population figures for coutries where people are still reproducing or dying, etc. The figures are what Billboard/Nielsen reports. They invariably say "sold". That doesn't make me sure, but it's what we've got.

• References are formatted with written dates and ISO dates, they should all be one kind Yes! MoS says date formats should be consistent within the refs (even if they're different from article text). Yet I see people consistently (well, often) adding publish date as, say, November 4, 2010, with an accessdate like 2010-11-04. I get the impression that the ISO style isn't even welcome here on WP anymore. And if that's the case, we ought to get a bot to go sweeping though all of article space. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's probably because most readers of Wikipedia are human, not machines. Despite your concern, though, ISO throughout refs or human-readable throughout refs, either acceptable. But no mixtures, as you've identified. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• You're right about The Beatles discography Lead. It would be nice to use that as some sort of template or example for other discogs, but unfortunately, I don't think that it could be replicated/rewritten for Rihanna's discography. I know what you mean about fans editing the article and adding information that shouldn't be there. For the first few months I tried to keep up with it but it's an uphill battle, and sometimes bringing the page here for review doesn't hurt. Why did I notify you first? Because you're now the number 1 contributor to the page, save for the perma-blocked User:Iluvrihanna24. I'd already guessed that most of your edits were clean-up and ACCESS related rather than content adding, but I wasn't going to notify myself! :p I should notify User:Ericorbit though. I'll do that after this post.
• If "top-twenty" is correct usage for adjectives, that's good. I wasn't sure so brought it up just-in-case. Yes, the question about "US D/E" is rhetorical, but it's extremely likely that someone else won't know what it is, especially an IP visitor without pop-ups and such. If there's a way of making it more understandable, then it should. In other discogs I've contributed to I use simply "VLG" and "WAL" to identify the two different Belgian charts. I'd prefer BE-V over BE-F, since the latter is completely made up. I also try to use the correct "SUI", but "SWI" ( and "GER") seem to be the preferred choices, even though they is incorrect. Some fights aren't worth taking on at article-level, instead leaving them to review processes such as this. I would also like to see ISO-3 codes be used thoughout the WikiProject (perhaps ISO-2 for UK and US), but I think "UK" is preferable over "GBR" because it leads to issues of people saying, "but the UK includes Northern Ireland, and Great Britain doesn't, and anyway, there isn't a Great Britain Top 40."
• Yes, I was speaking of Loud. If it hasn't been released, it cannot be a part of a discography, which is a catalog of releases. Before it is released, it could be argued that it doesn't technically exist.
• If we're to keep sales figures on the page, it should be made clear that they are correct to a certain date so that people using the site are not misled with information that they assume to be current. While the page is nominated here, it's a good time to check the references used, see if any can be updated, etc etc. My concern that they weren't vetted during the FLC is basically the same as yours at the link you gave. They're usually back-calculated based on certifications or based on shipments.
• It used to be that citation templates automatically formatted dates in the ISO format. That's been discontinued, and If I'm right, ref dates should now be formatted in the same fashion as dates are written in prose in the article. That doesn't mean they ISO dates can't be used in references, it's just that because ISO dates are rarely used in written prose, it makes it appear that they are out of favour. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep My issues were resolved. My only comment is the fact that the paragraphing is a little awkward. Good job fixing it :)Delist There are allot of "Citation Needed" tags, there are unsourced material. The lead isn't very well written and some chart positions and certifications are not completely referenced. Also, as per John above me.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with much of your demotion argument, want to distance myself from John's comments, and back every word of your response to him. However, further to the comments you have already struck, I'd suggest that stability be left out of this. The fact that a group of editors have decided to focus on one WikiProject (albeit with commendable intentions) does not mean that all of that WikiProject's featured lists should be demoted for failing to comply straight away. —WFC— 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, perhaps. After all, it's not like there are edit wars on the page, it's more from concerns being raised elsewhere. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• More on references:
  • Several dead links.
    • I believe all dead links have been fixed Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Failure to comply with WP:DASH in dozens of titles.
    • Where? Can you give an example? Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• As noted, bold captions fail WP:MOS.
  • MOS:BOLD has been amended Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blank cells are a no-no for me, try an em-dash in those ones.
  • Done Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• I take it, from an access point of view, that the very small font used to describe the image in the infobox is acceptable? We do have a bold link in the infobox "caption" which I thought contravened MOS too?
  • Sorry, I'm not sure I understand... Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Matthew has made a good job of reviewing the list in detail, but one bit of prose jumped out at me, that a particular release peaked in the top 40 of "most other album charts". That's some claim to go unreferenced

• Yes, and it's vague as to whether it means most other Billboard album charts, or album charts of most other countries. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Right now it needs a lot of work to remain "Wikipedia's finest". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist per nominator.--Cannibaloki 03:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist - There are a number of dead links and non-sourced material. Afro (Talk) 08:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to follow up at the users requests there are still problems with the citations, easily fixable they just need to use {{Cite web}}. Afro (Talk) 11:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:CT citation templates are optional, and citation formats may be mixed, as they produce the same result. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Though I agree its optional but it does present an Inconsistency with the format. Afro (Talk) 11:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems like the MoS/Acccess stuff was cleaned up. Besides that point, the current conversion to WP:DISCOGSTYLE should be no reason do delist the article. Candyo32 10:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment you do realise most of the comments are not about access don't you? Problems still exist, for instance, the three "citation needed" tags? The non-MOS compliant references? The unreferenced recent release? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have refreshed the prose and fixed several links. While the list is in no way perfect, I would appreciate it if reviewers could revisit and strike any resolved issues. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up -- OK, outstanding issues for me are:

• The WP:LEDE has increased in size to four paragraphs, each one dedicated to a studio album. If it carries on like this, there'll be yet another paragraph next month. Instead of detailing her career, which should be left to Rihanna, it needs to refocus itself to be an overview of her entire discography. I see no mention of any music videos, including her numerous collaborations with director Anthony Madler

• It's been reduced a bit, so that's good; however, it still reads like, "she released X, it got to A in the charts. Next came Y. That got to B. Z followed, it got to C." I don't know if anything can be done about it though.

• The article's references were checked when this was nominated 18 months ago. Now is a good time to make sure that everything is still verified.

• Has this been done by someone unbiassed and uninvolved with the article?

• I've noticed that a few chart positions been changed, so something's not right there. Either they were wrong to begin with, or they're wrong now.

• Again, have these be checked yet?

• "including the worldwide number-one hit "Umbrella"" -- quite a bold statement, since we only give a sample of 10 charts
• "Rated R produced the worldwide top-ten hit "Russian Roulette"" -- again, with only 10 charts to look at, we can't be sure this was a worldwide top-ten hit. Show me it is in Uzbekistan and I might believe you.

• Still there. We're only showing 10 charts, and while they may be number 1 in those charts, we can't say for certain that they were number 1 in all countries. Such bold statements need citations or rewriting.

• "As of July 23, 2010, Rihanna had sold approximately 5.56 million album units in the US." -- this figure can be updated and sourced to last weekend's UK X-Factor show.

• Hasn't been done yet

• A number of refs are tagged as dead or CN

• Still, as TRM noted above

• Not sure about RS-ness of promonews.tv

• Still not.

• MTV vs MTV News vs MTV.com

• Still in there. "Metro.co.uk" too, possibly a couple of others.

• References are formatted with written dates and ISO dates, they should all be one kind

• Still in different formats.

So there's a few things that need resolving before I'm comfortable saying "keep". Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the "worldwide" POVs in the lead. I can't seem to find an updated sales figure; do you have a link? Ref dates should be uniform now. MTV things are fixed. Some are from MTV News, which is published by MTV, while others are straight from MTV. Promonews refs have been replaced. I'll keep working on the other points. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No dead links or {{fact}}s any more. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative delist - some idiot keeps changing the order of the charts to put the US singles first...even though Rihanna as not an American artist. The vandalism takes too much work...this article is going to be a nightmare to keep on the featured list! (mikomango (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC))