Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to 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 must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those 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 another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. 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 in a timely manner; or consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.  – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

Nomination procedure Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any 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 leave a post on 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. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Reviewing procedure 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. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote. To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your 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. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, 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. Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, 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.

Nominations urgently needing reviews edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so: List of UEFA Europa Conference League finals (FLC) List of Billboard Tropical Albums number ones from the 1980s (FLC) List of cover versions of Coldplay songs (FLC) List of Coldplay live performances (FLC) Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (FLC) Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: List of Olympic medalists in figure skating (FLRC)

Nominations

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:09, 20 April 2010 [1].

---

List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the return of the draft pick lists!!! :) Built in the model of the many others, now includes sortability from the start. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment: "Jay Franklin" redirects to John Franklin Carter, who I don't think is the right guy. Mm40 (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Why the distinction for the one center fielder? Why not group him into the rest of the outfielders?
• 5 third basemen - should be five third basemen.
• in the states of California while Georgia follows with six players - I don't like the word while here. Seems like an incorrect usage of the word although maybe I'm wrong and somebody who knows grammar/syntax better than I can correct me. Maybe replace it with a semicolon or full sentence stop.
• No Padres first-round picks - Again, doesn't sound right to me. Maybe None of the Padres first-round picks. Same thing with the sentence after this one. Also, despite starting the two sentences with the same wording, one uses has and the other have.
• 12 All-Star teams, won 7 Gold Gloves and 6 Silver Sluggers - The numbers here should probably be spelled out like you did earlier in the lead.

Overall, a good article with just a few issues that I could find.—NMajdan•talk 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed, except the last one per WP:NUM (12 > 10). Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't enough of an issue to prevent my support, but I want to push back so I get this right in my future articles. I'm not familiar with your link, however I am familiar with WP:MOSNUM and while it does say consistency is the most important thing, it does say you can spell out numbers that are one word (like eighteen or twelve). While you're consistent with this instance it is inconsistent when the other set of numbers earlier in the lead is considered. But maybe that is going beyond the scope of the guideline. Also, still curious why the center fielder is listed separately from the other outfielders.—NMajdan•talk 13:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• As for numbers, I've always understood the style to be that numbers > 10 should be done with numbers and not spelled out and then all numbers in a sentence should be of the same format. As for the CF it's because the B-Ref page notes his specific outfield position (they almost always just say OF), and I didn't think we should throw that information away. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I'd still prefer them to be spelled out, but this isn't a big enough issue to prevent my support.—NMajdan•talk 13:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Three different states are tied with 5 players:" per what you're saying above, because you start with "Three" I would expect 5 to be consistent and hence five. "22 season career" 22-season career I think. "the prior off-season" preceding? previous? not keen on prior... Greene's second place in ROTY, is that cited anywhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC) All fixed. Greene's fact is cited by ref #4. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my comments admirably dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Nine of the players came from high schools or universities in the states of California and Georgia follows with six players." Should "states" be "state" here? Also, I think a comma should come before "and". Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC) "None of the Padres first-round picks...". Apostrophe needed at end of Padres. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Can the schools/colleges be made sortable as well? Could be, but it was purposefully left unsorted given that there would be no satisfactory way to sort (both locations and schools, eg). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC) The Khalil Greene and Cesar Ramos images are cutting into the right edge of the table. What size is your monitor? I see a huge gaping whitespace between them, and neither has a fixed size parameter so should adjust. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Figured out why this happens from another FLC. I have a widescreen monitor, but the resolution is lower than default (makes text larger). With default settings, I see the same whitespace you do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The publisher of reference 50 (USA Today) should be italicized as a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 27 April 2010 [2].

---

List of Jewish Nobel laureates

Nominator(s): Mbz1 (talk), Avenue

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of Jewish Nobel laureates. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria that provides interesting little known facts of some of the laureates. Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Restarted, old version.
• Note I have restarted this nomination, as the FLC was growing long with comments, and the status of and consensus on various issues was unclear. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure about this. It seems like a contrived conjunction of two disparate concepts and I'm not sure of the true significance of it. The list is interesting but, like other contributors to this FLC, I'm unsure as to the significance of this "criterion". I'm not being flippant but a "List of Jewish FIFA World Cup Final scorers" would be an analogy which would be laughed out of court (if you get my drift). What makes this (uncertain inclusion criteria) list useful? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Director's note: this comment has been inserted from previous version since it was made just a few hours before the restart. Dabomb87 (talk)

• Comment above issue has been addressed at the AFD. The fact that ~ 20% of nobel laureates are Jews seems strongly linked to the discussion of racial intelligence, The Bell Curve and so forth. By analogy, if 20% of the FIFA World Cup Final top 100 scorers were from La Masia, that would probably merit some discussion. Sandman888 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment not really. The issue was discussed at the AFD and it was pretty clear that many people have different definitions of what constitutes being "Jewish". Even the nominator, in that AFD, said "For all Jews being Jew is a state of mind". Also, I'm very uncomfortable with the heavy dependency on a single source declaring all these laureates to be Jewish. As stated in the AFD, it would be far superior to find independent sources in which the laureates self-identify as Jews. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply: I think you've expressed three concerns in your two comments, namely that: (a) the list doesn't seem useful, or its topic is not significant; (b) the inclusion criteria are uncertain or subject to dispute; and (c) the list relies excessively on a single source. Sandman888 addressed (a), and you responded by reiterating (b) and introducing (c). I'm not convinced that relitigating (a) here would be productive; the AfD covered the ground fairly thoroughly, and was closed as "keep". I have more sympathy with you on both (b) and (c), but requiring public self-identification would probably not be uncontroversial either. Beside a strong matrilineal tradition, there have been fairly compelling reasons not to publicly self-identify as being Jewish at various times and places during the last century, and external sources have not restricted themselves to laureates who have publicly self-identified as Jewish. I think Mbz1 addressed (c) in the previous comments, saying that another source had also been used. However this has not been made explicit in the list, so some improvement would be worthwhile there. --Avenue (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
      • This is now done. (See my comment below.) --Avenue (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Personally I don't see the point of lists like this which combine unrelated things. However I acknowledge that some people might be interested in this particular list. bamse (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think this list is completely fine as the Nobel Prize is the one of most prestigious award in the world. And categorizing the awardees based on race can be quite useful. Besides, we have a similar list List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients already promoted, so I don't see why this one shouldn't be an FL.—Chris!_c/t 21:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I just looked at this list again and I have to withdraw my support regrettably. There are several issues. Several refs are located below the tables, which should be in the ref section instead. Publishers in many references are not consistent. The lead is a bit disorganized.—Chris!_c/t 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral There are still nearly three dozen laureates who lack a source regarding their Jewishness (a WP:BLP violation in the case of living laureates), and I still haven't received a satisfactory explanation of why The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia, an illustrated book intended for children, edited by Mordecai Schreiber and published by Schreiber Publishing, is a WP:RS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again "The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia" is used only as secondary source. Jewishness of all and each and every individual, who are included in the list confirmed by at lest one reliable source, but "The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia". --Mbz1 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia (reference 23) is cited nearly 130 times—in nearly every instance, it's the only source that attests to a laureate's Jewish heritage. So (a) what makes The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia a WP:RS and (b) where are the sources for the other three dozen laureates' Jewish heritage? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As was said many times before the main source for making the list was this site. It is referenced in the beginning of the list, where the number of Laureates is discussed. This site provides at least one reliable source for each Laureate to confirm his/her Jewishness. There was simply no use to add the same reference to every name on the list. That's why the Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia is just a secondary source. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose According to Mbz1's comment, the reference for the Jewish ethnicity of the laureates is hidden in the lede (footnote 3), and footnote 23, the children's encyclopedia that is cited 130 times, is merely a "backup" source. In my opinion this doesn't satisfy the citation requirement of a featured list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually nothing is hidden. I simply said that I see no reason to mention the same reference for every entry. Let's for example take this featured list. There's no reference for every name is added. The same is the situation with most other featured lists.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If that were a list of "Buddhist winners of the Golden Melody Awards", it should have references that verify that each member of the list is a Buddhist, and this list should have references that verify that each laureate is Jewish. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It does have a reference for every entry. The references is added to the beginning of the list versus to the every entry. If you believe it should be added to every entry, I will. It is just a matter of formatting the list, and there's no reason for "opposing" because of that. Besides I see nothing wrong with children encyclopedia either. Of course it is a reliable source on its own, or at least as reliable as other published encyclopedias.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the relevant citation to each entry. The list now has very detailed citations compared to similar featured lists like the List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients, List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients, and List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients. In particular, every entry now has an inline citation for the award's rationale and for the recipient being Jewish. --Avenue (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also added the references to the headrs of most sections.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Thank you, Avenue. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Use a proper template for sources. Include publisher, accessdate and so on for all sources (accessdate only for online sources). Sandman888 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments - the headings are now all broken, column widths differ from section to section, refs ideally in numerical order please, no spaced hyphens (make them en-dashes per WP:DASH), lead has far too many small paragraphs, and the quotes break it up further, to its detriment. No lead image? Don't mix date formats in the references... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Sandman888 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• I've went ahead and fixed the headings, thought it was a browser thing. If it's not, I can't understand why you didn't change it back when you saw them mixed up.
• The lead, I think, should reflect why the list is important, i.e. discuss Jews and their over representation amongst laureates and who else has done so, not just say this Jew had a rought time, and btw. the nobel prize is this and that. This is my main opposition. I think the lead should be completely re-written.
• If you make a distinction between Economics and the rest, note that the Peace prize is also qualitatively different as it is awarded by the Norwegian parliament, not the Swedish academy. This shd be noted if you continue the focus on what a nobel prize is.

Thank you for your comment, and for fixing the mess I have done. I did not notice that. Would you care to re-write the lead and share it with us at the article talk page maybe? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not. Sandman888 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The subject is very notable, and the source of Mbz1 does seem reliable enough and cites more sources. Broccoli (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose due to several outstanding issues, and because it appears that some editors are voting support out of some form of principle rather than by actually reviewing the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support This subject is of immense interest to many as similar lists can be found at Jewish Virtual Library,Israel Science and Technology Homepage,Jewish Biography site- About.com also has a list: [3]. If you Google it there are many many hits. Now I realize that sometimes some people use such a list to gloat over the fact that other ethnicities maybe don't have so many prizewinners, or use it against Jews to claim that the Jews control the Nobel Prize along with the rest of the world's institutions (I've seen both) but neither of those things is not what this is about. WP is not about what is done with the information we present, it is about the information. The intriguing point, as Mbz1 has pointed out and as the About.com link points out "Of the 750 Nobel Prizes awarded worldwide between 1901 and 2007, at least 162 were awarded to Jews. While Jews are approximately 0.25% of the world's population, Jews make up approximately 22% of all Nobel Prize laureates worldwide. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellarkid (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, Stellarkid, you do realize that we're discussing whether the list "exemplifies our very best work", not whether the subject is notable? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everyone in the list is Jewish, there is no original researche regarding Jewishness here. This kind of lists is many time the hardest to verified according to WP criterions, however this list do it well. The subject itself is very very interesting for many people and it's a very frequently watched list. So, it deserve to be featured. And as for WP:WIAFL- I came over the article, the list do seem to meet it fully. Conditional Support: The article is good and important but need further work to become completly tidy-as the The Rambling Man mentioned--Gilisa (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't meet our standards. There are problems with many of the reference formats, there are references just floating in mid-air, the column widths vary from section to section making it look very untidy, refs are out of order. These are all very basic issues. People who are already supporting this list in its current state should refamiliarise themselves with our criteria and current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose pending resolution of the technical points re refs etc. Please nudge me when these are resolved and I will take another look. --Dweller (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What's the status on the various concerns listed by reviewers above? This list has not been edited in a week. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I stand by my oppose. Concerns have not been adressed. Sandman888 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:27, 17 April 2010 [4].

---

List of Major League Baseball wins champions

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The onslaught from WP:MLB continues (slowly). This is the second installment of the pitching half of the forthcoming featured topic candidate on the Triple Crown. Everything to be addressed as speedily as possible. I am, humbly and as always, grateful to all who take time to review an article that I have worked on. Cheers to you all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and external links, and contributors all check out fine. The Jake Peavy image needs alt text. Is this a literal 'championship'? Because I don't see the sources say it is, or is it more of a feat? Lead Is it possible to link and/or spell out the ERA acronym? Per WP:MOSNUM, don't start off sentences with digits. Such as 16 wins is the largest ... Ties for the win championship are common, the most recent coming in the American League in 2009. -- wouldn't it be from instead of in? Im a bit confused by this sentence, if you may explain to me since I'm not a basebally expert. "16 wins is the largest margin of victory in the American League—Ed Walsh notched 40 wins in 1908," References Very heavy reliance on the Baseball-reference, are there not other refs that can verify the same information?--Truco 503 19:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Replies to Truco: This isn't an award, in that a trophy is presented or anything like that, but it is generally recognized as a competition and "champion" is generally the term used for the leader at the end of the season. Alt text is no longer a requirement, but I'll get to it eventually. I'm not sure which "in" you're referring to, but both of the ones in the sentence you reference are grammatically correct. ERA acronym is done. As to the margin of victory, the basic meaning is that the leader had X wins, and the second-place finisher(s) had Y wins. The margin of victory is X minus Y. I don't know if we have an article on margin of victory or not to link to. Yes, there's a heavy reliance on Baseball-Reference, and there might be other sources out there, but it's the most reliable that I have found for absolutely any baseball information that's out there, and it's the best source we have available to us by a long shot. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Well we have one (Margin of victory), but its more about American football. All issues, resolved.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be better to arrange pitchers by date first instead of by league? It would make the list one single table. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 19:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe so, for several reasons: we're not trying to make a single table, as the championship is awarded separately in each league (the "other leagues" were combined simply to make it more succinct); and to maintain consistent formatting across the articles in this series. In some years, winning the championship in one league is much different from the other based on the dynamics of the offense and the pitching in each league in any given season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, makes sense, looking at it and other lists. My only other comment would be that the list of inline citations is very long: about 25% the length of the article/page in my browser. Is there a way to reduce that length through an autohide feature, or by using the citation for the next page level up, say this instead? —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 23:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• No to both; MOS forbids hiding citations, and the higher-level citations don't show runners-up. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "with 8 win championships " why not eight? "8 wins... in 21 seasons". If that's wrong, I'll change it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) You abbreviate ERA but not AL, NL etc which you use far, far more often. Any reason? Because I think that AL and NL look very sloppy when used over and over again in prose. In truth, the only reason I abbreviate ERA is because it's the much more common way to speak about the statistic; saying "ERA" as ee-ar-ay is more prevalent than someone saying earned run average. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Runner-up can be multiple so should be Runner(s)-up. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) In the key, "Player with the second-best ERA in the league" -really? Not second-highest number of wins? Ummmmmm... I'm dumb. That's the only explanation! :-D KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Leader would be better of as "Champion(s)" (since this is about "champions") While I'm not particularly a fan of the change, it's done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) "pitching triple crown" what's one of those? And is it cited? The link to Major League Baseball Triple Crown and Tommy Bond's caption both explain it; it should be sufficient here as explanation since it's a caption and should be succinct. I'll hunt up a cite for Peavy when I get home today if needed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Phil Niekro's article says he was inducted into the HOF... Just missed one, I think. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 158 needs an en-dash rather than a hyphen. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my comments addressed. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• American League table: 1942 runner-up Thornton Lee is listed as having 222 wins. How his team didn't beat out the Yankees for the pennant, I will never know. :-)

• Yikes, good catch, though I think you meant '41. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Five of the images—McGinnity, Peavy, Webb, Lee and Sabathia—are cutting off the right edge of the table.

• I don't see this happening in either IE or Firefox on a small resolution at work, and I built the table on my laptop at home without any issues like this either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• For me, it occurs on a widescreen monitor with IE, but my resolution is at a lower level than default settings (makes the writing larger). If resolution is put at its default setting, the images fit fine. I'm marking this as resolved, and perhaps this explains why I'm often the only one who sees formatting oddities. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Charles Radbourne and Eddie Cicotte images are both lacking some type of source that would prove public domain status. (The Radbourne image page says it's from the Hall of Fame, but I'm not sure their photos are really PD anyway) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Commented out for now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Note that for a few of the images, I added/improved their source links, because I know how much of a hassle such issues can be. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, sorry for not weighing in earlier. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:21, 6 May 2010 [5].

---

List of National Parks of the United States

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list of America's 58 National Parks complete with dates, areas, and descriptions. Some of the description lengths are different, so tell me if you want more for certain ones. There are some statistics and history in the lead, but I am happy to research something else. Completely my own work, it's based on my previous FL List of National Monuments of the United States, though my record is a little better, having been to 8 of them. (Wikicup) Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Check the disambigs. Done. Thanks The conversions are missing from the acreage amounts in the lead. 100-mile - Needs the parenthetical conversion. 489 m & 4000 feet long - Again, needs the conversion. I think the last paragraph needs to be reworked. There is no need to say "they are listed here" with here being wikilinked; the link should be worked into the sentence more directly. Changed the first one. I think the second is more like a see also at the top and I can't think of a better way that is still obviously pointing to related article. US-Mexico border - Should be an en dash per WP:DASH. Done

• No alt text. I believe this is no longer an FL requirement, but I just wanted to point it out just in case.
  • I believe that is correct.
• Several more instances of measurements needing the parenthetical conversion (beyond the ones above) per WP:UNITS.
  • Conversions added
    • Didn't quite get them all: 51 million acres, for an average of 895 thousand acres but a median of 317 thousand acres.; bad template usage in "Capitol Reef"; 489 m.—NMajdan•talk
      • Got it, thanks.
• The reference for American Samoa doesn't make any mention of it being the southernmost national park.
• The reference for Biscayne doesn't mention any of the threatened animals.
• The reference for Bryce Canyon doesn't back up the settlement sentence nor does it mention hoodoos.
• Going through the references for the first several entries showed a lot of inconsistencies between the descriptions and what is actually verified by the source. I suggest you go back through and verify all of what you say in the descriptions is correctly sourced. I will continue my review after this is done.

This has the potential to be a good list and a meaningful one for the project. However, I am going to have to withhold my support for now until the sourcing issues are resolved.—NMajdan•talk 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All references are to the main NPS page for the park. Information is sourced either from that homepage or in its subpages (History & Culture and Science & Nature). All of your examples are also in those subpages but the identical link is not repeated. Reywas92^Talk 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I really don't know what the policy is in that situation. I would assume every statement needs an accurate citation so all of those sub-pages would need to be cited. However, I'd like to get input from other reviewers before asking you to do that.—NMajdan•talk 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I did the same thing in my previous FL. I just don't think it makes any sense to have one link for some parks to the main park page but many repetitive links for others even though it's all to the same small set of subpages. In this case the source link to the park home represents the History and Science subpages as well. Reywas92^Talk 19:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. I still have a bit of a problem with the references, but since I can't find this method to be in violation of any MoS guideline, I have no other reason not to support.—NMajdan•talk 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 18:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Why is 'National Park' capitalized? 'National park' is a common noun, although each individual national park is undoubtedly a proper noun.
  • Changed
    • The title of the list still uses caps. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • In this case it's proper like United States National Park. It's consistent with FL List of National Parks of Canada.Reywas92^Talk 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
        • You are confusing me. You agree that 'national park' is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized in the prose, but insist that it should be in the title. As you pointed out, it is inconsistent with the FL List of national parks of Sweden. Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What do you mean by "it's proper like United States National Park"? Is that an institution? Of course every individual national park is a proper noun, and the United States National Park Service (an organization) is a proper noun, but when referred to as a collective group, 'national park' becomes a common noun. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Otherstuffexists is for deletion arguments, not consistency comparisons. In the US, all 392 areas of the National Park System are considered national parks, as they are federally-owned parks run by the National Park Service. While that would be just a common noun, each of these 58 is a United States National Park, capitalized to indicate that these are the official National Parks, not just national parks. For this reason I think parts of the lead should be re-capitalized. Reywas92^Talk 22:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
            • I do not follow your reasoning here. As I see it now, I feel the article should not be promoted, but you insist on your view. Perhaps other reviewers have an opinion on the matter? If not, I will tend towards an oppose. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Opposing based solely on this minor point seems a bit harsh. That's just my opinion, of course. Anyway, I think it is very difficult to decide in this case. The park system is called United States National Park, so based on that, the current name seems fine to me. But Arsenikk did have a point, too. So, I don't really know what to do in this case.—Chris!_c/t 01:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
              • I do not really know who is right here, but I want to note that all other lists of national parks in US are capitalized. On the other hand, in the category's title "national parks" are not capitalized. Probably there is some reason why they named such. Renaming this list would mean making titles of the lists inconsistent. This issue should be discussed separately from this review, because it is beyond its scope. Either all lists should be renamed or none. Ruslik_Zero 08:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
                • The U.S. Department of the Interior, on its website, capitalizes terms like "National Park Service" and names like "Yellowstone National Park", but when referring to the parks as a whole or a group, the term "national park" is not capitalized. See here for an example. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • Based on the link provided by KV5, looks like Arsenikk was right. So, I think this article should be renamed.—Chris!_c/t 17:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
      • That's because that link refers to national parks in general, not the just the 58 National Parks. The new quarters program has National Parks, National Historical Parks, and other designations, including some that are not even NPS. I have seen both usages elsewhere, but in my opinion, with the ambiguity of park terminology this should be capitalized to distinguish this type. Anyway, I can't move the page because there's a redirect in the way, so if everyone else wants it lowercase someone else will have to move the article. Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Early in the lead, there is a section of a few sentences where the term 'National Park' is repeated almost endlessly: "...National Parks. All National Parks are operated by the National Park Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior. National Parks must be established by an act of the United States Congress. The first National Park...".
  • I'm not really sure what to say; I think "national" must be there to distinguish from any generic park.
    • Try using terms like "it", "they" etc, or try restructuring the information. It's okay, just not featured-standard prose. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll try to work on it. Reywas92^Talk 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• The sentence "Alaska and California, each with eight, have the largest number of National Parks, followed by Utah with five and Colorado with four." provides first a number and then explains the number. This forces the reader to guess the end of the fragment.
  • Changed
• Once one reaches the millions, is it not common to use square miles instead of acres?
  • My source had it in acres though I can convert it if you really want.
• Why is the metric area provided at a different significance than the imperial?
  • The acreage is exactly what my source says. I do not think the km2 needs to be drawn to four decimal places.
    • If the source uses it, it must be okay, I guess. I'm just concerned about the poor people who have to convert from acres to sq mi (us metric users have it easy converting from ha to km². Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• I would have said all the claims in the descriptions need to be referenced, although I think a bulk referencing (all at the end) for each entry would suffice. (per NMajden above)
• Some animals are listed in singular, others in plural.
  • I have made them more consistent; some sets refer to the animals in general and others to the species
• 'Tributaries' is an uncommon enough word that it should be wikilink.
  • Changes
• 'Chihuahuan Desert' and 'Rattlesnake Springs' should be wikilinked.
  • Relinked former, latter does not have article
• 'Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park' should probably have an endash, since it is a disjunction between two parks.
  • Changed
• In Grand Canyon, be consequent in using digits or words within a sentence.
  • Changed, though "a mile" is only an approximation and isn't quite "1 mile".
• Values in Great Sand Dunes description need to be converted
  • Changed
• "The only area accessible by road is Exit Glacier, while the rest is viewed by boat tours." sounds a bit awkward. Perhaps "while" is the wrong word?
  • Changed
• In the Mammoth Cave description, there is a missing { or }.
  • Changed

Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks! Sorry about the delay, I was on vacation last week. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose for the following reasons:

• A few national monuments are no longer designated as such, having been redesignated or disbanded. I find this sentence strange. Why does it talk about monuments? The article is about parks, not monuments. Can it be a typo (monuments -> parks)?
  • Fixed.
• In a desert climate millions of years of erosion have led to these structures, while the ground has life-sustaining soil crust and potholes. Sorry, I do not understand the last clause in this sentence. Please, clarify.
  • Clarified
    • I still do not understand, what is "life-sustaining soil crust and potholes, natural water-collecting basins". How are potholes in the ground connected to arcs? Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Changed. They are just other features the park has.
• It has the world's richest fossil beds from the Oligocene epoch and wildlife including bison, bighorn sheep, black-footed ferrets, and swift foxes why some animals are plural and some single? The sentence should also be split in two.
  • They are all plural. The plural of bison is bison. Fixed
• Named for the Bend of the Rio Grande along the US–Mexico border, this park has part of the Chihuahuan Desert, ancient fossils, and cultural artifacts of Native Americans. I suggest a split: "Named for the Bend of the Rio Grande along the US–Mexico border, this park includes a part of the Chihuahuan Desert. A wide variety of Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils as well as cultural artifacts of Native Americans exist within its borders."
  • Changed.
• The park is divided into four districts by the rivers. I suggest: ", which divide the park into four districts."
  • Changed.
• monocline protruding from the earth that shows its geologic layers. It is not clear what shows geological layers: monocline or Earth?
  • Changed.
• This northernmost park protects part of the Brooks Range and has no park development. What does this mean "no development"?
  • Clarified.
    • What is "human development"? The land seems to be inhabited. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • There are no roads, park buildings, etc. That's why I had park developments before. Reworded.
• Ecosystems vary on the north and south rims and elevation within the Sonoran Desert. Quite a meaningless sentence, in my opinion.
  • Clarified.
    • It is still adds no new information (ecosystems always vary widely) and should be removed. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Removed.
• It has some of the country's darkest skies What does it mean Darkest skies"? The skies are everywhere about the same (not counting other planets, of course) Probably, it should be cleanest skies?
  • Clarified; No, it means there is less light pollutions which is not based on cleanliness.
    • It has some of the country's darkest night skies and animal species including Townsend's big-eared bat, Pronghorn, and Bonneville cutthroat trout. Skies and animals are not logically connected to each other. If I am not mistaken this called a run on sentence. (should be split in two sentences) Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • No, that is not a run-on. The park has dark skies and the park has animals. They are in one sentence to avoid having two short and choppy sentences. Changed though.
• They were formed by sand deposits of the Rio Grande on the San Luis Valley, and the park also has alpine lakes, six 13,000-foot mountains, and ancient forests. This sentence should be split in two sentences.
  • Changed.
• Hosmer's Grove of alien trees, and native Hawaiian Geese. You should decide what form you use: plural or singular.
  • What do you mean? There is one Grove and there are many geese.
    • I mean that in this context it should refer to the species, in other words it should be Hawaiian Goose. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Changed.
• This is the least-visited National Park (Kobuk Valley). How about Gates of the Arctic?
  • What do you mean? Kobuk Valley is the least visited.
• Formed by glaciers, there are tall bluffs, rock gardens, islands and bays, and historic buildings. Were historic buildings also formed by glaciers?
  • Changed

My general impression is that the text requires polishing at places. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I just took a quick look at the lead paragraphs and my first impression was that it was really choppy. The first few sentences in particular are really short and could be reasonably combined. Additionally, the descriptions for each National Park has no standard. Gates of the Arctic, for example, talks about human development while Glacier Bay describes its wildlife and landscape. I think that each park should have a paragraph that incorporates all of three things: wildlife, landscape, and a short history (such as the Sand Dunes). --haha169 (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No. I wrote the descriptions incorporating the most important aspects of the parks. Every park is different and must not have the same repetitive elements. It is notable that Gates has an untouched environment, and it is notable that Glacier Bay has these wildlife and glaciers. Many parks do not have noteworthy wildlife but are known for their geologic features and landscapes, or vice-versa. I combined a couple sentences in the lead. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think this is ready to be promoted. The prose and the table look great. Everything is referenced.—Chris!_c/t 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk)

• Would it be possible to make a map of country labeling all the parks? I thought I saw one somewhere. Or can you make one of those maps using Google Earth? Sorry if you have no idea what I talking about
  • There is a link at the bottom of the page that will make a map on Google Maps or Bing.
• I don't like "and the first national park" in the first paragraph. I would expect "and" after a comma to expand on the idea previously stated, not give a separate idea
  • Changed.
• "in 1890. In 1916" the repetition of "in <year>" sounds odd. Perhaps you can make the second part read "The 1916 Organic Act" or "The Organic Act, passed in 1916, ..."
  • Changed.
• The sentence beginning "National parks usually have a variety of" doesn't make any sense to me: the natural resources protect the resources? Huh? Also, "large areas of land or water" should just be "large areas"
  • Changed. That's what my source has.
• Ref 2 has a different date style: "Month date, year" versus "Date month year"
  • Changed.
• 6/27/2005 in ref 5 should be written normally
  • Changed. Reywas92^Talk 00:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

More to come later. Mm40 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm busier that I thought. I'll probably post comments on the talk page if this is promoted before I get a chance to review it properly. Mm40 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:27, 17 April 2010 [6].

---

List of NHL players with 50-goal seasons

Nominator(s): Resolute 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominating for several reasons: 50 goals is one of the NHL's most celebrated achievements, I'm looking to set a standard for related lists and for the WikiCup. The list has been stable, it is now well referenced, complete and has plenty of images. Resolute 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - boldface shouldn't be used as an indicator —Chris!_c/t 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Changing now. Resolute 01:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I suppose current players can be indicated with a highlight and a '*', as discussed at WikiProject hockey. Also, the "Games played" and "goals" key could probably be done in {{abbr}} to make them tooltip, like I've seen used in other hockey articles. eg. GP Schmloof (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, done. Resolute 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't this be at List of 50-goal seasons in the National Hockey League or List of 50-goal NHL seasons or something like that? This isn't a list of players (right off the bat Hull appears several times), this is a list of seasons. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Semantics, imo. It is still a list of players, but some players have multiple entries. Resolute 16:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• How is it semantics? List of Major League Baseball players with a career .400 on-base percentage is a players list, it's about the players. This is a seasons list, the player is just a descriptor for that season. This is List of Major League Baseball home run champions. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• This list is still about the players. Players with multiple seasons that fit the criteria will receive multiple entries, however. Resolute 01:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose (for now) from Truco (talk · contribs) General WP:ALT TEXT says that each image needs alternate text. Actually, ALT text was taken out of the FL criteria recently (see here). Mm40 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) True, though according to the FL directors this change is temporary and "there's no reason why you shouldn't add alt text should you feel sufficiently capable of doing so." [7].—Chris!c/t 02:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I realized afterward that I forgot alttext (again). I'll be adding it in. Resolute 16:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Dabs, contributors, and external links all check out fine. Lead Do not bold what is not the title directly, per WP:MOSBOLD Is it correct to say in 1944-45 and not in the 1944-45 season? When discussing historical events, it is typical to simply refer to the season by its years alone. IMO, "1944-45" is no better or worse than "1944-45 season", except that I would prefer not to have a couple dozen instances of the word "season". Resolute 16:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) 50-goal seasons were relatively common in the 1970s and 1980s as offense increased across the league but have declined in frequency since the mid 1990s. -- mid 1990s should have a dash in between The introduction of the centre red line and permission of forward passing out of the defensive zone in 1943 dramatically increased scoring;[3] Six players scored 30 goals in 1943–44, the first time in league history so many players reached that total in one season. -- Six should not be capitalized Phil Esposito scored 50 goals in five consecutive seasons in the 1970s, led by a then NHL record 76 goals in 1970–71 -- 1)period is needed 2)dash between 'then' and 'NHL record' Bossy, who had set a league rookie scoring record with 53 goals in 1977–78, surpassed the 50-goal mark in each of his first nine NHL seasons. -- dash between rookie and scoring A record 14 players scored 50 goals in 1992–93.[16] Among them was Teemu Selanne, who scored 76 goals as a rookie, surpassing Bossy's record for first year players by 23 goals. -- dash between first and year Brett Hull scored 50+ goals five times in the 1990s, --> Brett Hull scored over 50 goals five times in the 1990s, Only five players reached the 50 goal mark between 1999 and 2004: Pavel Bure twice, Joe Sakic, Jaromir Jagr, Jarome Iginla and Milan Hejduk. --> Only five players reached the 50 goal mark between 1999 and 2004: Pavel Bure twice, Joe Sakic, Jaromir Jagr, Jarome Iginla and Milan Hejduk all achieved it once. Five players topped 50 in 2005–06, however it has since remained rare for a player to achieve this milestone. --> Five players scored 50 in 2005–06; however, it has since remained rare for a player to achieve this milestone. Key Can you not make the key into a small table, like in other FLs? Images "Rocket" Richard was the NHL's first 50 goal scorer dash between 50 and goal Vincent Lecavalier scored 52 in 2006–07 you may as well say 52 goals References Publisher for CNN/SI: CNN is the publisher but the work comes from SI, also be consistent with the naming of all these publishers because you have them set differently throughout the reference section.--Truco 503 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I disagree on CNN/SI. The website is a partnership between the two, and the online content does not typically originate from either individually. I'm willing to change it, but I think publisher=CNN/SI is preferable. Could you elaborate on what you believe is inconsistent about the publishers? Resolute 16:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) All should be fixed, save what I commented on directly. Thanks! Resolute 16:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Ref #11 is what I meant by the inconsistency. Not neccesarily, CNN publishes the magazine on their site (hence the sportsillustrated.cnn.com) and at the bottom of the site it does say copyright CNN.--Truco 503 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Ref 11 is from a Sports Illustrated article itself, reproduced on SI's vault website. CNNSI doesn't re-publish SI's magazine content. Their online content is separate, and is CNN and SI's effort to compete with ESPN for online sports coverage. Resolute 01:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "50-goal seasons were relatively common...". Don't believe sentences should start with numbers like this.
• Don't need two 50 goals in 50 games links in the main section. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ack! Someone snuck that second link in right under my nose... Both should be fixed, give or take a dash, since I have no clue if it should be there or not when joining two words. Resolute 02:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps the number of times a player reached the milestone should be given it's own column, then one would be able to quickly find out which players scored 50 in a certain amount of seasons. Also, would it be possible to add some kind of indicator of which players led the league in goals scored to the table? Yes, one can figure that out already, but some kind of indicator would help. If not, I think the Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy should be mentioned somewhere in the history section. Otherwise, great work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I had thought about highlighting league leaders, but decided that that effectively duplicates content at the Richard Trophy article. I wonder if other reviewers have an opinion on that? Certainly open to adding it. Putting number of times reached could be moved to a separate column, but would having a sort that basically goes Bossy (9), Gretzky (9), Bossy (8), Gretzky (8), Bossy (7), Gretzky (7), etc add any benefit? I'll have to contemplate how to discuss the Richard trophy... but will be when I have more time. For now, I've just thrown it into a see-also section, since it does have considerable relevance to the topic. Resolute 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I am not a big fan of using multiple different highlights for different tidbits. imo, highlighting active players is of greater relevance than highlighting league leaders, especially since not every season has a leader >50. Resolute 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption needs a period. I know the history section is a good length, but a single paragraph lead just feels really lightweight. "Joe Malone scored 44 goals for the Montreal Canadiens – in 20 games – in the NHL's inaugural season of 1917–18. It was a record that stood nearly 30 years.[2] " merge so "18, a record that stood..." "dramatically" seems a little POV, especially since you've just mentioned a guy who got 44 in the inaugural season, and after said "dramatic" increase you mention six guys who just made it over 30... " averaged a goal per game in" if we don't know how many games he played, this is meaningless... " 50 goal mark" or "50-goal mark" - be consistent. All the images with complete sentences for captions need periods. Does "Rocket" have a citation? "however it has since remained rare for a player to achieve this milestone" not too sure about this. Six players in the last three seasons doesn't seem that rare to me. Ref 19 - New York Times should be The New York Times. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) All should be addressed. The addition of the Rocket Richard trophy in the history should take care of the citation for the "Rocket" nickname. Resolute 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my comments dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:31, 3 April 2010 [8].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Viv Richards

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because we just don't have enough cricket featured lists! Seriously though, another one of these lists of cricket centuries, modelled off those that have gone before. Harrias (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Just one quick thing (I know nothing about cricket), but should "North Marine Road Ground" (in the ODI centuries table) be "North Marine Road" to match the linked article? I don't care either way, just checking if you do. Mm40 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Done: Changed link. Harrias ^talk 07:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

;Comments: one of the greatest batsman --> one of the greatest batsmen fast century --> fastest century Replace 189* (and similar ones) in the lead with something like "unbeaten 189" or "189 not out". This is ok in the table since it needs to be concise and the key is there, but this would not be clear in the lead section. His ODI record of 189 has been surpassed by three batsmen and matched by one ([9]). The article makes it sound like he's still in second place, so make this clear. Perhaps add another note? Perhaps follow x/y format (xth test of y) for the "Test" column? This is used in List of international cricket centuries by Donald Bradman, List of international cricket centuries by Brian Lara etc, and makes it's meaning clearer I think. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Done Harrias talk 13:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Just a quick RS query - what makes rediff.com reliable? To be honest, I'm not big on knowing how to prove RS. However, just looking at the wikipedia page for Rediff.com, it sounds pretty reliable. I'm sure I can find an alternative source for that info if you want though? Works for me, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Don't think you need to link countries like England. The teams, yes, but the countries? Don't think so. Done: Removed England, but left Antigua, as it's less known. "Richards' 24 Test centuries are the third most by a West Indian batsman, trailing Brian Lara's 34 and Sobers' 26." don't like this at all. Perhaps "Richards has the third-highest number of centuries for the West Indies, behind ..."? Done: fixed as suggested. Notes 1 and 2 are unreferenced. Done: The references were provided at the end of the sentence the note was in. Added the reference in the note too now though. "70 minute record" - 70-minute. Done: fixed as suggested. Date ranges in the refs need en-dashes. Done: fixed as suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Harrias talk 20:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Seeing that there is no images in the ODI section, why cant we have the number of balls faced ... I know I'm being annoying but it would be handy, probably more so than Strike rate. —Aaroncrick (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Done: added as suggested. Harrias ^talk 09:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:39, 14 April 2010 [10].

---

2010 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been three weeks since the Olympics ended, so I think this page is sufficiently stable. It's modeled after the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table and 2006 Winter Olympics medal table, both FLs. Enjoy! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Prefer "ranked" over "sorted" in the first sentence. It should remain sorted. That word has brought forth a lot of debate on the talk pages of this and similar articles. It's a very long and tedious debate, but basically, the way it's sorted has long been disputed. Some feel it should be ranked by total medals, some feel it should be sorted alphabetically. The IOC officially says there are no rankings. So, techinally the table is just sorted by gold, per the IOC website. That makes sense, thanks. Jujutacular T · C 03:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC) It says this is the "largest Winter Games". The source does not explicitly state that, and the article does not state by what numbering we're measuring "largest". Removed. It's true, but I don't think it's necessary. "leaving 54 countries without a medal" - By my count, 82–26=56. Am I missing something? Fixed This source seems to be broken. Switched to a working ref. Jujutacular T · C 03:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC) One more: "Bjørgen...became the ninth Winter Olympian to win five medals at one edition of the Games."- I was unable to verify this statement (being the ninth) from the source listed. Jujutacular T · C 03:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Removed, thanks. -- Scorpion0422 16:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Thanks for your hard work. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments " gold medal wins[2] and became the first host nation since Norway in 1952 to lead the gold medal count, with 14 gold medals, breaking a series of gold medals records. Canada broke the record for most gold medals at a single home Winter Olympics, which was 10, set by Norway in 1994 and the United States in 2002. Canada also broke the record for the most golds " count "gold medals" or "golds" here. Perhaps a rephrase? A user has been continually adding records Canada set that I find are rather trivial for a page like this. I removed the first bit and switched "golds" to "gold medals". "won five medals (three gold, one silver, one bronze) more than any other athlete" surely some punctuation before "more than..." here? Fixed. National Olympic Committee is overlinked. Fixed. Sorting by gold (descending), I'd expect it to sort per the original sorting, i.e. in accordance with your notes. Instead, I get Norway third (with 8 silvers) and USA fourth (with 15 silvers) despite both having 9 golds.. It works for me, and only switched to Norway first if I sort other columns. But, is it really that important? 2nd EL has no publisher info or anything. It's unnecessary, so I removed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 23:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't ranks which tie be e.g. 17= etc rather than just two 17s? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Never heard of this convention before, is it common? Another possibility: 17 (tie) Jujutacular ^T · C 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Well it's pretty commonplace. It simply means "17th equal". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments (from the editor who worked the 1998 table to FL status) – Didn't find much to comment on, and what I did find was either minor or subjective.

• The first sentence strikes me as akin to the "This is a list of" beginnings that we've been discouraging lately. Not sure if anyone else feels the same, or if I just think this because I started the 1998 list differently and have a bias toward it.
• "A total of 2,632 athletes from 82 nations participated in 86 events from fifteen different sport disciplines." All the other numbers above 10 are given as numerals in the lead, so I imagine that "fifteen" should be as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Both done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Looks good to go after the changes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that a medal map should be added to the list. It provides a better visual impact as we can see in 2007 Pan American Games medal table, the latest Featured medal table. Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really add a lot to the article. How does knowing location of nations like Estonia help readers understand the article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Sourced and well presented. However, I would have to agree with Felipe Menegaz, a map of the countries that earned a medal would be a better visual representation to compliment the table. Sb617 (Talk) 01:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:27, 17 April 2010 [11].

---

List of Nebraska Cornhuskers head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 15:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Big 12 Coach list #7. Hopefully all necessary changes have been made.—NMajdan•talk 15:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Nothing too serious wrong with this article, in fact while there are a couple of phrases I wouldn't have used myself, I can't find any problems with the prose at all. I'm sure some more nit-picky reviewers will give you some stuff on that though! I do have a couple of small issues:

• While I normally view on a big widescreen monitor on which I'm sure this would render fine, on the 1024 x 768 that I am using at the moment, the table requires a horizontal scrollbar. I can't find anything regarding what resolution we should be tagetting, but I'd suggest a fair few people will still access at this? Don't know if you can practicably make it smaller, and it's certainly not going to make me withhold my support, but it may be worth looking at.
  • There's not a whole lot I can do to make the table smaller. Before this comment, I removed the PT (Postseason Ties) column since Nebraska has never tied a postseason game, so all entries in this column when dashes or zero. The only other thing I can think of besides reducing the font size is to ditch the years in the NC column, although I believe that information is useful.—NMajdan•talk
    • As I said, its not a huge issue I don't think. Normally I wouldn't have spotted it at all, just happen to be on an old laptop at the moment.
• In the NCs column, should "3— 1994,..." take an endash rather than an emdash? Also, emdashes should not be spaced if you do keep it. Of course, it could be that it really is an endash, and my tiny monitor is making it look bigger!
  • You're right, should be en dashes. Regarding the spaces, I have used that in other FLs so hopefully it is not a problem.—NMajdan•talk

That's all from me, another nice list. Harrias (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!—NMajdan•talk 13:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support: no problem at all, I know how frustrating it can be to have an article sitting unreviewed for ages here! Harrias ^talk 13:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Could expand lead image. Expanded a bit. Better?—NMajdan•talk "organized football began in 1890." reference for this? Its covered in the general reference.—NMajdan•talk "The Cornhuskers have played 1,219 games ..." as of when? Should at least put it into context. Is the text following it ("during their 120 seasons") not enough?—NMajdan•talk "The first coach was Frothingham..." seems odd to me that is the penultimate sentence in the lead of the list of head coaches... Removed.—NMajdan•talk Notes 1 and 4 are unreferenced. Both covered in the general references.—NMajdan•talk 2nd gen ref needs an en-dash. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment – "that represents University of Nebraska–Lincoln in the North Division of the Big 12 Conference in the National Collegiate Athletic Association." Should be another "the" before University. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.—NMajdan•talk

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:39, 14 April 2010 [12].

---

List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is based on the List of Test cricket records article. It was at WP:PR for some time (I closed the peer review today, after fixing the issues raised there). Since this is somewhat different from most of the existing cricket lists, your suggestions and comments would be very valuable on making this a featured list. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe the Fastest Test centuries/half-centuries/double centuris sections may be completely unverifiable. You are providing the strike rate for the runs scored not the half-century/century. For example Jayasuriya may have hit his first hundred runs with a strike rate of 300.00 (i.e. faster) but then taken a very long time to get the other 57 runs (e.g. strike rate 20.00) which would overall drags his strike rate for 157 runs. However, he still scored the faster century (first 100 runs). This example is clearly fictional but is useful to indicate the problem within a context. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you suggest removing those three tables (fastest scores are not that important in Test cricket anyway) then? There is a separate page at Cricinfo (http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/210170.html) for fastest Test centuries, but it's not possible to find something like that for each team, so I have used the search engine here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes ditch those sections (especially half/double centuries). Ideally it would be nice to have fastest century recoreds by balls faced/minute for Sri Lanka in that style (here's a couple more i.e. the 2006 top 10) but I realise it might be difficult to find and my quick google came up with nothing (It seems feasible for ODIs however). If you wanted a fastest section I suppose you could do highest strike rate with a qualifier e.g. 50 runs [13]. Up to you but, in my opinion, the current sections must go as they are misleading. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed those three sections. Keeping them like "fastest 50+ individual scores" is pointless IMO; what matters are the actual records regarding the centuries themselves. Otherwise the article would become just a collection of statistics, I think. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree. I do think a fastest 100 would be a useful record to add if it could be found but I understand the complexities involved and have struck my oppose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• I must admit that I am against these sorts of lists on Wikipedia. Lists of Test centuries, five-wickets hauls etc are pretty stable, they are unlikely to change that much too quickly. Whereas almost every list on this page could change two or three times in a month or so. It is unlikely to I'll grant you, but it could; at which stage it becomes very hard to keep it up to date, and is possibly breaking WP:FL? criteria 6 for stability. Besides that, I feel it is a bombardment of information without much analysis and explanation at times, and it better left on Cricinfo and to a lesser extent, CricketArchive. I'm not going to oppose the list, because I feel you've done a good job on it, but I'm afraid in this case I can't support it either, unless you can convince me that it is worthy of inclusion in it's current form. Possibly, maybe, a split version would be more suitable, batting records one one page, bowling on another etc. I'm not sure. Harrias (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I did consider the stability issue before starting work on this article, and it seemed pretty ok to me. Looking at their recent matches, Sri Lanka plays an average of less than 10 Tests per year. Most of their Test tournaments are 2 or 3 match tournaments, and they have never played more than a 5-match tournament to the best of my knowledge. It's almost always one tournament per season, which means about three tournaments per year. Also, the only records that will need to be updated regularly are the career runs and wickets, batting and bowling averages, and dismissals. The other records are not very likely to change in every match, so updating the article after every tournament should be an easy enough job. As I said, this is based on the List of Test cricket records, which went through a FLRC last year, so I didn't really think length would be an issue. If more reviewers agree that the article's stability and size may be problems though, I will withdraw the nom since they are major concerns that I can't really do much about. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Lists I can be stable yet dynamic. For example Premier League Player of the Month changes, well, monthly. However, like TRM made me do for that list, will you promise to keep an eye on new Sri Lanken records in the future and update this accordingly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I will have to do that. But as I said, I don't expect the updating to be that hard. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

1. Narrowest win margin by wickets: Winning by 5 wickets I think is a considerable win. Overall test record table in Cricinfo limit it to victory by 3 wkts or less. Consider trimming.
   • True enough that it is not a very narrow margin, but when it comes to Sri Lankan records these are the narrowest margins they have. I think we should stick to the top five records because of this, and also to keep it consistent with the rest of the article.
2. Best career average bowling: Qualification needed. Best--Chanaka L (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
   • Stupid mistake. Added now. Thanks for the comments and sorry for the late reply; I couldn't work on this for a few days. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Mahela Jayawardene's first name doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. Fixed In a couple batting tables, Arjuna Ranatunga's name is sorting before Aravinda de Silva's. Is this the intention? I think you're talking about the "most half-centuries" table, since that's the only that has both of them. It works for me though, both in Firefox and IE. I've checked the sortname templates and they seem to be used correctly as well. In the table for best bowling figures in a series (individual), a 2007 series isn't sorting in the right place. Done. I've added a sortkey to sort by date Reference 39 has what appear to be a typo in the publisher name ("Oxfors") Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks for your comments. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Support – With TRM's comments resolved, this looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support — Very detailed and time consuming list. Well done. —Aaroncrick (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "nearly 200 matches against every other Test-playing nation" I'm just wondering if you could put a comma after matches just in case someone thinks SL have played 200 matches against each other nation... Done Last two sentences of the lead both contain "also" and "Sri Lankan", just a shade repetitive. Removed Sri Lankan. "is one of the most accomplished" a bit journalistic, can we stick factual? Reworded the caption. Any way of linking out to Murali's featured list of five-wicket hauls? Done I would be tempted to limit the TOC to second level headings because it's a mammoth right now. I couldn't find a way to limit it earlier. Limited to 3rd level now. "Only two matches have ended in a tie in Test cricket history, and no game played by Sri Lanka has been tied" would prefer ", neither of which involved Sri Lanka." Done "as a win by innings" I thought it would be "as a win by an innings and xx runs"? I've added this to the explanation. "Most career runs" table needs one more colspan. Done Should second highest be second-highest? Done, and similar ones as well Career average - is it worth pointing out what innings with scores where the batsman is not out do? I have now included in the explanation that not out innings are also included in the total runs. It already says that it is divided by the number of times he has been dismissed. Centuries/half-century tables, I'd prefer to see the columns forced to the same size from section to section so the tables look the same... Done "a batsman getting out without"-> "batsman dismissed without"... Done "2000 deliveries" other 1000s have been comma separated... Done Best figures in an innings needs one more colspan. Looks like Chanakal has done it. Muralidharan - consistent spelling please. Fixed fifth best -> fifth-best (if you agreed with my comment above about second highest) Done twenty-two times - 22 times. Done Ref 31 links Cricinfo. None of the others do. Fixed Is BBC Sport really a work? If so, perhaps BBC should be the publisher...? I've made it publisher. I always mix up works and publishers... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the detailed review. I think everything is fixed. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:11, 22 April 2010 [14].

---

Vladimir Horowitz discography

Nominator(s): Etincelles ^(talk) 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC) and Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because in the last nomination all problems were fixed and since I have added many more references. Etincelles ^(talk) 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: "Video releases" section - Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto No. 3 is out of order Divide reflist into columns for readability File:HorowitzPianoBain.jpg could use a touch up (a few scratches) - if you don't mind I could do it. Note:Restored version uploaded at File:HorowitzPianoBain2.jpg. Jujutacular T · C 20:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Done Etincelles (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support As far as I can tell, all issues with the previous nomination have been resolved. I couldn't find anything else to take issue with. Good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Under the dates column of "Albums", why are some of the years separated by a slash? This is done when albums were recorded in two specific years, not recorded in a variety of years where a dash has being used.Etincelles (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I'd recommend using commas instead, as they are less ambiguous. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Done. Etincelles (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC) What makes Encyclopedia.com a reliable source? Removed. Etincelles (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC) So what references the info that was previously cited to that site? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Now referenced. Etincelles (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Publications (The New York Times and Rolling Stone) should be italicized. You can do this in the reference by changing "publisher" to "work" in the citation templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Done.Etincelles (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment this is an excellent piece of work and has improved immeasurably since its first nomination. I was heavily involved in the first review, I have to say that this is a massive improvement over that list, and will take some time to check it over, but right now it's an example of how to take constructive criticism and develop a great list out of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support worthy of FL status. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Horowitz's final recording, with Sony Classical was completed four days before his death". Feels like it could use another comma after Sony Classical.
• "This final recording consisted of repertoire that he had never previously recorded". Should an "a" be before "repertoire"? (not sure if that's used in classical music circles)
• "His discography contains numerous albums and also compliations of compositions by a variety of composers." No need for "also" in this sentence; it's merely an extra word that doesn't add anything after "and".
• Second sentence of Overview is lacking a period at the end.
• No need for two Sony Classical links in Overview. One will do fine, and interested readers will have already clicked on that. The same applies for stereo links, of which there are currently two. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support — Looks very good. Jimknut (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: "This final recording consisted of repertoire that he had never previously recorded". Should an "a" be before "repertoire"? (not sure if that's used in classical music circles). I've never seen it written as "a repertoire" in Classical music, just "repertoire".THD3 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

All done, however I agree with User:THD3. Etincelles ^(talk) 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:22, 7 April 2010 [15].

---

List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States

Nominator(s): Anthony (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm nominating this list because it is comprehensive, fully sourced, and meets all the FLC criteria. Furthermore, it is based off the similar List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada, which is a current FL. Anthony (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: "Canada and the United States dominated the preliminary round of the 1998 tournament, and in their head-to-head match up, the United States won 7–4." - could you clarify that this match up was in the early stages, as you go on to mention that they meet in the final? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC) "The two teams met in the gold medal final" is 'gold medal' necessary? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC) "In thirteen games played between the two teams in 1997, Canada won seven and the United States won six." Could you provide a reference for this? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC) "Jenny Potter is the all-time leading scorer in the women's tournament at the Olympics, with 11 goals, 19 assists and 30 points." and this? Unfortunately there's no cumulative reference; it's comprised of adding up the stats from each Olympics. It's no less valid, you just have to do a little math. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC) That's okay; just to clarify then; do you mean that she is the all-time leading scorer in the women's tournament at the Olympics for the United States? Because I read it as her being the all-time leading scorer overall.? Harrias (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Added "American" in front of scorer to clarify. Anthony (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Table looks fine and sortability works well. But, shouldn't someone with a Gold and a Silver sort above someone with just a Gold? If I knew how to do that, I certainly would. But I dont't know enough about Wiki-formatting to pull that off. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's all from me, looks a pretty good list on the whole. Harrias (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Looks good, I'll have a fiddle at getting those medals to sort better for you too. Harrias (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments I agree with the comments in the previous review on sorting in the Medals column. Check out my list List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft for some ideas. You could use {{ntsh}} and come up with a point system for sorting. I.e. 3 pts for a gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze. So Jenny Schmidgall-Potter would have 8 points and you would use {{ntsh|8}}. I managed to figure out how the Canadian page did it, and copied it thusly. They're now sorted by number of medals; in case of a tie, they're further ranked by the types of medals. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) The Notes column in the goaltender table is center justified while in the skaters table it is left justified. I suggest fixing the goaltender column. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) The "Notes" section are actually references (see WP:FOOT). I suggest separating out the "References" section into "General" and "Specific" references (again, see my list earlier in the review). Fixed. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Double period in the Podnieks reference. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No categories? Surely you can find an applicable one. Fixed. When I was working on it in my userspace I did not have categories; when I copied it over I neglected to add them. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Might I suggest using WebCitation to archive some of those references? It would be a shame to lose some of them as they probably contain data that would be difficult to find freely elsewhere. (Not a requirement.) Not a bad idea; I might look into that. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I've been hit before because the templates at the bottom of my lists did not contain a link to the article it is being used on. However, since I am unable to find a specific MOS requirement, I'll just leave it at that. (Not a requirement.) The templates contain a link to the United States women's national ice hockey team, which is the primary page. This is but a small subsection of that page, and is not really worthy of being included in a template. Perhaps if additional pages are created one might come up, but for now, there's no applicable template or link for it. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Overall a good list. Just a couple comments/issues.—NMajdan•talk 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why are goaltenders and skaters separated? Why can't you just include a position column? It would be nice to be able to sort by years-of-participation or number of medals among all athletes, and not just those two groups.
  • As you are primarily a football editor (according to your page), I will say that in hockey, goalies and skaters are always separated on account of the different stats required for each. Sortability would be a mess if you combined wins and goals-against average with assists and penalty minutes. Every hockey list separates the two; to ask otherwise would be insanity. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't know if it would be insane, per se. I do see your point, however, I still think it would be nice if I was able to sort everything together. This will not prevent my support, but I will leave this comment un-capped in case someone else has something to add.—NMajdan•talk
      • I agree with Anthony, goaltenders have a whole different set of relevant stats. Sorting them together would make no sense. Harrias (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. My concerns have been addressed.—NMajdan•talk 20:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I'm quite happy to see this list. Ever since I completed the lists for Canada, I've been hoping that other editors would start creating similar lists for other nations. Just a few quick comments, are two lead images really necessary? Perhaps you should use the best one (Image:USAWomen2010WinterOlympics.jpg). Also, would it be possible to add a minutes column for the goalies (I recently added one for the Canadian list). I think it's beneficial because GAA is calculated using minutes played and goals against, so it would be nice to have both pieces of the puzzle there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Removed image, and added minutes column. Anthony (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns have been resolved. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) "Caitlin Cahow won bronze with the American women in 2006, and added a silver in 2010." - No comma here. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) "Erika Lawler posted 2 points in her first Olympics, and helped the Americans to a silver medal." - Same. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) "Kerry Weiland made her Olympic debut in Vancouver, and finished with 2 points in 5 games." - Same. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) "Molly Engstrom has 7 points in 9 Olympic games." - Not being familiar with ice hockey myself, I find has to be an awkward word choice here. Could you replace it with something like earned, received, or was awarded? "Has" is a perfectly fine word, since you said yourself you are not familiar with ice hockey, but I changed it to "scored" (which is not entirely correct, since you only "score" a goal, you don't "score" an assist, but whatever.) Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Just to be sure, has is used in ice hockey related, reliable sources in exactly this way? Personally, I find neither word to be an optimal choice. Goodraise 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) "Angela Ruggiero has 6 goals and 9 assists in 21 Olympic games." - Same. This one I'm leaving, because there's no other way to say it without sounding awkward for hockey; again, you not being a hockey person would not understand, and that usage is fine across dozens of featured lists and articles on Wikipedia. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I find it rather presumptuous of you to tell me I wouldn't understand something. Whether or not I'm a hockey person is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal experience. Unusual word usage such as this is no big deal, and I'm not insisting that you change it. The point is, before I can support this nomination, I have to be convinced that the usage is fine. You can convince me of that by showing me reliable sources (not other Wikipedia articles) using the word that way. Goodraise 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I apologize for being presumptuous; I've just never needed to explain word choice to someone before when it comes to hockey. Having said that, "Bergeron has five points in four games", "Christiansen has 3 points in his last two games", "Benn has five points in his last five games" are just three examples. I hope this convinces you of proper word usage. Anthony (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The third general reference states its title as "Results database", yet when I look at the page, I cannot find those words anywhere. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) The second specific reference is giving a dead link. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) The third specific reference gives "Canadian Press" as the author of the source. Sounds more like the name of a newspaper to me. Fixed. The name of the paper is the Waterloo Region Record, the publisher is Canadian Press. To be honest, I copied that one direct from the Canadian page. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Though it is not exactly part of the criteria, I must say I find the choice of images to be less than stellar (same goes for the captions). List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada does a way better job in that respect. May I inquire what is wrong with the photos? They're all high quality, color, action photos of the women's ice hockey team, playing women's ice hockey. I'm afraid I don't understand what your issue is with the photos. The Canadian women's page has the same set, except for a few where the women are not playing hockey. If that's your issue, I say you've got it backwards; if anything, there should be MORE pictures of them playing hockey, since it's a list about hockey players. If it were baseball, I'd want pictures of them swinging a bat or throwing a pitch. Standard shots of people standing around does not a good list make. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Well, the new lead image is better already. As for the rest, pictures of them playing ice hockey are obviously better than pictures of them doing something not at all related to ice hockey, but the priority of the article is the players, not the game. The pictures should convey what these people look like and that's simply not what images like this one do. Then there's the captions. The captions of all the pictures of individual players in the Canadian list explain how that particular player stands out, while the captions in this list are mostly just restatements of what's been said in the respective player's list entry. Goodraise 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) That Tueting image is the only free one I could find of her. As for the US captions vs. the Canadian captions, I honestly do not see much difference between the two. Canada mentions how many medals the players won (except for Wickenheiser and Campbell, who obviously are special players). USA does the same, except it focuses more on the stats. Both lists summarize what's in the list. At any rate, I added an image and made slight alterations to the captions on some of the images. Anthony (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) That's it for now. Might be back with more. Goodraise 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral. Did not (yet) find the time to review this extensively enough to support. Goodraise 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Would be nice to see it mentioned in the lead the player who was inducted into the two halls of fame.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• The bold in the reference quotes strikes me as unneeded. Just having them there should be sufficient to point out the intended information. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I've seen it in a number of other articles, just to highlight the information, but I removed it anyway. Anthony (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Don't like a two-sentence opening para. I'd try to merge it with other essential info. I added another sentence, but there's not much else to add that's related; the similar Canadian article had 2 sentences, so I figured as an opener it would be OK. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "Until 1998, women's hockey had been " you mean international hockey? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "Canada won seven and the United States won six" no need to repeat won. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "The Americans would end up taking bronze in the tournament. " prefer "The Americans ended the tournament taking the bronze medal" or similar. Not keen on the "would.. ing.." stuff. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "in the gold medal game, and in a repeat of 2002 the Canadians took the gold," don't repeat gold, perhaps say "in the final, and in a repeat..."? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "gold medal winning team was" surely one or two hyphens here? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Jenny Potter or Jenny Schmidgall-Potter? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Ref. in the tables should be Ref(s). Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Skaters list sorted by medals... typically one gold exceeds any number of silver. So when sorting descendingly, Mounsey should come ahead of Darwitz and Chu etc... Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Ref 3 isn't specific enough - which page is this referring to? Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) " In 2006" would prefer "In the 2006 Olympics" (linked per our link). Not sure where you're referring to; the only "In 2006" links to Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I'm just saying you could link it like this: "In the 2006 Olympics..." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Ahh, gotcha. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC) "(1g, 2s, 1b)." dislike this enormously. Write the words please. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I just took out the parentheses; they can look to the left if they want to see the specific medals. I wasn't married to that idea anyway. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know where the toolbox is, but I found a dead link and repaired it. Hope that helps. Anthony (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. For future reference, the toolbox is at the top right corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:08, 7 April 2010 [16].

---

Melanie C discography

Nominator(s): Tsange ^►talk 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is worthy of the status. Tsange ^►talk 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

First-glance comments from Mm40 (talk) The one image needs ALT text (read the guideline, it's a good explanation). Basically, pretend you're describing the image to someone over the phone. Note that alt text is no longer a requirement for FL status. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No full stop in the image caption because it's a sentence fragment (MOS:CAPTION). Also, "at promotional tour" isn't grammatically correct, so "at a promotional tour" Make the link order in the colored navigation box identical to the section order The lead needs to say something about her career with the Spice Girls, as well as something about her stage name changing to "Melanie C" after becoming a solo artist In the first table (under Studio albums), "AUT" and "SWI" just link to the countries Why are there quotes around "Japanese-only release" and "Canadian-only release"? Also, who do the notes jump from "A" to "C"? The two sentences under Miscellaneous should have commas following them, not periods All entries in the "Album" column in the second table under Miscellaneous should be italicized Why is the director for "We Love To Entertain You" N/A? It needs some sort of note First three general references need publishers Remove all "(in English)" in the references Some publishers are linked upon all mentions while others are only linked on the first use You have both templates such as {{de icon}} and "(in German)". Be consistent Both "YYYY-MM-DD" and "Month day, year" retrieval dates. Ref 10: take out "search" before "parameter" In ref 26, the search directions should be outside the title. Reference 28 needs a publisher

• What makes [17] reliable? Mm40 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please remove all the strikethroughs you've made through my comments; it's up to the reviewer to see if they have been resolved. Mm40 (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Tsange ^►talk 17:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up all these above issues, except the last one. The website melaniecbase.com isn't a very good source as I think it is a fan site. I have emailed the official Mel C website for help as I can't find another source. Tsange ^►talk 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Chart Stats should not be used as a source. Numerous better sources exist (Music Week, ChartsPlus, ...). Goodraise 01:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

All links are now fixed. Tsange ^►talk 16:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:35, 22 April 2010 [18].

---

List of Pop Idol contestant music releases

Nominator(s): 03md 10:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it previously went through a failed FLC but met with positive feedback. The main reason for failure was that the nomination was still there after one month with not enough comments. 03md 10:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• The section Pop Idol albums is completely unreferenced.

• Added a couple of refs.

• "series of top five hits" should probably be top-five.

• Done

• there is inconsistent use of "number one" and "number-one" – I have no real preference of one over the other, but be consistent throughout.

• Changed all instances to "number-one".

• Similarly with "top-10", "top 20", "number three" etc.

• Done.

• "charted at number one in January 2003,[5]." Reference after the full-stop, and no comma.

• Done.

• "Jessica Garlick, the latter being selected as the United Kingdom's entry for the Eurovision Song Contest 2002 and finishing third in the competition." Could you provide a reference for the Song Contest position.

• Done.

• per WP:MOSNUM, numbers at the start of a sentence should be spelled out.

• Done.

Just a few, mostly MOS changes. Harrias (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thankyou for the comments - they have all been addressed. 03md 11:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support good work on this. Harrias ^talk 11:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "singles( "Light My Fire"" odd spacing. Done. "He achieved several more top-20 hits in 2003. After several years away from the music industry, Gates briefly returned with a new album and singles in 2007.[8]" several repeated too many times. And how did his album/singles get on? Done. You suddenly talk about Darius but don't explain why. Which series? Where did he finish? Done "who did not even make the" remove "even" as you're putting undue POV on the statement. Reworded the phrase. "Other contestants from the first series to have chart success were Sarah Whatmore (who did not even make the selection for the live shows), Rosie Ribbons, Rik Waller, Zoe Birkett and Jessica Garlick, the latter being selected as the United Kingdom's entry for the Eurovision Song Contest 2002 and finishing third in the competition." split the sentence after Garlick. Done. "As of November 2009..." now it's March/April 2010... Done. "Will Young has had 14 singles peak within the top-100, followed by Will Young with nine entries." read that again. Oops - corrected the typo. No need to continually repeat first names. Done, I think. McManus' caption doesn't have Pop Idol in italics. Done. Spaced or unspaced slash. Lead has a spaced slash, table has a mixture... Done. Song title heading should be Song title(s) for the double A-sides. Done. Hyphens to represent uncharting albums - I would prefer en- or em-dashes. Done. "promotional version. [66]" remove that space between ref and punctuation. Done. The By artist table sorts badly, the en-dashes blow it out (in Safari). Done. 4 [E] - remove the space. Done. "1.2million sales" space between 2 and million. Done. As per User:Goodraise many times, Chartstats may be debated as being a reliable source. Is it really published by the Official Charts Company? Which other source should I use and how should I cite it - I don't have access to Musicweek or anything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Cheers for all your comments TRM. I have addressed all but the sourcing issue. 03md 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I noticed that The Official Charts Company have now added a singles and albums archive to their website, therefore I have removed the Chart Stats refs and am now citing this site. However, I am not sure how to fix a problem with the formatting of the references - as the urls have a gap between the first and surname of artists, the second word appears as part of the title. 03md 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Can you give me a specific example? They look (at a quick glance) okay apart from the fact the artists' names are all capitalised... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC) It's fine now, Dabomb has fixed them for me. The artist names are capitalised on the website so that is how I have done them here, but this can be changed. I have also had to keep the Chart Stats ref for Sam & Mark as I couldn't find a page for them on the Official Charts Company website. 03md 09:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, please change them. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Done. 03md 23:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment -- the only issue I see now (aside from the resolved comments from my last review) is that the term "number-one" is used interchangibly but incorrectly. "number-one" should be used as an adjective to describe the single/album, it should not be used in the sense of describing where it ranked on the charts. For example, some sentences are in similar fashion to "it ranked number-one in the UK" (sentences like this should not have a dash). Sentences like "his hit was a number-one." (that is okay to have a dash).Truco ₅₀₃ 01:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:14, 16 April 2010 [19].

---

List of accolades received by Precious

Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the article meets the Featured List criteria. This is the first article/list that I've made that I've ever nominated for Feature List quality, so I'm not very familiar with every detail the list needs, so I'm very sure that this article might need minor edits. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The summary box at the top is impossible to read. Please reformat, perhaps using List of accolades received by Avatar as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed Gary King (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I currently don't see any kind of order for the list. I would say replace "Xth Foo Awards..." with "Foo Awards" and just order the list alphabetically by the awards. Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) It would be nice to have darker lines between awards like in List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men. Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Add a column for the date of the ceremony for each award. I can not do that because I can not find all the ceremony dates for all of the awards (such as for the "Gold Trailers"). Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 12:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC) This source says the 2008 Golden Trailer Awards took place on May 8, 2008. Jujutacular T · C 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, lol, thanks for the link. I'm currently working on adding the dates of the awards ceremonies to the chart. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I think that I've properly formatted the chart table. I currently have the chart table in my user sandbox, can you see if this is the way it should be formatted so that I could then add it to the article? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Should the title of the list really include "(film)"? List of accolades received by Precious is currently a redlink. For comparison: Dexter (TV series) and List of awards and nominations received by Dexter. Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 01:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Great work! Jujutacular ^T · C 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose IMDB is usually not accepted as a reliable source. Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "from the top newspapers" what's a "top newspaper"? Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "to the casts acting performance" I think there's an apostrophe missing here. Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "The film won all five of its nominations at the 25th Independent Spirit Awards, for Best Feature, Best First Screenplay, Best Female Lead and Best Supporting Female." I count four here. Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) " The film won its only nomination, the People's Choice Award, at the 34th Toronto International Film Festival, and Breakthrough Performance by an Actress, at the 81st National Board of Review Awards. The film also won its only nomination,..." confusing, you keep saying "won its only nomination..." but it's unclear if this is in general or from a specific body. Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "Recipients and nominees" - not true. I don't see all the nominees for each category here. Could you please specify where you do not see a nominee from a category? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, misunderstanding here. You're not listing all nominees for a given award, just the Precious nominee... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC) In the list when the film was nominated for something like Best Film/Picture the award site simply listed Precious as the recipient. With noms. like SAG award for Outstanding cast, it did not specify the actors who were included, it just stated Precious as the credited recipient. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Don't like the linking of the date to the specific ceremony. In fact, I'd prefer to see just a year, then a specific link to specific ceremony. What is the ordering of the list? Given the table is unsortable, I would normally expect it to be sorted by the first column. Clearly it isn't, but it's odd. Perhaps it's related to the fact I don't like the ceremony date, I'd prefer just a year and a specific link to the ceremony....... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC) As per the user above, I added the ceremony dates for each award ceremony; the list was originally formatted by A-Z and the award would be linked to the award ceremony or just the award itself. Would you prefer if I changed the list back to it's previous version? Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC) @TRM. This is the sorting method used in every similar featured list: List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men, List of accolades received by Ratatouille, List of accolades received by WALL-E. That's why I recommended it. Jujutacular T · C 19:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I would move the "date of ceremony" to not be the first column then. It seems odd to have a table which is initially out of order. Whatever other FLs have, I'm not sure about this. And no response regarding the reliability of IMDB... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, and yes, agree IMDB is not a reliable source. Jujutacular T · C 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I'm currently working on reformatting the awards/nominations list. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't have any problem with this list. All right. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The film grossed $47,536,959 domestically and $53,455,664 worldwide." Why so precise? Round to the nearest million (or at least tenth of a million); it's neater to read and there's more margin for error if the source is wrong. Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Typo in ref 30; should be "Viacom", not "Vaicom". Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Why does this not look like List of accolades received by Avatar? I would prefer some standardization. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Ordering the list like Avatar's has been disputed (see resolved comments by The Rambling Man). Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I'm interested in what DrNegative has to say about this; will withold support for now. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from DrNegative (talk · contribs)

• The nomination column in the info-box should contain the count of all nominations, including the nominations that eventually became wins. All award wins are still nominations as well. This also makes it easier for the reader by presenting the awards count of wins/noms as numerator/denominator.

Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• My personal opinion here, I feel the dates look better on the left-hand column of the list, followed by the awards which are alphabetized, and then the award "category" column. More than likely, your average reader will constantly ignore the date column in between the two as it is now when comparing what accolades where won for the particular award ceremony and it may be more of an annoyance. DrNegative (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ordering the list like that has been disputed (see resolved comments by the Rambling Man) Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read Rambling Man's comments and I can see his point too. I guess it comes down to personal taste at this point and I am just trying to get our film-awards lists to a certain standard format so to speak. List of accolades received by Ratatouille, List of accolades received by WALL-E, and now List of accolades received by Avatar all follow the same format so I don't think we should deviate from it. However, I can't place my opinion above Rambling Man's because he makes a good point too. We need a compromise of some sort it seems. DrNegative (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my input, does it really matter if the date of the award ceremony is on the left or right side in the awards table; a Featured list is suppose to be about whether or not the article meets all of the FL requirements, not about "personal taste" on how the awards table should be formatted, just sayin'. Crystal Clear x3 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, which is why I was hoping to see this inconsistency addressed on all film awards lists. I guess you're right; this isn't the best place to settle the issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:39, 14 April 2010 [20].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (temples)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

After two recently featured shortish lists, this is another list of the series of lists of National Treasures of Japan. It uses the same structure as the already featured castle, shrine, residences, painting and sculpture lists. I tried to incorporate comments from previous FLCs. bamse (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Early comments Support

• Some of the refs need ordering (particularly placing #10 before others, but also I see #29 before #27 in the last paragraph).
• Extra space between #18 and #10 (which need reordering) after the sentence "natural environment in contrast to symmetrical layouts." Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I reordered all references. There should be a bot for that (or is there already?). Also fixed the extra space. bamse (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  It seems that a few organizations decided to re-organize their websites with the start of the new fiscal year on April 1. Already fixed one link. It'll take some time to find the new location of the other pages since google is still pointing to the old locations. bamse (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  All dead links are fixed. bamse (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The only thing I see which might be an issue on lower-resolution screens is the Statistics section with the tall left-aligned table next to the smaller right-aligned table and image. Should these maybe not be next to each, and instead placed above or below the left-aligned table? Other than that, I think everything looks very nice. I'm assuming the entries with a dash for the image are those for which we have no images? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. I increased the size of the map a bit so that the space is filled better on my (small) screen. I now have a long and narrow table on the left, a small table on the top right and the map below it also right-aligned. It is virtually impossible to arrange the two tables and map in such a way that it looks good on all browsers and resolutions. I hope that it looks decent on most settings. Indeed, the entries with a dash don't have an image on wikipedia yet. There are only about 1110 (just added a picture of Kōjō-ji's pagoda) national treasure temple structures out of 152 without image which is quite remarkable. Except for the konjikidō where photography is not allowed, all structures can be photographed and will eventually have an image. bamse (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  Support based on improvements made. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "In fact the number of structures listed is more than 152" no need to say "In fact". Removed "In fact". bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) battle of Shigisen or Battle of Shigisen? Capitalized. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Was the battle when the temples were constructed or were they constructed after the battle? Fixed by Truthkeeper88 to read: ... in the wake of the Battle of Shigisen in 587, after which Buddhist temples began to be constructed. bamse (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Pagoda overlinked. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "kon-dō" linked on its second use, not first. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "and wars few" comma after wars. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "extant... extant..." repetitive. Removed first "extant". bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "Emperor Shōmu, decreed temples " no need for the comma. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "only extant example of these halls[16][26]" missing some punctuation here. Added "." bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "Excellent examples" excellent in whose opinion? Reworded to "Representative examples" which is closer to what the provided source says. bamse (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "The table's columns (except for Remarks and Images)" - col is called Image. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "year; The column" not a capital letter after the ; Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "structure"; The column " ditto. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) " at 50.1 (m?)," why the ? I used the wrong template (Template:nihongo instead of Template:convert), that's why. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "4.363 m (14.31 ft)," extraordinarily accurate - nearest millimetre? That's what the source says. Probably goes back to the conversion from some Japanese units of measurement. I rounded it to 4.4 m. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "copper-tiel roofing" is that tile? Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Decimal place consistency needed - 18 m (59 ft) vs 29.8 m (98 ft) etc... especially with the mm accuracy above. That's the accuracy provided by the various sources. Indeed mm accuracy does not make much sense here (and is probably due to conversion from some Japanese units). Now I rounded everything to one decimal if the respective source provided this accuracy. I left "18 m", etc where the source did not provide more accuracy. bamse (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "　5×5, single-storied, yosemune style,[ex 8] hongawarabuki roof[ex 2]" seems not left-aligned. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) No need to link ken more than once in a line. Fixed in remarks column of "Chion-in", "Hokke-dō" and "Fudōdō". Hope those were all. bamse (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Note 2 is a little odd, starting with "and ..." and is unreferenced. Made a full sentence out of it (The statues represented the nine stages of nirvana.) and added a reference. bamse (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Note 39 is indecipherable to me. Translated it. bamse (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC) As is the last bullet of Note 35. Translated it. bamse (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC) What makes "Zuiryū-ji" (a) worth linking, (b) reliable? Same with Kaijūsen-ji, Hōgon-ji, Saimyō-ji, etc, etc.. These are major Japanese temples which (a) should have a wikipedia article (after all they have national treasures which makes them notable). (b) The official websites of these temples are a (very) reliable source in my opinion. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 53 needs to be formatted correctly - why the spaces in the title? Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC) What makes "dynax" reliable? It doesn't even load for me. Indeed it does not appear to be reliable. Removed it. The table info for this national treasure is sufficiently referenced by ref 5. bamse (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) further reading link needs an en-dash. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I started to address some point but will need another day or so for the rest. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) As ever you're more than welcome, and please take your time to consider the comments you have yet to address. No rush! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I think I addressed all of your comments. bamse (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Just one thing, what is the default sorting of the table? Jujutacular T · C 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC) The default sorting is the same as the order used by the Database of National Cultural Properties which is published by the designating agency. The order is geographic traversing Japan roughly from north-east to south-west. The same order is used in other featured National Treasures of Japan lists. bamse (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you, that makes sense. Jujutacular T · C 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Jujutacular ^T · C 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 6 April 2010 [21].

---

List of Philadelphia Flyers players

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the FL criteria. It is based on existing ice hockey player lists, but I have added sortability to the tables. Unfortunately, due to the nature of this, the addition of SortKeys has made the article a lot larger and slightly slow to load, which is unfortunate. Harrias (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Anthony (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: No mention is made of stats leaders, such as games played or goals scored. All the other hockey player FLs have that included somewhere in the lead. Have added in a paragraph on this, it has no specific references as the information comes from the table, which is taken from the general references. "of these Bill Barber and Bernie Parent had the most notable careers for the Flyers." - Unsourced and NPOV, should be removed. Done: have provided the full list instead. You might want to update the accessdates on the general reference websites. Done: changed as suggested. Gagne and Timonen's names are not wikilinked on the photos along the side. Done: added links. Maybe include something about how many players are in the Flyers HOF, since it's in the table. Done: added as suggested. Upon further review of the Flyers HOF, I realize a few things. One, there's no source for any of the players' inductions into the Hall. Secondly, according to this article, there's actually 20 members, not 15. You can use the article as a source, but I'd update it to reflect the new info. Anthony (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I've been trying to find a RS for their inductions. Although there are 20 members, only 15 of those are players; the other five are made up of non-playing staff. Harrias (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Done: added that reference in. Harrias (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Overall a good list, just missing a few things that are included in other lists. Fix these issues and I'll gladly support. Anthony (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I've made tweaks and additions as requested. Harrias (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - all comments have been addressed, and list is up to FL standards. Anthony (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment – What makes the following sources reliable? http://www.flyershistory.com/ http://thehockeywriters.com/mike-richards-the-broad-street-captain/ http://www.rauzulustreet.com/hockey/nhl/philadelphia.html – Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Removed hockeywriters and rauzulustreet, left flyershistory in for the sole reason that it is a supporting source to hockeydb; all the information is at hockeydb, but for a list of this size, it's nice to have a supporting source for the information. I can remove it if you feel it is necessary though. Harrias talk 09:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I would personally feel better if the source was removed, as I feel much better about an article/list if the sources are solid. Maybe Hockey-Reference or another site has a good replacement you could use. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Done: removed as source. Harrias talk 09:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Now that the source comments are done, I'll look at the lead like I do for all the lists I review. Only found a couple things worth commenting on here: The last sentence of the first paragraph, regarding expansion, could use a cite. Done: changed as suggested. Harrias talk 21:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC) "with his 420 regular season and 563 playoffs goals." I believe "playoffs" should be singular in this case. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Done: changed as suggested. Harrias talk 21:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Support – Looks good to go. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States - Rmv the "United States" per WP:PLACE. Done: changed as suggested. Disambig Miroslav Dvorák. Done: changed as suggested. 1000 points - Should be 1,000 per WP:MOSNUM. Done: changed as suggested. Hockey Hall of Fame; - Probably need a colon here since you're listing the players immediately after. Same thing after number retired;. Done: changed as suggested. one regular-season - You hyphenate regular season here but there are several other instances in the lead where you did not. Done: changed as suggested. Kimmo Timonen and Simon Gagne. - This caption doesn't need a period since its not a full sentence. Done: changed as suggested. Stats are updated - Probably be better to spell out Statistics. Done: changed as suggested. Daggers should be superscripted. I can do this if you want; I don't particularly have anything against it. But why should they be? Again, just something that has been pointed out to me in several of my FLCs. Prior precedent if you will.—NMajdan•talk Done: changed as suggested.

• When you have a player with multiple season ranges, shouldn't the ranges be separated by a comma?
• Blank cells should use an em dash instead of a regular hyphen.
  • I disagree, many tables use en dashes as I have done here, and there is nothing that I can see in WP:MOSDASH stating that either should be preferred.
    • You're right, I don't see anything in the MOS. It's just something that has been pointed out in a couple reviews of my lists in the past.—NMajdan•talk

• I'd prefer the numerical columns (Seasons through Playoffs SV%) to be center aligned, but that's just personal preference. I won't withhold supporting the list because of this.
  • I'll leave it as it is for the moment, and see if anybody else comments on it. I'm willing to change it, but it'll be arduous, so I don't want to do it and then have three people say they prefer it as is!

—NMajdan•talk 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have made most changes as suggested, but commented on a couple of them. Harrias ^talk 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. My most pressing concerns have been addressed. There are still a few outstanding items, but nothing large enough to prevent my support. I've left those issues uncapped for other reviewers to comment on if needed.—NMajdan•talk 13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Link captain the first time (if you have to), not the second. Done: changed as suggested. "number retired" could you add "by the Flyers" to be clear (particularly to non-experts) which organisation has retired the numbers? Done: changed as suggested. You don't repeat Clarke's first name in the third paragraph but you do repeat Barber's... Done: removed Barber's first name. 1,000 points vs 1817 minutes... be consistent with the comma separators. Done: changed to 1,817. "17 of them were" MOS doesn't like starting sentences with numbers. Done: written number out in full per MOS. Any particular reason why the names are listed by surname? That's how all the other hockey FLs are listed. Is Biron's caption (deadline day trade) cited anywhere? Done: added citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I have responded to them all above. Harrias talk 11:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 6 April 2010 [22].

---

List of Dragonair destinations

Nominator(s): Aviator006 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am in the process of nominating for Cathay Pacific Group for Good Topic and need to bring its relevant lists to FL-status. The article has been overhauled into table format, completely researched and referenced. Aviator006 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments: Alt-text should describe only what is visible in the picture for a viewer not familiar with the subject. For instance, I cannot see that the second pic shows Hong Kong Kai Tak Airport or the third pic shows Guangzhou's Baiyun Airport (this info is already in the caption). You might leave out information which is not relevant to the article such as "blue sky background" in the first picture. Corrected. Aviator006 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Better, but still could be improved. 1st picture: If I don't know what "Dragonair's livery" looks like, the alt text is not very informative. Try to describe what it looks like (dragon at the back, some Chinese characters and "Dragonair"). 2nd picture's alt-text is good. 3rd picture: It is not obvious (at least to me) that the structure in the back is an airport building. Just discovered the parked planes, so 3rd picture's alt-text is ok. bamse (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Updated to read, 'An aircraft painted in white, with a red dragon on its tail and the name Dragonair in both English and Traditional Chinese on the fuselage, taxiing on the taxiway'. Aviator006 (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Note that alt text is no longer required by the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, didn't know that. Sorry for making such a fuss. In any case the alt-text is good now. bamse (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC) "... 11 countries and territories": What does "territories" refer to? (Unfortunately) Hong Kong is not a country and depends who you talk to, the Republic of China is questionable, hence, using the term territories. I have now added a wikilink to [[Territory (administrative division)|territories]]. Aviator006 (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) OK. bamse (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC) " In the coming years...": Proper tense? Updated to 'In the following years,' Aviator006 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC) "more cities in China and other countries within the Asia-Pacific region, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Japan, Nepal, Philippines, Republic of China, South Korea and Vietnam": either replace the country names (other than "China") with city names or add a "to" after "and". 'to' added as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) bamse (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ...and some more: "...cargo division...operated to...": Is this good English? Updated to read 'The airline's cargo division, Dragonair Cargo, operated a fleet of Boeing only aircraft to...' Aviator006 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC) "...freighter fleet were...": maybe "were"->"was"? Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "The destination list shows airports that have been served by Dragonair as part of its scheduled passenger and cargo services since 1985": maybe add "since its founding in" to make clear that "since 1985" is not a restriction on the list. Updated as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Remove the "s" on "codes" in: "The list includes the city, country, the codes..." Sentence updated and the 's' relates to IATA airport code and ICAO aiport code, hence, it is not removed. Aviator006 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Replace "Official website" in the external links section with something more descriptive. I believe 'Official website' is the correct way of doing it on Wikipedia. Arsenikk (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Probably could be in some more categories. [[Category:Cathay Pacific]] added. Aviator006 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Please explain what a "not continual service" is and what " for dates which occur in the future." means and refers to. These two phrases are no longer used in the article. The paragraph previously contained these two phrases have been rewritten. Aviator006 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I see. I was just a bit surprised to see this comment disappear from this page without any notice... How is "Non-continuous service" (appears twice) defined? bamse (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Apologies, I have accidentally deleted it when I update with feedback. Anyway, I have now added '(services to those destinations that have been suspended or terminated and subsequently resumed or recommenced)' to define it. Aviator006 (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) OK, if you get rid of the parantheses I am ready to support. bamse (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I couldn't just remove the parantheses as the sentence will no longer make sense. I have rephrased the sentence to 'Additionally, there are labels for airports that: have been served by cargo or regular charter service only, are the airline's hub, or have services suspended or terminated and subsequently been resumed or recommenced.' Does this sounds better? Aviator006 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Very good! Just one more question: What is a "regular charter service" as compared to a "charter service"?bamse (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Regular charter service is like scheduled service, but is not part of the air services agreement between the two countries. Charter service is a single ad-hoc service. Aviator006 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) and one more... Would it be feasible to add (as a footnote or so) the dates (years) when a non-continuous service was suspended/resumed? bamse (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, I believe this will be too messy for those airlines that have a lot of non-continuous services to show in the article. However, the information is in hidden text in edit mode and in the citation. Aviator006 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) bamse (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support: All comments (very patiently) addressed. bamse (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

;Comments Either 'Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Limited' or 'Dragonair' should be linked, not both of them. Otherwise, you lure the reader to think they are two different articles. Wikilink removed from 'Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Limited'. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 'wholly owned' should have a hyphen. Hyphenated as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The lead is a bit short. Perhaps mention how Dragonair differs from Cathay Pacific; is it a regional airline? Perhaps also mention the former use of Kai Tak Airport as a hub. The lead expanded as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC) There should probably be a 'the' in front of 'Republic of China'. Consider added '(Taiway)' after that, as most people know what Taiwan is, but keeping track of republics and people's republics and whatnot is a bit tedious. Updated to 'Republic of China (Taiwan)'. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 'air operator's certificate' is a common noun, and should be in lower-case. The article should be moved. The term is used as is throughout Wikipedia, if such change is needed, it needs to be applied globally. I believe it should be discussed outside of this Review. Aviator006 (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The description seems to contradict itself, as it first states "...scheduled services..." and later "...only operated charter services..." If this not a typo, then I believe there has been established consensus at WP:Airlines to not include charter services, based among other things on that charter services would involve directory-like entries at an AfD for some three to four years ago now. Paragraph rephrased, please review. Aviator006 (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The prose mentions "charter only" services, but there is none in the key. Also, "charter only" should use a hyphen. Key now included 'Regular charter service only'. Paragraph rephrased as mentioned in comment above. Aviator006 (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) By "main hub", do you mean there are multiple hubs? If so, these should also be indicated, if necessary as "focus city". If not, just use hub. Also, do not caps the second word. No, only single hub, hence, updated to 'Hub'. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) It is a bit of an overlink to link 'Dragonair' in the two top images. Wikilinks removed as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The third image should use an en dash, not a hyphen, as punctuation. See WP:DASH. Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I am a bit weary to include 'unknown' in the table. That essentially means the list is incomplete, unless, of course, it is regarded by reliable sources as unknown. But it might pass, since there is only a single instance. But to be a bit strict, there might be some mention of this in Japanese news sources... Japanese source obtained. Aviator006 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I would have though it was unnecessary to use both the old and new Hong Kong flags; limit to the flag at the time the operation ceased. Old Hong Kong flag removed as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC) New York city needs to link to 'New York City', although it can be piped to New York. Correct to wikilink to [[New York City|New York]]. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The alt texts need to be a bit more concrete, look at WP:ALT. They should not contain proper nouns, but unlike other places on Wikipedia can use subjective terms. One of the flags has an alt-text, and it should be empty. (set alt=) Alt texts updated. Aviator006 (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC) The use of ref groups is perhaps not the best idea. How about just using the raw formatting <sup>[Cargo]</sup> to create the "box". Please elaborate your concern. I see them particularly useful for a long table to be able to click to see its definition. Aviator006 (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) As 'Cathay Pacific destinations' is mentioned in the navbox, there is no need to have it in the see also section. Section removed as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) In the last two external links, 'destinations' and 'network' should be lower-case. Un-capitalised as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Only a single source is not from Dragonair or Cathay Pacific. Perhaps you could take a look at online newspapers, particularly for newer instances, to establish independent sources. I'm not saying they all have to be independent (particular older entries), but there needs to be a fair bit of independent verification. Alternate citations added. Aviator006 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC) I would have though it better to either limit to one image under 'destinations' and let the table receive full width, or add additional images of destination airports. Additional images included. Aviator006 (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I find the top image a bit cropped. Are there any images of full aircraft available? New image included. Aviator006 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Nice to see aviation lists at FLC. Arsenikk (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) All feedback reviewed and updated. Aviator006 (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) There are several things which have not been seen to: Could you mention how many of the services are codeshare. '3' has been added into the lead where codeshare is mentioned. Aviator006 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC) AOC still capitalized. Please explain to me the logic of why it should be capitalized, and don't feed me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you can explain the grammatical implications (for all intents why 'Air Operator's Certificate' is a proper noun) I will let it pass. Most people who have been writing a lot of the aviation articles are really bad writers, and aviation articles are among those with the most capitalization errors. Term uncapped as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC) References are still all to Dragonair or Cathay Pacific As per my sign off on the 26th, there were more than a dozen non-KA/CX citations, compared to 1 initially reported. Aviator006 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) The [cargo] etc boxes should be in plain text, to avoid unnecessary linking Linked labels removed. Aviator006 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Could you come with a slightly more precise definition of "regular charter". Definition added with citation. Aviator006 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Arsenikk (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) What makes ref 7 ("Goodbye Kai Tak") a reliable source? Alternate reference added. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) A lot of the references use spaced emdashes, see WP:DASH. Corrected to endashes. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Arsenikk (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments "in Hong Kong; with its corporate headquarters" not sure you need that ;, perhaps a comma, but not the ;. Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Don't really think Chairman requires a wikilink. Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) However, consider linking alliance to Airline alliance (after Oneworld) Linked as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "Dragonair Flight 841 from Chongqing was the airport's last scheduled arrival flight and the aircraft landed on runway 13 at 15:38 GMT (23:38 Hong Kong time) on 8 July 1998." quite a bit over the top for me really. Do I need to know the precise time and runway on which the last flight landed? 'and the aircraft landed on runway 13 at 15:38 GMT (23:38 Hong Kong time) on 8 July 1998' removed from article. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Shanghai and Hong Kong should be linked on all instances in the table, due to sorting, who knows which one will come first... Linked as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) End sorts peculiarly - you should force the "present" to sort as, say, 2010. I have used {{sort|2100|present}} to enable sorting. Also, to ensure the 'present' will sorted as last. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Ref should be Refs. Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Additional comments reviewed and updated. Aviator006 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Done well to (patiently) address the concerns raised by others. Sb617 (Talk) 00:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 3 April 2010 [23].

---

NWA World Middleweight Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ -DK  09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this list for Featured List because I feel it conforms to the FLC and generally has the review input from previous FLCs I've done worked into it. There are currently three redlinked articles: César Curiel, Gran Cochisse and La Fiera. Since the FLC process usually takes over 2 weeks I am confident that I will turn the links blue before the FLC process is over. The wrestlers who are not linked are wrestles where I have been unable to find much information on the except that they've won this particular championship so it's my judgement that they do not fullfill the Notability criteria and thus do not have to be linked.

As always I am open to any and all comments and will work to produce the best possible list.  MPJ -DK  09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• All three done before the first review :)  MPJ -DK  16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Resolved comments from Harrias

* "CMLL retained three NWA labeled titles, the Middlweight championship, the NWA World Welterweight Championship and the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship despite them no longer being officially recognized by the NWA and promotes both to this day." Both? As there are three of them, surely it should be 'all'? A slightly clunky sentence overall though, so might be better to completely reword. Also, you missed an 'e' out of Middleweight in the sentence above. "In early March, 2010 Blue Demon, Jr. and president of NWA Mexico, Macias Eduardo Garrido," there should be a 'the' before 'president'. 'usinging' should just be 'using'. "had said to ignore the CMLL's used of the belt NWA Mexico" should be 'use' not 'used' and should be a comma after belt. "presented a new versions" no need for the 'a'. "promoted by CMLL, previous attempts were ignored" instead of the comma, a colon might fit better. "Averno is the current NWA World Middleweight champion having defeated" should be a comma after 'champion'. "This is Averno's second NWA World Middleweight title reign as he was also the first Mexican to hold the title after it had been promoted in Japan for almost ten years." Very wordy sentence, could do with a complete rewrite. "René Guajardo has the most reigns, having held the championship six times." Peculiar phrasing, possibly reword to something more like "René Guajardo has held the championship on six seperate occasions, the most by any wrestler." "while the Great Sasuke's single regin is the longest individual reign" - Typo, regin should be reign. To be honest, the points I've made above are the tip of the iceberg. I would recommend delisting the article from here, getting a peer review, and if possible, a copy edit done, and then bring it back. Harrias (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC) All addressed. While I agree that parts of this could need another run through before I submitted it I think to withdraw and copyedit would be overkill, it's a slow process and I'll get someone to help with the copyediting in the next day or so.  MPJ -DK  17:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC) That's fine, it was a recommendation, no more. I know how slow things can be here. I'll have another read through this evening and see if anything more jumps out at me, and then get onto the list itself. Harrias talk 17:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Every little thing helps so thank you for everything and I do appreciate the suggestion.  MPJ -DK  17:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I had another go at it with a bit of input from someone else, I did a bit of copyedit and tightened up the language a bit to make it better.  MPJ -DK  22:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC) "awarded the title to Gus Kallio, a five time" - five-time "and the "King of the Middleweights"" - why are 'King' and 'Middleweights' capitalised? They aren't in the cited source? I changed it to lower case, and the source does say it confirms Kallio as "king of the middleweights" from what I can read.  MPJ -DK  09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC) My fault, I meant to say that they weren't capitalised in the source, not that they weren't in the source! Harrias talk 10:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC) "Kallio's original World Middleweight Title" - is 'World Middleweight Title' the name of his, well, title? If not, it shouldn't be capitalised. fixed "changed their name to Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre to in order" - No need for the 'to' after Libre, and as you use CMLL later on, you should include it here in brackets. I already put (CMLL) earlier in the text. Apologies, you're right. Harrias talk 10:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC) "that were all originated in CMLL." - should probably be "that all originated in CMLL" without the 'were'. Although did they originate in CMLL, or in EMLL? Also, can you provide a reference for this. EMLL naturally since that's what it was called at the time (Fixed) and the "General source" listed at the bottom covers all title history up until 2000, including the origins of this and the other NWA titles.  MPJ -DK  09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC) In fact, you make a lot of claims in the second paragraph that are unsourced, can you provide references for the vast majority of it? The general reference covers all of it, it would have to be cited like 80 times so I decided to make it a general reference with a clear explanation on what specific period it coveres.  MPJ -DK  09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Okay, I read your explanation as meaning that the source covered who had won the title in those years. I'll have a look through it to confirm, but if it does indeed cover most of this paragraph, then it isn't an issue.Harrias talk 10:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just noticed it is an offline source, so I'll accept what you say in good faith.Harrias talk 10:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I'll come back to this once you've worked on these, but possibly it may still be worth de-listing it, working on it and coming back. It has definitely got an FL in there, I'm just not sure how close it is! Harrias talk 09:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC) It's there is too much work left I'll delist it.  MPJ -DK  09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC) With your general source covering that paragraph, the article will be much closer than I had indicated. Shouldn't be a problem. I'll check through it. Harrias talk 10:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks pretty close for me now. Well done on all your work to resolve our comments; it would have been easy to get disheartened! Harrias ^talk 10:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit I had a sinking feeling for a while, thank you so much for all the extremely constructive input, it made the articles 10 times better.  MPJ -DK  10:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – Too many prose glitches for me at the moment. A few of them are listed below, but I don't guarantee that I got them all. I agree with Harrias that a copy-editor is needed.

• "The championship was called the 'World Middleweight Championship', created by Salvador Lutteroth". Seems to be missing "and" after the comma.
• "The title was created at an unknown point before March 29, 1939 and awarded to Gus Kallio." The "awarded to Gus Kallio" part was already covered in a previous sentence.
• "and changed their name to Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre to in order...". The promotion has both repeated links and repeated initials, neither of which are needed. Also, there's that misplaced word at the end.
• Hyphen needed for "NWA labelled" and "NWA branded" at various times.
• Remove comma before "that were all originated in CMLL."
• "Dragon won the title from Corazon de Leon on November 8, 1994 after which he began promoting the belt in Japan;". Comma after the year. Also, the semi-colon here should just be a comma.
• Hyphen for "CMLL based" in "the first CMLL based title match since 1994."
• "In March, 2010...". Move comma to after year.
• "and the president of sent letters...". Something's missing here.
• "but was ignored by CMLL. CMLL...". Try to avoid the repetition of the promoter's name here.
• Comma after "Averno is the current champion".
• Change the semi-colon before "while the Great Sasuke's single reign..." to a comma.
• Gus Kallio note: "due to the fact that he already held the World Middleweight Champion in the United States". "Champion" → "Championship". Also, there should probably be a period after this.
• Anibal note: "Anibal defeated El Cobarde in decision match to win the title." Missing "a" before "decision match"; the other similar notes have one.
• Reigns by combined length: De-capitalize Of Reigns and Days in the headings.
• Shouldn't footnotes 3 through 7 begin with capital letters?
• Reference 3: The em dash for the page range should be a smaller en dash. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll do the various fixes later, I'm just not sure if it'd be worth still having this be a FLC if there are so many problems with the prose that I just seem to miss.  MPJ -DK  22:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• I've done all the fixes, I just want people's honest opinion - how much work does it need? If it needs quite a bit of work I'll withdraw it for copyediting.  MPJ -DK  19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not one to usually doubt myself but right now I get the impression that i presented a bowl of alphabet soup for an article, which is a first for me. I apologize.  MPJ -DK  19:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's much better than it was; although it sounds slightly stilted now. I will read through it again properly at some stage, but my dinner is ready now! Harrias ^talk 19:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:45, 3 April 2010 [24].

---

List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes

Nominator(s): Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I spent a lot of time on it, and it's the main article in a topic I'm writing. It's about the freak tropical cyclones that don't form during the normal season. Short, sweet, and too the point. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

oh, one little comment, i have no opinion one way or another on the title, whether it should be "off-season Atlantic hurricanes" or "off-season Atlantic tropical cyclones". --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken care of some of these issues, but there's still a lot to do, and seeing as this has been up for 3 weeks now, I would like to withdraw it, rather than continue. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC):

• Deaths and damages are reversed under the 2007 hurricane, Olga.
• Ref 20, [25], appears to be dead.
• The two images appear to lack alt text. See what's been written for Hurricane Rick for an idea on what it should look like [26] See WP:ALT for more precise guidelines.
• The first paragraph of Records and statistics: "[...]most recently Tropical Depression One in 2009." You might consider rephrasing this, so that this information will remain correct in the event that another out of season hurricane occurs and the article isn't updated.

Images are verifiably in the public domain (although the source page for the Hurricane Alice image was dead, here is the proper link [27], in case anyone cares), no ambiguous links. Good luck!

OK, I fixed the image for Alice, switched the damage/deaths for Olga, replaced the olga links w/ one single link thats more official, and added alt texts. i didn't change the wording about the "most recently", since the entire article will have to be updated when there's another off-season storm. Thanks a lot for your review! Viennaiswaiting (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I suppose that's true. Ok. I'm striking my previous comments, and supporting on all but one count (the article is stable; the prose seems to be high quality; the lead is short, but it is a short article; no structural issues that I can see; and style appears to be in line with requirements) The only exception would be criterion (3). Not that it isn't comprehensive, I just don't feel qualified to judge it one way or the other (sorry). Nice, brief article. Best wishes! ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

sweet, thanks! Viennaiswaiting (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - as this list covers all known off season AHS cyclones. This being merged into an global list wouldnt work IMO as there are no preseason Cyclones in the Western Pacific/Northern Indian Ocean.Jason Rees (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This list is inconsistent in its treatment of off-season tropical depressions. In the parts of the list covering recent times, it has no problem linking to tropical depressions. However, for parts of the list covering earlier times, it doesn't bother linking to them (not even section links). To a much lesser extent, this also applies to tropical storms. Perhaps it ought to be consistent in how it treats OSTC's across different timeframes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I went back through and made sure there was proper links for every tropical storm, subtropical storm, or tropical depression that had a section in a season article. Some didn't have a section in the season article, so I left those unlinked. Originally, I only linked those with articles, but this works too. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can support now then. Many older seasons usually don't have much to say about tropical depressions, and probably don't need their own section as it probably isn't worth it to have a section that maxes out at one sentence. However, a full of discussion of what to do about this doesn't belong at this FLC page. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - a really quick browse...

• Lead is inadequate. Needs to "summarise" the whole article. There are numerous examples of our current featured lists which would help.
• Date ranges should use unspaced en-dashes, not spaced hyphens per WP:DASH.
• List could easily be made sortable.
• The color key fails WP:ACCESS as there doesn't seem to be a way of discerning what a color means without the color. In other words, if I can't discern color, I can't use the key.
• Region affected - there are often more than one, so shouldn't this be Region(s)?
• Spaced hyphens in the references. Not per MOS please.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• • thx for reviewing: lead is longer, i see you did the date range and spaced hyphens (i think), the list is now sortable, and now its "region(s) affected". the colors are based off the saffir-simpson scale, which is at the top-right of the climo section: should i say in prose what the colours represent? Viennaiswaiting (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Sortability goes nuts when you sort by date... (in Safari at least) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
      • should i remove the sortability then?? Viennaiswaiting (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Or fix it. It usually goes wrong when you have colspans or rowspans. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Removing colspans/rowspans should fix the table sorting issue. If you still require two rows at the top (and need to prevent the second row being part of the sort), check out the sortbottom trick at Help:Sorting#Excluding rows from sorting. But you need to fix up the sorting on the dates anyway. Currently your months are being sorted alphabetically, so "April", "December", "February, "January", etc. You'll need to use the {{sort}} template to fix this up. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
            • ok, should be good. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

More...

• When sorting by name the #-named storms don't sort in the correct order.
• When a date spans you use an en-dash, when the seasons span you use a slash. Be consistent.
• Pressure column doesn't sort correctly.
• N/A means not applicable or not available? I would add a quick note to be sure.
• Damage column doesn't sort correctly.
• Deaths column doesn't sort correctly.
• As per the color discussion above, you need to ensure that the storms identified with colors are also identified with something that is non-color related, e.g. a * or a ^ or similar.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now:

Lead:

• Image caption describes Hurricane Alice as "the first Atlantic hurricane to span two calendar years". Shouldn't this be first recorded hurricane to span two years, as opposed the first hurricane?
• What years does this article cover? At the bottom of the article it says "In the official Atlantic hurricane database, the first storm to occur outside of the current season was in 1865", and searching around I found this goes back to 1851, but there is no mention of this in the article. It would be worthwhile explicitly mentioning what date ranges this list covers.
• First sentence sounds a little forced because it includes the name of the article for bolding purposes. MOS:BOLDTITLE says you don't need to include the article title (or bold it) if the title is sufficiently descriptive. You could probably make the first sentence sound more natural if you don't include the text "list of off-season Atlantic hurricanes".
• The second and third sentences of the lead explicitly talk about 'on-season' rather than 'off-season'. It's a bit jarring when I'm expecting to read about off-season hurricanes.
• Lead says that "The [Atlantic hurricane] season is currently defined from June 1 to November 30". Defined by who? Also, with the sentence above I'm not sure about the wording. I'd prefer "The United States Weather Bureau currently defines the Atlantic hurricane season as occuring between June 1 and November 30 each calendar year."
• "Of the storms that struck land, areas of the Caribbean Sea were affected most." -- In general, prose could use tightening up. Also, shouldn't this be areas surrounding the Caribbean Sea? Areas of the Caribbean Sea itself is just sea, and doesn't match the part about striking land.
• (There's probably more which I can say about tightening up the prose and deciding which things to include in the intro vs the background vs the statistics, but I'll see how the article changes with my feedback first)

Background:

• In the background it says "The Atlantic hurricane season was not always as long as it is now." This sentence seems redundant as is; I'm going to find out that in the next two sentences anyway.
• One of the references mentions re: start/end dates that "the end date has been slowly shifted outward, from October 31st to November 15th until its current date of November 30th." In the background section it seemed like there was a single date range in 1938, which was changed to a new date range in 1964. There was no mention of any changes inbetween or otherwise.
• It mentions definitions of the hurricane season by the United States Weather Bureau. Do any of the other nations mentioned under "Region(s) affected" operate their own meterology services? If so, do any of these other nations have definitions for the hurricane season? Are they the same as the US definitions or different? When were these definitions implemented? (I don't know if there are any answers to these questions, but I'm genuinely curious. I realise most of the source material is from the US, but a worldwide perspective would be great if possible)
• The 'hurricane season' was first defined in 1938, yet the list includes cyclones which occurred prior to that. What definition of off-season is being using for these cyclones? I don't think it's explicitly mentioned that cyclones prior to to 1938 are being classified as on- or off-season based on the current definitions.
• Similarly, what definition is being used for cyclones that occured between 1938 and 1965? When it occurred, Tropical Storm Thirteen (1953) would have been defined as an off-season storm by 1953 standards, but isn't included in this list.

List:

• To my knowledge, units should be left uncapitalised in the table headings. i.e. "Winds (km/h)", not "Winds (Km/h)"
• The table uses a pattern of "Wind [linebreak] (units)", but then used "Pressure [linebreak] units (equivalent units)". Why is "knots" in brackets but "Mbar" isn't?
• As The Rumbling Man mentioned above, Names for numbered storms, Pressure, Damage and Deaths columns don't sort correctly. Read up on Help:Sorting#Numeric sorting with hidden key
• Currently when sorting by alphabetical order, "Unnamed" sits between "Peter" and "Zeta". Given that the term 'Unnamed' is arbitrarily given anyway, I'd prefer if you used the sort template so that these are separated from named cyclones. i.e. {{sort|!|Unnamed}}. ("!" is one of the few characters which will sort before "#1")
• When you fix the above sorting, I'd define "Several" deaths as a number greater than 0 in the sort template so they sort seperately to 0 deaths
• Every mention of deaths other than Arlene (1959) and Ana (2003) cites a reference for the death toll. Why are these two unreferenced?
• Same deal as above for the "Minimal" damages of Arlene (1981) and Lili (1984)
• For cyclones with 0 death toll there is no reference for that number. I assume that such information is more readily available when there is an actual death toll to report, but are you sure there were no deaths for each of those other storms? For all I know, whoever wrote the article might've not searched hard enough for a death toll number and just assumed there were no deaths because they didn't read anything to indicate the contrary.

Statistics:

• Your table under monthly statistics defines the listed months as "Month of formation", but the image on the right does not make a similar definition.
• Do you need a separate section for "Monthly statistics"? In the previous section called "Records and statistics" you already started describing the frequency of storms by month ("Storms were most likely to occur in May, followed by December.")
• "Only one cyclone was reported in March, in 1908, [...]" -- Every cyclone in this paragraph includes its name with the exception of this one
• "[...] and only one tropical storm has ever occurred in February or April, the 1952 Groundhog Day Storm and Tropical Storm Ana of 2003, respectively" -- If there was only one in February and one in March, how come the table says "February - 2" and "April - 7"? Either something is wrong here or needs clarifying.
• "Overall, there have been 58 tropical cyclones in each [emphasis added] month between December and May" - 52 tropical cyclones per month? :)

--Tntnnbltn (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I see I have a lot to do, a lot of small errors, so I'm going to withdraw it and work on it some more. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:23, 16 April 2010 [28].

---

Aurealis Award for best science fiction novel

Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well following the trend of Aurealis Award for best horror novel and Aurealis Award for best fantasy novel, here is its science fiction equivalent. Note, i omitted the "ties situation" sentence for this list because there hasnt been any ties as of yet, but if anyone feels it should be re-added ill do that in an instance. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments - been a while, and I apologise for the lack of comments from anyone. So here's some stuff... yearly - ok, accurate but would be happier with "annually" Changed. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) "The Aurealis Award design given to the winner" do you mean the design on a trophy or something that is awarded to the winner? Further explained. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) "Awarded for Excellence in fantasy fiction" - your lead includes many more genres... Woops, oversight, changed to science fiction to relate directly to this list. Salavat (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Not 100% convinced you need to split into decades. It was only split to creat a shorter table. As it isnt a sortable table i didnt think it was a problem. It can be changed to one table if you feel that would be more appropriate or if it is decided to make sortable. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) You could look at Mercury Prize for how to create a sortable table with similar entries as you have here. I dont think the Mercury prize is that great because all it can do is sort the winner and the aurealis also have a publisher which would increase the amount of text in the short-list nominee box. I prefer the current format but if sortability is really an issue then i think this layout would be the most appropriate (also used here for another example Academy Award for Best Picture). Or it can be changed so that all columns are sortable besides the year column. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Ive done a sandbox of 1995 here for an example. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Okay, ignoring my ramblings above, ive created a table now which is sortable and merges both decades together. Salavat (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Voyager, HarperVoyager both redirect. Is that still accurate? Voyager is the old imprint they used. they now use an imprint called HarperVoyager. Salavat (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I prefer this format. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, now to go back to my previous featured lists and reformat them. Salavat (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Mm40 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC). Well well, we meet again!

• The caption is worded oddly; I suggest "The Aurealis Award design is often placed on the winning books' cover as a promotional tool." or something similar
  • Changed to suggestion. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Is there any information on when (i.e. what month) in the following year the award ceremony is held?
  • It doesnt appear to be consistent from a look at the locus online references. The last three years have been in january but before that they have been in february and march. And the only mention of the ceremony date on the official site is for this years ceremony and not an overall hosting date. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• The article is using both "short list" and "short-list"
  • Changed the un-dashed one to a dashed one. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think you're missing a comma after the year here: "Since 2003 hounarable mentions have been". Also, is there a reference for this change being made in 2003?
  • Fixed the comma issue. The sentence on honourable mentions isnt really a referencable thing, its more like a statement to just say that they started. It wasnt a change to the awards and they dont give any direct reasons why they exist however you would assume the obvious. The only mention of honourable mentions is in the guideline for judges [29], but that doesnt state why they can be included by the judges. I dont think there would be any real reason other the the judges wanting to make a mention of the book, and they havent all started in 2003, eg young-adult cat only has 2005, it appears to be upon the judges whim, but as there isnt anything that states that i cant add it as a reason. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• The section names should not include "novel". Thus, "Novel winners and nominees" → "Winners and nominees" and "Honourable mention novels" → "Honourable mentions"
  • Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• This is just a personal preference, but consider centering the tables by adding style="text-align:center" at the beginning
  • Centered. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Since some books have multiple authors, I think the "Author" column heading should be "Author(s)"
  • Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Really nitpicky, I know, but I think the last column would look nicer without the period after "Ref."
  • Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all I can find, I look forward to supporting once the above issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people would raise the question that your "meet again" might be a polite way of saying "stalking" :). But either way its all good to me. Thanks for the review, Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, never thought of it that way. Anyways, nice article. Mm40 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, stalking or meeting is always welcome at by featured candidates. Thanks again. Salavat (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Try using: {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} instead of simply 2 columns. At wide resolutions, 2 columns looks awkward. Done. Salavat (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Why have width="85%" for the table? At small resolutions, there is a lot wasted space. I don't think there is enough aesthetic gain for wider resolutions to justify it. So you you want me to just go the full 100% instead?? Salavat (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Actually just leave it out, which effectively makes it width="auto". That way, it takes up as much room as it needs to, but no more. Jujutacular T · C 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Ok, so i took it out of then previewed the table without the widths set on the columns but now it looks strangly too narrow. Salavat (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Yea, I think you're right. I put it back. Jujutacular T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 00:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Jujutacular ^T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 3 April 2010 [30].

---

Taylor Swift discography

Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria to become a Featured List in Wikipedia. Most likely all that is missing are minor things. ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Why not just say "country music" rather than just "country" to let our non-experts get the drift of it? done "eponymous debut album, Taylor Swift, in 2006." perhaps "Swift, the following year"? done "topped Top Country Albums" just unfortunate that you chose to use "topped" with a "Top" chart. Can you rephrase? done I rephrased it to "peaked at number-one on". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC) "spun out a total of five" ugh, maybe "produced five"? done "She followed with the " - "Swift followed.." done If you use EP put it as (EP) after the first use of "extended play" done "non-consecutive weeks,[7] became the best-selling" becoming. done "Swift obtained her biggest debut on the Billboard Hot 100 with "Today Was a Fairytale" from the Valentine's Day soundtrack.[14]" when? This sounds like a last minute bomb you've dropped! done I added the date. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Extended plays section needs spaces after "Formats:" done Certifications in the lead are lower case, in the tables they're upper case. Pick one and stick with it. That's because in the lead they are in paragraph form and, in the tables, they are not. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message "The latter found its current peak in the Billboard Hot 100" - current peak? done I removed the word "current". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC) "as released in June 2009 but charted in January 2010." how? It was released in June 2009 but did not chart until January 2010. Since it was two different calendar years, people felt the need to include it. What do you say? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I count 13 music videos (inc the one without a director) while the infobox has 12... done The infobox was wrong. There are 13 music videos. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Notes which are complete sentences shouldn't have full stops. I'm sorry. I don't understand. Could you explain? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Stupid me. I mean "Notes which are not complete sentences shouldn't have full stops." Never mind, it doesn't seem to be a problem any longer in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "to be certified gold by the RIAA before its release" - I think you should explain how this is possible! It was certified gold due to digital downloads only and before it was announced a single, hence before its CD release. I am not quite sure how to phrase this. Do you have any ideas? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Maybe add a note along the lines of "(as a result of digital downloads)" or similar? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) done

• Oppose. Chart Stats should not be used as a source. Numerous better sources exist (Music Week, ChartsPlus, ...). Goodraise 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Goodraise 02:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Chartstats is listed as website used as archive on Template:Singlechart#Non-Billboard charts. So, I think its perfectly usable. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid being listed on some random Wikipedia page doesn't make a source reliable. The one page that matters is the one linked from the featured list criteria: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Goodraise 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable sources and it does not seem to violate it. There is no poor reputation for checking facts. There is editorial oversight. It does not express "views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.". Furthermore, Chartstats.com is used on FL discographies like Gwen Stefani discography, Hilary Duff discography, Madonna albums discography, Madonna singles discography, and Rihanna discography. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• How do you know that there is editorial oversight? Where is the evidence of Chart Stats' reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? As for those other lists using Chart Stats, feel free to fix them. Goodraise 02:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• If it had no editorial oversight then just anyone or any user could edit the website and it doesn't work like that. But that may be me speculating. If it had a bad reputation, it would be on Wikipedia's black list or be mentioned on Wikipedia pages or guidelines, but since it's not, I think can be used without problem. There is nothing saying the website cannot be used as a source or even advising against using the source. On the contrary, Template:Singlechart#Non-Billboard charts advises to use the website. What is your reason for questioning Chartstats.com as a reliable source? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• The absence of an edit button is no proof of editorial oversight and that black list is not what you think it is. -- I am saying the source should not be used. The documentation of some template says it can be used. Neither matters. The only thing that does is whether WP:RS is met. -- I don't need a reason to question Chart Stats' reliability. It's not "Reliable until proven unreliable." It's the other way round. Goodraise 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• ChartStats is a reliable source as per WP:CHARTS. Extensive discussions have happened there regarding this, and consensus is to use the website. Please don't oppose based on that. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:CHARTS is a style guideline and as such has no business concerning itself with the reliability of sources. As for those extensive discussions, I assume they contain some convincing arguments as to how Chart Stats meets WP:RS? If they don't, then that "consensus" is worth squat. Goodraise 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• It does. One of the recent discussions is Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Chart Stats, Zobbel, everyHit and αCharts.us. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• So then, what are those arguments? What is it that makes Chart Stats a reliable source? Goodraise 23:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• According to the discussion, ChartStats "has the flow diagram on there which no other UK sources have. ChartStats should be used according to Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS as it always seems reliable and it's the only one that can be used with the {{singlechart}} macro system." -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• That doesn't answer my question. What is it that makes Chart Stats a reliable source? Goodraise 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• That it's factual. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• How do you know that? Goodraise 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you check positions in Chart Stats and the actual page, positions 1 - 100 are archived with correct information. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's not enough, even if it is true. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources does not say that sources which contain only correct information are reliable. As far as I can tell, Chart Stats is nothing but an anonymously published website with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Goodraise 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• That is you complete personal opinion and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. It is currently being used in many articles and is approved by WP:CHARTS. That's all we need to use it. If you have a problem, leave a comment on the page's talk. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• All your arguments on why the site should be considered reliable boil down to "because other Wikipedia editors think it should". You don't see a problem with that? As for back-up, mine is called WP:V, which is policy and therefore takes precedence over that style guideline of yours. As WP:V puts it: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable 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." As far as I know, that's not the case here.
  Until I hear some solid and substantiated argument as to why I should consider that page reliable, I will remain opposed, no matter how many editors, style guidelines, and template documentation pages tell me to do otherwise. Goodraise 02:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• The flaw with that is: WP:V is not in doubt. The difference you have is with WP:RS which is a guideline and like wise WP:GOODCHARTS which is also guideline, both are to be applied with common sense meaning there are exceptions to them. WP:Consensus(a policy) has established that ChartStats is an acceptable source and thus it is listed in WP:GOODCHARTS, but if you feel consensus can change in this case then bring up the issue on WT:CHARTS. In the mean while I not would recommend attempting to derail on article for FLC by editors who are doing exactly what is appropriate to meet the recommended guidelines. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a difference with WP:RS. Throw RS out of the window, forget I even mentioned it, and I'd still be opposing this FLC for violating WP:V. As for that consensus I keep hearing about, there's no such thing, only a group of editors who apparently think that they can themselves provide a source with sufficient credibility. But lets take a step back. Above policy stands common sense. So, answer me this: Why should I (being a reader of Wikipedia) believe anything that's written on Chart Stats? Any answer to this question that boils down to "Because one or more Wikipedia editors think so." is not good enough. Goodraise 00:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry to butt in here, but in all of my time being an editor and all the discussions and whatnot about uk chart sources, you (Goodraise) are the only editor that feels the way you do. so that shows that there is consensus among other editors and admins alike. there are many discussions about uk sources, all of them with many examples of undoubtedly reliably sources that use chartstats as a source, so take your views to those instead of filling up every single discography you review. Mister sparky (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"in all of my time being an editor and all the discussions and whatnot about uk chart sources, you ... are the only editor that feels the way you do." - Easily proven wrong.
"there are many discussions ... with many examples of undoubtedly reliably sources that use chartstats as a source" - Where are those discussions? More importantly, where are those examples? Thus far, I've seen not a single one.
As for filling up FLCs, what I have to say takes one line. Hardly too much. Goodraise 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

the bbc news, bbc radio, reuters, sky news, the telegraph newspaper reporting uk parliament debates about eurovision chart entries, norwegian newspapers etc etc. but its become quite clear nothing is going to change your mind. as with all opinions on chart sources, thats just what they are, personal opinions. but the majority of opposes you give to discographies makes no difference anyways.Mister sparky (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the ones given here? The ones citing EveryHit.com? Goodraise 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

yep cuz you had probs with that as well. there were more with chartstats. but doesnt matter anyways. Mister sparky (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So, you keep insisting that there were such examples in regard to Chart Stats in those discussions, but instead of backing up that claim with proof, you suggest that I am unreasonable, that I would continue to oppose FLCs using the source even in the face of strong evidence of its reliability? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Have I displayed such a behavior in the past? Goodraise 22:14, 23 March 2010(UTC)

Seriously, if you have a problem with ChartStats.com, then write a comment on Wikipedia talk: Record charts, not here. This isn't the page to decide whether a source is reliable or not. I just follow Wikipedia guidelines, which state that ChartStats.com is perfectly fine. If you reach a consensus opposing the use of the website, then come here and I will gladly change the source. But as for right now, ChartStats.com is considered a reliable source. Thank you. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let us for one second assume that Wikipedia:Record charts is not a style guideline, but a content guideline, and that neither Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources nor Wikipedia:Verifiability have any say whatsoever in questions of source reliability. So, what is Wikipedia:Record charts' decree? Perhaps it is "Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives". Take a good look at the page. The only time that Chart Stats is mentioned there is in the sentence "Archived at Chart Stats." It states nowhere that Chart Stats is a reliable source. -- By the way, in the article, you've labeled Chart Stats as being published by The Official Charts Company. If that were the case, I wouldn't oppose its usage. Goodraise 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Per [31], the site has editorial review and information is retrieved from reliable sources such as Yahoo!, The Official Charts Company, and the BBC. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That page says nothing about editorial oversight. The only indication is the "Contact Me" link on the left, which suggests to me that the site is run by a single (not to mention anonymous) individual. Even if that person is vigilantly overseeing his/her/its own work, that's nowhere near good enough. As for the sources used, Wikipedia uses reliable sources too, but that doesn't make it reliable itself. Now, if Yahoo!, The Official Charts Company, and the BBC were using Chart Stats as a source, that would be a different story. Goodraise 18:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It says "The singles archive was provided very kindly by Colin at PolyHex and the albums chart archive was kindly published by Lonnie of DistantStar on the UKmix forums." And I have no way of finding out if the website is licensed. Once again, take it up with Wikipedia guidelines not this article. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Colin at PolyHex" and "Lonnie of DistantStar on the UKmix forums"? Who are they? Are they experts on UK charts or something? Once again, why should I "take it up with Wikipedia guidelines", when they're backing my position already? Goodraise 06:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Wonderfully constructed discography. Improved much from the ongoing fan-war edits happening when I last checked. Here are my issues.

1. A comma after Swift in the line The discography of American country music recording artist Taylor Swift.
   • done
2. In the United States, Taylor Swift peaked at number five on the Billboard 200,[1] peaked at number-one Top Country Albums --> Sounds awkward. Try In the United States, Taylor Swift peaked at number five on the Billboard 200, and number one on Top Country Albums. Be consistent with number-one and number one.
   • done
3. Taylor Swift marked the longest stay on the Billboard 200 by any album released in the decade. --> Which decade?
   • done
4. with the releases of the EPs --> with the release of the EPs
   • done
5. Swift obtained her biggest debut on the Billboard Hot 100 in February 2010 --> Mention that it debuted at 2.
   • done
6. Remove NZ certification from Fearless. Minor market certifications are not listed. It's for the album article.
   • done
7. Same from the singles tables.
   • done
8. The note links don't work.
   • • They work for me and there are no dead links per [32]. Please check again. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
       • I'm not talking about references. The notes like [A], [B], [C]. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
         • Oh, haha...I don't understand why. I evaluated them and compared them to other notes and don't know why. Could it be because some letters are repeated since I put it as one per section? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
           • It might be. Try Madonna singles discography and copy the different note jargons from it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
             • Did and I think that's the problem, but how could I unite all of those notes if there are three different sections? I guess put them into a section called songs or something and then the rest as subsections. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
               • I think put different alphabets for the sections. Like in the first section there's A, B, C as the notes. In the next section, don't start with a new A, B, C. Start from D, E... --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
                 • That's perfect. You are a genius! -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
9. The publisher for allmusic is Rovi Corporation not Macrovision.
   • done
10. Ref 3 and 6 for RIAA, use an en-dash(–) b/w RIAA and Gold. Check for the dashes in the other sources also.
    • done
11. For the Hung Medien references, give the work as the main charting source, like ARIA Charts for australian-charts, tracklisten for the danish ones, etc.
    • Don't understand. Coudl you please explain? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Hung Medien is not the actual publisher of those charts. The main charting company or the source should be notified. Hence add them in the work parameter of the reference. For eg, again check Madonna singles discography. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • done

These are the things I could find. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Concerns have been addressed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from liquidluck✽talk 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

*I've edited the article in the past so I would have a bit of a COI supporting, but here's a few comments: "becoming the best-selling album" -> "became the best-selling album", in order to preserve the sentence's parallel structure. done "of 2008 and 2009" Add "in the United States" to make it clear it wasn't worldwide (unless it was?). Also, cite the clause to citation #14 since it isn't supported by the RIAA cite. I did the first two parts. Now, I don't understand the last one. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No worries, I did it myself. liquidluck✽talk 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Citation #3 isn't working for me? The link works but the page just contains "Search results: First, First". It works for me. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC) It still isn't working for me, but if it works for others that's good enough for me. liquidluck✽talk 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC) "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." -> "denotes songs which did not chart or were not released in the region" done liquidluck✽talk 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – The lead looks worthy of an FL, but I noticed a reference issue above involving Chartstats, which is used to source UK chart positions. Since I have no knowledge regarding what chart sites are reliable, I wanted to ask something from another point of view, namely what alternatives are there? Is there something online that is considered reliable, so that old magazines don't have to be individually cited? Or are the magazines the only source here that won't be questioned? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This would of course be considered acceptable, but unfortunately it doesn't come out till November. The current edition only covers up to 2007..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 24 April 2010 [33].

---

List of members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This list presents the 54 men and women who have awarded what is arguable the world's most prestigious prize. Hopefully, it also meets the FL criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Good list! A few comments though,

• Parties are not linked, as it is sortable they cd all be wikilinked
  • The agrarian party is not linked properly? Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The Agrarian Party and the Centre Party are the same (they changed their name half a century ago to get more votes). Therefore, the former sorts as the latter.
      • Shd be noted Sandman888 (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • It is clearly stated in the prose, while discussing the party alignments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• It's not chaired between 1909-22 ? Shd be explained in note or corrected.
  • Solved Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• If images had same size it'll look better.
  • See WP:Images for how to force same size. Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I tried to experiment, but no matter what I do, some of the images will look bad. There are also accessibility reasons to use default image sizes, and use of "upright" should make them correct. I notice Jørgen Løvland was not "uprighted", so it should look better now.
• Most of your sources is in Norwegian. Per WP:Sources English is preferred, perhaps other could be found. Sandman888 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The problem with the images is that two of the (Løvland and Lundestad) have been uploaded at thumbnail size, and are therefore not displayed at more than such. Note that almost the entire article is sourced from English sources, except the bios of the current members (which links the the extremely reliable bio section of the Norwegian Parliament website) and an article about the internal nomination procedures within parliament (which I have not been able to find in English sources). As I live in Norway, I cannot go down to the library and borrow an English-language book on a Norwegian topic, but I did add an online source for the controversies. I'll have a little look around, but I can't say I'm optimistic. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I'd prefer it if the image of Sejersted was a close-up and only showed his face, that'll also make it same format as the two other pics Sandman888 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Good idea. I've uploaded and linked to a cropped version. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - forgot that. Sandman888 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Lead is a little short, just one small para. I know we don't necessarily have to have acres of text on our lists but you have several other sections of prose and, after all, the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article... I've expanded the lead to include more. My initial though was to not bee too redundant toward the other prose, but if there is no problem with that, the lead can easily be expanded. It is now almost twice the length. "have at some time been chair." reads a little oddly to me. Perhaps "have been the chair [linked] at some point" or similar? Fixed. "professor of history" where? This was mentioned in the prose, but now added. "and the award money is managed" an odd sequence. Mostly the award is renowned for its own notability, then perhaps the medal, and lastly the money. Why launch into financial matters here?! My idea was to indicate that the committee does not have any jurisdiction over the Nobel's assets, but I have removed this after your request. Norwegian Nobel Committee is overlinked. Fixed. "from then to 1967 had three representatives in the committee until 1967." reads poorly to me - 1967 quickly repeated, this need a rephrase. Fixed. That was a typo. "The appointment is done by parliament" -don't like "done" maybe "made", and just a quick one, have you linked to the Norway parliament at any point so far? Fixed. "the next three largest parties" shouldn't this be "three next-largest parties"? Fixed. "a full-time politician or party employee all his life" obviously not true. Presumably he started this "career" when he was, say, 18? Rephrased- "Since leaving politics, she has been a business executive and board member, and has been a consultant since 2002" - "has been a" repeated quickly. Maybe "member, and since 2002, a consultant."? Fixed. In what order do you have the current members? Chair, deputy chair, then regular members by seniority. "a former sole proprietor" what does this mean? According to her bio, she worked as a "sole proprietor". She is now retired. "From 2009, four of the members are women" - not sure quite what you mean, do you mean the current panel has 4 women? That is correct. I rephrased slightly, but fear all I did was add redundant words. " Christian Lous Lange is the only person to have both sat on the committee and been its secretary, and the only laureate to have sat on the committee. Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson was, however, awarded the Nobel Literature Prize." so Lange isn't the only person to have sat on the committee and been a laureate? Or was Bjornson awarded it after sitting on the committee? It's not clear. I've tried to rephrase slightly, by specifying 'peace laureate'. Lange was the only person to sit on the committee to receive a Peace Prize, which is the only one this article and this committee deal with. In Safari, End doesn't sort properly as you have a mix of numbers and text. I've tried to fix this by using {{sort|2010|present}}. If that doesn't work, I don't know what to do. "Years" could be better represented as "Tenure (years)" in my opinion. Good idea. Agrarian doesn't seem to sort properly (presumably as it's sorting as Centre?) The Agrarian and Centre Parties are the same (in different time periods, as stated in the prose) and they have purposely been made to sort as the same. Why doesn't secretaries table have Start, End etc like the main table? I've changed to this to increase internal consistency. The original reason was there was no need, as there is no overlap, unlike with the members. "as a associate professor " an associate... Fixed. "Geir Lundestad has been secretary since 1990" is a complete sentence so needs a full stop. Fixed All notes are unreferenced. I'll take a look to figure out how to do this technically. Adding a ref inside a 'ref group' doesn't work. Hm... Take a look at List of One Piece episodes (season 2) to see how to do it. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the tip, Dabomb. Arsenikk (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Arsenikk (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Sort by Deputy chair, then by Chair (in Safari) and things go a little odd in that list. Also, I would expect people to have not served in those roles to sort as "zero" if you understand what I'm trying to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I've sorted the non-chairs as "0", which may help the sorting. I see that it is possible to create a slightly odd sorting, but I don't know what to do about. If either "deputy chair" or "chair" is sorted "twice" while sorting in that order, then it works fine. Unfortunately, it seems that most browsers use non-optimal sort algorithm. If you know of any more technical solutions to solve the issue, tell me, and I'll try to apply them. Arsenikk (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Sorting is now mostly fixed for me in Safari, but when sorting by "End" I get four results, two with "present" at the top and two with "present" at the bottom. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I've tried with both Firefox, Opera and IE, but haven't been able to reproduce your results. No matter what, it sorts as if 'present' is 2010 (as I have coded it to do). Arsenikk (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC) It's a shame it still doesn't sort correctly under Safari... Perhaps try a note at Help talk:Sorting? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I've lest a note there. Arsenikk (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Per User:Nmajdan suggestions at the above, I have sorted all the 'end' year entries with {{sort}}. Arsenikk (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Rambling Man has made me an expert at table sorting :). Looks like you need to make the same change to the Secretaries table.—NMajdan•talk 20:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Done. Sometimes I wonder how many mice The Rambling Man wears out each month just pressing sort buttons ;) Arsenikk (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I don't even have a mouse... the touchpad is exhausted.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support good work on my nit-picking. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question. This gives C. B. Hanssen as "deputy chairman, [...] 1923". Is it impossible to find info about old deputy chairmen and include this in the table? Geschichte (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • While the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) is without doubt a reliable source, it raises the question of why the Norwegian Nobel Committee has refrained from including the information of deputies before 1991. I have tried to search for committee members sitting at the same time, and NSD seems to be incomplete—some people are not even listed as members of the Nobel Committee. Given the limiting information NSD provides, I cannot see how a complete list of deputies can be created, nor can I use it to verity that the post-1991 position is the same as the pre-1991 position (if it existed)—and why it is left out of the Norwegian Nobel Institute's list. For that matter, NSD could not even be used to create a complete list of committee members, deputies or not. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Geschichte (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I've contacted the institute to ask about the issue; reply is pending. Sorry about the late reply here, I've had a busy week, but I've got some time to take a look at the university library now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. All deputy years have been added and referenced. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Historically, the committee's members have represented seven political parties, also including the Liberal Party, the Centre Party and the Christian Democratic Party). I do not know where to put an opening parenthesis.

   Fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

2. the committee was renamed the The Nobel Committee of the Parliament of Norway, I think one "the" is enough.
3. and sat in parliament representing Hordaland from 1989 to 1993, and as a deputy from 1993 to 2001. What does deputy mean here? It can mean a member of parliament, for instance.
4. All notes in the 'Notes' section are complete sentences and should have a period at the end.

Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

All done. I specified Ytterhorn as a "deputy member of parliament". Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Well, I support now. Ruslik_Zero 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:14, 14 April 2010 [34].

---

MusiCares Person of the Year

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria and is very similar to Grammy Legend Award except that it also contains the lifetime column for additional information. I believe links, alt text, disambigs, etc. should be up to standard. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments - nice list. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) "with an all-star tribute concert " sounds a little tabloidy to me. Can we be more specific/encyclopedic? Hmm, would it help if "all-star" had quotation marks, since that is how the source uses the term? Or can you think of a more encyclopedic way of saying "with many talented musicians"? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Quote marks would work (along with direct reference) for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Added quotation marks. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) "The first three MusiCares Person of the Year awards were presented to American musicians David Crosby, Bonnie Raitt, and Natalie Cole between 1991 and 1993" reads just a shade odd. The awards were made annually, one per year, to each of these recipients just once. It's picky but there you go... Is the following clearer: "From 1991 to 1993, the first three MusiCares Person of the Year awards were presented to American musicians David Crosby, Bonnie Raitt, and Natalie Cole"? Since the lead mentions that the award is presented annually, I think it is clear that during each of those years, one musician received the award. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Yes it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not convinced the lead is quite spot on. It basically tells me everything that's in the list except for the date of birth/death of the recipients. Could you expand upon, perhaps, why the recipients got the award? Does MusiCares provide citations for the winners? I was under the impression the lead should simply be a summary of the list (which I think it is); besides, although it does seem a bit redundant compared to the list itself, I was going off the format used for the Grammy Legend Award article. To be honest, I have been trying to find more information about the award itself, such as how winners are determined and why they are chosen, but sources seem to just indicate that winners are awarded for their musical achievement and dedication to philanthropy (or something along those lines). I am not sure what you mean by citations for the winners, but I did not find an official list on the MusiCares site. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I would agree with you if this was a fork of a main article, but this is the main article about the award, so I'd like to know a little more about the background of the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I have to say, though, I am really struggling finding how recipients are chosen. All I can find are the winners and a general why as to why they were chosen. Because it is always MusiCares Foundation representatives providing quotes to the press about why recipients were chosen, I went ahead and added "Chosen by the MusiCares Foundation" to the lead, along with a quick phrase about "Grammy week" (with two references referring to the week-long event leading up to the Grammy Awards). I think this helps because it re-affirms the relationship between the MusiCares Person of the Year award with the Grammy Awards. I will remain on the lookout for a nomination procedure, but it seems to me there is no formal one. Given how the music industry operates, I am sure it has more to do with which big-name musicians who dabble in philanthropy are available to act as a guest of honor for a star-studded event to raise money for the foundation. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Don't like bare URLs, even in the infobox. Changed to MusiCares. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I'm an Englander, and I'm pretty sure it's not a Nationality. That would be British. At least that's what I write on my landing cards, have in my passport etc. Odd, isn't it? Gotcha. I was simply using Template:ENG (or the corresponding flag template for each entry). However, I could change the column title to "Country of origin" if you prefer. Again, I was keeping consistency with Grammy Legend Award in mind when I expanded this list. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Nationality and GBR is fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Changed to GBR, and changed "English" in the lead to "British". I noticed GBR displays "United Kingdom"--if you prefer, I could use GBR2 to display "Great Britain". --Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The template implies that this is a "special Grammy award". The lead just says it's awarded by the same organisation. Am I missing something? I wondered about this myself. There is clearly a connection, as the official MusiCares site is connected with the main Grammy Awards site. The way I understand it, the award is associated with the Grammy Awards (presented during "Grammy week", given by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, etc.), but sponsored by the MusiCares Foundation (which itself was established by the NARAS). Personally, I think the link should remain in the Grammy template. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestions, as always! Feel free to let me know any other adjustments that need to be made. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Another great awards list. I can't see anything of concern. Pyrrhus16 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment Looks great; one question: should this list go into Category:Grammy Awards? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. A very good list. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I couldn't find anything to gripe about :) good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 06:56, 8 April 2010 [35].

---

List of accolades received by Avatar

Nominator(s): DrNegative (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This list was created to include all major and regional awards and nominations for the film Avatar. It is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. The content will be stable since all major awards for which the film would qualify have now been awarded and any future accolades would likely encompass "Best of..." or "Top films of..." types of inclusion in the future. DrNegative (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Knee-jerk lead comments "List of accolades" vs "List of awards won by Avatar" vs "Awards & Nominations" - what is this list about? That is the title that Wikiproject Films agreed to call award pages related to films. Im not defending it, just explaining. I am not sure how to address this one. The archived discussion can be found here. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "American science fiction epic film" what makes it American? This was discussed for the main article here and here. Current consensus notes it as an American film based on the distribution studio who also financed the majority of the film's budget, which in this case is 20th Century Fox, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) #1 is to be avoided per our MOS. Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Isn't all time supposed to be all-time? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I guess those $ are US? link it. Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "winning for Art Direction" perhaps this is US Eng but I see no need for the "for" here. Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Split the Academy/BAFTA sentence as it reads poorly right now. Fixed. I am assuming you were talking about the Academy/Golden Globe sentence. I split it up. DrNegative (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "The Visual Effects Society awarded the film six awards for its achievement in visual effects" read that again and tell me if it's a bit of a dud sentence. Tweaked this sentence a little for better flow. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Three "received" in consecutive sentences... Rewrote and removed several "received" from paragraphs. DrNegative (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) What is CGI? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Deal with these first, then I'll review the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your suggestions. I attempted to rectify the problems that you stated to the best of my ability and will do so on any future issues that you note as well. DrNegative (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Very nice list, and I see no further problems. Reywas92^Talk 21:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

*Comment I don't think File:Avatar (2009 film) poster.jpg can be justifiably included in this list. It does not aid readers' understanding of the awards the film received (the main focus of the list). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Removed. DrNegative (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Publications in the references need to be italicized; you can do this by changing "publisher" to "work" in the citation templates. I saw Los Angeles Times, but there may be others. I found about 8 that were publications and changed to "work" in the citation templates for each. DrNegative (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Ref titles that are in all caps should be converted to title case. Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC) What makes the following sources reliable? http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Phoenix_Film_Critics_Society_Awards/2009 reliable – IMDb is not usually considered reliable. http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=5445 http://www.indiewire.com/article/avatar_wins_with_ny_online_film_critics/ Found more suitable sources for all the above. DrNegative (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Spell out abbreviations of reference publishers. I saw NAACP and BAFTA, but there may be others. You probably don't need to spell out NBC or ABC, though. Removed acronyms and spelled out. DrNegative (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) http://www.empireonline.com/awards2010/winners/ is dead Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC) There's also a dab link, check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) What makes http://www.43kix.com/wap/award.php?award=46&year=2009 reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Removed it, already had a primary source anyway. DrNegative (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good to me. Great work. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) In the second sentence ("The film was premiered...") do you need to repeat 2009 in the dates? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "with an approval rating" I think "with" should be changed to "accumulated" or "garnered" or something similar Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Four of five sentences ion the second paragraph begins with "The film"; you can use "Avatar" once or twice Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The "and it won" in the Golden Globe sentence sounds odd. I'm not sure if there's anyway to reword it, though Tweaked. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "six awards during their annual awards ceremony" is their any way to avoid repeating "awards"? Tweaked. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "of the top ten films of the year" the repetition of "of the: makes this sound clunky. How about "of the year's top ten films"? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Is top ten hyphenated or not? You use both styles Removed hyphen. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Should there be a comma before "and the New York Film Critics Online"? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Per MOS:HASH, "#10" → "number 10" Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Are the last two sentences of the lead, about the Southern Sky Column, relevant to this article? They're not mentioned in the table. It's interesting, though, so I'm not completely against keeping it in These were moved over from the awards section in the main article. I thought I could be considered a notable accolade mention in the lead although not an award for the chart. If you feel it needs to be removed I can do so. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Is it Andy Jones or Andrew R. Jones? Stephen Rivkin or Stephen E. Rivkin? Removed all instances of middle initial for the guys. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Are you using a non-serial comma with "and" (John, Jane and Joe) or a serial comma without "and" ("John, Jane, Joe")? Be consistent Fixed. Made consistent. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The MoS doesn't like the use of TM Removed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) There's a double comma in the last Saturn Award Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The italics in reference 9 are messed up; "Dallas" is, "Observer" isn't, and the retrieval date is Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Italicize "The Hollywood Reporter" (reference 35) "OK!" (reference 48) and "Los Angeles Times" (reference 53) Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Is here supposed to be an external link in reference 36 (Screencrave.com)? Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I'll support once these nitpicks are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't think the fair-use image is justified in this case. It does not enhance the readers understanding of the article. Mm40 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that a picture of the producer and director holding the film's most prestigious accolade, which is also mentioned in the lead and table, would help the reader. However, as a reviewer your opinion takes precedence over mine and if you want me to remove it, I will axe it. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Images aren't my strong point, so can other reviewers comment on it? Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Mm40. From WP:FU: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". While this certainly would qualify for fair use under US copyright law, our policies are more stringent. A similar photo could plausibly be taken and released under a free license. I would suggest using File:JamesCameronCCJuly09.jpg. in its place. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition to Jujutacular's reasoning, the purpose of use given is very weak: "To show the reader a pic in the infobox and to give them scope as to what the article is about, in this case Avatar's awards." The scope is made quite clear in the list's title. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Removed. DrNegative (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and guidance everyone. DrNegative (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:58, 13 April 2010 [36].

---

IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s): --WillC 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I want to raise the level of anything I can. This is the only active New Japan championship that is not an FL. If any reviewers have a nomination they would like a review on, present the link here and I will be sure to review it. Also, I am apart of the WikiCup. This was at one point an FL, so I know there is a chance of it getting there again.--WillC 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note to closing director If this is promoted, don't forget to update WP:FFL. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments "The title was introduced on February 6, 1986 at a NJPW live event. The title is contested for by junior heavyweight wrestlers" merge. Done--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "The weight-limit for the tag team title is 220 lb (100 kg); it is assumed they have the same weight-limit." don't understand this at all. Well I couldn't find a ref for the title's weight limit. I had one for the tag title, so it would be common sense they would have the same weight limit. Mainly it is saying, the tag has this weight limit, and it is assumed the singles title has the same one.--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "junior heavweight championship" vs "Junior Heavyweight Championship"... One is proper name of title while the other speaks of type.--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Is there some link to "unification" in a sporting sense you could use? Yes, placed it in.--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "11 defenses" is repeated too many times. 11 defenses is only stated once. The number 11 is repeated alot though, but I can't change that, those are statistics.--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) "all share the record for the fewest successful defenses, with zero" awful. Perhaps it's something like "failed to defend their only title"? reworded--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Several "events" not linked or explained (e.g. Battle Formation, Destruction '09) Non-notable events thus no need for links. Those were the names of the events.--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Infobox overlaps the main table in Safari. fixed--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Sorting by "Succesful defenses", the en-dash should sort as lower than 0. Fixed--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Combined days in the Combined reign table doesn't sort because of the + sign. Fixed--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Refs should use unspaced en-dashes, not spaced hyphens for year ranges. Check out WP:DASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Done--WillC 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

Resolved comments fromMPJ-DK

Sorry it's taken a few days to get back to you on this but I've been busy. I see you've addressed the list and I've hidden the stuff I feel is resolved and commented or expanded on the rest. It is okay, I'm busy half the time these days anyway. I only get on here for a few minutes everyday now and rarely do I stay on the computer much longer than 30 minutes a day anymore. I got stuff to do, so I understand...you must be the same.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Lead The link used in IWGP is not correct, missing a "d" at the end, I also question the worth of the link, how about a citation that supports it instead of linking to an unsourced statement on a page already linked to... if that makes sense? Fixed, covered by New Japan refs I do believe.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "it is contested for by junior heavyweight wrestlers." How about something along the line of "Only wrestlers under the Junior Heavyweight weightlimit may hold the championship" or words to that effect? Just a suggestion Changed--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "The IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship was one of eight championships that assembled the J-Crown, or J-Crown Octuple Unified Championship for short" a few things How about from AUgust 5, 1996 until XXX the title was part of the..."?? I guess I could do that. You say that "J-Crown Octuple Unified Championship" is the short version of J-Crown ;) I had the full name first and shorthand second to begin with. Must have forgot to remove the ending when I changed them.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "It formed on August 5, 1996" - I just got a mental image of the eight belts joing together transformer style. "it" refers to the championship and probably should be "it was formed", or created. Changed to created.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "is won as a result of a predetermined outcome." I'd add "to wrestling matches" or something like that. done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2245 should be 2,245 Done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The tournament "to retain" and then listing the titles just doesn't read well. Why not explain that the tournament consistet of 8 champions who all put their title on the line or something along those lines? I don't really have much information on the title. I've checked Slam and PWTorch, and didn't come up with really anything, that is why it is vague. I'm blank on how to re-word it...any suggestions?--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "NJPW keep track of all championship title defenses per reign, which is unlike most mainstream wrestling organizations." source for that? and definition of "Mainstream" please is? I got none, was told to put it in during the last IWGP Title I nominated. Thought to continue it, but I can remove it. Didn't want to place it in anyway.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "the most of any former champion." should just be "any champion" Done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) "Guerrera's, Pegasus Kid's, and current champion Naomichi Marufuji's only reigns all have the least successful defenses, with zero" - hmmm sorting the "successful title defense" colum I see 7 reigns (one needs updating) with 0. Needs to be consistent or it needs to be crystal clear it refers to combined number of defenses. Oh, I went by the second table. That was meant to be total. I forgot to add single reign, I must have screwed that up. Active championships usually contains a section on the current champion, who he beat etc. I don't see that here. I told who the champion was, but not who he beat. Thought it would be redundant, and was waiting for his first defense to add that part. Will add anyway.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) In the interest of keeping it simple why not just call it a "NJPW Show" instead of a "live event"? Everyone knows what a show is after all. Well NJPW Show doesn't role off the tounge. I would feel live event would be better, and also consistent with the table.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Yes but no one calls them "live events", they're wrestling shows. In fact "Live events" would indicate that there are also "non-live events" which there aren't.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Okay--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) "it is assumed they have the same weight-limit"... for what? "the same weight-limit for the singles title" perhaps? Yes, weight limit for the title hasn't been discovered yet, but I would feel it is common sense they should have the same weight limit, seeing as some have held both titles.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Then please put "for the singles title" or something like that so that it's stated, not inferred.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Done--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) The creation of the J-Crown is mentioned, but not the disbanding. Reading the text it appears that the J-Crown still exists. Check above, information isn't vast that I have found. I'll look some more.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The table now has more information on the breakup of the J-Crown, shame it's not totally reflected in the lead.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I added the information featured in the table a while ago to the lead.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) "Title changes happen mostly at NJPW-promoted events", considering how few non-NJPW title changes there has been maybe actually mention that in the text? it explains what is meant by "Mostly". Done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I was thinking more along the line of actually stating that reigns 36 and 37 starting on WCW Nitro due to their working relationship or something along those lines.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Okay--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Main table "successful defenses the champions had during" - Copy and paste from Tag I think, it should just be champion. Fixed--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Sorting issues Juventud Guerrera should not sort by "G", it's not a last name it means "Youth Warrior" Pegasus Kid should not sort by K, it's not a last name Great Sasuke should n ot sort by S, it's not a last name as Sasuke is Japanese for Ninja All done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Notes Note for reign 27 is in present tense Same for Note on 29 And Notes for 31 Note for 37 - maybe it should read "replaced Guerrera in the match", otherwise it's not clear what he was a replacement for. Notes vacated before reign 45 - "contested in a battle royal"? A new champion could be determined by a battle royal maybe? the title doesn't contest in itself, it's contested for. Note for 45 - Not a complete sentence. All done, just removed reign 45's note, it should be common sense.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Combined reigns table No need for the note [N 1] since none are tied I just hid it, it may be needed later.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Sorting, same name sorting issues as in the main table Fixed--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) NJPW may keep track of the reigns but that still means this page needs to reflect it as well, Mistico has two successful title defenses listed yet that's not what's in the list. Minor mistake fixed--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Sources Lead Outdated information - Marufuji has successfully defended the title, twice actually (on Jan 30 and on March 5). So all that information needs to be updated. Hadn't heard, but NJPW's site lists no defenses.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I know they don't - this is one of the dangers of just relying on the "Official source" since match results list two title defenses. More on that later.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Well it determines if NJPW recognizes those defenses. I'll be happy to add them, I just need references for those defenses. I'm not sure if NJPW held those events or some other company. I don't keep up with Japanese wrestling, let alone wrestling in general at all. I haven't payed attention since January to be honest. Once I get some refs to back them up, I'll place them in there with a note stating NJPW has yet to acknowledge them.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Sorting Ultimo Dragon should not sort by "D", it's not a last name it means "Last Dragon" Vacated sorts as "V" shouldn't sort like it was held by a wrestler called "Vacated".  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) What would you suggest then? It would default sort as V, are you thinking dash instead?--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I sorted with – for vacant in my last FL.  MPJ -DK  10:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry but the fact that from 2000 the only real source is the company's own records is a bit of a problem for me. It's a Primary source and while it's fine in general this is "Featured List" and as such should have independent confirmation from independent thirdparty sources. There are pitfalls to the "official" story being the one being blindly presented, there could be "deliberate omissions" NJPW chosen to make? Without independent confirmation how do we know for sure? Well we would have to have information on that to begin with. None has been found, so that isn't our place to determine if NJPW has removed reigns on purpose. I have checked Slam bios, etc. I will see if I can find information on the January 4th shows, otherwise it is hard to find. Afterall this is a Japanese title. The only Japanese site that can be trusted at this point is just NJPW's. Sadly, this one hasn't been used in a major American promotion recently, so information is even shorter than the others.--All Done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) That's it for now.  MPJ -DK  10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC) "None have been found" - but you more or less admitted that you did not look very far, you would have known about the two title defenses for Marufuji if you had checked elsewhere. . Primary sources lead to problems, for instance the fact that they do not list two title defenses just highlights that point. I can sympathise with sources being hard to find, I work on Lucha Libre after all but that's not an excuse. It's pretty recent history (2000-2010) not pre-internet era, so frankly I don't see how it can be FL quality with mainly primary sources. It was delisted as an FL before for sourcing issues, so it'd be doing it a disservice to just "let it slide". If no reliable third party sources exists then maybe it's not actually a FL quality topic. My biggest problem remains the over-reliance on the NJPW sources.  MPJ -DK  16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I looked at the known reliable sources. I don't follow wrestling like I use too. Following primary sources is based on acknowledgment. If NJPW don't acknowledge something, then it wouldn't be "official" as a defense. Of course it may have happened, I just haven't been given any proof of that yet. Not my place though, you are the one presenting it and only said dates. Not names of events or what company. After I get that info I can better add that information. Well a few third party sites are used within the article, there is no guideline against primary sites being used majorly, the only thing about third party is they establish notability..though that wouldn't be a problem in this case. If I find time I'll check WrestleView's Japanese column started in early 2008. Just give me time, I'm a bit busy these days with work. I'll look tomorrow for information. Maybe I can find a magizine article of some sort. That remains me, I'll check PWI. I totally forgot about that article GaryColemanFan gave me during the tag title FLC months ago. That may hold some information. I agree on using alot of third party sources mainly, if you look at the TNA articles I've done, I use a majority of third party over primary if possible. If there was alot more information on Japanese wrestling on English sites, this article would be flooded with it. It is odd, this article's main problem is third party, when it was delisted for having third party references, but unproven references. Kind of ironic.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) NJPW.com may be the source for what "officially" happens, but that doesn't mean it did not happen if it's not acknowledged - Wikipedia is based on facts, if it happens it should be listed, if it's not "Officially recognized" then that should be noted instead of saying "It never happened". NWA WOrld title changes - not officially recognized but listed, same with the WWE title and the whole ruckus about Angle and his number of TNA World titles, "Official" is nice, but it's not "NJPWikipedia" after all ;) I know it's not easy to find sources but I also know it can be done.  MPJ -DK  09:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I agree, Wikipedia is based on facts. Been trying to get everyone to see that forever. "Official" is a strange concept. In a matter of facts, these defenses happened. I agree there. They are backed by proof. However, officially in company view, they aren't acknowledged yet it seems. So they are official yet unofficial. Some on here can't tell the difference.--WillC 05:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Here is a little help with the two "missing title defenses" I used this [http://www.cagematch.net/?id=112&search=true&s_Tag_von=04&s_Monat_von=01&s_Jahr_von=2010&s_Tag_bis=21&s_Monat_bis=03&s_Jahr_bis=2010&s_Teilnehmer1=Naomichi%20Marufuji&s_Matchart=%28^

Woops forgot to move this down the other day.  MPJ -DK  05:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Only wrestlers under the junior heavyweight weightlimit may hold the championship." Should "weightlimit" be two words? Added "-"--WillC 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The last sentence of the first paragraph reads as if it would fir better to begin the second paragraph. Moved--WillC 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) "Liger's 11 reigns holds the record for most days as champion at 2,245." Needs to be re-phrased, as it reads like the reigns were champion, not Liger. Fixed--WillC 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) "With 11 successful defenses, Minoru Tanaka's reign under the ring name 'Heat' is the most during a single reign." Feels off grammatically. Try changing "is" to "had" and see if that is better. Changed--WillC 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Footnote 1: "where he defeating Koji Kanemoto." "defeating" → "defeated". Also, this needs a reference. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed, refs are in the table in the defenses column.--WillC 05:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Support – My comments were taken care of before; I was just waiting on the resolution of MPJ's batch before supporting. Seems to meet the standards now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) There is a very large whitespace under the lead for me, probably caused by the {{clear}} template under the second paragraph. Would it be possible to remove that extra line break, or is it serving a purpose? Removed, it was placed there because the infobox expanded into the first section. Not a problem now.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Do we need to list all eight championships in J-Crown? Yeah, was placed in for another review above I do believe. The entire championship was all the titles.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "of a predetermined outcome of a wrestling match" is there anyway you can reword to avoid the duplicated "of a"? Removed common sense part.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "twice at non-NJPW events" → "at non-NJPW events twice" for a more normal-sounding sentence (IMO) Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "Reign 36 and 37": should "Reign" be plural? Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Guerrera and Liger are both linked twice in the second paragraph Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "had the most during a single reign" the most what? I get what is being talked about upon a second reading (successful defenses in one term), but can you make this a bit clearer? Not sure how much clearer you can get, the beginning of the sentence says defenses.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "11 reigns of successful defenses totals to 31" as it is written, this does not make sense. What is a "reign of successful defense"? I suggest rewording the sentence to "Over his 11 reigns, Liger defended the title 31 times, a record" or something similar Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) "all have the least successful defenses, with zero" is very weird-sounding. How about "all ended after the first title defense was lost" or something similar Redone--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The second-to-last sentence ("By combined defenses of all reigns...") is redundant to the previous sentence Redone--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Would it be possible to center the left side of the keys? Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) In the notes for reign 37: "Psychosis replaced Guerrera in the match" what match? The match for the title. Pretty much common sense.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) In the notes for the first vacated reign, should "Top of the Super Juniors" be "Best of the Super Juniors"? No, the tournament that year was called the Top of the Super Juniors.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) In the notes for the second vacated reign, I don't think you need to link "bone fracture" Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The third heading doesn't need "List of" Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The one footnote needs a reference In table, in defenses section, current reign column.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Multiple authors are cited incorrectly. They should have "Last, first; Last, first" for all authors Which ones? Two general refs say Gary Will and Royal Duncan. As far as I know, the book is called "Wrestling Titles by Gary Will and Royal Duncan".--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) NJPW.co.jp is the work, and New Japan Pro Wrestling is the publisher. Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Reference titles should not be translated; their original Japanese title should be given Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) What is the quote at the end of reference 1? It talks about weight limit.--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The curly quotes in the title of reference 2 should be straight (WP:MOSQUOTE) Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) The spaced hyphen in reference 14 should be a spaced en-dash Mm40 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Done--WillC 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:49, 30 March 2010 [37].

---

Savilian Professor of Geometry

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 09:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Another list of Oxford professors for your amusement. This one includes such stars as Edmond Halley, after whom the comet is named. All comments gratefully received. Bencherlite^Talk 09:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Do our whole audience know what a "classical scholar" is? Linked classics (Repeat warning) Also, might there be something specific to which you could link Warden and Provost in this context? Linked Warden (college) and Provost (education) I'm wondering if there's a legitimate case to link geometry in this article.. Found one usage to wikilink Pending comment - the first was "appointed" while, say, Titchmarsh applied. I'm hoping to learn in subsequent paragraphs how the position has been/is selected. Have now found a copy of Savile's original provisions and will try and add more detail. In short, he reserved the right to appoint during his lifetime, then gave the power to elect to various worthies such as the Archbish of Canterbury, Bishop of London, Lord Chief Justice, Lord High Executioner etc. In the late 19th century, this was changed as per the article; then (from what I can tell) the whole system of university statutes was reformed in the late 1990s/early 2000s, removing specific rules for appointment boards for professorships. Update, now done. " degree at a minimum" (my own ignorance warning here) I would as "as a minimum" here, but that could my own poor upbringing... Typo fixed Euclid et al get a link but not Aristotle or Plato. How rude.. Linked. I'll apologise to them in person for my rudeness next time I see them "in basic mathematics in English" did I miss the bit where the instructions would be otherwise provided in a foreign language? Education was in Latin in those days, added this in brackets (in fact some Oxford formal ceremonies are still in Latin although fortunately the lectures aren't. Well, not in Law, anyway. Although I had to study Roman Law, so there was some Latin there...) I'd link ∞. Didn't think of that "it seems that " not tremendously encouraging, can you say why it "seems" this way? Because the source says so, I think. I'll double-check Update: source made reference to Gregory's name appearing in a rate-book in 1701, so explained this Halley, while prominent, doesn't need to be linked in every section of the article... Delinked a bit Stow on the Wold is actually Stow-on-the-Wold. "- - -" added "brother at the age of 15, a year before he entered Cambridge" who entered Cambridge? Reworded Betts' description is a sea of blue links. I don't often get too worked up about but there you go, anything you could do about it? reworded slightly, Prime Minister delinked "run (unsuccessfully) an evening " don't like this construct, I'd prefer just "unsuccessfully run an". And now you have it I'm wondering, second wrangler ought to be Second Wrangler per our own article. OK " The Times in its obituary called him" - commas after Times and obit. Reworded as "In his obituary, The Times called him..." for one comman rather than two You say where some Oxford and London colleges are, is it worth clarifying that Princeton is in New Jersey? And St Catherine's is not clearly located. NJ added. Reworded the rest of the sentence to put Catz near Oxford without repeating the O-word "University of California Berkeley" missing a comma after California. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Here's my work to date, more to come. BencherliteTalk 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) And here's the rest. What do you think now, sir? BencherliteTalk 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I like – Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Ta very muchly. Bencherlite^Talk 08:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) "his successor Nathaniel Bliss both held the post of Astronomer Royal in addition to the professorship" - The word both seems unnecessary. Well, it's both Bliss and Halley, not both AR + chair; reworded anyway. "after alleging assaulting another student" - The word allegedly would make more sense to me here. Typo, fixed "'neither numerous or great importance.'" - In the cited source, it says "neither numerous nor of great importance." Well-spotted, thanks "one of the few exceptions to his claim that nothing he had done ... had made ... 'the least difference to the amenity of the world'." - In whose opinion? The clue's in the phrase "his claim"... reworded to "his own claim" to make it even clearer Whose claim it is was perfectly clear even without the added own (which I'd prefer to see removed again). What I wish to know is who thinks that the Hardy–Weinberg principle is an exception. Goodraise 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Ah, we were at cross-purposes. It was a biographer's claim, Béla Bollobás, so reworded and clarified. BencherliteTalk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC) "Hitchin taught in the United States at Princeton University in New Jersey and at New York University, returning to Wolfson College for further research before becoming a fellow and tutor at St Catherine's College." - He returned to Wolfson while teaching at Princeton and NYU? No, but reworded to resolve the slight ambiguity File:James Joseph Sylvester.jpg states that the image is in the public domain because its author has died more than 70 years ago, but it doesn't say who the author is. Uploaded a replacement to Commons, File:James Joseph Sylvester by Alfred Edward Emslie.jpg, which does. References 33 and 34 give the cited website's domain name (shawprize.org) instead of its publishing entity (The Shaw Prize Foundation) or the website's name (The Shaw Prize). Well, in my defence, that's how they are cited on the FL Shaw Prize... switched to "The Shaw Prize Foundation" The notes section could use some citations. (In case you're wondering, here's an example of how to do it.) Cumbersome, isn't it? Added Most alt texts are somewhat dry and colorless, not really aiding the reader in visualizing the depicted persons. This is not a deal breaker though. Good, I'll leave it then, unless you have any specific ideas for describing a succession of middle-aged/elderly white academics in any better way than I have done.... Goodraise 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your review, and for that handy demonstration of how to give a footnote for a reference, which I hadn't seen before. No doubt I'll speed up with it with some more practice! BencherliteTalk 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak support. Alt texts have some room for improvement. Otherwise, the list meets the criteria. Goodraise 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks, but I'd like to try and get this to a regular support if I can. So, once again, if you have any specific ideas for improvement, I'll see what I can do to try and improve the alt texts. I'm afraid that saying they are "somewhat dry and colorless" doesn't really help me, frankly, particularly given the limited material I have to work with here. BencherliteTalk 23:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Well, if you're looking for help, you may find WP:ALT worth reading, the sections on portraits and neutrality in particular. Goodraise 01:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Funnily enough, I know about WP:ALT, having written the odd FL and FA since the world went alt-crazy. What I was hoping for from you were some specific comments for how the alt text falls short of what you think that it could be, not a "vague wave" (as it were) at a style guideline. Given the OR / not-obvious-to-a-non-expert descriptions at WP:ALT#Portraits, though, I think my alt texts are fine as they are, . (Where's the "low bun" in the second portrait? It's pure guesswork that it's there at the back of her head. "Slender" - really? Hard to say either way. "Her deep-set eyes gaze solemnly over the viewer's shoulder." Oh please, are we writing Mills and Boon now? In the first: "Edwardian-style" - says who? "In her forties" - looks younger to me. You get the point.) As I've asked twice now and you haven't given me any specific examples of how to improve the alts, which is a shame, I'll think I'll leave this point and settle for your support being lukewarm. BencherliteTalk 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know about WP:ALT. I meant what I said, nothing more. My initial (now capped) comment was not a vague wave at a guideline (I didn't even mention or link WP:ALT from there). As for giving specific examples, what for? You seem to be perfectly aware as to how your alt texts go against the guideline and seem to have made them so intentionally. You may think that your alt texts are superior and maybe they are, but that doesn't matter to me. My votes are based on whether I think an article conforms with the criteria (including linked guidelines) rather than with what I think is best. Goodraise 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC) No feelings hurt by your reference to WP:ALT, don't worry. However, as for your questionable assertions, without any evidence, that I've "intentionally" written alt texts to violate a guideline and that I'm "perfectly aware" of how they fall short, I would have thought that the fact I twice asked for how they could be improved (and you ignored my question first time, and gave a "vague wave" the second time) was actually fairly good proof that I was genuinely trying to improve the alt texts and was welcoming—nay, asking for—suggestions on how this could be done. If I didn't want to make you happier with the alt text, I would have left your "weak support" comment alone and not tried to get an upgrade. As you can see, I have my doubts as to the alt-text concept and how to use it, but that doesn't mean that I'm deliberately trying to write a list that doesn't comply with the guideline. Interesting that you hadn't actually said before your last comment that the current alt text violates the guideline; your initial comment was that it could do with "some improvement", examples of which you steadfastly refuse to give. Go ahead; "I'm listening..." BencherliteTalk 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. Most of my concerns have been addressed by the nominator. The one that hasn't has become invalid because of recent developments at WP:ALT. Goodraise 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Question How did you derive the inflation factor from 1620 to 2010 which makes £150 equal to £24,000? (and shouldn't be 2009, not 2010?).Sandman888 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Using ref 4 I would suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What I mean is I'd like the formula used which gives a factor of 24,000/150 Sandman888 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • It's generated by {{inflation}}. Bencherlite^Talk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The source provided doesn't have the inflation rate for 2010. Neither is it an entirely routine calculation, so it might be helpful to write how it's calculated Sandman888 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Fair point, I've changed it to "in present day terms", which is the wording suggested by {{inflation/doc}} (hadn't spotted that before). As for setting out the calculation to avoid it being "original research" (which is I assume what you're getting at with your link to the essay WP:NOTOR), well, no. (1) It's a calculation carried out by an established template; (2) it can be replicated from the website if one chooses to do so; (3) updating an old value for inflation is a routine calculation, I think. I'm not going to give a footnote along the lines of "to work out the present value of £150 from 1620, we divide £150 by the RPI figure for 1620 and multiply it by the most recently available figure". Bencherlite^Talk 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Given that none of the persons are redlinked, I'd prefer if the educational background was skipped so the 'Notes' column would focus on their contribution to science, which, I presume, is why the list is noteworthy Sandman888 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, that's the first time I've been asked to make an FLC less informative, I think. I'd prefer to keep it, as in a university-based list, it's interesting (I think) to see which of the names were educated there and which were educated elsewhere. Bencherlite^Talk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

*Comments I've wondered this since I reviewed Bodley's Librarian, given the limited number of entries and relatively few things gained from the sortability of the table, is there any particular reason the data is formatted in a table and not as a text list like List of Major League Baseball awards? I would never ever ever oppose over something like this, just a theoretical question. I would think it would both remove the large whitespace for the fields with less text and avoid squishing the notes. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Do you think the inclusion of "professor from" or "professor" as a parenthetical note in the prose (John Smith (professor 1988-2010)) is necessary? I get that you want to avoid it looking like their birth and death dates or something like that, but every list I've worked on generally assumed the parentheticals were referring to that list and only had notes if it was absolutely necessary. List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks, for example, simply lists their draft years in () except when discussing the MVP winners (to make it clear those are draft years, not their MVP-winning years). Couldn't most of these instances read "The life and work of James Sylvester (1883-1894)", eg? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Can you clarify what exactly the duties of the position are following the removal of geometry lecturing requirements to suit Titchmarsh? The article mentions it, but I don't quite get what this means for the position. Is it now more of just a "Savilian Professor of Math" or what? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) For the most part though, excellent read. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. As for the "text vs table" approach, I think the text approach works for List of Major League Baseball awards because it's a list of supporting lists (and, indeed, the lead article/list of an excellent Featured Topic of lists). Here, I've got a list of supporting articles, and so I wonder if having it as a text-only format (and losing such sortability as there is) would make it look too much like an article, leading to the "go to GA" review from less discerning reviewers, at the very least. I think for shorter lists of professors (e.g. Jesus Professor of Celtic), text might be the way, since a table would add very little. I agree that's the thing to do with shorter lists, I guess I just consider this a reasonably short list. And, while there is some sortability, it's not like coaches lists or whatever which are dominated by stats and thus gain a lot from the table format. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I'm in two minds about the year ranges. I can see that in many instances, it's clearly not a YOB-YOD range and so isn't ambiguous. But for "John Wallis (professor 1649–1703)", it could be either and overall I think it's best to be clear and say "professor X-Y" for all, lest someone think that whenever it's not said, it's the more usual birth-death range. For the draft lists, there's no range so no similar ambiguity arises. I'm finding out far more than I ever knew before about baseball, by the way, through reading your comparisons - my previous baseball experience was a rain-affected match somewhere in the NYC suburbs in September 1996... I forget who was playing, but boy did it rain that night... Heh, sorry about that. As you might see from my userpage baseball-content dominates my Wikipedia contributions, so will tend to dominate my range of experience to compare against. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC) As for present duties of the professor, as I understand it, the university statutes and regulations no longer specify what he has to teach; no doubt his contractual terms and conditions will say something, and then I assume any loose ends will be sorted out by agreement with the other professors in the mathematics institute. I've added a ref saying that he's one of the members of the Maths Institute's Geometry Group of researchers, so it'd be fair to say that geometry is still a part of the professors' work, despite Titchmarsh! Gotcha, thanks. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Let me know if I can improve further. BencherliteTalk 22:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Like I said, it's quite solid. I'll give it another look see, but probably cap/support quite soon. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

Some very light issues, not much to complain about here at all:

• "Savile reserved to himself" - is "reserved to himself" a British English turn of phrase? Reserved for himself sounds better to my American ears (as in He reserved the right for himself if the sentence is restructured), but you all are the experts over there.
  • Yes, that works in Brit Eng.
• "straight away" - is that two words or one... or can it be either?
  • My Concise Oxford Dictionary tells me that "straight away" is Brit Eng and "straightaway" is US Eng...
• In Wallis: "He was appointed as keeper of the university archives in 1658"
  • Zapped.

That's really it! Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. Bencherlite^Talk 14:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Support — KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 3 April 2010 [38].

---

List of Drexel University alumni

Nominator(s): ImGz (t/c) 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets FL criterion after working on it for the past few months. It recently underwent a peer review and I believe all of those issues have been addressed. --ImGz (t/c) 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments - some quick things... "1916 Chemist Graduates" poor caption, and do you need those capital letters? Fixed and expanded the caption. "master's programs, and 32 doctoral programs." perhaps link master/doctoral to the academic relevance? Done "Certificate-earning alumni " what does this mean? This is explained in the paragraph above. Should it be moved down to that particular paragraph? Is it not clear enough as it stands currently? " Certificate-earning alumni such as artist Violet Oakley and illustrator Frank Schoonover reflect the emphasis on art as part of a vocational education. " uncited - is this original research? I'm pretty sure I pulled this from the book that I don't have on hand so I have reworded it and added a reference. "With World War II the university's technical programs swelled and as a result Drexel graduated " I'm not a comma junkie, but this needs help. "With World War II, the university's technical programs swelled and, as a result, Drexel graduated " for instance. Done Worth linking "barcode technology". Done Is this list the "Drexel 100" (plus latter additions)? Not clear. The Drexel 100 is a subset of the alumni list. Would it be better to just remove mention of the Drexel 100? Why is "Class of.." capitalised? Followed the formatting of the most recent FL List of University of Central Florida alumni, changed to lowercase. What does M.D. mean? Linked the first instance of every graduate degree. --ImGz (t/c) 06:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC) You have a kind-of key, why not make it a proper key? Could you clarify this? I'm not quite sure what you mean. A key for the degree type? The Drexel 100? Much thanks for the comments btw. --ImGz (t/c) 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Just a quick run-through.. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Comments Couldn't you just have a "were" in the caption rather than the comma? Done. Not sure about the spaced endashes in the year ranges in the references, 1891 – 1941 for instance. Check WP:DASH to make sure please. Checked and fixed. Ref 46 uses different date formats to all other refs. Be consistent throughout the refs. Done. Ref 19, 23, maybe others, have a spare period (because of the template). Think I got them all. --ImGz (t/c) 16:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Is this list identical to the Drexel 100? Maybe indicate who's on 100 and request a delete of the other list? Sandman888 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is the only alumni list for Drexel on wiki. The Drexel 100 is just more or less the 'hall of fame' of the alumni association. People they choose for the Drexel 100 would not all meet WP:N and the Drexel 100 is limited to living members so deleting the current list and replacing it with just Drexel 100 members would exclude most of the current alumni on the list and add a whole lot of non-notable people to it as well. I think I'm just going to remove mention of the Drexel 100 since it adds more confusion than clarification.. --ImGz (t/c) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I probably should have said I will remove it rather than I probably will. I have gone ahead and removed references to the Drexel 100 since it doesn't add anything to the article other than 'oh hai, drexel has a hall of fame within the alumni association'. Hopefully this clears up some confusion.. --ImGz (t/c) 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Jeff Parke, the soccer player included in the list, is apparently going to play this season for Seattle Sounders FC. The season starts tomorrow, so it's not too early to update this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Updated! Thanks, it probably would have taken me a while to catch that one. :) --ImGz (t/c) 23:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from User:GrapedApe

• Broad question - steps have you taken to try to make the list as comprehensive as possible?

• Checked categories, went through the 1,000+ search results for Drexel U, Drexel Institute, etc, went through print sources.

• Why does Rudolph Weaver have two class year? Two different degrees?

• Clarified.

• There are lots of short notability descriptions that don't really give a good sense of why that person is notable. Things like "Illustrator," "Filmmaker," "Filipino architect" don't really mean a lot.

• Done.

• For the "unknown" alumni, like William H. Milliken, Jr., Harry Sidhu, Jack Wall, what is unknown? Is the graduation year unknown, or is it unknown whether that person graduated at all? There should be clarification on that.

• Clarified table.

• The tables should probably be constructed with the {{Alum}} template, IMHO.

• With all the recent additions I don't believe the Alum template would work well with this list. --ImGz (t/c) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like the refs for Arthur Raymond Randolph and Albert Branson Maris are dead. I suspect that the Federal Judicial Center is temporarily down.

• I noticed that a few days ago, strange for a .gov site to be down that long so I did some searching on the website - it looks like they've overhauled it and have the pages at a different address so I've updated the citations. Thanks for the comments btw!--ImGz (t/c) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • --GrapedApe (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 06:57, 7 April 2010 [39].

---

List of National Basketball Association season rebounding leaders

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I've not done one for a while :). —Chris!_c/t 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial comment Could you include a basic definition of a rebound (and perhaps offensive vs. defensive, since you mention them) as the similar baseball lists nominated below do? As with a home run or earned run average, someone not familiar with basketball would have no idea what a rebound is. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Added, though I am not sure where to put it.—Chris!_c/t 05:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think right where it is works nicely. "The NBA recognizes the rebound leader each year. BTW, here's what a rebound is." Since it's a rate stat, rather than a counting one, could you dig up and add whatever qualifications there are for winning the title? I assume there are some, like if someone had a 14 rebound game in their debut last year they couldn't just sit out the rest of the season and win the rebound title with 14 RPG in one game over Howard's 13 and change. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the minimum statistics requirement should be mentioned, basketball-reference has a complete page on this. — Martin tamb (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done—Chris!_c/t 21:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

*"The rebounding title was first ..." not sure if you need to repeat "rebounding" here as it's clear what title you're talking about. Done "layers who earned rebounding titles before the 1973–74 season also did not record any offensive or defensive rebounds because statistics on them were first compiled by the league during that season" I had to read this about three times before I got it. Any chance of a reword such that you say offensive/defensive rebounds weren't explicitly recorded until the 73/74 season? Does this statement mean that the previous winners just had both offensive and defensive rebounds added together? Try to reword. Does it work? The explanation as to what a rebound is, and what defensive/offensive is, probably needs to go before the section explaining the recording of offensive/defensive rebounds. Done I'm pretty sure the MOS is ambivalent, but reading "had 1941 in the 1959–60 season" made me look twice, any chance of a 1,941? Done "Dwight Howard had the highest season" if he's active, isn't it "has the highest"? Similarly phrased for Wallace. Notes have average to one dp while table has average to 2dp. I know, but I can't do much about this as the main source lists averages to 2dp and the sources for individual season list averages to 1dp. References need en-dashes, not hyphens, per WP:DASH. Fixed by Dabomb, Everything else also done—Chris!c/t 19:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Has the season always been 82 games since the very first season? Yes Actually no, it's only been 82 since the 1967–68 NBA season. Here's the breakdown 1967–68 NBA season—present: 82 games (except the lockout-shortened 1998–99 NBA season which has 50 games) 1966–67 NBA season: 81 games 1961–62 NBA season—1965–66 NBA season 80 games 1960–61 NBA season: 79 games 1959–60 NBA season: 75 games 1953–54 NBA season–1958–59 NBA season: 72 games 1952–53 NBA season: 69–71 games 1951–52 NBA season: 66 games 1950–51 NBA season: 66–69 games I haven't found an external reference that mentions all these, but it can be easily verified from seasonal standings at NBA.com or basketball-reference. Don't know what this information has to do with the list though, maybe TRM can explains further. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Opps, I guess I was wrong. But what does this have to do with the list?—Chris!c/t 07:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) "To qualify for the rebounding title, a player must appear in at least 70 games (out of 82)..." clearly this has not always been the case then. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC) This is why I mentioned this above. This link covers the requirements for the various schedule lengths. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Well, I thought only the current requirement is relevant here. Also I don't know how to indicate this clearly within the prose. Should I add something like "This is the rate requirement since the 1974-75 season."—Chris!c/t 22:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I ran into something similar with Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award, and I gave qualifications a whole section there. In this case maybe note something like "This is the requirement since BLAH, with requirements changing with the schedule length several times before that"? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, done—Chris!c/t 18:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Better, but a clumsy sentence structure (requirements repeated, with repeated) and any reason why you haven't linked that particular season, while all others are linked in the lead? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC) The link is an easy fix. As for the sentence, what do you suggest?—Chris!c/t 23:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Not a major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There is a dead link; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Offensive rebound occurs...". Feels like "An" should go before this. "Defensive rebound occurs...". Also feels like a lead-in word is missing from here. Comma after "1950–51 season". "He also holds the rookie records for total rebounds when he had 1,941 in the 1959–60 season." "when he had" → "with". Otherwise, it doesn't work grammatically. "Among active players, Dwight Howard has the highest season rebound total in the 2008–09 season, and Ben Wallace has the highest season rebounding average in the 2002–03 season." This reads like they were only records from those years. To fix this, I recommend moving the season to inside the parentheses, like this: (1,161 in the 2008–09 season). "while Moses Malone and Bill Russell have both won six and five rebounding titles, respectively." Lot of redundancies here. First, we don't need "rebounding titles", since the first part of the sentence makes it clear what the number represents. Also, "both" should be removed; it would only be useful if Malone and Russell had the same number of titles. The Wilt Chamberlain photo has a retouched version without the smudges on the top, which is more visually appealing than the current image. I'd recommend using that one instead. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Done all—Chris!c/t 02:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Support – Was waiting to see if Martin's comment below would get a response, but I guess it doesn't matter too much, as the criteria seem to be met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Great list, made a few fixes and just one comment: it would be interesting to know which players that have won both the rebounding title and the MVP in the same season. — Martin tamb (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Made a few copy-edits for grammar and precision. The list meets FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Support (regardless of the active definition) Mm40 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) Do you think the second and third sentences could be merged? For example, "An offensive rebound is ... while a defensive rebound is ..." or something like that The sentence saying beginning "Rodman has also won the most consecutive..." can just be given along with the fact that he's won seven. You've given that he's won seven times twice "Russell in 1957, 1959 and 1964 to 1965 with the Boston Celtics" sounds odd – why not just list them normally? It would be useful to have a note defining "active" Consider centering the table Note [c]: "higher rebound total" → "higher rebound totals", same in notes [f], [g], [h], and more (I'll stop putting them here, please check throughout) Note [e]: "record for total rebound and" → "record for total rebounds" You link Mutombo in [k] and [m] but not in [o] Duncan is linked in both [o] and [q] All I can find in an otherwise very good list. I'll be happy to support once my nitpicks are fixed. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed most of them. Is there a reason why you think "active" is not clear? It seems straightforward to me.—Chris!c/t 21:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC) It may be more of a baseball thing (where old players aren't officially "retired" but no teams are interested them), but there are some sort of gray areas. What if some young player sits out as a free agent for a year because of injury? What if they're with a team sitting out? I'm not a basketball guy (least favorite of the four major sports in the US), so I don't know how often these situations occur. The baseball project probably got a bit more strict about it after the Barry Bonds situation. Regardless, though, this should not hold up promotion. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 04:52, 10 April 2010 [40].

---

List of Moonlighting episodes

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The greatest TV show in the history of the world ever, at least according to my wife. While I wouldn't go quite that far, it's a pretty cool show and so, twenty-five years to the very day since the first episode aired, I present this list for your consideration. Please let me know what still needs tweaking. I'm on the right hand side of the Atlantic, but have done my best to write in that crazy colonial form of English :-) And in the interests of full disclosure, I'm not in the WikiCup ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I like the fact that the lead in the list is so much better than the lead in the main article. Sandman888 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment I made an American English fix in the summary of Episode 3 - "Blue Moon is..." instead of "Blue Moon are..." Make sure the rest of the list uses this convention as well. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Done - there was only one more. I also changed "the Blue Moon team are" to "the Blue Moon team is" - is that correct? I'm sure I read somewhere that "team" is considered a singular noun in American English...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments daunting list, so that's probably why it's been overlooked for 3.5 weeks. Apologies for that Chris... so my bits 'n' pieces... I wonder if, in the opening sentence, you can provide a little bit more context, e.g. when it ran, where, etc? Done "model who loses most of her assets" fnar. can you specify which assets she lost? Done You seem to switch tense in the lead (Moonlighting is followed by characters were...) Done. Referring to long finished shows in the present tense is an Americanism I haven't yet got to grips with..... "on ABC" - perhaps include "in the United States" (unless the context you'll be adding earlier makes this redundant!) Done I think it'd be safe to link pilot appropriately. Done " The series lasted 5 seasons, but only 66 episodes were produced." - but? but? 12.5 episodes per season is okay isn't it? Perhaps, again, some context as to why this is a "but" rather than a "with". Over here, 12.5 episodes per season would be quite a high figure, but in America their seasons last for nearly six months and usually have at least 20 episodes. That's what's so unusual about that figure of 66 episodes. I've noted this "Ratings declined, however in the later " a comma after however here. Done "cancelled" call me odd but is that one too many l's for a USEng cancelation? Done That's a start, my dinner's on the way, so episode critiques will follow after you've looked at these comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments, hope your dinner was tasty -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 'Twas. Moving onto the episodes... "left broke" a little colloquial. Did they get those Nazi diamonds in the pilot? "famous mystery author" I take it you mean mystery the genre, not mystery the unknown author... "become involved in a CIA assassination plot, which culminates in a huge food fight at a banquet" yeah, that was Moonlighting alright... "but won't go" avoid contractions. "he winds up dead" a touch colloquial again. "ex-accountant has bought a new life with her stolen money in Argentina" becomes unclear whose money it is... "he can't act like" contractions. "in a diamong heist" a diamong? a diamong? "to the theatre " theater for this list. "she'd never kept " strike three. "can't get along with" make that four. "and can't tell them" gah. "lost Agens to " Agnes. You linked New York but not Chicago. I wonder if there's any need to link these cities at all. "repo men" a bit colloquial, or perhaps ripe for linking. "Agnes' mother" I'm ambivalent, but most of the USEng I've seen would say "Agnes's" here. "man she's living" six. "trash the house." colloquial. "and it's in the" last one. Refs 15, 17, 19 have a spare ] The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC) All addressed, I think, apart from the query about the Nazi diamonds in the pilot. I can't remember the answer and will have to re-watch the episode to answer it. Luckily I (or rather the wife) has it on DVD, so I'll try and do that tonight....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, I just found the climactic scenes from the pilot episode on YouTube, so will watch that and answer your last query at lunchtime. The occasional WP edit when I'm meant to be working is one thing, but watching 15 minute YouTube videos is a whole different kettle of fish..... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) All done now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Two columns would make the reflist a bit easier to take in. "The Blue Moon team is cornered by the drug dealer whose money it is, but are able to turn him in and use the reward money to assist their dire financial situation." - This sentence is still a bit strange, the second half of the sentence still uses British convention ("are"). However, simply switching that word to "is" would make a bad-sounding repetition of the word "is". Try rewording. Is episode 62 really titled "Perfetc"? Jujutacular T · C 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC) As I see Chris is on wikibreak for the next week or so, I took the liberty of addressing my own concerns. I decided the reflist looks better as it is, at least on my comp. Reworded the sentence, and I'll take Allmovie's word for it, being titled "Perfetc". I guess it's a joke or something. Jujutacular T · C 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Jujutacular ^T · C 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:37, 6 April 2010 [41].

---

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because all comments for improvement were adressed. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) In the ALT text of the Los Lobos image, you should mention the number of men performing. In Chayanne's ALT text, how about "singing into a microphone" rather than "holding a microphone"? Fixed! In the first sentence of the lead, the comma should go after the parenthesis listing former names Fixed! "record chart that is based on" Fixed! You repeat "information" three times in the first two sentences; is there any way you can reduce this usage? Fixed! "Previous to this charts inception" → "Before this chart's inception" needs to be possessive for "charts", and "Before" sounds better (IMO) than "Previous to" Fixed! "which continue to be listed" → "which continues to be listed" Fixed! "in September 6, 1986" → "on September 6, 1986", I think. Same thing with the date next sentence Fixed! "However, in the the listings" – fix the double "the" Fixed! "number-one" shouldn't be hyphenated when used as a noun, only as an adjective. Thus, "first number-one song" is correct, but "also reached number one", "peaked at number one", and "simultaneously peak at number one in the". The last three examples I gave need to have their commas remove Fixed! In the second paragraph of the lead, "Un Hombre Solo" should be "Un hombre solo" (note capitalization) to match the article's title Fixed! You can cut out "produced by Taylor Hackford and written and directed by Luis Valdez" in the third paragraph, as it's not really relevant to this article. Fixed! "were the artists with the most number-one hits" can be more concise as "released the most number-one hits" Fixed! A personal stylistic preference, but I think the table would be better completely centered. This can be done by adding style="text-align:center;" after class="sortable wikitable", and removing all other align="center" I like the table as is, but if you think is better centered I can change it. The third column should be "Reached number one", without the comma Fixed! There's an extra space before "¿Y Quién Puede Ser?" in the table I do not know how to fix that, since the extra space is because of the sortkey, can you help me? Gabriel's caption needs a period/full stop at the end. Fixed! Consider adding Chayanne's nationality in his caption Fixed! Reference 9 is in French (I think) Fixed! References 8 and 13 need periods/full stops at the end, as does the one book listed under References Fixed! This article isn't linked in the second navbox at the page's bottom ({{Latin Pop Airplay}}), so it should be removed Fixed! This is a very nice list: appealing, engaging, and useful (despite my laundry list of issues above). I'm looking forward to supporting once these are dealt with. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Support: a nice list, well presented. Good work. Harrias (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support I copy-edited the lead a bit, but could otherwise find nothing to fix. The list meets all of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Spanish-speaking radio stations" perhaps "Spanish-language" as radio stations don't, themselves, speak... Billboard Hot 100 is overlinked. I've fixed both of the above, and did some copyediting of my own. Mm40 (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Are all of these consecutive weeks at number one or are some non-consecutive? Worth a note. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I don't quite understand the question. In the list a few songs had separate chart runs at number one, like "Fuiste un Trozo de Hielo en la Escarcha", "Fría Como el Viento" and "Ay Amor", do you want me to clarify this? Jaespinoza (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just worth noting that a record that is listed more than once is because it's a non-consecutive number one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed! Jaespinoza (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry to be picky but why shouldn't "¿Y Quién Puede Ser?" list between "Y Ahora Te Vas" and "Y Tú También Llorarás"? I have been trying so hard for that. I don't know if the sortkey does not work, or maybe I'm not doing it right. I have been trying several times to place this song between "Y Ahora Te Vas" and "Y Tú También Llorarás" but I do not know how to do it properly, can somebody help me? Fixed sorting. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Jaespinoza (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment A weird change in verb usage in the first paragraph: "The data were compiled...", "This data is compiled..." Jujutacular T · C 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 07:42, 16 April 2010 [42].

---

List of Medal of Honor recipients

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria for featured list. This is the second submission. Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• As I commented during the Basketball HoF list, I feel some of the sections without tables need expanded leads to provide a satisfactory summary of what is to be found at the main article. The Civil War summary, for example, is summarizing more than 1500 medals awarded. Yet, it receives only a couple sentences, far less than the Spanish American War or the Boxer Rebellion. The World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam have reasonable length summaries, but I feel that the Civil War, Indian Wars, and Peacetime sections need serious expansion to properly cover the topic within. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Am I correct that Michael E. Thornton was the last man to receive the medal while still alive (he got his in 72, so later than the Liberty incident)? Worth mentioning?
• Is there any info on why the medal was so commonplace, relatively, in the Civil and Indian Wars?

Thanks all good points and Ill get to those suggestions right away. On the last point the answer is yes, it was pretty much the only award they could get till world war I. There were a few campaign ribbons, brevet promotions and the purple heart (known as the Medal of merit back then) but for valor, that was it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• The section heads are still quite quite short. See List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame for an example of serious length. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Reywas92^Talk 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) ;Comments

• There is some image problem for the Korean Expedition - there's whitespace on the right of the images.
  • I'm not sure why this is happening, I think it might be the way the image is. I tried a variety of different things and I couldn't fix it. If you know how to fix it please do. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Sections with the list as a subarticle should summarize that list. How many people earned the medal in that conflict? Most give a description of the conflict itself, but nothing about the medal recipients with WP:Summary style.
• mid-August, 1934 → mid-August 1934
  • Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• from 1916–1924 → from 1916 to 1924
  • Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• from 1909–1933 → from 1909 to 1933
  • Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• occurred from 1959-April 30, 1975 → occurred from 1959 to April 30, 1975
  • Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Very nice overall. Reywas92^Talk 23:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Are the notes quotes? If so they should be in quotations. For instance, I can't imagine you came up with "Stood on the gunwale on the Benicia's launch, lashed to the ridgerope and remained unflinchingly in this dangerous position and gave his soundings with coolness and accuracy under a heavy fire." yourself... (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation_marks). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

*Our article calls it the Andrews' Raid (note the apostrophe) Done - I chanegd it to the Great locomotive chase. I think its less ambiguous than Andrews' raid. --Kumioko (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "armed forces - although" shouldn't be a hyphen per WP:DASH. Done --Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "nearly 1522 were awarded" so, 1521? This is a strange phrase... Done --Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Guam, Phillipines overlinked. Done - I think I fixed this know. --Kumioko (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I would have thought the "aboard the USS xxx" should sort by the xxx, not by "aboard". "Done' I think they all sort correctly. --Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC) "The United States" just "the United States" I think. Could you clarify which the United States you are referring too. This is used several times and I am not sure which you are referring. --Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC) The one where you use "The" instead of "the"... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Done I think --Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC) "U.S.S. Philadelphia" vs "USS Colorado"... be consistent. Done - I replaced them all as USS because thats how the template is constructed and I think it looks better that way. --Kumioko (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, and then there's "U.S.S. CONNECTICUT". Done - That's about half-done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Comments Not sure about that in-line link in the lead (10 U.S.C. § 6241)... Thats how the USC template works as far as I have seen because its linking to an external link. --Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC) The swapping of medals for unknown soldiers is not referenced. Done - Its ref #58. Unless I am not seeing the right place. --Kumioko (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC) "presented during the four years of this" they were actually presented during the war? just checking... 'Done I fixed the wording on this I think but let me know if I need to clarify further. --Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Check the toolbox; there are a couple dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I got everyhing covered know. Please let me know if I missed anythng. --Kumioko (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Spanish-American War" Needs an en dash, not a hyphen. Multiple occurences of this.
• "Philippine-American War" Needs and en dash, not a hyphen. Multiple occurences of this.
• "While current regulations, (10 U.S.C. § 6241), beginning in 1918, explicitly state that recipients " Doesn't make sense; how can regulations "begin" to state something in a year?
• The Spanish–American War section does not mention the MOH awardees at all.
• In general, the undue weight given to the events over the recipients is an issue for most of the sections. I would expect only two or three sentences for each event, and a similar or greater amount of prose dedicated to the awardees per sections.
• Are all of those external links really necessary? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 12:45, 31 March 2010 [43].

---

List of NESIS storms

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it fills a gap, gives orphaned storm articles a place to thrive, and is informative. I wrote it mostly from scratch, and believe it fulfills all the criteria. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 19:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments Why is March 1993 (scored 11.52) ranked above Jan 1996 (scored 11.54)? More description of how that score is calculated is really needed. "This page documents" isn't really brilliant prose. Generally try to avoid things like "This list" or "this page". The source information belongs in the references, anyways. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Silly type—fixed. I don't really agree. If it's needed, it can go in the main NESIS article, not the list of storms. How else would I word it? Sometimes brilliance must be compromised for accuracy and clarity. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC) The details of the source information isn't really necessary. I don't note, for example, that "This page documents XYZ draft picks of the Kansas City Royals listed on Baseball-Reference.com" That is established by the entries on the table and the references for them. I could see the whole second paragraph reworded more as: "77 storms have been rated on the NESIS scale. The most rare category is "extreme", with only two storms, and the most common "notable", encompassing 24 events. XYZ of the storms occured between December and March, with ABC occuring from April to November. Five storms are currently listed based on preliminary data." That's not true, though. Theoretically, there could be hundreds or thousands of storms to which NESIS may be applied; the 77 listed here are simply the most organized and documented. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Wait, this isn't all the storms it's been applied to? Then the biggest thing this list needs is {{Dynamic list}}. And I would still say you don't have to spell out where the data is coming from in the lead. List it as a reference, that covers it. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I think it's better to specify a strict scope rather than leave readers without a clue as to how the selection of entries is chosen. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Mkay. In any case Dynamic list is definitely needed. I would, at most, leave it as something like "Available sources document 77 storms scored on the NESIS scale", eg. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) But if it sets a strict scope, it's not dynamic. And saying "Available sources say..." violates WP:WEASEL. This page has a scope, and it's not meant to vaguely hint at other definitions. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) If that's what you mean by strict scope I completely disagree. This isn't List of NESIS storms documented in XYZ, this is List of NESIS storms. List of brain tumor patients, or any of our alumni lists, don't specify only particular sources. They are a grouping of all available data on the subject at hand. What you are suggesting is an article I think would have to be List of NESIS storms described in Northeast Snowstorms, and I don't think that article passes WP:GNG. List of NESIS storms (assuming there is no perfect list of all storms) is almost a textbook example, in my opinion, of a dynamic list. Loads of potential entries but you only have a limited number of them documented. You can't change this by arbitrarily limiting a broad list to two sources just because that's what you have. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Look again? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I dunno. That's better, with the dynamic list note, but my problem with this (now knowing there are thousands of storms) is the same as the problem I leveled with the US politicians who've used cannabis list. I don't mind dynamic lists, but they have to come close to some reasonable level of meeting criteria 3a. Again, brain tumor patients and alumni lists list hundreds upon hundreds of entries. As with the cannabis list I don't feel like I can oppose over this, but I don't feel I can support either. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Which is why I wanted to go with my previous idea... I guess I'll withdraw this FLC if it means the quality has to be compromised to get it passed. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC) So soon? Maybe it's a good idea to wait a couple days and ask other editors (including those from the hurricane project) for their opinion before throwing in the towel. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) What was your previous idea? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Setting the scope up-front. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA) encountered a similar issue around two years ago. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Note several fixes, like removing source details, reordering April and November (since otherwise November to April sounds like the same time period as December to March, just with one month more on either side), and a period on the end. Maybe include more facts like most active years, things like that. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) On it. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I keep tinkering with it. Let me know when it's good. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Could you include the table from the NOAA website of the corresponding NESIS score, category, and description? I know that above you said details belong at the main NESIS page, but understanding the NESIS scale is crucial to a list about NESIS storms. Alright, will do. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Speaking of that, the NOAA site lists completely different values than those in the table. March 12-14 1993 is listed as 12.52 on the table, 13.20 on the NOAA site, eg. Which is "correct"? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Where data between the two sources differed, I used the book. Should I clarify that in a footnote or something? –Juliancolton | Talk 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I think so, I was rather surprised to see different values in one of the article sources. Why do you think the book is more reliable than the NOAA site? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The book was written by the meteorologists who developed NESIS. :-) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Gotcha. Yes then, I'd stick a footnote on the "NESIS rank" at the top of the table (or in the key, when you add it) noting that you are doing this. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Thanks for all the help. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments "occur in the latter category" why not just "are in the latter category"? How is it similar to the other scales? "the population aspect of a storm's impact" do you mean "the number of people directly affected by the storm"? "7 post-2004 " I think it's a fair call to say "seven post-2004" here. "The most rare category is "extreme", with only two storms," - isn't "most rare" actually "rarest"? And haven't you already said this in the first paragraph? The February 2010 link is misleading as it links to a storm, not a date. "Five recent storms..." what's the definition of recent? Post-book publication..? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Done most of these. What kind of additional information are you looking for? The actual algorithm used, or just general climatology data? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think, while the lead image is interesting, it's not clear to me how the NESIS value is derived still. Perhaps you can explain this more fully in the lead.
  • I'd like more description of the algorithm because the image used seems quite complex and requires some level of knowledge of moderately complicated mathematical ideas.
• How does the numbering system work? Are 8 and 9 the wrong way round?
• Ref 4 is a footnote, not a reference.
• Aren't 23 & 24 really 23=?
• Same with 28 & 29. If not then a note as to how the fractions are dealt with would be useful.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What's the status on TRM's comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think I fixed many of them, but I'm sort of at a loss as to how to add more information. I'd have no idea how to add the mathematical algorithms and such. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm no expert either but it's really important that the lead clearly and concisely explains how the values for these storms are calculated. Sorry if that's a pain, but I think it's essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• One issue is that the method of calculation might differ from the original Northeast Snowstorms book to the current NCDC records. I'm not sure how to verify that (I'm not even sure it's accurate), but this is getting a bit difficult. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• A little more history/details would be nice, such as in a section outside the lede and before the actual list. Was there ever a similar scale before that ranked nor'easters? When was the scale even created, and why? Is the scale used at all by the public, or even the private sector for that matter? You have the diagram on the top-right of the page, but it'd be nice seeing in the article how it's tabulated. My feeling is that the stubby Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale should be merged/redirected to the list, since you covered most of that content already. I just feel the current list is a bit lackluster, and maybe some of what I recommended could give it a nice touch. If I had to vote, I'd oppose per 3b, since I think those details are important. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• How is the list not substantial enough to stand on its own? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I privately left you comments. I feel some basic info is needed, such as when the scale was invented, and why, who uses it (anyone other than NCDC?) and why. Regarding substantialness, I feel the current NECIS article is not substantial enough on its own, especially since this scale is so new, which is why I think the NECIS should be moved to the list article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 11:49, 31 March 2010 [44].

---

List of Gunsmoke television episodes

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because Gunsmoke is a television classic and warrants a good episode list page. This article has had a peer review and a previous FLC listing. All comments for improvement were addressed. All that is needed now is some support. Thanks Jimknut (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 I supported this list before the re-insertion of Amazon.com as a reference. Since it is being used only to verify release dates in this case, I'm willing to overlook my personal concerns with its reliability. I see only two comments that would need to be addressed before I confirm my support: Blacksmith (in the lead) is not a proper noun; de-capitalize. Fixed. Reference formats are not consistent. Some use only the author's name, while some use the name and year. One is also misspelled. Fixed. Once those are fixed, I'll be glad to re-support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Just noticed a major issue: dates don't sort. They are sorting alphabetically by month name, when they should sort chronologically. You'll need to use {{dts}} for all dates. I used {{dts}} on the airdates. It worked fine for seasons one thru five, but beginning midway into season six the dates were replaced with Error: too many #time calls. From what I read in what help I could find this is a result of too many sortable entries. I have chosen instead to make the airdate columns unsortable. (After all, this is a huge list.) What order would anyone like to sort them in anyway? Chronological? They're already in that format. Reverse chronological order? You can achieve that by sorting either of two episode number columns. Good solution. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Also noticed that there is an extraneous period/full stop in "Calvin Clements" in season 13. Is there a difference between "Calvin Clements" and "Calvin Clements, Jr."? If not, this needs to be standardized throughout the entire list. Extraneous period removed. Yes, there is a difference between Calvin Clements and Calvin Clements, Jr.; both worked as writers on the show. Were they related in any way? Just checking. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Neither of the two books that I have on Gunsmoke (the ones I used for references) list them as being related, and I can find much info about them on the internet. I think, however, it's a fairly safe bet that the two were father and son. Jimknut (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) IMDB, while not reliable, does say that they are father and son; I think that it might make sense to make it Calvin Clements, Sr. and Jr. to make the distinction clear. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Changed Jimknut (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Sentence fragments should not end with a period/full stop (for example: "39 half-hour episodes, black-and-white." is not a complete sentence). Fixed. "Amanda Blake left this series" - should be "the series" unless she stayed with the radio program (if she did, that should be noted). Fixed. (Georgia Ellis played Kitty on the radio version.) "for the final season. (1974–75)." - extra period/full stop. Fixed. Jimknut (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Some of the "Robert Stewart"s are "Robert C. Stewart", there are some "Robert C. Stewart Jr."s. Are these the same person? If so, they should be standardized; if not, they should be unambiguously named. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Now standardized as "Robert Stewart" Jimknut (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - great work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The final first run episode aired on March 31, 1975." You lost me on this sentence. What is a "final first run episode"? Gunsmoke still airs on television, although now in syndicated reruns of episodes from its twenty-year run (1955–75) on CBS. "Final first run" means that it was chronologically the last episode broadcast that was not a rerun. I'm open to suggestions as to how this sentence could be re-worded to sound better. I added a hyphen for clarity. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) No chance for creating separate articles about each season? Plenty of chances. But this article is about the entire run of the series, not individual seasons. I prefer to do one thing at a time, so let's get this polished up to FL status and then do articles on individual seasons. OK, just making sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) "Saturday, 10-10:30" Needs an en dash. Fixed. Why are the tables not sortable by date? I used {{dts}} on the airdates. It worked fine for seasons one thru five, but beginning midway into season six the dates were replaced with Error: too many #time calls. From what I read in what help I could find this is a result of too many sortable entries. I have chosen instead to make the airdate columns unsortable. (After all, this is a huge list.) What order would anyone like to sort them in anyway? Chronological? They're already in that format. Reverse chronological order? You can achieve that by sorting either of two episode number columns. Unfortunate, but not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) I doubt you need to link "color" or "black-and-white"; would readers have any doubt about what those terms mean? The word "color" links to the article on Color television, so I think it's a valid link in case some one may want to brush up on the history of the color TV. I can't make a link to "Black-and-white television" since no article currently exists, so I suppose the black-and-white link could be ousted. I still don't think either link is necessary, but won't push further. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) In the Nielsen ratings section, why are the programs airing opposite Gunsmoke mentioned? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Gunsmoke aired on American television before the rise of cable TV and the home video market. During its twenty-year run three networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) dominated US TV broadcasting. Unless they tuned into a local broadcast, audiences of the day had to watch one of the shows from these networks. I thought it was a good idea to give readers on opportunity to have a wider spectrum of TV from that era by listing what shows aired opposite Gunsmoke. Jimknut (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I have a few issues that should be addressed before supporting.
  • Could you state in the lead why the show was eventually cancelled?
    • A statement has now been added.
      • "According to Alan Wagner, who was the network's vice president at the time, "It's better to get rid of a program one year too soon than one year two late." Should it be "one year too late"? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Whoops! This is what happens whecn your up two too late editing Wikipedia pages! It's now fixed.
  • Before each season, producer is followed by a colon (as well as notes), but starring is not. To remain consistent, it would be helpful to add colons after each of the "Starring" for all of the seasons.
    • No, I disagree. I think "Producer" and "associate producer" warrant colons unless I change then to "Produced by" and "Associate produced by" (of which the latter sound tacky). "Starring James Arness ..." flows better without a colon. I could change this to "Stars:" or "Regular cast:" but I think it's fine the way it is.
      • To be consistent with the formatting of the other lines before the tables, a colon makes more sense. It seems out of place and starting off with "starring" makes the line appear to be a sentence, when it is only a list of the cast members. I think "regular cast:" would work well or actually writing it as a sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, I give in. It's now changed to "Regular cast:"
  • There seems to be a lot of overlinking. Could the directors and writers be linked to only once in each season?
    • See resolved comments from the last FLC; these are not overlinked. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
      • KV5 summed it up right ... and I've gone over this linking routine numerous times.
        • Sorry, I didn't view other reviewers' comments. The rationale in the guideline doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not going to fight it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Unless there are guidelines that state otherwise, consider renaming the section "home release" to "home media release". Also there should be a brief mention in the lead about the releases to better summarize the article.
    • Now changed to "Home media release".
  • Are there any relevant external links that can be included?
    • Amazing but there doesn't seem to be any significant web site devoted to this epic TV series. I have, however, included a link to the web site of the Museum of Television Broadcasting, which seems to be a somewhat scholarly site.
      • Would the IMDB and TV.com links be helpful for including in the external links? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

These shouldn't be too hard to address. Good job on this list, it's great to see a FLC attempt for an older show instead of all the recent ones (where sources are must more abundant). If you have any questions or when you are finished, please let me know on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Anything else? Jimknut (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Concerns address and another external link added. Jimknut (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support All of the above issues I raised have been sufficiently addressed. Good work on the list! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). Overall, a very nice article. Just some nitpicks before I support (mostly prose-related). In the first sentence should "is" be "was"? Also, "television series, which was developed by" No. Correct: "Gunsmoke is an American western television series" Incorrect: "Gunsmoke was an American western television series" It may no longer be in production and no longer airing first-run episodes on the CBS network, but it is still a television series and can still be viewed as such (by way of syndicated reruns or playing video cassettes or DVDs). "Was" indicates that it no longer exists or has changed into something else. Consider this: "Charles Dickens was a British novelist" or "Orson Welles was an American filmmaker" (past tense because both men are now dead); however, "A Tale of Two Cities is a novel" or "Citizen Kane is a motion picture" (present tense because both works still exist). "which was" has been cut. "All episodes of the series were broadcast" – it's clear that we're talking about Gunsmoke "of the series" has been cut. "episode originally aired" – as the subject of the sentence is the first episode, one would guess this is the original airing "originally" has been cut. "series expanded to an hour-long series" repeats "series". Also, the series isn't an hour long, but the episodes are Changed to "The series expanded to an hour-long episodes" "Beginning with its second season" is ambiguous; how about "During its second season"? Changed. "moved quickly to number one" switch around "moved" and "quickly": "quickly moved to number one" Changed. Beginning a sentence with "According to" makes the sentence sound out of place; I suggest "Alan Wagner, who was ... at the time, said" followed by the quote. Also, you can take out "who was" in "who was the network's vice president" Changed. When you say "a fifth character was added to the cast", does this mean a fifth regular character? Changed to "fifth regular character" Is Miss Hannah an alternate name for Kitty? If not, the last sentence of the third paragraph should be clarified Changed to "Amanda Blake left the series at the end of the nineteenth season (1973–74) and was replaced in the final season by a new character, Miss Hannah, portrayed by Fran Ryan." Throughout the list, the dash before "Part 1" and "Part 2" should be spaced on both sides. For example, ""Guns of Cibol Blanca The Guns of Cibola Blanca"– Part 1" should be ""Guns of Cibol Blanca The Guns of Cibola Blanca" – Part 1" Changed. I don't think any episodes have more than one director (except season 2), so you can take out "(s)" in the heading Heading changed to "Writer" and in season two the one episode listing two directors has now been changed to one. (This is per my sources. I've made a valiant attempt to be accurate, but with 635 episodes to deal with a flub can creep in here and there.) In episode 266, is the producer name of "Robert E." correct Corrected. I would avoid using "two-parter" (season 16) as it sounds a tad too informal Changed to "two-part" episode. In the Nielsen ratings table, some columns are centered while others aren't. I can see why the "Season" and "Nielsen rating" columns are centered, but one date column is centered while the other isn't Corrected. Also season numbers have linked to the episode listings. In the Home media release table, I would get rid of the thin empty rows (i.e., the

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments "The series ran for 20 seasons" from when? "The first episode aired in the United States on September 10, 1955.[4][5] The final first-run episode aired on March 31, 1975.[6][7]" merge these. Merged and moved into the first paragraph. I think it more or less answers your first comment. "were a half-hour in length" nasty, maybe "were 30 minutes.." or "were half an hour in"? changed to "30 minutes" "and quickly moved to number one" specify. changed. I think it reads better now. "following a shift in its programming time" specify. Expanded to "following a shift in its programming time from Saturday to Monday night" Ref 51 is malformed. Fixed. Can you tell me why tvshowsondvd.com is a WP:RS? It seemed like a good idea at the time. I've changed the ref to Amazon.com. The statement is that episodes of Gunsmoke were released on DVD. Since the Amazon page clearly shows that they have these DVDs for sale I think we can safely consider them a reliable source this time around. Jimknut (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 3 April 2010 [45].

---

Paramore discography

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I spent a couple of months working on it and, based on previous nominations, I thought this article is ready to be promoted to a FL. Sources, lead and images are fine in my opinion and the peer review I resquested before this nomination is already archived. Decodet (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

*Quick comment: The arrows in the box to the right of the lead don't link to the correct section. Mm40 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed it. Decodet (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Comments from Mm40 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Remove the abbreviation "(EP)" in the lead as it's not used elsewhere in the article. Done. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe give the city Fueled by Ramen is based in? Sorry, but I did not understand what you meant with it. Decodet (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I'm suggesting "...signed with the New York City-based Fueled by Ramen" Mm40 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, now I under/stood. Done. Decodet (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC) To match the article name, the "By" in "Fueled By Ramen" should be lowercase throughout the article Fixed. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) "managed to debut" what does it mean by "debut"? Was it released for the first time in that country? Also, I don't really like the use of "managed" Fixed. With "debut", I meant first entry in the chart. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) In the current version (with managed): "and became a number one album" → "and become a number one album" Fixed. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) In the Studio Album chart, "FIN" links just to Finland, not to the country's chart Fixed. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) All of the "Released" dates need citations They are featured in the first general reference. You only have to click in each album you want to check. Decodet (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC) In the first note under the Live albums table, the first note should have "were" instead of "was", and the second note needs a period Fixed fist note but I did not undertand what you meant with "period", could you explain me, please? Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) A period is the same as a full stop (".") Mm40 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Done! Decodet (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC) In the Singles table, both AUS and ARIA link to ARIA Charts Fixed. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Consider centering the "Single" and "Album" columns in the Singles table Fixed "Album" columns. "Single" columns are usually displayed in the left. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) No reference for "Big TV!" as the producer of the "Hallelujah" music video? No reliable source for instance. Added a note below the table. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) What makes reference 2 ([46], Socialite Life) reliable? Removed it, since it's not needed in the article. Reference 3 needs a publisher or work Fixed. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) You have both "Last, First" and "First Last" to present author names in References. Be consistent If ref 44 was the only different reference, it's fixed. The other references are consistent, I think. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Italicize The Hollywood Reporter in ref 5 Done. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Reference 8 is in German Fixed. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Ref 12 is in Dutch Fixed. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Reference 21 is just a bare external link Fixed. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Italicize and link Allmusic in reference 23. Also, 23's retrieval date is formatted differently than the others Done. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) What makes reference 36 ([47], NeedForReed) reliable? Removed it. Decodet (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Looks good otherwise, I'll support once these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments "the New York City-based Fueled by Ramen" minor point but could you just clarify "-based record label Fueled by.."? Done. Decodet (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC) "released their debut album" was it Paramore's debut album or the record label's debut album? Just got potentially a little confusing there. Fixed. Decodet (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure I'm keen on the inclusion of information that you cite with "couldn't be cited with a RS"... interested to see what others have to say.

I have to admit I copied that note from another featured discography but I'm not sure if it was added before or after the end of the nomination. Let's wait for more users' opinions. Depending of consencus, I can remove that note. Decodet (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Decodet (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 6 April 2010 [48].

---

List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni

Nominator(s): GrapedApe (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to nominate this list of alumni for featured list review. It was written to follow the precedent of recent lists of alumni. It has has undergone a thorough (and helpful) peer review. Hopefully it is good enough for Featured List designation. GrapedApe (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I notice that alt text has been added, but right now it merely duplicates the image captions, which is not the purpose of alt text. Alt text describes only what you can see in the picture without external information (i.e. it must be verifiable), which means alt text such as "Andrew Wylie" is largely useless since nobody knows what Wylie looks like. Instead, describe what Wylie looks like; a common analogy to writing alt text is to pretend that you are describing the photo to someone over the phone. See the alt text at List of University of Central Florida alumni, a recently promoted Featured list, for an alumni list that has good alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see. I'm on it. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I gave it a try. Hope that works better.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It does look a lot better, thanks. There are still a couple images whose alt texts need to be improve, such as the image of Stephen Foster and the picture of John Astin. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Moot point now, since alt text is no longer part of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

;Comments from Bencherlite My standard question for alumni lists – what steps have you taken to try to make the list as comprehensive as possible? I'm not looking for proof that you've got all the notable alumni in the list, since that would be virtually impossible to do or to prove; I'm just looking for an idea as to how you've gone about finding names to add to the list, whether you've written articles for people who were obviously missing from Wikipedia, whether there's an outside list of notable alumni that you were working from, etc. I checked the contents of Category:Washington & Jefferson College alumni for additions. I also created articles for a lot of early professional sportsmen from the college. Also, I looked through the Biographical and Historical Catalogue' for any names that stood out, especially prominent politicians,judges, and Presidents of colleges. Here are a few articles I wrote to fill in the gaps (William Burnett (preacher), Joseph Smith (1796–1869), George D. Archibald, Latimer A. McCook, Thomas Stokeley Wilson, Ethelbert Patterson Oliphant, Samuel Dexter LeCompte, George Addison Crawford, Edwin Nevin, William Burnett (preacher)). - GrapedApe That's good enough for me on this point. BencherliteTalk 08:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC) No dab links Alt text still needs work: "Freshmen celebrate their first evening at Washington & Jefferson College" for the first image isn't a description of the image for alt-text purposes (think of telling us instead roughly how many people there are, what they are doing, where they are positioned, and the words of the caption). Alt-text is dull to do, I know, but you do need more than "Black and white full torso photo of a Caucasian male" to give a proper description. The images are quite small - what happens if you try removing the "100px" limitations? I was following the format from List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics). References - these comments are not exhaustive Where your reference title is along the lines of "ANDERSON, James Patton, (1822 - 1872)", you need to remove the all-caps even if they're in the source, i.e. "Anderson" done Ref 4 is incomplete (needs date/acccessdate) done Ref 15 with "Elm street printing company" - enough capital letters? Ditto ref 21 done The lists – general comments on a relatively brief read Any reason why the width of "state and local" differs from the rest? I have no idea. It probably has something to do with the alumni/start template. Personally, I think you don't need to link Washington & Jefferson College in the notes at all, certainly not as much as you do. The usual guide is to link more in sortable lists so that people can find links quickly, but when the opening words on the page are "Washington & Jefferson College", it's hardly difficult to find the link. There is certainly no need to link the college twice in some notes, as you do e.g. for Boyd Crumrine Patterson. If you've got a President of W&J, consider linking to the presidents' list instead. done Academia Thomas D. Baird: no need to link common terms like "mathematics" done Frederick E. Grine's notes shouldn't have a full-stop (not a complete sentence) done John McDowell Leavitt: has a ",;" in the middle done Francis Julius LeMoyne's notes should start with a capital letter; also you have "nationally known" (without hyphen) and "historically-black" (with hyphen), and I read in MOS:HYPHEN that "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb", so you should change it to "historically black" done Jacob Lindley's notes should start with a capital letter; also, do you need to mention that he was educated at Dod's log college in the notes as well as in the year column? done Alfred Ryors: overlinking of Indiana and Ohio universities done John Work Scott: "vice" not "Vice" as you're not at the start of a sentence done Joseph Smith: "grandson" not "Grandson" as you're not at the start of a sentence done Military Any reason to link the Confederate State Army in the first note but not the Union army in the second? done John Byers Anderson: is there a missing "and" after Cumberland done Maxwell Hunter: two "Worked" mid-sentence, should be "worked" done Daniel McCook: stray mid-sentence capitals (Officer, His) done Henry Christopher McCook: stray mid-sentence capitals done Actually, I'm not going to point stray mid-sentence capitals out any more, you find them please! I think I found them all George W. Morgan: any reason for the ? there? (Something similar in ref 117) done That will do for now. The list looks in generally good shape, but needs a fair amount of polishing. I'll return with more suggestions when you've responded to this batch. BencherliteTalk 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note to nominator Please do not strike reviewers' comments; the reviewers themselves decide when issues are resolved (I changed the strikes to indented and italicized "dones" where appropriate). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Took a brief look at the Athletics section, and am curious as to why Head Coach is capitalized three times (by my count). I don't believe it's a proper noun. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• More comments from Bencherlite I have a number of minor points which I have put on the talk page of this FLC to avoid cluttering up the front page. Bencherlite^Talk 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• These appear to have been addressed as well, for the most part. So, what's left?
  • Some of the alt-text is still inadequate, even under the recently loosened guidance: "Caucasian female smiling at the camera", "Color photo of a Caucasian male", "Black and white photo of Caucasian male in a chair", "John Astin", "Photo of a bearded man" and I could go on. The alt text for the lead image basically restates the caption. Even though I'm not the world's greatest fan of WP:ALT, this isn't close enough to being adequate for me to be able to ignore it in good conscience while alt-text is still one of the FL criteria.
  • Some of the references give the publisher as "W&J College", others as "Washington & Jefferson College". Any reason for the difference? - I changed them all to Washington & Jefferson College
• If the alt-text can be improved, I'd be prepared to support but not just yet. Bencherlite^Talk 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help so far. I will get to the alt text in the next few days. --GrapedApe (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Support as alt text is no longer part of the Featured List criteria. Of course, if that situation changes before this FLC ends, you'll need to comply with whatever half-baked the new standard is! Bencherlite^Talk 21:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support prose – Read through the lead and the writing looks okay for the most part. The one part I wasn't crazy about was "with Jefferson College in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania being chartered in 1802 and Washington College being chartered in 1806." I've never been a fan of these "with + being..." type of sentences; perhaps "; Jefferson College in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania was chartered in 1802 and Washington College was chartered in 1806" could be considered? I also skimmed through the sources, and what I saw looked good as far as reliability goes; however, I didn't check the tables other than the athletics one before, so this shouldn't be considered a 100% support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments What's CEO? - I linked it to Chief executive officer "These three log cabin colleges" no need to repeat three here. - done Or indeed, log cabin... - done "had 12,000 living alumni" exactly? - done "Before the union of the two colleges in 1865," you just mentioned 1865 two sentences prior... - done 12,000 vs 1936. Be comma-separator consistent.- done Alumni is linked on its second use.- done Is it true that "These graduates " equals students "who have completed at least one college year as full-time students"? One year makes a graduate? - I think I clarified this In Safari, the key overlaps the lead image. - I don't really know how to remedy this problem. I added a {{clear}} template to remedy this. Jujutacular T · C 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC) "where he was the lone vote " his was the lone vote...? - done Business section - the ? sorts curiously for me in Safari. Force it to sort as a zero. - done Ewing's class year seems to be forced to sort as something (despite it being a ?). Are you consistently applying some kind of logic in every section because it doesn't appear so to me. - I think I cleared the sort issues Ref 28 - needs an en-dash.- done Ref 33 appears to have double " - done Ref 40, 64, 192, 237 have a human-readable date while all others in the refs are ISO. - done Ref 70 needs an en-dash. - done Ref 87, 129, do they need the space between the year and the en-dash. - done Why is ref 169 spaced en-dash? - done Ref 182 - en dash required. - done Many ref's need attendance - this is the version with the specific numerical ref values I've noted above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Ref 10 - spare period. - the second period is added by the reference template, since the publisher name has a period at the end: "Co." To change it to remove that period would create an inaccurate reference. Ref 57, 235 - spare period. - the second period is added by the reference template, since the publisher name has a period at the end: "Co." To change it to remove that period would create an inaccurate reference. Not inaccurate at all. Just one less period. How is ".." more accurate? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Because the first period is part of the name of the publisher, while the second period is part of the citation style. To put another way, each period is serving a purpose: one is part of the name of the publisher, while the other is part of the citation format. To change it would introduce error into the citation: the name of the publisher will be incorrect. At least that's how I understand it. I don't believe the second period is necessary; similarly I would not write "Barack Obama is the president of the U.S.. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Fair point. Changed.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I would add a (s) to the Reference heading as there is oftentimes more than one. - I'm an unclear about what this means i.e. make the col heading Reference(s). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) This does not appear to be a parameter in the {{Alum}} template that can alter that. Suggestions? I changed the template source code to reflect this discussion. [49] Is it really necessary to repeat "U.S. Congressional Representative" for every single line in the U.S. Congressmen section? - Do you have any suggestions on another way to note this? Don't continually repeat the phrase. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Changed. Col widths are all over the place from section to section. I'd like to see them fixed. - I used the standard {{Alum}} series of templates. I did that so that the widths would be automatic. Also, the column widths look the same to me (on firefox) Not the same in Safari. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I don't know how I can alter the {{Alum}} template to fix this problem. Especially since I can't see the problem. Any suggestions? Fixed column width was one of the design goals of {{mem/a}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I will work over the next few days to make the switch!--GrapedApe (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Something's gone awry in the "Military and aerospace" section... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Changed to the {{mem/a}} template. Did that work for Safari?--GrapedApe (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC) After making that change, it became clear that there was no way to have the class years all on 1 line, so I changed the coding to a wikitable, like List of Brigham Young University alumni and List of University of Central Florida alumni. This should take care of all of the aforementioned problems (class years on multiple lines, references, and column widths.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC) "Eaton, Samuel John Mills; Woods, Henry (1902)" should be a general ref so you only need to specify author and page number(s) each re-use. - I am not sure how to do this. Could you please do one as an example Check out some of our recently promoted FLs for help here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) In progress. This might take a while, since there are multiple editions of this book (1889/1902) that are used.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Status update: I have completed this process for the "Academia" and " Military and aerospace" sections. Please let me know if I am doing it wrong.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Done! All of the cites for that book are now short refs. All of the 1889 references were repaginated to match the 1902 version (a superior edition anyways).--GrapedApe (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Looks great, good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ImGz (t/c) 12:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

*Comments There should be a space between the "p." and the page number in your specific references. done I think having the 1902 in the specific references is superfluous - you're only using that version. According to WP:CITESHORT, the years are not superfluous CITESHORT says that 'many articles use', not that it's required. Whether it is included or not seems to be left to the discretion of the author (Mary Rose vs. 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry) I'm not sure what the MOS says about this, I can't find anything on a quick run through, but I do not think it's necessary for each specific page reference to have a link to the book/page when the general reference already links to it. Maybe it's not necessary, but it's helpful. The general reference should have the book ISBN or the OCLC. done McGuffey, Baird, Hunter, Oliver, Cowan, Dallis, Ewing - watch for stray punctuation at the end of the notability description. done Several instances of capitalization inconsistencies - "professor of mathematics" vs. "Professor of Languages and Philosophy", "president" vs. "President", "college" vs. "College" (example of this one is: grandson of College founder, Joseph Smith vs. studied under college founder John McMillan). All clarified "first President of President of Franklin College" huh? fixed Morgan - shows odd formatting for me right before the years listed. I don't see any odd formatting there. Stoffel - why is "majored in mathematics and physics" in the notability description? Why is his majors listed and not others? If I came across interesting information about an alumni about their time at the W&J, I tried to find a way to include it. (like at Walter B. Massenberg, Nicholas P. Dallis, Charles Page Thomas Moore, Martin Delaney, Alberto Vilar, Stephen Foster James McGready, and Al Helfer). (Also, I majored in mathematics at W&J, so it amused me). Fair enough. Voorhis - "left college to enlist in the Spanish–American War" which college would this be at this point? left Washington & Jefferson college to enlist.. or left the College to enlist.. clarified Helfer - "Mr. Radio Baseball;" should be "Mr. Radio Baseball"; done Smith - "a Historically Black College" capitalization? done Meyers - which newspaper? If it's defunct/red link you don't have to link it, but mentioning it might not be amiss since you mentioned that he published a newspaper. done External links - please clarify exactly what W&J stands for at the beginning of the article. Reading through the article this is the first time I'm seeing the abbreviations mentioned outside of the references. --ImGz (t/c) 04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Used full name there Towler - "he was a 5x Pro-Bowler" not everybody is aware of what "5x" means. done Numbers one through nine should be spelled out. --ImGz (t/c) 12:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support --ImGz (t/c) 14:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Nominations for removal

List of Olympic medalists in figure skating

Notified: Parutakupiu

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current standards that we'd expect out of a featured list. It has issues with a lack of citations as well as accessibility.

• Lacks appropriate references (need more), especially above a number of tables where unverified factoids sit
• None of the tables are accessible
• No alt text on any of the images

Hopefully someone will take on the task. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, this article needs a a lot of work. Feel free to remove it as a Featured List until we can clean it up. We’re swamped at WikiProject Figure Skating right now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delist for the reasons outlined in the nomination. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Happy to allow time for improvements to be made, so striking my vote to delist. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Hey man im josh, I have begun work on this article today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Pleased to see the progress being made! I'm more than willing to be patient if an effort is being made :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)