Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2008

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 21:23, 28 October 2008 [1].

---

List of female Nobel Laureates

I'm currently planning to submit List of Nobel laureates in Economics for the FLC contest, but found this as well. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I copyedited some. Should be good to go. Gary King (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Nobel Prizes are awarded annually by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for individuals"—"for"-->to.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In 2008, the winners were awarded the prize amount of 10,000,000 SEK." "the"-->a.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Among Nobel Prize categories, 12 women have won the Nobel Peace Prize, more than any other category." Since the sentence says "more than any other category", the first phrase is redundant.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Since the table is sortable, all the countries need to be linked.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Get an experienced FAC image reviewer to check the images to make sure they are properly tagged/licensed/attributed.

• I'll look into that (Hmm...Eco or David?). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you forget to hit the save button? None of your fixes are showing. And yes, David Fuchs or Eco would be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

*smacks self* Yes, I did. And I've asked David here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image comments:

• • Image:Jane Addams profile.jpg should have an expired/pd tag, not a self-pd

• Fixed tag. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Pearl Buck.jpg is ca. 1932, thus the expired copyright tag is invalid.

• Cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Gabriela Mistral-01.jpg has deletion tag as no indication of public domain (published 1950s)

• Cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Maria Goeppert-Mayer.gif no indication of its copyright status, with no year of publication

• Cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Betty Williams.jpg no link to discussion which allows free use

• Here apparently. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Wangari Maathai potrait by Martin Rowe.jpg - How do we know the uploader is the author, and the work has been freely released?

• Cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

--All others should check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thats fine save for the betty williams one, I'm not sure of. Check with User:Elcobbola about it, he's more experienced with that sort of thing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Did so. Thanks for the review. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Eco's comments, I've removed the image pending confirmation from OTRS that they received the email granting permission to use the image and that the image has been ticketed. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, Эlcobbola _talk 22:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:IUP (image usage policy) concerns. I apologize for opposing when my help was sought for another issue, but I've found serious issues:
  • Image:Pierre and Marie Curie.jpg - image does not appear at the source. Date of "prior 1907, because Pierre Curie died in 1906" gives the impression that date of creation, not publication, was used when choosing a PD tag. Creation is not the same as publication. How do we know, for example, that this didn't sit in a drawer for 30 years? How can we verify a publication date?

    Cut. Do note that I didn't upload any of these, and my default reaction if I have no idea how to solve the issue will be to remove the image. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Image:Mariecurie.jpg - source has no date information for this image; how can we confirm it was published before 1.1.1923?

    Cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Image:Bertha-von-Suttner-1906.jpg - why are we claiming PD based on 70 years after the author's death when the author is "??"; this would be fine if the image were dated 1806, but is not reasonable for a 1906 image (what if a 30-year-old took it and died in 1946, aged 70. That's not an unreasonable scenario). Source, further, is not verifiable; what edition of the Stadtchronik Wien?

    Cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Image:Irène Joliot-Curie.jpg - derivative of this image, the source for which does not contain any date information; how can we confirm it was published before 1.1.1923? Why does the summary say "originally published in Jefferson College Times, March 2005" when the copyright tag is claiming pre-1.1.1923 publication?

    Cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Image:Maria Goeppert-Mayer.gif - needs a verifiable source. A hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not acceptable. Image is claiming PD-Old; how can we confirm the author has been dead 70 years (seems unlikely to be the case, as Goeppert-Mayer was born in 1906 and seems to be at least in her 30s in this image).

    Cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I didn't have time to look at any of the other images. Please judiciously review all images (I even had to fix Image:Jane Addams profile.jpg, the source for which was a dead link). Эlcobbola _talk 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Only two other image issues (things get easier with living people):
    • Image:Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin.jpg - same issue with permission as Image:Betty Williams.jpg; how can we confirm this wiki-based permission? The permission of "by all means use the photo of Dorothy Hodgkin, with a credit to Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs", further, is not sufficient as it does not explicitly articulate whether derivatives, reproduction, or commercial use is allowed.

      Left a message on the uploader's talk page. In the meantime, cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    • Image:Rita Levi-Montalcini in 1965.jpg - source needs to be a link to a page with author/license information, not directly to the image itself. Эlcobbola _talk 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

      Added a link here. No idea whether the search will time out or not though. The material in the image description looks accurate though. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

      I added the "Order Number" identifier so the image can be easily found if the search times out. The other images still appear to be in the article? Эlcobbola _talk 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

      I have a horrible habit of forgetting to hit the save button after going down the checklist at a nomination :p Done now. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - article (i.e. list) looks good on the image front (aside from Image:Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin.jpg, which is still hanging around); I'll see whether I can find time tonight to locate some verifiably-sourced replacements. Эlcobbola _talk 22:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Now removed. And thanks for the offer to find replacements. Any efforts in this regard would be greatly appreciated. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nit-picky issue, but some of the "rationale" items have periods at the end of the sentences, and others don't. I'd prefer to see consistency. Considering that all of the rationales are quotations, they should all end with a period. Also too bad not every woman has a photo. Otherwise it looks good. Ariel♥Gold 01:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• The only "rationale" items with periods are the Peace Prize laureates who don't have quotes, and the punctuation is there so I can have something separating the reference and the word. All quoted items don't have a period because the official site gives it without a period also. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Can't see any problem. Good work —Chris! _ct 19:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 21:23, 28 October 2008 [2].

---

List of Nobel Laureates in Chemistry

This is a list I've been working on for a couple of days, and I would like to see the lists of laureates for all six Nobel prizes become FLs. The winner of this award was announced this morning, so there may still be some stability concerns, but I don't think it'll be so much that it will be uncontrollable. As always, concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I have no objection, looks good to me. Cannibaloki 22:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I left from this FLC, because a support with less than 30 minutes without any objection is irrelevant, sorry. Cannibaloki 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (reluctantly) until the edit-warring over the nationality over one of the 2008 prize-winners is sorted out. Bencherlite^Talk 23:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, you are right, I thought that that was over because one editor readded American. Why can't people accept that he is Japanese-American? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a classic WP:V case in which Scorpion is in the right. The people who are edit warring with him are also anons and very new contributors, so I wouldn't call the article unstable as it stands. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is more than possible that they just made a mistake by solely calling him an American because another section in the Nobel website does confirm that he was born in Japan, which is why I allowed both to be listed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. If the nationality column is going to cause that many problems, then removal is probably for the best. Bencherlite^Talk 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Overlinking in the "Countries" column.
  • I'll work on that tomorrow.
• Current refs 112 and 113 are missing info (title, accessdate, publisher).
• Current refs 114 and 115 need access dates.
  • Don't take any of those refs seriously right now. They'll be gone tomorrow.
• "Three women have won the prize, Marie Curie, Irène Joliot-Curie (1935) and Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin (1964)." I think the first comma should be a colon.
  • Done.
• Could the "Citation" column be renamed to something like "Reason"?
  • Done
• Some images have obsolete Public Domain tags. I recommend asking an experienced image reviewer to look over the images to make sure everything is as it should be.
• "As of 2007, the Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to 150 individuals." This figure is wrong according to this source: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/
  • That figure hasn't been updated for 2008 yet (it was only announced this morning). It is updated now.
• "Scientists from the United States have won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 59 times, more than any nation"—Should be "any other nation".
  • Done.

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A few notes

• "Reason" is way to colloquial for this topic. Find a better word please.
  • "Citation", the original header, was not the proper word. Would "Rationale" do? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree, done.
• perhaps gray-out the "not awarded" years
• you probably want to add a note to each unawarded year explaining what happened
  • I'm actually not sure. My guess would be the various wars, but I couldn't find a source on the official website.
• is is possible to thin-out the lines between the winners of the same year, or thicken the other lines?
  • I don't think so.
• double check articles for more portraits. I randomly checked Alder and I saw he has a picture on his page
  • It's a fair use image. I checked the page for every single person and included all of the free images I could find (except the ones where there is more than one person)
• not necessary, but would be nice to have flags by the country entries.
  • I disagree, because it might be considered flagcruft.

Nergaal (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.nndb.com/
• Current refs 112 and 113 are just numbered links. they need formatted titles, publishers and last access dates at the very least.
• Current refs 114 and 115 are lacking last acccess dates.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, those will be gone soon. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Prose is generally good. "There have been eight years in which it has not been awarded." is really, really awkward, though and should be rewritten, but I can't think of an alternative at the moment. Gary King (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Err, sorry (and don't blame Scorpion), that was me trying to get away from "It has not been awarded eight times", which was much worse! Bencherlite^Talk 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[3] Gary King (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that, but was trying to avoid multiple uses of "the Prize in Chemistry". Hey-ho, no preference anymore. Bencherlite^Talk 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the meaning of the country column becomes crystal clear and the country assignments are attributed to reliable sources. This issue was discussed extensively at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry but I don't think it reached a clear conclusion. Is it place of birth, nationality at time of award, nationality during the discovery, nationality at time of death? What about dual citizenships? To give just one example with which I am familiar, consider Mario Molina. The list says Mexico, while the reference (Nobel Foundation) says USA. The truth is that he was born in Mexico, moved to the US, conducted his research there, acquired the American nationality, losing the Mexican nationality in the process, got the Nobel Prize, and later re-acquired the Mexican nationality because there were constitutional reforms in Mexico that allowed him to have dual citizenship. A major problem with cases like this is that unless the country assignments are rock-solid the article can never be stable; there is always be a bit of nationalistic revert-warring because everyone wants to believe that a Nobel Prize "belongs" to their country even if it is because the laureate's grandfather was a citizen. --Itub (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The column has been removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Removed? Then the list is not comprehensive. All the other lists have a "country" column, and lots of sources give a nationality or country. Removing it merely because it is (sometimes) disputed is avoiding the problem. See List of Nobel laureates by country for one attempt to address the issue. The "always be a bit of nationalistic revert-warring" argument from Itub also misses the point. Letting nationalistic revert-warring shape the content (or lack of content) of an article is unacceptable. Removing the content merely to meet a "stability" criterion is not the right approach. Don't get me wrong. I want to see lists like this featured as well, and I'm working on Royal Medal (and came here to see what the requirements were for lists like this), but like it or not, "where are they from" is a question people ask about other people. Pick an easily sourced criterion and stick to it, is my opinion, with footnotes explaining complicated cases like Molina. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • See Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#How_this_list_works for one approach. Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
        • My point was not that the list needed to be removed, and in fact I think that removing it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My point is that the list needs to be "bulletproof": the definition of the country column needs to be stated explicitly and followed consistently. Going by the Nobel Foundation seems like the best course of action, but if someone wants to clarify the nuances in specific cases, that can be done in a footnote, citing appropriate sources. Mario Molina was not the only laureate where there was disagreement between our list and the Nobel Foundation: we had Aaron Klug as South Africa/UK, but nobelprize.org has him as United Kingdom, with a note saying "born in Lithuania". We had George Olah as Hungary/United States, but nobelprize.org has him as USA with a note saying "born in Hungary"), which is not quite the same IMHO. I think that particularly the people that were listed with more than one nationality need to be double-checked. These examples come from just checking a few "suspicious" cases, but in order for this to be featured I'd need to be reassured that someone really went through every single line and checked that it has the right country. --Itub (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

However, Shimomura's case (Chemistry laureate 2008) really created a bit of trouble, since even the website of the Nobel committee reports his Japanese citizenship while affiliating his award with the US and merely mentioning Japan as his place of birth. So far, I assumed (without making the guideline depend on this assumption) that the award was always affiliated with the citizenship of the laureate. Currently, I am in correspondence with people in charge of the official website to learn more about their rationale.

Bottom line: I think, it is possible to handle the country issue by refraining any kind of original research and simply relying on the decision published by the Nobel committee. The fact that it is highly disputed shows that this information (among others) is of high interest to our readers and I think it would add value to this list here as well.

Unfortunately, I am the only editor really taking care of this list. But before you accuse me of ownership, please join me and put it on your watch list. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, during one of the discussions in one of the Nobel Prize talk pages (I don't remember which), someone pointed out that, according to the printed books published by the Nobel Foundation about the Prizes, the country they listed was the country of residence at the time of the award. Can anyone verify that? --Itub (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty much in line with the first answer I received from the communication officer responsible for the website. However, it is not yet a final answer, as I think I will react and show some counter examples. Anyway, here is their first email to me:

“ Dear Thomas (and cc to Ulrika Royen, Senior Editor at the Nobel Foundation, and Fredrik All, the RSAS)

thanks for your prompt reaction on the citizenship of Prof. Shimomura. He is a Japanese citizen, as mentioned in the press release from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, who awards the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (as well as The Nobel Prize in Physics and The Prize in Economic Sciences, which will be announced tomorrow Monday 13 October at 1 pm Swedish time). However, at the website of the Nobel Foundation (http://nobelprize.org) I believe there is a routine to first mention the country where the Laureate is affiliated to at present (please correct me here if I am wrong, Ulrika), and hence, shows USA as the country connected to Shimomura.

I hope this clarifies things for you! Otherwise please contact us again. Erik

Erik Huss Kommunikatör med pressansvar / Communications Officer, media contacts Kungl. Vetenskapsakademien (KVA) / Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences [address and other details redacted]

”

However, I am convinced that whatever is their rationale we are doing well in simply reporting their decision. We do so in terms of the name of the laureate (obviously), but why should we do differently for the country? The are the awarding authority and they have made their decision certainly not unconsciously. Why should we try to invent a fairer ruling then they. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Might want to redact the e-mail and other details above. In fact I've done that. Your mention of official books stirred memories in me of a series of books I think the Nobel Foundation publishes every year (and have done, I think, since the beginning). The early ones are now collectors items and very expensive! While looking for those, I found this. Does anyone here have that? Ah, found what I was really looking for: [4] It's called Les Prix Nobel: "Since 1901 the Nobel Foundation has annually published a series of yearbooks, Les Prix Nobel, containing reports from the Nobel Prize Award Ceremonies in Stockholm and Oslo, as well as the biographies and Nobel Lectures of the Nobel Laureates. Up to 1988, the texts were published in the language in which they were presented. Since then the material in Les Prix Nobel has been mostly in English." We don't have an article on that, and we don't mention them in our article. I found one online : 1907. Only $10. The 1998 one is $165. Ah, here we go, a nearly full collection of the early numbers for only $3000. A snip! :-) Sorry, um, we were talking about nationalities. If someone has access to the printed book, and can add what that says for a particular year, fine. Otherwise, as Tomeasy says, go with the official website. That's what I do with names of prizewinners, though you'd be surprised how often there are typos on websites (the Royal Society's official page for some of its prize winners has horrendous typos, shown up by the official documentation accessed on other pages, which show clearly that one or other spelling is wrong...). Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "Might want to redact the e-mail and other details above"? Do you ask me to do something with my above posts? Tomeasy _{T C} 07:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at my edit here. I removed the e-mail address and postal address. The e-mail address in particular, if you leave it visible on an internet page, can be harvested by spam robots looking for e-mail addresses to send spam to. So I thought it best to remove it. It's not important, though, really. What is needed here is to help out with, or review, List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry. Maybe you, as someone who has worked on a similar list, could add some advice or comments down below in a new post, to help get this list to featured standards? Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will be more careful on what to display in the future.

From my experience I think it is possible to include country data in an acceptably stable way. IMO this can best be done by strictly relying on the Nobel website. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, I have readded the countries and I will try and match all of them up with the Nobel website. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me know if you need any help. It's a long list. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm done already, I think everything now matches the website. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks good. I'll add some comments below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Further comments added after those my Scorpion0422.

Comments - a few thoughts, not all actionable, but hopefully all relevant:

• (1) Is it possible to say why there were no awards in those eight non-award years?
  • Well, my best guess is the wars, but I haven't yet found a source for that.
    • OK. Would still like to see it, but won't oppose just for this.
• (2) Is it possible to make the references section a bit less repetitive? I realise the links are all to different pages, but is it not possible to avoid the repetition of "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry" all the way down the references list?
  • • minor concern - won't oppose for this
• (3) Have the ones without pictures been checked for free pictures?
  • Yep, I checked every single page for free images, and the ones there are the ones I found. The only free images I didn't include are ones where there were other non-winners in the image.
    • resolved
• (4) Have all the name links been checked to make sure they go to the right articles? I only ask this because I tidy up a fair amount of backwater award lists, and it is amazing how often redlinks turn blue because someone creates an article on a politician with the same name. Less likely to happen with a Nobel laureate, but it would be embarassing if it did.
  • Yes, while I was looking for images, I also corrected the links. They should all (or at least, 99% of them) go to the correct pages.
    • I did some checking as well: resolved
• (5) As someone said above, all the images need checking for correct licenses and stuff like that.
  • pending
• (6) Would be nice to try and crop some of the pictures (e.g. Dudley R. Herschbach) to get them all as "head-and-shoulders", but that's a minor concern, really. More important to try and get photos for the missing ones (though that will take a long time).
  • • minor concern - won't oppose for this.
• (7) Country: Molina one hasn't been footnoted as mentioned above. I think there really needs to be some sort of footnote to say what source you are using for the countries - I suggest a footnote attached to the "Country" header. See what I did at Frieze of Parnassus.
  • I agree and I have added one.
    • Thanks. resolved
• (8) Is the text of the names (regardless of where they point to and what the middle names are and so on) as stated on the offical website? If not, it should, as you need to report what name they are recorded as receiving the award under.
  • They should all match the Nobel website.
    • resolved
• (9) Finally, the links in the "rationale" column (is 'rationale' the right word?) - there are reasons to not normally link within quotations. This might be an exception, it might not. I don't want to get into a big debate about it, as I actually think linking in quotations is OK in this sort of context, but I wanted to make sure the point was raised. See Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Quotation and Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context/Archive 5 and Wikipedia talk:Quotations should not contain wikilinks if you really want the gory details. The point is that you have to be absolutely 100% sure when you link something that you have got the link right. Also, some of the linking could be improved: 1913: "For his work on the linkage of atoms in molecules" - if you know exactly what this linkage was, then you could link to it. I went to the Alfred Werner article, and there are possibilities such as coordination chemistry. Of course, go too far, and you risk getting it wrong. But if you can find sources to back up a column of "background" notes (e.g. a biography that says explicitly that the Nobel was for his work on coordination chemistry), then you could put all the links there, and not in the quotes. Obviously that would be a lot of work, but it's something someone could do one day. One final example, for 2003, "water channels" has been linked to aquaporin. I'm sure that is correct, but if someone questions that, do you have a source?
  • • major concern - won't be supporting unless this is resolved. See my comments to Scorpion here. I've also added a few links to the article to demonstrate my concerns. See here.
      • I agree that adding a column called "see also", "main article", or "further reading" is a good idea. It would avoid the controversial practice of linking within a quote and would allows us to link clearly to a more appropriate target than the quote itself allows (for example, linking Nernst to the third law of thermodynamics rather than thermochemistry). In most cases a single link per laureate or even per year should be enough. As for adding a "details" column or a "year of discovery", I think it would be too much (a can of worms, Pandora's box, or whatever your favorite metaphor is ;-). --Itub (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• (10) When the prize has been shared, can you say in what proportions. If the shares have always been equal, say that at the top. If there are cases of a three-way split going: 50:25:25, then you'd need to say that.
  • I was going to mention that, but I decided not to because this is just a list of winners. Such information belongs in the main Nobel Prize in Chemistry page.
    • Fair enough. resolved

Hope that was of some help! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated my comments. The only outstanding concerns for me are the images (unfortunately the image copyright desk aren't taking the carrot here), the inaccurate quotes (see below) and the issue of linking in the citation/rationale column. Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support.Changed to Neutral. My doubts expressed above regarding the accuracy of the country column have been addressed, so I can support now. That said, I still recommend adding a note somewhere stating where the country data came from so that there is no doubt. That way, if someone changes an entry it can be reverted more confidently. --Itub (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to Neutral because there are many still unaddressed concerns that I hadn't thought of before... --Itub (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Images: Please get someone to check their license, sourcing, etc. I will support as soon as they have been checked. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Every image has a free license, I checked all of them myself. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, but have you checked that the licenses are correct? Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This will take a while...
    • Image:Vant Hoff.jpg - no author information (common with old pictures like this). Claim of "PD by age (Van 't Hoff passed away in 1911)" - that's not strictly the right claim to make. To make a definite decision, you need author information, date of photograph, date of first publication, and current copyright owner. Unfortunately, for old picture, you often lack all four bits of information. For pictures that were used in the Nobel Foundation's yearbook (Les Prix Nobel), you will know the year of publication. Then its a matter of deciding whether pre-1923 hence PD-US applies, or not. If it was published in Europe, and not the USA, things could be complicated. The important thing, though, is to have definite proximate sources (book they were scanned from or website they were downloaded from), and to judge whether there are problems there. For this one, for example, this page is given as the source, a page from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science. But if you look at the Nobel web page, they are using the same picture! And they say "Photos: Copyright © The Nobel Foundation". Now, that could just be a generic copyright warning intended to cover all the photos, or it could mean that they have a collection of photos taken at the time (maybe they hire a photographer to take photos of the Laureates), and they do own the copyright. But then some other limit on the copyright would kick in. Quite what, I don't know.
    • Image:Hermann Emil Fischer.jpg has no source information here or at the German Wikipedia, but again the picture on the Nobel Foundation's website is the same one, or a copy of the same one (that can make a difference).
    • Image:Arrhenius2.jpg has no source information here or at the German Wikipedia.
      • Again, for both of these, it is not surprising that the original photographer is not recorded, but the proximate source - where the person uploading it in 2004 to the German Wikipedia got it from, is technically needed.
    • I'll stop there. There are hundreds of old pictures like this all over Wikipedia. Uploaded years ago when sourcing was not insisted upon, presumably published before 1923 (hence PD in the USA), but with no precise publication information (location and publication), and being taken so long ago that the records of who took the photos are probably lost. Though if the Nobel Foundation confirm they have full provenance of all the photos in their collection, and claim exclusive copyright, then it is best to beleive them. I personally would ask them that direct, rather than rely on a generic copyright notice on their website.
    • Later on, as you get into the US ones, you get ones like Image:Seaborg Lab Portrait.jpg and Image:Christian B. Anfinsen, NIH portrait, 1969.jpg, which are absolutely fine.
    • Nearing the present day, we find Image:Roger.Kornberg.JPG, which is a snapshot taken by a colleague and uploaded under a free license. Again, no problem.
  • Anyway, that gives some idea of what is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Update I have gone through and removed all of the images that I thought met the above criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems someone reverted you... I would, actually, ask around the image-savvy people (I'm supposed to be one of them, but I would suggest getting some more opinions on this - with images from a range spanning over 100 years, you need people who really can give authoratative opinions. Have you tried Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? You could also try a different approach: instead of pictures for every person that has one (requiring you to check loads of pictures), a selection of photos of laureates, as seen at List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge, could be one way to go. That would definitely avoid the distortion that comes from not having pictures for everyone in the list. Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Left a question myself. See here. Hopefully, if people respond there, a more definitive answer should be forthcoming. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Update on images I found someone at Commons to help with the images. See commons:User talk:Nard the Bard#Image check request. Not sure if he will come here or we go there. I'll try and keep things updated. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Quotes are inacccurate - I've been checking a couple of quotes from the Nobel website for the citations given as the reason for the awards, and some of them are not fully quoted, or are quoted wrong:
  • 1901
    • Nobel website: "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by the discovery of the laws of chemical dynamics and osmotic pressure in solutions"
    • Article: "for his discovery of the laws of chemical dynamics and osmotic pressure in solutions"
  • 1902
    • Nobel website: "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by his work on sugar and purine syntheses"
    • Article: "for his work on sugar and purine syntheses"
  • 1903
    • Nobel website: "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered to the advancement of chemistry by his electrolytic theory of dissociation"
    • Article: "for his electrolytic theory of dissociation"
  • 1904
    • Nobel website: "in recognition of his services in the discovery of the inert gaseous elements in air, and his determination of their place in the periodic system"
    • Article: "for his discovery of the inert gaseous elements in air, and his determination of their place in the periodic system"
  • 1905
    • Nobel website: "in recognition of his services in the advancement of organic chemistry and the chemical industry, through his work on organic dyes and hydroaromatic compounds"
    • Article: "for his work on organic dyes and hydroaromatic compounds"
  • 1906
    • Nobel website: "in recognition of the great services rendered by him in his investigation and isolation of the element fluorine, and for the adoption in the service of science of the electric furnace called after him"
    • Article: "for his investigation and isolation of the element fluorine, and for the electric furnace named after him"

The later ones seem OK, but 1935 and 1936 are inaccurate quotes as well. Haven't checked all of them, but I think they do all need to be checked to see that we have quoted the citation correctly. Carcharoth (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

These quotes are basically truncating the verbosity about the recognition of great services and such and adding one or two words at the beginning to clarify. All that is needed to fix them is to put "for his" in brackets. --Itub (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that and some misquotes, but Scorpion is on this, so it should be dealt with soon. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I did up to 1925 here, I see that Scorpion and I differ over what exactly to quote. I think it would be easier to do a full quote for all the entires. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm done matching the quotes to the Nobel website. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked the quotes (I'm sure they are OK now), but I have checked the names, the order, the countries, all match the Nobel website. So that's fine. There are still a few links I'd like to see added to the rationale column, and there should be a note for each column explaining that the names are from the website, the countries are from the website, and the rationales are from the website, but the links are to our articles on the scientists and the relevant chemistry articles. Oh, and the website is run by the "Nobel Foundation", not by the "Nobel Prize" (see note A). What difficult to justify is the links to the countries. By all means have the countries there, but these are not good links to have. Almost no readers at all will ever want to click from this sort of article to read a long article about a particular country. At most, links to particular countries from the lead section, but I think linking countries from the table dilutes the links that are really relevant. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by SatyrTN

• Unwikilink "anniversary" in the first paragraph.
  • Done.
• In the very last sentence of the lede, there are two instances of "the Prize in Chemistry". Nowhere else in the lede is it referred to it that way, and it's jarring - it's either "the prize" or "the Nobel Prize in Chemistry".
  • Done
• The list should be sortable. The benefits, IMO, are pretty strong, but there would have to be a fairly major overhaul to do it. For instance, all the names should be entered using {{sortname}}. Also, the images will need to have their own column header. See List of Vice Presidents of the United States for an example of how to accomplish this. Also, over-link the "Country" column, since re-sorting may make the "first" not be linked - see the fourth entry here. For the record, neither "Rationale" nor the new "Image" column should be sortable - add class="unsortable" to that header. I'm not sure what to do about duplicating the "Rationale" column for every recipient.
  • I actually prefer keeping it the way it is. I prefer having the image column without its own header, and many years have had multiple winners and some who won for the same thing. Making every single winner have its own individual line would make things a lot more confusing and thus it would be harder to pick out such instances. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I still think the list should be sortable. Given that only 1/3 of the years (38) were "duplicate" years, I think the benefit of being able to sort by name, year, and country outweighs the "duplicates" issue.

Duplicating 1/3 of the years is a lot, one would have to repeat the same summaries, which would lead to a lot of unnecessary repitition. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sortable or not, there's a consistency discrepancy (<grin>) between 1905 (2 recipients on one line) and 1912 (each recipient gets their own line).
  • 1905 is one guy. Johann Friedrich Wilhelm Adolf von Baeyer just has a very long name. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The wikilink is only to "Adolf von Baeyer", which confused me - I was sure "Johann Friedrich Wilhelm" was someone else. Withdrawn :)
• Instead of having "Laureates by country" in the "See Also" section, could you add that to the "Nobel Prizes" footer template?
  • Done.
• There must be a discussion somewhere about the capitalization of "Laureate". This list doesn't capitalize any of them, but the corresponding article Nobel Prize in Chemistry seems to capitalize it when following Nobel - as in "Nobel Laureate" - and not capitalize it when it's standing alone - as in "23 laureates".
• Because of the above, I think the list should be renamed "List of Nobel Laureates in Chemistry" - capital "L".
  • Okay, done.
• Oppose due to work necessary. Will revisit. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have responded to all of your concerns. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I still think it should be sortable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Adding value - one problem, though maybe it is not really a problem, is that we seem to be just parroting the Nobel website and not adding anything of value. The only added value I see in our article is the lead section (which is fine), the links to our articles on the scientists (not all those articles are in great shape, but that's not really actionable here), and the links in the "rationale" column. The latter is really the only thing of value we are adding apart from the links to the scientist articles. The "country" information, while useful, is not something you would really click on. As it is, the Nobel website provides more information (birth year, death year, and university affiliation). One thing we could provide, if someone looks up the date of the ceremony each year, is the age of the laureates at the time they received their award. That is something that the Nobel website does not provide. We could also provide the titles and dates of their Nobel lectures: e.g. "May 19, 1927 - The Ultracentrifuge"; "December 12, 1928 - The Chemistry of the Bile Acids"; "May 23, 1930 - Fermentation of Sugars and Fermentative Enzymes"; "December 12, 1929 - The Function of Phosphate in Alcoholic Fermentation". Note that the date of the presentation ceremony is usually different from the date of the Nobel Lecture. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, the age of the laureate delves into WP:NOT#INFO territory, and I think it's a bit trivial. University affiliation isn't really applicable because so many universities have differing levels of what constitutes an "affiliated" laureate (take the University of Chicago, which considers any laureate that entered its doors to be an affiliated laureate to the University of California, Santa Barbara, which only considers faculty members that did research for their Nobel Prize while at the university to be affiliated laureate) and several universities can have claims to a single laureate. Birth/death year is visible for someone looking into the respective articles of the laureates, and would probably only be useful if we made the table sortable, but that's an undesirable option because it introduces a ton of redundancies into the table (years need to be repeated, half the rationale column would be repeats). As it stands, I think the table's fine, but I'm open to ideas on the matter. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Nobel website people disagree. They give birth year, death year and university at the time of the award, for each Laureate. What reason is there for them to do things one way, and for us to do things a different way? At the moment, we've copied the wording for the names, for the countries, and for the rationale, and added value with links to our articles. Why leave out the rest of what they provide, and why stop short of extending the information provided to add value (i.e. add age at time of award, Nobel Lecture title, and institution at time of the award)? The institution articles are at least more relevant than the country articles. See also here. As for age of the Laureates, it seems that the readers of the Nobel website (and presumably the readers of Wikipedia) disagree: one of the frequently asked questions here is: "Who is the youngest ever to receive a Nobel Prize, and who is the oldest?" Followed by four tables as answers. Admittedly, this goes a bit far in terms of analysis, but this is interesting. My point is that "NOT INFO" shouldn't ride roughshod over the sort of questions that readers ask. At the moment, the Nobel website is still what I would use to read about the Nobel laureates, rather than Wikipedia. The biographies they provide are often better than ours. The photos are nearly always better (and more relevant to the period when the award was won), and the lists are better as well (more information). Getting a balance between just copying what they say and providing links to articles, as compared with extending the format and layout and providing something different, is a difficult one. Most websites do little more than provide a list of winners. The Nobel website is a lot different in that respect. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Because we aren't the Nobel website. This isn't a competition to outdo the Nobel website in what we can provide, it's to ensure that we provide an encyclopedic representation of the subject. Your comparisons are also well, off. You ideally should be comparing our present list to this, and not to the entire Nobel website. If we want to venture there, we list by university affiliation (although that list does need heavy cleanup), we have individual articles on every single laureate, and whatnot. The "who is the youngest/oldest laureate" (as well as most of the stuff in that FAQ) is trivia. The photo comparison is also pure nonsense. They obviously have better photos because they took official photographs of the laureate and/or took them from an official source. We have to rely on free images. Go figure which one has higher quality. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• You did note the point where I said we should go beyond what the Nobel website provide, right? I know we are not trying to outdo them or anything like that, but if I think the Nobel website is a better resource for people wanting to read about Nobel laureates, I seem to have two options: (1) suggest ways to improve our coverage (but it seems my suggestions are being rejected); or (2) suggest people go and read the Nobel website. Have a look at this and then see how much of that is covered at Nobel Prize. As for "we have individual articles on every single laureate" - have you actually done what I did yesterday and looked at some of our articles on Nobel laureates? Some are shockingly poor in their coverage (Robert Curl, for example). The thing about oldest/youngest laureate is not trivia (this might be your opinion, but that does not mean that it is indeed trivia) - that FAQ also includes a list of women who have won a Nobel Prize - will you say that is trivia as well? One of the reasons we can't automatically generate a list of women who have won Nobel Prizes is because we don't tag our biographical articles to show which are about men and which are about women. If we did, we could cross-reference "Nobel laureates" with "Women" and get such a list automatically. As for the photos, yes, freely-licensed pictures are often of poorer quality and less specific (mostly of them looking old and doddery, not when they did their work). I consider that a big weakness of the free encyclopedia model, and I will continue to point this out whenever I think the "free" mission is impeding the aim of quality encyclopedic coverage. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Going "beyond" implies exceeding or providing a better model. Yes, I've looked at those laureates articles. Most of them are exceedingly poor. I don't see in the slightest how that is relevant to this FLC. The oldest/youngest comment is trivia for the purposes of this list. Inclusion is maybe appropriate for the List of Nobel Laureates (as in a brief comment in the lead), but assuredly not here. And if you haven't noticed, we have a List of female Nobel Laureates. And for the free encyclopedia model, you aren't going to get any fundamental changes to our image use policy, so I don't see what the point of complaining about that here is. I'm not saying your suggestions are bad. Most of them simply aren't related or appropriate for this list specifically. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't want to spend too long on this subthread (if you could comment on what I wrote below, that would be really appreciated), but when I look at lists, I do try and assess the quality of the articles linked from the list. That is implicit in the featured list criterion that mentions that redlinks should be minimal (there is a spectrum going all the way from redlinks to featured articles). Presumably if all the Nobel Laureates were stubs giving only name, place and dates of birth and death, and that they won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in such and such a year, then I think that would be a concern. Obviously, many of the Nobel Laureates have excellent articles, and for me personally, there are enough OK-to-good quality articles there to ensure that the list is functioning as a gateway to at least some good content. But I think a brief assessment of the quality of the articles linked should be at least one of the things looked at, even if only one of the minor things. Dropping the age thing for now. List of female Nobel Laureates is good. One reason I wasn't aware of that is that it is not in Template:Nobel Prizes. Would you consider adding it there? Finally, about the image use policy, you said: "you aren't going to get any fundamental changes to our image use policy" - you have completely misunderstood me. I'm not trying to get the policy changed, and neither am I complaining about the policy. What I am pointing out is that there are better, non-free images, and that I think we should point our readers in the direction of those images. If the Nobel website has good-quality pictures of all the Laureates, and we don't, what is wrong with telling the readers that there are better images "over there"? That is what I have done, and that is all I intend to do. Someone else will have to deal with choosing the best quality pictures in how ever many years it will be before those pictures become public domain. But I can assure you that the current "free" pictures that are of low-quality will not be chosen ahead of the better quality ones that fall into the public domain in 70 or 80 years or whatever. The low-quality freely licensed pictures are only a stopgap measure until better public domain ones become available with the passage of time. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Update - I've just spent far too long (several hours) going through every single "rationale" entry (lists of over 150 people are a bit of a problem in terms of the amount of work needed to review and work on them...) and looking for the best links and removing generalised overlinking, and creating redirects where needed. Plus a few other changes that I'll mention below. The end result is this version here. The changes can be seen here:
  • (1) Name format changes here
  • (2) Name order changes here
  • (3) Country name changes here
  • (4) Every single quote checked and changes needed made here
  • (5) Added note to explain function of each column here:

    Notes: A. The form and spelling of the names in the name column is according to nobelprize.org, the official website of the Nobel Foundation. Alternative spellings and name forms, where they exist, are given at the articles linked from this column. Where available, an image of each Nobel Laureate is provided. For the official pictures provided by the Nobel Foundation, see the pages for each Nobel Laureate at nobelprize.org. B. The information in the country column is according to nobelprize.org, the official website of the Nobel Foundation. This information may not necessarily reflect the recipient's birthplace or citizenship. C. The citation for each awards is quoted (not always in full) from nobelprize.org, the official website of the Nobel Foundation. The links in this column are to articles on the areas of chemistry for which the awards were presented. The links are intended as a guide and explanation, but for a full account of the work done by each Nobel Laureate, please see the biography article linked from the name column.

    Hopefully that is OK.
  • (6) Given that the countries we state are what is on the nobelprize.org website, I made this change and clarified the reference to make clear that he is a Japanese citizen (we can't really make an exception for anyone in that column).
  • (7) As I said above, I changed and added many links to the rationale column. I would have preferred to have these as a separate column, but as all the linking in the rationales needed checking (and some were wrong, and now corrected), I thought I'd add the links anyway. This may be the last sticking point (I can't really support now, as I've done too much work on the article, but I'm getting to the stage where I would be happy to support if I hadn't worked on it, if that makes sense). What I suggest is one of the following:
    • (a) Delink everything in the rationale column
    • (b) Have a separate column for relevant links
    • (c) Pipe links within the quotes
  • The current state of the list is (c).
  • (8) Some examples of articles I've linked that weren't linked from this list before: Octahedral molecular geometry, Haber process, Ultracentrifuge, Zymase, Bergius process, Langmuir–Blodgett film, Langmuir equation, Debye relaxation, Debye-Waller factor, AIV fodder, Tropinone, Magnetic refrigeration, Oxytocin, Calvin cycle, Ziegler–Natta catalyst, Molecular orbital theory, Flash photolysis, Radical (chemistry), Organometallic chemistry, Organoborane, Wittig reaction, Woodward–Hoffmann rules, Electron crystallography, Inner sphere electron transfer, Direct methods (crystallography), Host-guest chemistry, Ribozyme, Retrosynthetic analysis, Marcus theory, ATP synthase, GAUSSIAN, Sharpless asymmetric dihydroxylation, Electrospray ionization, Soft laser desorption, Protein nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
  • (9) There were two redlinks, which I will try and do stubs for soon: Crossed molecular beams and Infrared chemiluminescence.
• That's all, I think. Sorry for taking so long, but each time something comes up, the sheer size of the list makes it difficult to do the checking and linking and reviewing and double-checking for 153 separate people. Incidentally, some of the Nobel Laureate articles are still in a sorry state. See Stanford Moore and William Howard Stein for example. Anyway, I hope Scorpion will be OK with these changes. I'm practically done here, apart from getting a few more opinions on the issue of linking within quotations versus no linking versus a separate column. The 5 or 6 hours I spent on finding the links above will end up somewhere on Wikipedia, even if not in this list, so if the verdict is to delink all the quotes, suggestions as to where I could use those links would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: there is a discussion about linking in quotes at WT:MOSLINK. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [5].

---

List of Milwaukee Brewers Opening Day starting pitchers

This list was modeled after List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers, which was recently promoted as a featured list. In addition to the same thorough sourcing as the previous article, this new article includes a separate table summarizing the starting pitchers and their record of wins and losses. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The Brewers made the playoffs this year, so they now have three appearances, not two. Might want to add that to the table as well. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done A mind-boggling oversight that has been corrected. Alansohn (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Change the all-cap title for ref #10 to sentence-case or title-case.
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Done Case was changed to Title Case. Alansohn (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Define what the terms Starts and Winning % mean. - Done linked to relevant articles to explain terms.
• "The Brewers' Opening Day starting pitchers' combined home record is 4 wins and 2 losses, and their away record 10 wins and 10 losses." Add is after "record". - Done
• "The Brewers advanced to the playoffs on three occasions, in 1981, 1982 and 2008." First comma should be a colon. - Done
• "(with one ending in a tie)"-->(one ended in a tie) - Done
• "The Pilots"-->The Pilots'. - Done
• The caption of the first image should not have a period. - Done
• "Marty Pattin and Mike Caldwell also have perfect records, with both winning each of their two starts."-->Marty Pattin and Mike Caldwell also have perfect records,; both won each of their two starts. - Done
• "With the team's move to Milwaukee in 1970, Lew Krausse Jr. was charged with the loss in a game at Milwaukee County Stadium vs. the Angels." "With"-->After. - Done
• "Opening Day starting pitchers listed in descending order by the number of Opening Day starts for the Brewers:" Make this a complete sentence: "Opening Day starting pitchers are listed in descending order by the number of Opening Day starts for the Brewers." - Done
• "In the 2008 season, Ben Sheets was the Opening Starter in a no-decision, while Yovani Gallardo started and lost the first game of the 2008 National League Division Series which was won by the Philadelphia Phillies in four games."-->In the 2008 season, Ben Sheets was the Opening Starter in a no-decision; Yovani Gallardo started and lost the first game of the 2008 National League Division Series, which was won by the Philadelphia Phillies in four games. - Done
• I like the pitchers tables. Are you going to put them for all the Opening Day team articles? - Reply I will be adding them to new articles and then retrofitting them to existing ones. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Review by SrX

Review

• With the team's move to Milwaukee in 1970, Lew Krausse Jr. was charged with the loss in a game at Milwaukee County Stadium vs. the Angels. - "was charged." So what does this mean? They accused him of it or what? - Reply an old baseball colloquialism, but the term appears in multiple Wikipedia articles, including Loss (baseball).
• Steve Woodard received a rather unusual no-decision in 2000, when the team's Opening Day game against the Cincinnati Reds was called in the sixth inning due to rain, with the score tied at 3. This was the first Opening Day tie game since 1965.[7] - "rather" is not adhering to a Neutral POV. - Done
• In a special format created for that season, the Brewers were the second-half champion and lost the AL Division Series to the first-half champion New York Yankees in five games. - would benefit having "New York Yankees" in between commas. - Done
• In the 2008 season, Ben Sheets was the Opening Starter in a no-decision, while Yovani Gallardo started and lost the first game of the 2008 National League Division Series which was won by the Philadelphia Phillies in four games. - comma after series. - Done
• The final score should be in a {{sort}} template. I see it as having the score to the left in the template, since that is what the table sorts by. - Done
• I would change the Note column to a Ref column. - Done
• The seasons in the "Pitchers" table shouldn't be sortable since there are entries with two series and are separate with a comma. - Reply sorting by this field puts the list in order by the pitcher's first Opening Day start, which is a reasonably meaningful sort sequence.

--S_RX 20:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my review addressed to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Consistent with the other Opening Day starting pitcher lists that are Featured Lists, and better than several. Rlendog (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [6].

---

List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie

Renominating due to lack of consensus at previous FLC (03:15, 20 October 2008) --JD554 (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Mojo Awards" should be "Mojo Awards", if this is the magazine

I didn't use {{Infobox Musician Awards}} due to the many non-music awards in the list, but if I had then other magazine awards such as Billboard Music Awards, NME Awards and Q Awards wouldn't have been italicized. So it makes sense that Mojo Awards shouldn't be either. --JD554 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "He began his singing career under the name David Bowie in 1966" needs a reference.

I don't think that's a contentious point. But I could always cite his first single under that name, Do Anything You Say, if needs be. --JD554 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Lead should be longer, especially for someone so prolific

The lead complies with WP:LEAD by summarising the article. This is an article about the awards and nominations he's received and not about David Bowie himself. 14 wins from 40 nominations isn't a huge amount to summarise. --JD554 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• ""David Bowie, Meg Whitman, Beastie Boys, YouTube Co-founders Prove Less Is More With Five-Word Speeches At The 11th Annual Webby Awards". The Webby Awards (6 June 2007)." – missing access date

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Review by SrX

Comments

• I commented on the one before but you didn't reply to the last one, you need to list some work he did in the lead.

It's a list of awards and nominations, not a filmography or discograhy. Comments on the awards and nominations are in the lead. --JD554 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay but explain how he won awards for which work.--S_RX 20:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• How did he gain prominence?

That's covered in the main article, David Bowie. --JD554 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But in these type of lists it needs to be mentioned, a small prose about it.--S_RX 20:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Overall award count?

It already says at the end of the second paragraph and at the bottom of the infobox. --JD554 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 21:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead to cover the awards he's won and how he gained prominence. --JD554 (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my review was addressed to meet WP:WIAFL, much better list.--S_RX 21:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "He has won a total of 14 awards from 40 nominations."

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "He has also had a long and innovative presence on the Internet which led to his being awarded a lifetime achievement Webby Award in 2007 for "pushing the boundaries of art and technology with his digital empire"." "long and innovative presence" sounds POV to me.

The citation mentions innovative --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What about "long"? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed "long" --JD554 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "He began his singing career under the name David Bowie in 1966 and won his first award in 1969 when he won an Ivor Novello Award for the song 'Space Oddity'". Comma after "1969".

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The BAFTA Television Awards are awarded by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and are awarded for the best in television." Best of what in television?

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The MTV Movie Awards are awarded by the television channel MTV for best in film." Best of what in film?

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Inconsistencies: "Bowie has received one award from one nomination." but "Bowie has won one award from one nomination."

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 24 needs a last access date.

Fixed. The problem is with {{Cite press release}}. I've put a note on the discussion page there. --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "One of several annual major music awards shows in the United States, the American Music Awards are awarded for outstanding achievements in the record industry." I don't think the first phrase needs saying.

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• IMBD is not a reliable source. Just get the info from the official websites.

I've found better sources for most of them. However, there isn't a one for the MTV Movie Award nomination, but it is a fact he was nominated that isn't likely to be challenged. --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• In ref 28, TimeWarner needs to have a space.

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• The title at the top of the infobox needs to say something like: "David Bowie awards and nominations".

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Golden Globe Awards are awarded for best in film and television programs by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association in the United States." Does not make grammatical sense.

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Saturn Awards are awarded by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films in the United States to honour the best in science fiction, fantasy and horror film and television." Best what?

Fixed --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Daytime Emmy Awards are awarded by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences in the United States and are awarded for excellence in daytime television."

Already fixed for previous query --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [7].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Matchbox Twenty

Gary King (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Try to link the publishers in the references. (Allmusic, MTV, etc.)
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Review by SrX

Comments

• Several of Matchbox Twenty's charts have appeared on the Billboard Hot 100, including "Bent" which peaked at number one, "If You're Gone" which peaked at number five, and "Unwell" which peaked at number five.[2] - charts? do you mean work or singles?
• Gain to prominence?
• Overall count?--S_RX 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - after my review, the articles satisfies WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Paul Doucette is the band's former drummer." "is"-->was.
• What does Doucette do now? (This is a rhetorical question)
• "They have released four studio albums, all with the Atlantic Records record label" Shouldn't it be "all on the Atlantic Records record label"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - SRX covered all of the prose issues. iMatthew (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Maybe you should look this sentence in the lead: "If You're Gone" which peaked at number five, and "Unwell" which peaked at number five.[3]. I think you could change it for: "both peaking at number five" or something like that.
• For the rest of the list, very good job. I though they had more awards, they surely deserve them. Jaespinoza (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done Gary King (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [8].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Gwen Stefani

Gary King (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I was perusing the recent new pages, and saw this. Boy was I surprised to see that it was also an FL candidate! Looks great, can't think of any critiques. -LelandRB (Chat · contribs) 03:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure if this can be considered "stable" enough to be at FLC yet, Gary. As mentioned above, the page isn't an hour old yet. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think the age of an article is related to its stability. Gary King (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Sources look good. I have to agree with Matthewedwards about instability. While the age of an article doesn't entirely relate to stability, it would be nice if it sat in the mainspace for a few days, just to break it in. Also, would you mind holding back until a few of your nominations close before nominating more? You have a couple dozen FLCs up, and it's a tad difficult for reviewers like myself that try to comment on every FLC. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Review by SrX

Comments

• . She won two MTV Video Music Awards in 2005, including Best Choreography for "Hollaback Girl" and Best Art Direction for "What You Waiting For?" - Hollaback Girl is already linked before this sentence, don't overlink.
• What raised her to prominence as a solo singer?--S_RX 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - review addressed to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 20:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support You've got these articles down to a science. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - SRX got the prose comments again, good job. iMatthew (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Lead section: "including "Hollaback Girl", which peaked at number one, and "The Sweet Escape", which peaked at number two.[3]." Maybe you could change the second "which" for another word, maybe climbing or reaching (I have the same issue on my lists).
• For the rest, very good job. Support Jaespinoza (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [9].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Gorillaz

Gary King (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Nationality of band or band members?
• "The band's music is a collaboration between various musicians with Albarn being the only permanent musical contributor."-->The band's music is a collaboration between various musicians, but Albarn is the only permanent musical contributor.
• "Their style is broadly alternative rock, but with a large number of other influences including hip hop, electronica, dub and pop." I think "with" should be "has".
• "Gorillaz has released two studio albums, both on the Parlophone and Virgin Records record labels: Gorillaz (2001) and Demon Days (2005)." Source?
• "Gorillaz has received only one Grammy Award, which was in 2006; they received the Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals award for the song 'Feel Good Inc.'"-->In 2006, Gorillaz received their only Grammy Award—the Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals award for the song 'Feel Good Inc.' " Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Try to link the publishers in the references. (MTV, Allmusic, etc.)
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Review by SrX

Comments

• Gorillaz are a British virtual band created in 1998 by Damon Albarn of alternative rock band Blur, and Jamie Hewlett, co-creator of the comic book Tank Girl. - wouldn't it be "is" and not "are"?
• Raise to prominence? [you know I got to do this :)]--S_RX 20:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"are" is for British bands. Check Arctic Monkeys, Coldplay, etc. I added some background info. Gary King (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my review addressed to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 20:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support prose and links check out. iMatthew (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

• Why not a picture? There are plenty of Albarn, at the least.
• "The idea to create the band came to Hewlett when he was watching MTV and said . . . " doesn't make sense. I think the whole prose needs a spruce up: "Gorillaz has" (BritEng--should be "have" throughout).
• I think you need to distinguish between fiction and reality a little bit here. "The band is composed of four animated band members: 2D, Murdoc, Noodle and Russel."? That's only according to the fictional back-story. I suggest mentioning in little more detail how Gorillaz are different from other bands.
• Alternative rock is not a "style" but a very broad music genre, so that statement is not very clear. indopug (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be better now Gary King (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [10].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Coolio

Gary King (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SrX

Comments

• He has released six solo studio albums: It Takes a Thief (1994), Gangsta's Paradise (1995), My Soul (1997), Coolio.com (2001), El Cool Magnifico (2002), and The Return of the Gangsta (2006). - from what record label?
• "Gangsta's Paradise" is Coolio's most successful song, and peaked at number two on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs charts, number one on the Hot Rap Tracks charts, and number one on the Billboard Hot 100 charts.- sounds like POV, how about "Gangsta's Pardise" achieved more success, as it peaked at number two..etc.--S_RX 14:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. I usually don't type out the record labels if the albums were released by more than a handful of record labels as it gets to be too many, but I've added it in this particular case. Gary King (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - resolved comments to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 00:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The first three albums were released on the Tommy Boy Entertainment record label, while the remaining three were released with JVC, Riviera, and Hardwax, respectively." "while"-->and, it's addititional info.
• Could you provide his birth name? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Try to link the publishers in the references. (Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, etc.)
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Lead section: "number one on the Hot Rap Tracks charts, and number one on the Billboard Hot 100 charts.[3]". Maybe should be number one on the Hot Rap Tracks chart and on the Billboard Hot 100, or something like that to avoid "number one" twice.
• For the rest, good job. Jaespinoza (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [11].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Barenaked Ladies

Gary King (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved concern from SrX

Comments

• Barenaked Ladies has released ten studio albums: - has --> have
• Best Clip (Alternative/Modern Rock) and Maximum Vision Award, in 1998. - no reason for comma after "Award"--S_RX 13:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  Barenaked Ladies is sometimes considered singular and plural in the media, but in its article, it's considered singular consistently, so I'm going to use it as singular here as well to be consistent. Gary King (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - resolved comments to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 00:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Image caption should have a period because it has a complete sentence.
• Which record label were the albums released on?
• "The band is composed of Jim Creeggan, Kevin Hearn, Steven Page, Ed Robertson, and Tyler Stewart."-->The band's members are Jim Creeggan, Kevin Hearn, Steven Page, Ed Robertson, and Tyler Stewart. Or something else that says that these people are members of the band. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Try to link the publishers in the references. (Los Angeles Times, MTV, etc)
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, a very good list. Jaespinoza (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [12].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Akon

Gary King (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SrX

Comment - how did he get exposure? How did he come about? Small sentence would do.--S_RX 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I tried to keep it interesting; I hope it is! Gary King (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - comments resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 00:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comment from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "he was soon convicted and sent to prison on a three-year term"—Soon after what? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  I changed to "eventually" as I don't know the exact time period. Gary King (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Also, add birthname to the lead sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done Gary King (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Try to link the publishers in the references. (MTV, etc.)
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [13].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Notorious B.I.G.

Gary King (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SrX

Comment - Like in other lists like these, I think it would benefit saying how he rose to prominence, also adding some bio info because he was killed, just a sentence or two would do.--S_RX 13:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done; I tried to keep it interesting. Gary King (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - comments resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Good job. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, there is one: Can you add his birth name to the lead sentence? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done Gary King (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Try to link the publishers in all of the references (New York Times, Washington Post, etc.)
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Its great to see a list about a legend like Biggie. Was a shame that Puff Daddy took the award for Rap Album that year!,Jaespinoza (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [14].

---

Supergrass discography

previous FLC (21:11, 15 June 2008)

3rd nomination. I now think this meets featured list criteria. Just received a peer review (here) and issues have been addressed there. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 03:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "twenty five" etc. should be "twenty-five"

Done TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the references are strangely formatted, like ""Moving" music video at Maguffin." (and missing a double-quotes)

  What do you mean? I see the "moving" ref as "Moving" music video at Maguffin. What's wrong with this? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 06:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, JD554 (talk)

Comments from JD554 (talk · contribs)

• The album reached number one in the UK, where it stayed for three weeks.[1]: The reference (British Book of Hit Singles & Albums again) doesn't provide the number of weeks at a certain position, just the total number of weeks on chart. Should this reference be after the comma or is it a total of three weeks on the chart (in which case the sentence needs rewording)?

  This should have gone after the comma. I removed "where it stayed for three weeks" beacuse I can't find a reliable source for this. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Oracle" shouldn't be wikilink to a dab page.

Done TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• UK albums chart → UK Albums Chart, and wikilink first mention

Done TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There are still some instances of lower case "albums chart". --JD554 (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• What's the difference between 12" vinyl and LP?

According to this, the difference is the revolutions per minute. It says the time duration for an LP is 45 minutes. I Should Coco is 43 minutes. So I guess that isn't an LP. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 18:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

LP album says 45 minutes was the original maximum time, but neither article is cited on this point. As far as I'm aware there is no official length of time for an LP and only being two minutes under that wouldn't stop it being one. I'd suggest replacing 12" vinyl and replacing with LP. --JD554 (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced 12" vinyl with LP. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Formats should be singular if there is only one.

  Can you explain more on this please? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 06:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

For Live from London you have "formats" but then list only one (Digital download) --JD554 (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• The British Book of Hit Singles & Albums reference cannot be used for Diamond Hoo Ha, "Fin", "Bad Blood" and "Rebel in You" as they are not included in the book due to it being published before they were released. Also the book only lists the Top 75. Therefore those chart positions are uncited.

I've added citations for Diamond Hoo Ha, "Fin", "Bad Blood". TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be better to remove the unverifiable chart position. --JD554 (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I can't find a source for where "Rebel in You" charted. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Soundtrack songs should only be listed if they weren't previously available.

  I'm unsure about "Oracle". I think it may have been a b-side and not done especially for Mike Bassett: England Manager soundtrack. I have removed it until I find out whether it was available before the film. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

--JD554 (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: All my concerns have been addressed. --JD554 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• 'Looks good, from a peremptory visit. Tony (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Ref #15 needs to be filled out.

  Done TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 06:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• There are a number of sources of questionable reliability, but none of the information seems to be very controversial.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It's gone a bit quiet here. I've sorted the problems listed above. Anything else? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 12:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, patience :) From WP:FLC: FL candidates will remain on this page for at least 10 days. --JD554 (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Certifications are awarded for units shippednot units sold, i\so its inappropriate to list 60000+ sales for a Silver album. So remove that sales column, and move the first album worldwide sales to the certification column itself (to save space). indopug (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree, you could remove the sales column on the singles table and put a bookmark or an aditional note for the only single certified. Jaespinoza (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [15].

---

List of Nashville Sounds managers

I believe this well written & organized list fully meets the Featured List criteria. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Sounds. 13 April 2008. Retrieved" – Proper formatting is with brackets I believe, like "Sounds. (13 April 2008). Retrieved". Check WP:CITE/ES to confirm.

Gary King (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the examples provided in the link (APA style), yes, that is the way to do it. But, read the first sentence of the page: "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation style or system for Wikipedia." What matters most is that they are consistant. The references in this list use a slightly modified form of MLA style. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "has employed 21 managers and eight general managers"—Per MOS, comparative quantities should either all spelled out (twenty-one managers and eight general managers) or all written in digits (21 managers and 8 general managers).
• Instead of piping the season links through solitary years ("George Scherger led the team to win the Southern League title in 1979 as the Double-A affiliate of the Cincinnati Reds.") make it clearer that you are linking to a season page ("George Scherger led the team to win the Southern League title in the 1979 season as the Double-A affiliate of the Cincinnati Reds."
• "In 2005, as the Triple-A affiliate of the Milwaukee Brewers, Frank Kremblas managed the team to a Pacific Coast League title." How does one "manage" a team to win?
• "Trent Jewett won a total of 320 games from 1998 to 2000 and 2003 to 2004, placing him first on the all-time wins list for Sounds managers." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• DONE - All improvements have been made. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Concealed year-links in table: So readers know that they're not just trivial year-page links, can you put a note in the key that in that column, they all go to ....? Tony (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• DONE - I mentioned it in the table key. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [16].

---

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service

The article lists all sailors and officers that received the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross during World War II. I think this meets all the criteria of a featured list article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "145 German sailors" – per WP:MOS don't start sentences with numbers
• "Of these 144 presentations" – "Of these, 144 presentations"; sentence was confusing the first few times I read it

Gary King (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I have fixed this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The notes section could be a little confusing to the reader. For example, it says "7. Diamonds 9 August 1943", where the date and Diamonds are mixed up. Can you present this more clearly? Otherwise, I think it's a good list. Chamal ^talk _work 11:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Now it reads awarded 7. Diamonds on 9 August 1943. This should make things clearer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "During or shortly after World War II 145 German sailors and officers of the U-boat service as part of the Kriegsmarine received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross." Comma after "II".

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Of these, 144 presentations were formally made and one recipient received the award after 11 May 1945 when Großadmiral Karl Dönitz ordered a cease of all promotions and illegalized all subsequent awards." Comma after "1945".

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1941 two higher grades of the Knight's Cross were instituted." Comma after "1941".

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• "As the war progressed some of the recipients distinguished themselves further and a higher grade, the Oak Leaves to Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was instituted." You could probably add a comma after "progressd".

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why is there a key for a symbol that is not used?

please explain I don't know what you meanMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  This along with the * (asterisk), indicates that the Knight's Cross was awarded posthumously. None of the items in the table use it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Three entries use this key! Have a look at entry 99, 100 and 108. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, how could I have missed that? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Ultimately, it would be awarded to only twenty-seven German soldiers, sailors and airmen, ranging from young fighter pilots to field marshals." "only" is POV.

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the tables, can the date of award columns be made sortable.

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notes column: "awarded 22. Diamonds on 24 November 1944" What does the number signify? Capitalize the first word.

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The list is initially sorted by the chronological number assigned to the recipient." Unnecessary.

done but I have seen people requesting thisMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Use a footnote instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Nevertheless a number of Knight's Crosses were awarded after this date and must be considered "illegal" hand-outs." Why "must be"? Comma after "Nevertheless".

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• "One Sailor of the U-boat service is often..." Why is "Sailor" capitalized?

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• The last table doesn't need to be made sortable, it has only one item.

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can we put an end to the linking of foreign languages, such as "German language", unless it's an article on language? Tony (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Looks good. Chamal ^talk 15:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - A very interesting and well constructed list that meets the criteria. Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [17].

---

List of Bleach episodes (season 7)

Nominating another episode list. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Four pieces of theme music are used for the episodes"—Try not to use the passive voice: "The episodes have four pieces of theme music". Fix this in all the other episode lists also.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Karin Kurosaki meets Tōshirō Hitsugaya when she is playing soccer in the streets." Pipe link soccer to Association football to help our international readers.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Karin discovers that older students are using a soccer field for practice during a time slot her team had booked." that her team had booked.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Ikkaku's brutal training causes the majority of the team to quit"—"the majority of the team"-->most of the team or most of her teammates.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• "To obtain more team members, Ikkaku asks his fellow Soul Reapers to participate in the kendo tournament." recruit instead of "obtain".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Soul Reapers easily defeat their opponents, and a hollow appears nearby, forcing them to leave in order to fight it." Split this sentence up, these are two quite different ideas.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Hitsugaya utilizes a sneak attack with his bankai and defeats Luppi" "utilizes"-->uses, simpler.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Ulquiorra Orihime twelve hours to say goodbye to one person," Missing a word.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• "She comes close to kissing him but cannot bring herself to do it."-->She almost kisses him but cannot bring herself to do it.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Ashido leads them out of the forest, and an attack by one of the remaining adjuchas collapses the passage, and Ashido leaves to fight the adjuchas." Too many "ands".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, well sourced, lead is good, and summaries are of good length. I did not give them a thorough read, however, to avoid spoilers since this season is beyond the English manga release too. :P I would note, however, that the see also seems redundant to the template. Also, the Amazon links could be shortened up a little.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Sources are okay and the summaries too.Tintor2 (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [18].

---

2002 NFL Expansion Draft

previous FLC (03:30, 13 October 2008)

This article was archived although every reasonable critique was being promptly addressed. I resubmitted it to keep it in the process. User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

This was the last open item that was posted less than 24 hours before the list was closed:

• "The 2002 National Football League Expansion Draft was the start of the Houston Texans new National Football League (NFL) team." Now that you've put the subject at the beginning, the sentence is not grammatically correct. For starters, "Texans" should have an apostrophe after it. How was the draft "the start" of the team? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Done The sentence is grammatically fixed and does not reference the draft as the start of the team.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) More comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "If a second player is taken, the existing team could then pull back its remaining two players." "is"-->was.

Done--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• External Links should be External links.
  • Ok, I am stuck on this one. One of these videos is the only source for the statement that there were 25 Pro Bowlers available to the Texans, and that the draft was coverred live in ESPN. Another commentator asked for them to be moved to an External Links section, so I did so. Please advise. --User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Whoa, don't overthink this. All I'm saying is that Links should not be capitalized. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Oh, ok, lol.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• "To become competitive with existing teams, the league had awarded the Texans the first pick in the 2002 NFL Draft and had given them the opportunity to select current players from existing teams." It sounds like the sentence is saying that the league is trying to become competitive with other teams. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Sentence clarified.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://football.about.com/library/weekly/bl_expansiondraft.htm a reliable source?

Done Removed as a source.

• Ref #6 is missing publisher info.

Done Removed as a source.

• What makes YouTube videos reliable?

Done The video are the original ESPN broadcasts of the draft itself. I noted that.

• Why is Pro Football Weekly italicized in some references, but not others?

It is based on a difference between how cite news and cite web function. Two of the sources are originally from their website, and one is from their print publication that was then reprinted on the web.

It's still on a website, so is there any way to make it consistent? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done After looking at the citation formats, I realized that where I was using the "publisher" entry on some, I should have been using the "work" entry. I fixed all references to refer to the actual work from which the reference was found, and noted them as a website if such, so as to distinguish between Pro Football Weekly and the Pro Football Weekly website, for example. The two newspaper articles were actually in the paper, not just on the papers' websites, so I left them just as the paper's names without the website notation. I hope this is satisfactory.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 05:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Otherwise, sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Review by SrX

Review

• On October 6, 1999, in Atlanta, NFL owners had unanimously voted to award the 32nd NFL franchise and the 2004 Super Bowl to the city of Houston, Texas. - link to Atlanta, Georgia.

Done linked.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• The draft was covered live on ESPN,[11][12] and the Texans drafted nineteen players. - how about The draft was broadcasted live on ESPN,

Done Thanks, it's more accurate that way.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• • This sentence stands out, it should be organized more like the 2008 WWE Draft.
  • Which sentence?--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The one about the draft was covered live on ESPN, in the 2008 WWE Draft there is a similar sentence, an FL, and reads more accurately.--S_RX 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done I changed that sentence to more closely track the one in that article.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 07:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• To me the colors in the name columns of the table is distracting and should just be in a regular color.--S_RX 23:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Changed to one regular color.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - my comment about changing the sentence about it's broadcast was never addressed but it's not major, so It can't prevent it from meeting WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 13:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done I thought I had fixed it, but I think this is what you wanted? "The draft took place live and aired on ESPN." The sentence on 2008 WWE Draft reads: "The Draft took place live and aired for three hours on the USA Network." I don't know how long this draft was,but the rest of the sentence is almost verbatim from the other article.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:38, 28 October 2008 [19].

---

List of Bleach episodes (season 4)

previous FLC (20:26, 11 October 2008)

Relisting nomination as the previous one did not garner enough participation. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Ichigo and the others begin final game against the modified souls." Missing a word.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Ichigo maanages to break"—typo.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The hospital room then floods with water, which are the dolls of unidentified Bount members." So water "are" the dolls of Bount members? Unclear.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Ichinose, unbeknownst to be Kenpachi, has joined Kariya's Bounts." "unbeknownst"-->unknown. It's simpler.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Dalk manages to ensnare Ichigo in a metal net, and Ichigo's inner hollow takes over his body, allowing him to defeat the doll easily. Ichigo manages to regain control of his body, and subsequently collapses from exhaustion." Repetition of "manages".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Tenth division lieutenant Rangiku Matsumoto comes upon Chad, Ururu, and Noba battling with the Bount Sawatari." "comes upon"-->encounters.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Rangiku uses herself as bait to lure Baura out of the ground, and he is attacked by Chad," I thought Rangiku was a female.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, Ishida is visited by Nemu, who proceeds to attack Ishida in order to confirm that he has lost his powers."

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "When Kariya thanks him, Ishida informs Kariya that he did so in order to defeat the Bount in Soul Society."

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• General references need publisher info (and publication date if available). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, summaries all look good, brief but thorough, everything seems well sourced. Only minor comment is that the see also is redundant (becoming my common comment :P), and "This season, along with season five, is not an adaptation of the Bleach manga by Tite Kubo; the plot focuses on the introduction of the Bount, a race of humans that consume human souls to extend their lives, and their conflicts with Ichigo Kurosaki and his allies." this transition seems kind of off. It seems like it is an adaptation, just not a direct one? And should mention who did create the story, if its known. Then I'd think plot should be a separate sentence? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Cut the "see also" section. Added that it is a direct adaptation, but the sentence structure is correct. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support main issues addressed. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, easy to understand. References are okay.Tintor2 (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [20].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry

Gary King (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: For such a short "article", the references can be cleaned up a bit, i.e. link the publishers, capitalize titles. And should something in the lead be in boldface? –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  I usually don't link publishers to begin with, but I've done so here now. The titles are capitalized according to where they came from; I usually only change the capitalization if the original title was all in uppercase. And no, boldface is not mandatory. Gary King (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Every publisher should be linked (if applicable), it does not matter if it is not linked the first time. You can never guarantee that the first reference will be clicked to see the publisher. Also, can't something be stated about how she gained prominence?--S_RX 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I just unlinked them all. Too much blue. She gained prominence by signing to a record label, which I have mentioned. She isn't one of those artists that become famous through MySpace. Gary King (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://www.rockonthenet.com/artists-p/katyperry.htm a reliable source?
• Otherwise sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock on the Net per discussion here. Gary King (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Perry has also been recognized at a number of awards ceremonies..." Any way to use a less vague phrase than "a number of"?
• In the infobox of the awards table, why isn't the MTV Video Music Brasil nomination listed? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done and fixed Gary King (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another great list by the King. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [21].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Beck

Gary King (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Mutations, Midnite Vultures, Sea Change, and Guero were all certified Gold."
• "Beck has received six awards from 15 nominations"-->Beck has received 6 awards from 15 nominations—MOSNUM says that comparative quantities should either all be spelled out or all written in digits.
• "The song "Where It's At" received Best Rock Vocal Performance – Male while the album Odelay won the award for Best Alternative Music Performance."-->The song "Where It's At" received the Best Rock Vocal Performance – Male award, and the album Odelay won the award for Best Alternative Music Performance.
• "Beck has received six awards from 15 nominations." Same thing as above.
• "three awards from 11 nominations" Same thing as above. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - meets WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 15:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://www.rockonthenet.com/ a reliable source?
• You might want to link MTV in the references.
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. Rock on the Net per discussion here. Gary King (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [22].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Guns N' Roses

Gary King (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The band, led by frontman and co-founder Axl Rose, has gone through numerous line-up changes since its formation." "has gone through"-->has had or has experienced.
• "Guns N' Roses has released five studio albums during its career"—When else would they be released?
• Reference 4 needs a last access date. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  All done. I don't necessarily agree with the change of "has gone through"; is it because it's not very encyclopedic? Because grammatically, isn't it correct? Gary King (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current ref 4 is lacking a last access date.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Another great list Gary. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The band, led by frontman and co-founder Axl Rose, has had numerous line-up changes since its formation. - why not say who the current line-up is?--S_RX 20:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://www.rockonthenet.com/ a reliable source?
• Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock on the Net per the discussion here. Gary King (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [23].

---

List of Second Afghan War Victoria Cross recipients

Hello, another Victoria Cross recipient list for your perusal. I think this meets all the criteria and follows in the wake of other lists in the campaign topic. The Second Afghan War is not covered that well in Wikipedia, it doesn't currently merit its own article though that may be something I develop in the future. Thanks. Woody (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The original Royal Warrant did not contain a specific clause regarding posthumous awards, although official policy was to not award the VC posthumously." I think there should be a the before "official".
• Disambiguate Hyde Park.
• "In the 19th century Afghanistan was seen as an important buffer state to the north-west of British-ruled India." Comma after "century".
• "Over the next ten years, relations between the two countries deteriorated, primarily over the issue of Russian encroachment on Afghanistan." "Over the"-->During. Also, "ten"-->10 to be consistent with the other figures over 9.
• "This led to Britain sending him an ultimatum demanding a British envoy be accepted into Afghanistan; when this was ignored, Britain sent in three columns of British troops." Avoid using the grammatically awkward noun + -ing construction ("Britain sending", "ultimatum demanding").
• "The Victoria Cross warrant was not officially amended to explicitly allow posthumous awards until 1920 but one quarter of all awards for the First World War were posthumous." Comma after 1920, perhaps?
• "After a popular uprising in December, Roberts withdrew to Sherpur" Not sure, but I think there should be a comma after this phrase.
• "before launching a major attack on 22–23 December when they occupied Kabul once again." Did the forces recapture Kabul, or did they already occupy the city?
• "Roberts led a force from Kabul to Kandahar which defeated the rebels at the Battle of Kandahar on 1 September 1880." "which"-->that. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• They have all been done except the "the" before official as I think this is an unneccessary word. It reads better without the "the" to me. Thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as ever for the reviews Ealdgyth. Woody (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good Gary King (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - another well constructed VC list that meets the criteria. Although, it would be better if an image of the VC was incorporated within the article some where. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Full Support - You must be getting bored of this process by now Woody! Cam ^(Chat) 01:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [24].

---

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2003

previous FLC (20:26, 11 October 2008)

I am resubmiting this list, in order to achieve FL status. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Be consistent when writing numbers greater than 99, either write them all out in words or write them all as figures. Right now, I see inconsistencies: "seventeen days", "13 releases", "twenty number-one albums" etc. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Puertorican performer Ednita Nazario with her twentieth album, Por Tí, peaked at number one for the first time." Words got switched around here. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• This article says that 30 Inolvidables means "(30 Unforgettable Songs)". However, the 30 Inolvidables article says that it means "30 Unforgettables". Which is it?. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Bronco with Siempre Arriba also spent one week at the top with their first album released as their new group name: Bronco: El Gigante de América." Unclear; what does "their first album released as their new group name: Bronco: El Gigante de América." mean? FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: Great list Jaespinoza. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Review by SrX

Review

• which went on to win the Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album. - how about, which won the Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album later in the year. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Un Día Normal by Colombian performer Juanes reached the top spot of the chart on its 68th week, - comma after the album name and after Juanes. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• while fellow Mexican norteño music band Los Tigres del Norte peaked at the top for the fourth time (out of 13 releases)[9] with Herencia Musical: 20 Corridos Inolvidables. - at the top is weasely, say the specific ranking. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Ricky Martin's Almas del Silencio debuted within the Top 40 in twelve countries,[10] received a Latin Grammy nomination[11] and also debuted at number one on the chart. - you talked about 12 different countries earlier in the sentence, so which chart did it debut on #1? FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Bronco's Siempre Arriba also spent one week at the top. - specific date? FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Mexican ranchero performer Pepe Aguilar debuted at number two on the chart on April 12, 2003 with Y Tenerte Otra Vez and the following week climbed to pole position. - what does pole position mean? FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Cuban salsa performer Celia Cruz with her last recording Regalo del Alma, debuted at number one on the chart and won the Grammy Award for Best Salsa/Merengue Album. - should state that she died later/earlier (can't remember) FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 20:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my review was addressed to meet WP:WIAFL. Good work Jaespinoza, buen trabajo.S_RX 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [25].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Dave Matthews Band

Gary King (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://www.rockonthenet.com/artists-m/davematthewsband_main.htm (and other refs from the same source) reliable?
• Sources look good otherwise. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

rockonthenet.com per User:Ealdgyth/FAC_cheatsheet#Music Gary King (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "They have sold over 31 million albums in the United States, placing them in the 100 highest-selling music acts of all-time."-->They have sold over 31 million albums in the United States, making them one of the 100 highest-selling music acts of all-time.
• Ref 17 is missing a publication date: It says on page 3 that the article was posted on December 3, 2001.
• "The My VH1 Music Awards were a short-lived annual awards ceremony" were-->was.

Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment before Support - gain to prominence?S_RX 23:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've added some on how they all met. Gary King (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, meets WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 22:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [26].

---

List of D.Gray-man chapters

previous FLC (20:26, 11 October 2008)

Relisting nomination as the previous one did not garner enough comments. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as per previous nomination. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The series was put on hiatus twice in that country due to Hoshino falling ill; however, the series continued a few weeks later" seems a bit ackward, maybe something "The series was put on hiatus twice in that country due to Hoshino falling ill; each hiatus lasted a few weeks." or maybe give more specific details on the two hiatus (start/end) if available?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Collected volumes" should probably be tankōbon volumes to match header below (or visa versa). * "is being sold in over ten other countries" - in English, Japanese, or regional languages?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• "the first chapter appearing on May 2, 2006" - appeared?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• It seems like this part "D.Gray-man has been licensed for an English language release in North America by Viz Media and is being sold in over ten other countries" should come after the parts talking about the Shueisha volumes, and before the lead into to Viz serializing the series.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• As with episode list, the "See Also" section seems redundant to the template

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sources could use some clean up, in the Shueisha sources the "｜ 星野　桂｜ ジャンプコミックス｜BOOKNAVI｜集英社" part seems extraneous

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Amazon source (#28) needs clean up to remove ref and extraneous parts - should just be amazon.com/dp/ASIN

• Link doesn't work if that's used. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the vol 12 ref, for example, http://www.amazon.com/dp/1421523892/ works to go to the same page, without the referer tags. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• English tag seems unneeded on an EL, that's a given if not specifically stated otherwise :);

• Cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support main issues all addressed and can't see any other faults. Well sourced and summaries are brief but complete. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [27].

---

List of Connecticut tornadoes

previous FLC (23:06, 26 May 2008)

Believe all the old concerns have been addressed. -RunningOnBrains 03:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.disastercenter.com/index.html
  • http://www.tornadoproject.com/index.html
• Current ref 3 is lacking a publisher
• Per the MOS, we don't put link titles in all capitals even when they are in all capitals in the original. (Link titles in the refs)
• A number of your links in the refs are lacking last access dates.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done I think, except for one. The disaster center website just uses the Storm Prediction Center archives and puts them in table form. I could cite a different website, but this is the only one that actually does the math so I think it's better to have a straightforward source. Regardless, I'll see if I can find a better one. Tornadoproject.com is the website for The Tornado Project, started by Dr. Thomas P. Grazulis (also the author of one of the book refs), pretty much the authority on historical tornadoes, so I believe it would be considered reliable.-RunningOnBrains 00:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The National Weather Service cites Grazulis regularly, so I would consider his website reliable. Here is one such case, others are easily found if you need them [28]. WxGopher (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "This is a list of tornadoes reported in the history of the US state of Connecticut." Featured Lists don't start like this anymore.
  • I don't get your meaning. How do they start? -RunningOnBrains 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • All lists used to start with "This is a list of...". Now, it's encouraged to think of a new and interesting lead sentence. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• "While Connecticut is not known for tornado events..." "While"-->Although.
  •  Done
• "They occur most commonly in Hartford County, although since 1950 Litchfield County has recorded the most tornadoes. Several areas have been struck more than once, and Waterbury has been struck by no less than 4 tornadoes since 1955." Inline citations for these sentences needed.
  • I don't think basic math needs to be cited. If each tornado has a citation, including where it occurred, I don't see how these statements need inline citation.-RunningOnBrains 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• "While Connecticut tornadoes are typically weak, isolated events can be violent." Again, use Although instead of "While".
  •  Done
• "The year 1973 was particularly active: eight tornadoes occurred on six separate days." Use a semicolon instead of a colon.
  •  Done
• Images which have captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods.
  •  Done
• "A 300 yard (274 m) wide tornado unroofed several homes in northern Bridgeport." Hyphenate "300-yard".
  •  Done
• "levelled"-->leveled, only one "l" in American English.
  •  Done
• "One boy was killed and 33 others were injured." Since these are comparitive quantities, spell out both numerals.
  •  Done -RunningOnBrains 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Now, hyphenate thirty-three. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Pre–1850" Should be a hyphen, not an en dash. Also, I don't have time to make more comments today, I'll try to tomorrow, and if not tomorrow, then Saturday. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done-RunningOnBrains 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• "A Connecticut tornado is a tornado which has affected the US state of Connecticut." This is definitely not necessary. There is no requirement to have something in bold at the beginning, just a engaging lead. The second sentence is good enough for me.
• Actually, would "Before 1850" be acceptable for the heading that you just changed?
• "September 18, 1918: A tornado cut a path 130-160 feet across from Groton, Connecticut, through Mystic, and out into Long Island Sound. Small buildings, roofs, trees and telephone poles were damaged heavily. Several people received minor injuries from flying debris" Dash use, needs period at the end.
• "a path 50 to 300 feet (15 to 91 m)wide." Space after close parenthesis.
• "1000 acres (4 km²)" Don't use the "2" subscript symbol, use the convert template or use subscript markup.
• "two acres (8,000 m²)" Same thing here.
• "An F4, it destroyed almost 400 structures, and injured 40 people."-->The F4 destroyed almost 400 structures and injured 40 people.
• "Miraculously, no one was killed by these devastating tornadoes, though a girl was killed when straight-line winds blew a tree onto her tent." "Miraculously" is POV.
  • Is "amazingly" ok? -RunningOnBrains 17:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't think you can use synonyms to fix this; better to just get to the point. Readers can figure out themselves that it was "miraculous" or "amazing" that nobody died. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Inconsistent ues of adverb and verb order: I see "briefly touched down" and "touched down briefly".
  • I actually thought about this and was wondering: is it better to use consistent (read: repetitive) wording for all these minor events, or should I be demonstrating "brilliant prose" (not to say that being consistent can't be brilliant, just wondering whether consistency or originality is more important)? -RunningOnBrains 17:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Consistency is definitely more important here, especially since a lot of the bullet points containing that phrase are consecutive. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• "This was the sixth most damaging tornado in US history." Hyphenate "sixth most".
• "11 mile (18 km) path" Hyphen in "11 mile" needed.
• "One person was killed, with another 50 injured"-->One person was killed, with another fifty injured...
• "August 28, 1911: A tornado cut a three mile (five km) path" Hyphenate "three mile".
• "cutting a five mile (eight km) path through Hamden." Hyphen needed in "five mile". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Twenty homes, 63 barns, and 1,000 acres (4.0 km2) of forest were destroyed." It's the comparative quantities thing again. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Reference 3 http://www.disastercenter.com/conn/tornado.html needs a publisher. Also, what makes this site reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done I substituted in a book source. It's not as up-to-date, but it is a solid reference. -RunningOnBrains 17:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support No concerns. Well done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Every time I have looked at this article in order to review it, I got stuck on the paradoxical statement "They occur most commonly in Hartford County, although since 1950 Litchfield County has recorded the most tornadoes." I have not found a source for the statement that they occur most commonly in Hartford County, so I infer that this statement is simply a description of the data in the table. In that case, I believe that it would be more accurate (and less paradoxical) to say "More tornadoes have been reported in Hartford County than in any other county in the state, but since 1950 Litchfield County has recorded the most tornadoes." This would reflect what I believe is the reality: we don't actually have enough data to say where in the state tornadoes occur "most commonly" (and one might quibble with the word "commonly" there, since they are uncommon), but we do know where they have been reported. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done I agree it was poor wording. -RunningOnBrains 16:10, 25

October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Nice list, well-presented and thoroughly sourced. I have just one more comment, though. The storm of August 7, 1839 is described as passing through "an uninhabited area of present-day Wallingford." I don't think the boundaries of Wallingford have changed since 1839, so I believe that should simply refer to "an uninhabited area of Wallingford." --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [29].

---

List of D.Gray-man episodes

previous FLC (20:26, 11 October 2008)

Renominating list that failed because it did not receive enough input. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I couldn't catch any flaws in the prose or the table, meets WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - where are the refs for the transcluded lists (and yay for their being used more!)? The see also seems unnecessary with the template having the same links. Where are the English episodes going to air or is it not stated yet? I am really not a fan of the reference column in tables instead of just putting the ref behind the release date...but will defer to others on whether that is now an accepted convention. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• See the general reference. Cut the "see also" section. It hasn't been stated when the English episodes will air. The reference as a column cites all the information, so I think it's a better format, and is used in other lists. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• The general ref only seems to cover the Japanese titles though. It doesn't have the airdates nor the English titles? Okay on the ref cols. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• The series has only aired in Japan. The English titles are all translations (shouldn't you be familiar with this from the thirty or so FLs we have?). Changed up the refs though. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, sorry, it said it was licensed so I had a brain cramp :-P Ref change addressed that issue nicely. Support. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [30].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Nirvana

Removed. Gary King (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, isn't that violating copyright? Garden. 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe it is! You scare the pants off of me. Gary King (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

At least he didn't quote "Rape Me" or "Polly". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do I? Sorry :D Garden. 10:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• CommentSupport - how come in most of your band nominations you only say The band went through a succession of drummers and eventually settled on Dave Grohl, who joined the band in 1990. (something about the drummers but not the other players?)--S_RX 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  If you're saying that I only mention the drummer in my lists, then I don't think that's true. In this particular case, the other band members are mentioned in the first sentence. Gary King (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought bands had more than three players.--S_RX 22:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [31].

---

List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations

I am nominating this for FL nomination as I believe it is ready for this promotion. Also, this nomination if part of the FLC Contest going on right now. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 02:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 2 (Sky Train) is lacking a publisher

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• "The SkyTrain in Vancouver" – "The Vancouver SkyTrain"

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• "4 of which" – "four of which"

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Lead should be longer.

I'll try making a longer prose. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a good place to start would be with the system's history. That should probably go before the analysis of the actual lines. Gary King (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 06:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 02:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose mostly because of the prose
  • The first two sentences need to be combined because the current first sentence seems like an incomplete thought.
  • There should be more info on history of these lines than just one clumsy sentence.

As I said to Gary King, I would try to expand the lead later this week. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 06:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Avoid using parentheses in the prose.
  • In one sentence, I read four instances of "of which". Needs to be re-worded.
  • There is a column for "previous names" just because three out of 33 stations changed their names? I think a note should be made to indicate those three changes.
  • Any reason why use the boldface and italics instead of colors?
    • Any reason why use colors instead of the boldface and italics? If the WP:MOS saids so, then I will change it. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:MOS does not say "use boldface or italics to indicate something". At the same time, WP:COLOR mentions that colors are used to indicate something. --Crzycheetah 04:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 04:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You just added the colors. WP:MOS says that we should use boldface for the article name and table headers only. You need to replace boldface and italics with some other symbol.--Crzycheetah 05:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 05:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • It's good to see a Google map used as a reference, but why not use it for other captions, as well?

I will try to do that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you where should I put the Google references, since I don't know what to reference. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice your question, the fourth caption needs a Google reference, and the second caption needs a reference that it was named after that stadium.--Crzycheetah 05:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done all the referencing. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 06:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • The lead should mention something about the zones.

I don't know if that is possible... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 02:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done all without a comment. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Why is there no info on Canada Line and Evergreen Line?

They are not part of the SkyTrain brand. Look at the article Canada Line, and you'll see that it has not be confirmed yet whether or not if it wil lbe branded with SkyTrain. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Evergreen Line will be part of the SkyTrain in 2014, but I won't be including it on the list as it did not open yet. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 06:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you can add that at the end of the lead.--Crzycheetah 04:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I already added that on the second paragraph if you didn't notice. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 05:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral I need to go over it one more time before supporting.--Crzycheetah 02:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support--Crzycheetah 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Although you know and I know, I think that you should say that Vancouver is in Canada.

Most articles related to the United States or Canada don't include the country, but instead the province/territory/state. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure that is true and you haven't even specified the province anyway. There is also the point that there is another Vancouver (admittedly a smaller place but with a population of 160,000 or so, not insignificant).Boissière (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I do know that there is another Vancouver in Washington, but I think I really don't need to put Canada as I feel it is unnesscessary. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I can't help feeling that the section that you added as a response to other comments which describes the history of the system reads slightly strangely. It reads a bit like a prose list of stations added to the system; some of it seems to imply stations were just tacked on the system without mentioning that there was a section of line added too.

Can you clear what you're trying to say. Sorry, but I only have a intermediate understanding of English. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not easy to explain - the prose doesn't strike me as particularly compelling. One of the things that is missing is any line lengths and I don't think you need to list every station added. For example I would prefer statements such as "In 19xx the A line was extended by 3 km with 5 new stations.". If you are willing I could try and rewrite that section.Boissière (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy for you to rewrite that paragraph, as long as I won't damage my FL nomination. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• "There are 33 stations on the SkyTrain, 4 of which are on the Expo line..." I think that only should be added here or reorder the sentence so that the shared stations come first. It is slightly confusing otherwise. Oh and there's a typo, "Vanouver" in the following sentence.

Cleared the typo, but I feel that the word "only" sounds a little bit WP:POV. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What I was trying to get across is someone is reading it and starts reading the sentence "There are 33 stations on the SkyTrain, 4 of which are on the Expo line" and at that point thinks "Hey, I thought that the Expo line had many more stations than that" and has to read to the end to see the bit about the stations on both lines to clear up his confusion.Boissière (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence about the longest automated system is oddly placed, coming amongst stuff that describes the stations. As its quite notable you could probably put it nearer the start of the lead.

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think you need to clarify what is meant by a transfer station (i.e. transfer just between SkyTrain lines and not transfer to other modes). One might also ask why the other stations on both lines are not marked as transfer stations. You might also want to add a note that the Broadway and Commercial Drive stations effect the transfer via a direct link (and describe the nature of that link if possible e.g. connecting bridge etc.).

I don't think I really need to explain that much for the transfer point. I thougt it was really clear to everyone, but I wikilinked transfer station. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, though I would still prefer a note about the two linked stations.Boissière (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• When hovering over the system diagram in the top right, the tooltip shown is a bit odd with a lot of white space.

Well can you tell me what to do in order to make it more neater? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

When I made the comment I thought there was a way that one could specify a different tooltip to the caption, but reading up on it this doesn't seem to be possible. Unless anyone knows a clever way round this? Boissière (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• It may be me but describing a terminal as the <x>bound terminal doesn't sound quite right. I think I liken it to <x>bound platform which is the platform that you take to go in the x direction. Northern/Southern/Eastern/Western terminal seems more correct.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but if you actually lived in Vancouver, you will know that they are called Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, and Westbound. There is no eastbound terminal as it continues along the Expo Line. I didn't tell the readers that as I think that it should be obvious and clear to them. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well of course most people reading this article don't live in Vancouver but if it is official terminology then I don't have a problem with it. Boissière (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Boissière (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have replaced one ref from Nationmaster Encyclopedia with a fact tag, since Nationmaster Encyclopedia is a copy (mirror of an older version) of Wikipedia, and thus not a reliable source. Fram (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done referencing. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

SRE.K.A contacted me to review the article so here goes

1. running principally on elevated tracks -- is it completely elevated?

fixed sentence. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. was said to be -- who said WP:AWT

changed to was. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. "municipal government" reads odd -- perhaps municipal council?

 Done Make sure I did this right. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. "the longest mass transit-only bridge" -- longest in?

 Done Make sure I did this right. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. "is currently being planned," - check continuity

Deleted currently

1. "There are 33 stations on the SkyTrain..." -- sentence needs to be split.

 Done Make sure I did this right. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. "majority of the stations" -- rephrase, just a shade over "majority"

 Done Make sure I did this right. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. What is an Offical transfer station -- Is there something like an "unofficial transfer station"?

Changed it to just, "Transfer station". -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Local Authority -- lower case

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. "the most heavily used station" ==> grammar (has the highest...)

 Done Make sure I did this right. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. "Most of the remaining portion" -- tighten prose, too vague

I only have an intermediate understanding of English. To be honest, I don't know how to change it. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Recommend the map be uploaded as an SVG image

I can't make svg files. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Increase the size of the map. Is crucial for understanding.

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. transit officially known as "Intermediate Capacity Transit System" --> check officially

deleted offically. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Suggestion: The distances between each station could be an interesting addition.

Thanks for the suggestion but I'm afraid it can't be done as I can't find a reference for that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. "The first section of the Millennium Line opened in 2002, with Braid and Sapperton stations." -- usage of "with"

I don't understand what you mean... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Have you considered using Wikipedia:Route diagram template?

Impossible for this article as it can only do one line at a time and will use too much space. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Opening sentences need a copyedit.

I already know that but as I said above, I only have an intermediate understanding of English. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. "World in Motion - World in Touch" convert hyphen to dash

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Check the usage of "with"

Look above. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. "SkyTrain, 4 of " -- spell out numbers less than 10

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The middle paragraph is complicated to follow. The sentence beginning "TransLink, which took over" is too long. I suggest you simplify it a bit and get someone to copyedit the prose to help with flow and native-English style. This chronology of the stations can be seen in the table so perhaps all the detail in the prose isn't needed. It would be great if you had an additional map showing the chronology of the track: different colours (with numbers alongside, for any colourblind readers) for each phase of development, along with a key. It is a shame the current map is a JPG as that makes it fuzzy compared to a PNG or SVG. There are folk on WP who convert diagrams, but I forget which project that is. Please consider using accessmonthday and accessyear cite parameters and plain US/Canadian date format (November 13, 1971) rather than using the ISO format. Although the system you've used displays correctly for logged-in users, it shows as ISO format for 99% of readers, which isn't that friendly to non-computer-types. Colin°^Talk 19:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I requested the convesion of the image, but I cannot copedit the article as I only have a intermediate understandingof English. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by SatyrTN

• Thanks for your use of pictures - very nicely done!
• The lede is quite long. Some of that info is pertinent to the article SkyTrain (Vancouver), but probably not necessary in the list. In my opinion, the first two sentences of the second paragraph could be removed.
• Being able to sort by "Line(s)" is unnecessary.
• I'd remove the wikilink on "Zone" in the column header, then link it in Note A.
• Otherwise, this looks good. I Conditionally Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done all! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add class="unsortable" to the "Lines" header column. That will remove the sortability of that column, per my suggestion 3 above. Nice work! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 07:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by DavidCane

• Looking at the articles for Sapperton and Braid Stations and the Millennium Line, the map appears to be wrong with Sapperton and Braid stations switched.

I requested the change on WP:Graphic lab/Image workshop

• With regard to adding a Route diagram template. It would actually be quite easy as the template can handle very complex arrangements. see right.

Thanks a whole bunch, but there's one problem. Where do I put it? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver SkyTrain
Waterfront Opened 1985 Burrand Opened 1985 Granville Opened 1985 Stadium-Chinatown Opened 1985 Main Street-Science World Opened 1985 VCC-Clark Opened 2006 Broadway Opened 1985 Nanaimo Opened 1985 Renfrew Opened 2002 29th Avenue Opened 1985 Rupert Opened 2002 Joyce-Collingwood Opened 1985 Gilmore Opened 2002 Patterson Opened 1985 Brentwood Town Centre Opened 2002 Metrotown Opened 1985 Holdom Opened 2002 Royal Oak Opened 1985 Sperling-Burnaby Lake Opened 2002 Edmonds Opened 1985 Lake City Way Opened 2003 22nd Street Opened 1985 Production Way-University Opened 2002 New Westminster Opened 1985 Lougheed Town Centre Opened 2002 Braid Opened 2002 Columbia Opened 1989 Sapperton Opened 2002 Skybridge Scott Road Opened 1990 Gateway Opened 1994 Surrey Central Opened 1994 King George Opened 1994

• 1st paragraph: "The Expo line was built in time for the Expo 86 world fair". As the next paragraph says it was built as a legacy project, so "in time" is redundant.

 Fixed -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Are the actual opening dates of the Expo and Millennium lines known rather than just the years?

I'm trying to keep in consistent, as some do, and some don't. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph: "extending service to Surrey." should be either "extending services to Surrey." or "extending the service to Surrey."

 Fixed -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph: "In 2006, VCC-Clark opened, which complete the Millennium Line." should be "In 2006, VCC-Clark station opened, which completed the Millennium Line."

 Fixed -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph: Presumably these are Canadian dollars.

 Done noting it. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph: "TransLink, which took over BC Transit's SkyTrain operation, proposed a two-phase expansion: a $1.2 billion Millennium Line from New Westminster to the Vancouver Community College via Lougheed Town Centre in Phase I and a $730 million Coquitlam line from Lougheed Mall to Coquitlam Centre via Port Moody and a Western Line from Vancouver Community College to Granville Street via the Broadway Corridor, both to be completed before 2006, in Phase II." is a very long sentence. I suggest this is broken up to make it easier to follow. Also "both to be completed before 2006" appears to be unnecessary." For example:

"TransLink, which took over BC Transit's SkyTrain operation, proposed a two-phase expansion: The first phase was a $1.2 billion Millennium Line from New Westminster to the Vancouver Community College via Lougheed Town Centre. The second phase was a $730 million Coquitlam line from Lougheed Mall to Coquitlam Centre via Port Moody and a Western Line from Vancouver Community College to Granville Street via the Broadway Corridor"

 Fixed I just copied your version and pasted it into the paragraph. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph: "Their are four stations..." should be "There are four stations..."

 Fixed -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph: It would be easier and simpler to state how many stations are served by each line and how many are shared.

 Done Check it incase I did something wrong. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph: "...most highest used..." should be "...most highly used..." and "...is the lowest." should be "...is the least used."

 Fixed -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any information as to usage numbers for the stations?

There is, but it is way overdue, as they only did it in 2003, and things may change. If you want me to put the 2003 stats up, I'll be happy too. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

--DavidCane (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [32].

---

List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford

Another FLC contest list, I'm afraid; yet another Jesus College list, as well, so extra apologies. Is it complete? Well, whilst there is no complete list anywhere else to check against, I've scoured The Times, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, Who's Who, Who Was Who, the two main published histories of the college and the college's annual publications since 1992, and I can't see how anyone else would have slipped past all of these sources! Comments welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 21:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 7 (Biography College de France...) is lacking a publisher
  • Done.
• Would be nice if you indicated on the ONDB refs that you need an subscription to access it.
  • Every time? It already says that a subscription is required in the General References section, as it does for Who's Who and Who Was Who.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 08:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments - picky ones though...

• Last sentence, first paragraph of lead, needs work. Too long perhaps, but " dismiss members of academic staff as redundant, or to dismiss or discipline members of academic staff for reasons for performance or behaviour, or to dismiss " has a few repetitions in it and I'm not convinced by "for reasons for performance" either...
  • Trimmed. I was trying to follow the language of the statutes, but have given up... Bencherlite^Talk
• eighty-two->82 per MOS.
• Same with sixty-four.
  • No to both: MOS:NUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words – "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." As I've got a "three" in the same paragraph, I'd rather have them all spelled out. Bencherlite^Talk
• I'm not convinced Wales needs to be wikilinked but I won't fall on my sword for it to be unlinked.
  • Well, I'll leave it, then. Not every reader of WP will know that UK != England. Bencherlite^Talk
• "is currently" - tend to avoid this, I'd go for a more precise "As of October 2008..."
  • Done. Bencherlite^Talk
• Link MP.
  • Linked. Bencherlite^Talk

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. No problem with the MOS either - I'll need to do more homework when I get back before I dare try another serious review! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose An impressive list and full of impressive people. But there are some minor issues and a couple of more serious ones

• The date format is inconsistent (try logging out to see what 99% of readers see). Consider using accessdaymonth and acccessyear parameters instead of accessdate.
  • Will do, but need time Update: Done. That would appear to be because {{cite news}} has been edited – since I brought the list here – to be inconsistent with {{cite web}} in its display of accessdates . Great...
• As The Rambling Man notes, there's some WP:DATED issues particularly affecting some of final lead paragraph. ("every decade since then"; "have been elected since then"; "the most recent election")
  • WP:DATED refers to events that will date quickly, and doesn't apply here IMHO. That said, I've removed the offending sentences for other reasons, since two people think that the lead is too long.
• The second paragraph appears to be entirely original research. As you indicate, there is no source that lists all 82 people and you don't cite any that confirm, for example, that Francine Stock is the only woman. Much of this information can be discovered by the list readers, using the sort option to group the link column entries. IMO the lead is overlong, so removing this paragraph would help.
  • Hee-hee, SatyrTN thinks I should remove the sortability of that column, so I can't please both of you! I've removed the references to numbers and repeated the citation (non-internet) about Stock being the only woman. I've trimmed the lead.
• Much of the information in the link and notes columns is unsourced. This is particularly true of those entries sourced to the Oxford University Gazette, which merely contain a list of names. Some of our people lists contain unsourced DoB or nationality which I'm relatively comfortable with overlooking because it is a minor detail, useful for identification, and actually rather hard to source. I suppose someone might challenge even that minor info. But, for example, stating that Yoder won the Pulitzer Prize in 1979 really demands a source. BTW: having a separate Ref column makes it hard for me to tell if the source (particularly one I can't read) covers the HF year, the link and/or the notes. It is possible that all three facts might be separately sourced. Colin°^Talk 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yoder is sourced for all three elements in the one source, but you can't read that source on the internet. That's the problem with offline sources, isn't it? Do you really need me to give an internet source as well for the fact that he won a Pulizer Prize? If so, I will. My mistake; I was confusing the article that I wrote on Yoder with the list entry; the article has two sources, one of which is offline and contains the fact of his college attendance, his PP and his election date to an HF. I'll add in another source to the list entry. Are there any others that you think demand sources for particular note entries? Do you really want me to put a ref by the HF year, the link and the notes as well? I think that's overkill, since very often it'll be the same ref three times, which is pure reference bloat and will look very messy - hence keeping everything in one column.
  • Thanks for the review. Bencherlite^Talk 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The cite web/news difference is one problem, but the other is the use of ISO date formats, which should really be discouraged as that's what logged out readers see. The DATED text will/may be out of date as soon as there is another election. The issue is that without making your time frame explicit (As of 2008) the reader and future editors won't know if or when your text became out of date. I think the Link column sortability is now working fine and is useful. I agree that having refs inside most of the cells would be ugly. My point is more that once you start distrusting that a row-ref actually supplies a source for all the row, then it becomes hard to know which facts you are claiming come from the row-ref. Some of the sources supply everything and some only supply the fact that X was elected in YYYY. All the notes information is challengable, IMO, and technically the Type (were they a former fellow) is too as both are significant pieces of information in this list. It looks like all the rows sourced to Oxford University Gazette lack the detail required (unless the paper version has more detail and the online one is just an outline, in which case the source should be the printed version and the web link should clearly indicate it is just a summary). Colin°^Talk 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Access dates put into a revised format. Added a whole load of extra refs to ensure everything's covered at least once. Bencherlite^Talk 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good when logged out now. The sourcing is much better. Support. Colin°^Talk 11:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from SatyrTN

• As per above, the lede is waay too long, IMO. My suggestion is to take out paragraph two and the accompanying quote. Just my opinion.
  • I have trimmed the lead. However, the quote is the single most interesting individual fact in the list. It is the only documented reaction I have found of a HF's reaction to being awarded an HFship. It was sufficiently interesting to be made the lead item (with picture) at DYK. Why on earth would you want to remove the quote?
• More pictures! Surely out of the 82 entrants on the list there are more available?
  • No more photos on the accompanying articles. Most of the people are still alive and not sufficiently photographed to have free-use images waiting around to be used; those that are dead are often too recently dead to have photos out of copyright.
• The column header "Link" is vague - It took me several readings of the key to figure out what you meant. "Link to College" would be too long a header. Perhaps the Key could be renamed "Key to Links" and start that off with a sentence like "Most Fellows are linked to the College in various ways. These include:" Or something like that.
  • Reworded.
• I'm not sure about this one... Sorting the "Link" column may be problematic. If I've sorted that way, I'm interested in counting how many Old Members there are, for instance. But six of them end up out of order (since they're "F/OM"). I'm wishy-washy on this, but I'm leaning towards removing the sortability of the Link column.
  • Well, I'm strongly leaning to keeping it, particularly when (as noted above) the previous opposer was using the sortability of the link column as a justification for calling for changes in the lead paragraphs! To make it even better, I've changed "L" to "CL" so that the "F"s lead into the "F/OM"s and then into the "OM"s without the sole "L" in the way.

• Conditional Oppose, but with changes I could support. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Bencherlite^Talk 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still worried about the lede being so long. I feel like this is trying to be both an article (where reactions to being named would definitely be included) and a list (where they may not). My concern is not quite strong enough to justify an oppose, though :) BTW, this is good work, conflicting reviewers or not :)

• Weak Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Update I have asked Colin to revisit this FLC, but his busy schedule hasn't permitted this yet; please hold off archiving this until he does. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 22:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll aim to look at it this lunchtime. Colin°^Talk 07:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Colin°^Talk 11:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 23:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [33].

---

Timeline of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season

Just finished copyediting, cleaning up, expanding, and improving. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Julian, did you forget that date autoformatting is now deprecated? And actually, so are concealed links, such as your [[1950-1969 Pacific hurricane seasons|1966]], which not only discourages readers from clicking on it (same old boring year link?), but is misleading as to the content. If I knew what the article was, I'd be much more interested. Here's a tip: why not avoid the link altogether in the lead and spell it out in full (even with an extended note about what began in 1966) in the "See also" section? More interesting; more reader-friendly. Tony (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Good points; I fixed those links. Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "transitions, as well as dissipation." – "transitions, and dissipation."
• "The timeline also includes information which was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on, have been included" – "The timeline also includes information which was not operationally released such as information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, which include information on a storm that was not operationally warned on." – or something along those lines. At least get rid of the improperly used "meaning"; some redundancy in the sentence, too
• "seasonal ACE was" – ACE is what?
• "Tropical Storm Barbara in June caused $55 million (2007 USD) in crop damage in southeastern Mexico from heavy precipitation.[" – "Tropical Storm Barbara caused $55 million (2007 USD) in crop damage in southeastern Mexico from heavy precipitation in June.["
• "Eastern Pacific " – capitalized differently from earlier
• "Central Pacific" – should also follow suit
• "threatening Hawaii but causing little damage" – "and threatened Hawaii but caused little damage"

Gary King (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All done, thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "which include information on a storm that was not operationally warned on." – "which include information on storms that were not operationally warned." – I'm not even sure what the sentence means. "operationally warned"?

Gary King (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarified. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I copyedited a bit of redundancy out of it, but I still don't understand what it means. When I Google the phrase "operationally warned on", it brings me back to this FLC, so I don't know what it means. This probably means that there's a better way to phrase it. Gary King (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's no different than the word "operationally", really. The word means, essentially, that the subject was noticed at the time it existed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Add the format=PDF field to all PDF web references.
  • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Tropical Storm Barbara in June"-->In June, Tropical Storm Barbara...
  • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is there no need of a colon when writing UTC time?
  • I'm not entirely sure. I've always known it to be written without a colon, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• "the hurricane threatened Hawaii" What does it mean to "threaten"?
  • In this context, to "threaten" means to threaten to affect an area, but turn away before doing so.

Dabomb87 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:56, 25 October 2008 [34].

---

The White Stripes discography

previous FLC (10:07, 7 August 2008)

If I recall correctly, this didn't make FL due to it being part of a discussion about the amount of positions in charts. The list remains in good condition since then, and hopefully it can make it through the nomination process. Red157 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from SRX

Comments

• Having signed to V2 Records, 2003 saw The White Stripes major label debut, entitled Elephant which has since gone Platinum in the United States and double Platinum in the United Kingdom. - why is platinum capitalized?
• This was followed by Icky Thump in 2007. Both albums made the top five of the Billboard 200, Icky Thump with the higher placing of number two,[1] and both also won the Grammy for Best Alternative Music Album. - very confusing, you need to split these.

--S_RX 00:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I do believe both are done and thank you for commenting so quickly. Red157 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a second platinum capitalized in the same sentence above.--S_RX 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That was careless of me, done.  Red157  00:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - meets FL Criteria.--S_RX 01:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "acclaim whilst pushing" – "acclaim while pushing"
• "the current alternative rock scene" — "the alternative rock scene" – what's so "current" about it?
• "Having signed to V2 Records, 2003 saw The White Stripes major label debut," – "The White Stripes signed to V2 Records and released their debut album on a major label in 2003" – much cleaner
• "which has since gone platinum in" – "which has been certified platinum in"

Gary King (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All done.  Red157  14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose

• "This list does not include any material by Jack White as a solo artist or as a member of The Raconteurs." ← remove it!
• "This was followed by De Stijl, which was well-received by critics and was their first album to chart in the United States." – In which position? 0?
• "The White Stripes signed to V2 Records and released their debut album on a major label in 2003..." → "...and released their major label debut in 2003..." (?)
• "entitled Elephant" → "entitled Elephant," (comma)
• "Both albums made the top five of the Billboard 200, though Icky Thump managed the higher placing of number two. Both Get Behind Me Satan and Icky Thump received Grammy Awards for Best Alternative Music Album." (twice both on the same para?)
• Peak chart positions = 16? (reduce to 10; both albums & singles!)
• " — " denotes releases that did not chart. → "—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country.
• Remove the excess space in the column certifications. (ex. US:__Gold)
• Formats → Format
• Videos → Video albums
• Music Video → Title
• References (needs a big cleanup)
  • "The White Stripes - Music Charts". acharts. Retrieved on 2008-07-24. (??????)

Cannibaloki 01:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things. All are done besides the excess spaces in column certifications (As I'm not sure why they do that, and if the most minor of superficial issues like that stops it reaching FL, I'll be gutted) and the reducing the chart thing. If I recall correctly, this failed last time due to that very issue regarding the amount of chart positions. And since then I've seen so many articles make FL with the same amount of positions in their charts. It seems the discussion didn't actually make a difference and it's still a matter of personal opinion.  Red157  12:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

One question: If you had +30 positions to write on the table of albums & singles, you will write all? Cannibaloki 16:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think anything approaching 30 would be able to fit on the page. 16 looks fine and as I've mentioned, has been the amount present on other FL discographies.  Red157  17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• I don't know if it's due to dilution since we see the same style of discogs here all the time, but WP:FL? says the lead needs to be engaging. This just seems like it's been taken from any one of the already featured lists, with the band name and albums replaced by the ones for The White Stripes. For me, to "exemplifies our very best work" doesn't mean to copy/paste what is already featured; we shouldn't be afraid to try something new once in a while. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If I was to turn each paragraph into a series of haiku's, would the FL criteria be compromised? As it's certainly something new.  Red157  13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

---

List of universities in Canada

This is certainly one of the longer lists that I've worked on. The provinces with more than 10 universities have separate lists that more fully explain their universities, so they are instead very simply summarized in this list. Gary King (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "In Canada the constitutional responsibility for universities rests with the provinces and territories." Comma after Canada.
• "...it states 'in and for each Province, the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to Education.'" I think there should be a colon after states.
• "Universities in the country grant university degrees including bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and doctoral degrees." Comma after "university degrees".
• "14 universities are located in British Columbia." MOS breach in starting a sentence with a numeral as well as generally awkward phrasing. Fix this in other sections also.
• "Newfoundland and Labrador has only one university."
• "Dalhousie University, first known as Dalhousie College, was established in Halifax in 1820 with the help of the Presbyterian Church, while, Acadia University was founded by Baptists." No comma after while.

More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Redundancies: "located in", I see this all over the article.
• "University student enrollment in Alberta ranges from King's University College with 560 students to 35,490 students at the University of Alberta" Needs a period at the end.
• "The University of Saskatchewan is the oldest school in the province, founded in 1907, while the First Nations University of Canada is the newest, established in 1976." Comma after 1907 needs to be a semicolon.
• "The First Nations University of Canada and the University of Regina are both located in Regina, the province's capital, while the University of Saskatchewan is found in Saskatoon, the most populated city in Saskatchewan." "while"-->and, it is merely addititional information.

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. I don't agree with the semicolon. Gary King (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the semicolon either, but that's what you've done on another sentence, so I was trying to encourage consistency. I wasn't sure what was grammatically correct, either. Here it is: "The oldest university in the province is the University of Alberta, established in 1906; while King's University College is the most recently established university, formed in 1979."

Ah okay; must've been one of the edits that slipped past me. I've changed it back to a comma. Gary King (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Use tables for all provinces, even for the ones that have their own well developed lists. This would make the article look consistent, and the information and sources would also be easier to locate. Good potential. --Qyd (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  Hm, well, I want to encourage people to go to the other lists to learn more about those provinces rather than just staying in this one, which is why I've only got them here with bullets. Gary King (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but it doesn't help with bringing this list up to featured standard. --Qyd (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support FL. Looks clean, well referenced, well structured, informative. --Qyd (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

---

List of universities in Quebec

previous FLC (20:26, 11 October 2008)

Gary King (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Well-referenced. This may be personal preference, but sentence #3 could be split using a semicolon rather than having it at such a length. Pandacomics (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question Why not have one table, with an additional column for language? That would permit sorting across both sets of information. Seems unnecessary to split off the English-language ones. Bencherlite^Talk 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done Gary King (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  Support Bencherlite^Talk 04:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Two institutions, both established in 1974, are considered the most recently designated universities in Quebec: École de technologie supérieure and Concordia University." Why only "considered"?
• "University enrollment in Quebec ranges from the smallest university, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, with 480 students, to the largest university, Université de Montréal, with 39,979 students."-->University enrollment in Quebec ranges from Institut national de la recherche scientifique with 480 students to Université de Montréal with 39,979 students. (or something like that, we don't need "largest university" or "smallest university")

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

---

List of Soul Eater chapters

My entry for the FLC contest. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Cr. 6. While Japanese script has its own beauty, here, it's denigrated by being turned into an agent of extreme clutter. Instead, it's ugly. Please remove it all—this is for English speakers; there's a Japanese WP too. Tony (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely disagree. The original media was in Japanese, and we should display it. Take the issue up with WP:ANIME, and I'll remove it only with consensus from there (and this would entail removing the kanji from all other episode and chapter lists). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Also disagree with this oppose. We do not ignore the original language just because this is the English Wikipedia. All anime and manga articles include the original Japanese for titles, episodes, characters, and chapters. As Sephiroth noted, if feel this should be removed from every last, it should be taken up with both the anime and manga project and the Japanese project. As it is, this is in keeping with all relevant guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.square-enix.co.jp/magazine/market/souleater/ deadlinks

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Not that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the deadlink. Thanks for checking. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Prose looks good in the lead. Gary King (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comments, since only one volume has been released in English yet, I'm guessing the other English titles are all unofficial translations? This should probably be noted somewhere. Volume 13's summary seems a little short compared to the rest? Why isn't the anime adaptation mentioned in the lead? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• English titles in Yen Press are still the same I believe, so I don't think it's necessary. The volume 13 summary is short because that's basically all that happens. Think of your typical shōnen manga series. And added a mention of the anime to the lead. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Alrighty, looks good and understandable on #13. Only other question would be should the "Chapters not yet in tankōbon format" be sourced (presumably to the Yen Press issues they were published in? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not necessary per precedent with past lists and their respective nominations. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good to know. :) Minor note, but that section uses the term tankōbon, but the lead pipes it with "bound volumes" which isn't consistent. Otherwise, all looks good. Sources are fine, prose reads well, don't see any unsourced stuff. So Support. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed last comment. Thanks, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The series follows the adventures of three meisters, students at a school called Shibusen who utilize demon weapon companions with human and weapon forms." Unclear, are meisters "students at a school called Shibusen" or "students who utilize demon weapon companions with human and weapon forms"?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Maka Albarn and her weapon partner Soul Eater manage to gather the souls of ninety-nine evil humans, and only need the soul of a witch to turn Soul Eater into a death scythe. They manage to find a witch and defeat her; however, she is a magical cat, and Shinigami confiscates all of Maka's souls." Repetition of "manage to".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "a swordsman so powerful his soul is the equivalent of ninety-nine souls"-->a swordsman whose soul is the equivalent of ninety-nine souls. Additionally, I think you might enclose this info in em dashes rather than commas as this interruption in flow is rather sharp.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Shibusen has a major examination" Isn't Shibusen the school? How can a school take a test?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Soul, Kid, and Black Star all fail the test, Maka scores the highest in the class" Why is it surprising that Maka scores well on the test even though the aforementioned three fail?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Shibusen holds a celebration to mark the anniversary of its creation." Again, if Shibusen is a school, then founding would be a better word than "creation".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Medusa stages an attack on Shibusen with Eruka, five members of the Mizune family, Crona, and Free in order to awaken the original kishin, Asura, who is imprisoned underneath Shibusen."

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Maka detects a presence inside one of Giriko's golems, and it is revealed to be a witch, Arachne, who Shinigami defeated in the past."-->Maka detects a presence inside one of Giriko's golems. The presence is revealed to be a witch, Arachne, whom Shinigami defeated in the past.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Medusa's remains enter a small girl, who Medusa uses as her host." "who"-->whom.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "in order to increase Stein's insanity."

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Death Scythe tells Stein that he believes that he is not the killer"—Ambiguous, too many "he"'s.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "he is able to fully utilize Tsubaki's demon"—"utilize"-->use.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, I have never heard of Soul Eater, but it was easy to understand. Sources are okay.Tintor2 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, Having been working with this article for a while now, I'm pleased to see it reach such high quality, especially with the chapter summaries.--十八 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, Seems like a solid piece of work. Doceirias (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

---

List of universities in Nova Scotia

I am submitting my first list for the FLC Contest. Please participate if you've got something to comment on! The map was created by Matthewedwards, by the way :) Gary King (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Just like all the other universities in a province articles, the articles starting with, "University" should be sorted out by the name of the university without the "University of" (bad wording). -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "Dalhousie University is the only university in Nova Scotia that is a member of the Group of Thirteen, a group of leading research-intensive universities in Canada, when it was added to the group (previously named the Group of 10) in April 2006 along with the University of Calgary and University of Ottawa" – feels like two sentences unsuccessfully spliced together. How about "... research-intensive universities in Canada. It was added to the Group [capital letter?] in April 2006..."?
  • Is there any way of getting the map so that the names don't overwrite each other? Perhaps use "1", "2", "3" and a key underneath?
• Otherwise, looks good. Bencherlite^Talk 22:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. I've notified Matthewedwards about the map, as he made it and I'm no expert with it. Gary King (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Overwrite each other? As in on top of each other? I don't see it. Can you make a screenshot or describe exactly what's happening? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:NSmap problem.jpg shows what I see. Same problem (but worse, as more overlapping labels) at Image:Universities in Québec.svg. Bencherlite^Talk 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you using a different skin from the default Wikipedia skin? Because the text is not nearly as big for me as it is for you; the text is small enough that they don't overlap for me. Gary King (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That certainly is strange. Here's what I see: Image:Nova scotia FLC prob.jpg, on a 26" widescreen at 1360px x 768px. As you can see from the original picture, Image:Universities in Nova Scotia.svg, the text is not on the image, it's done through Template:Nova Scotia universities map, which utilises Template:Image label begin and Template:Image label small for the text. Do Template:NFL Labelled Map and Template:Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Map do the same thing? They use the same two templates Image label templates. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, those others are OK. I'm using Firefox and the default skin, btw. So it seems to be just me, then? (Mind you, my large-screen laptop required a tweak to be made to AWB at one stage so that the scroll-bars worked...). So, with that sorted, it's a support. Bencherlite^Talk 16:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Support but for...

• "Two universities, the Atlantic School of Theology and the University of King's College, do not have graduate level programs. " seems oddly placed in that paragraph.
• Location(s) doesn't need the (s).

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I shuffled the lead around a bit. Gary King (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from SatyrTN

• The lede is longer than the list. Heck, the References are longer than the list. Can the lede be trimmed?
• Update the key to read "U – Undergraduate enrollment; P – Postgraduate enrollment; T – Total enrollment"?
• Otherwise, things look good. From a "Contest" perspective, using the shortest list of Universities of any province (unless List of universities in Nunavit is shorter?) is tricky :)
• Conditional Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I don't see a problem with a longer lead. It gives some useful background information on the universities in the province, why they are founded in that order, etc. Gary King (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Um - but it is longer than the list. It's not a show stopper, but would you revisit to see if it can be trimmed at all? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph's worth of text. Gary King (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The images in the Universities section should have periods at the end of their captions.
• "The oldest university in the province is the University of King's College, established in 1789, while the newest university is Cape Breton University, established in 1974." "while"-->and.
• "University student enrollment in Nova Scotia ranges from the smallest university, the Atlantic School of Theology, with 140 students, and the largest university, Dalhousie University, with 15,140 students."-->University student enrollment in Nova Scotia ranges from the Atlantic School of Theology with 140 students to Dalhousie University with 15,140 students.
• "Dalhousie University, first known as Dalhousie College, was established in Halifax in 1820 with the help of the Presbyterian Church, while Acadia University was founded by Baptists." "while"-->and. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment' : picture captions: "Dalhouse University has the largest student enrollment.", "The University of King's College is the oldest university." I supppose that it's all relative inside the province, but it's not clear from the text. --Qyd (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think you need to use a single source that establishes the set of universities. Although this lists only 10 (not AST), this, this and this all list 11 and seem to use "degree-granting institution" as their definition. Can you pick one as the source for your first sentence in the lead. You might also want to edit the template at the bottom to list University of King's College and leave a note on the talk page as to what definitive source should be considered (looking at the history of that template, there's a lot of original research going on). I'm assuming all of the second lead paragraph is sourced to the eBook rather than your own personal observation. Since the book doesn't appear to have pages in the online edition, can you at least indicate the chapter where you got this info. Colin°^Talk 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Strokes

Gary King (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SRX

Comments

• The Strokes is a BRIT Award-winning American alternative rock band that has been hailed as the "saviors of rock and roll". - 1)is --> (should be) are (for past tense). 2)Is "saviors of rock and roll" a common thing for them? If not, then it should be removed but if it is then it's okay.
• Formed in New York City in 1999, the band consists of Julian Casablancas (vocals), Nick Valensi (lead guitar), Albert Hammond Jr. (rhythm guitar), Nikolai Fraiture (bass) and Fabrizio Moretti (drums). - link to NYC?
• The Strokes has released three studio albums, all on the RCA Records record label: Is This It (2001), Room on Fire (2003), and First Impressions of Earth (2006). - has --> (should be) have (past tense)
• The band has been on hiatus since the release of their last album. - and their last album was?
• It has also been nominated for Best International Band at the NME Awards in 2003, 2006 (which it won), and 2007. - it? shouldn't it be they.

--S_RX 20:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Got them all. I've been working with so many British band lists lately that I got caught up in "are" and so when I switched back to American bands, I forced it all as "is" and sometimes that isn't correct. That's what happened here. D'oh! Gary King (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - after addressed concerns, this list meets the Featured List criteria.--S_RX 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Please don't classify them as "award-winning" in the first sentence itself. It is discouraged because it immediately introduces a bias. THat "saviors of rock" is unnecessary too". Annd there's no need to ref basic info like band members' and albums' names indopug (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are fine, but why remove the references? It certainly doesn't hurt to still have those; it makes it easier to verify if anyone ever wants to. The albums and the band members are not common knowledge, like how the Earth revolves around the Sun. And the fact that the band is on hiatus should also certainly be sourced, so I don't understand why that reference was removed. Gary King (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think something like "John Lennon was a member of The Beatles"--even if it isn't Earth-revolves-around-the-sun-esque common knowledge--needs a ref. You were right about the hiatus though. indopug (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

---

List of WarCry band members

I'm nominating this list because in my opinion, meets the FLC. It shows the references (are from spanish sources but well-quoted and showing the actual names and dates of retrievement. It tells "everything" related to how the members joined and departed from the band. It shows a timeline with the dates for "album releases" and when the members formed part of the group. I really think this article meets the FLC.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 06:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

*Support - as nominator  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 04:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• "from Avalanch." – "from another band, Avalanch."
• "with the songs they had composed in their spare time. " – "with songs they composed in their spare time. "
• "Avalanch disapproved of the project, and expelled them from the band. " – up until this point I thought they were already expelled. It's gotta be made clearer that the events before this sentence took place before their expulsion.
• "as soon as they were joining the band." – "as soon as they formed the band."
• "Their second work was" – "Their second album was"
• "at the end of 2002" – "in late 2002"
• "The band embarked on a supporting tour throughout Spain, which lasted a year." – "The band embarked on a year-long supporting tour throughout Spain."

The article still needs a copyedit. I stopped at "The band embarked on a supporting tour throughout Spain, which lasted a year." Gary King (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "ejected in August 2007, which ocurred on amicable terms." – "ejected in August 2007 on amicable terms."
• "A month later was revealed" – "A month later it was revealed"

Gary King (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done: I already fixed all the mistakes you found. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Not neccessary, but could any English language references be found?
• Change publisher names to full names instead of website names, for example maxmetal.net to Max Metal.

Overall, good looking article, all previous members seem to be sourced in the lead. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Done: The references show the publusher name, but I couldn't find th references in English. Found some English refs in different places, but they're not reliable at all, or are just commercial sites which show info posted only by fans. Hope this doesn't affect it significantly. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - List is complete, although english sources would be nice I'm sure it isn't really a neccessity to have them. Good job. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done: I changed some Spanish references with 2 in English (one from the english version of their website, and the other one from allmusic.) Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking, you know where you have the quote of the spanish section in the referece, would it not be possible to have an english quote instead, as this is the english wikipedia, it'll help towards establising their reliability if people know what it says. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done: Instead of taking out the spanish quotes, I added the english translation to each quote. Now it tells the actual ref in Spanish (in italic font) followed by a divider (a dash) and the English translation at the end. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 05:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

---

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)

previous FLC (20:02, 8 September 2008)

Well, I've waited around a month since the last FLC, given it several lookovers and I can't find anything else wrong. So, here is is again :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 5 is lacking a publisher

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Are there any negative reviews at all?

We couldn't seem to find any, even last time around. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Since the Pulcinella Awards do not have an article, you should explain what it is they honour

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Link to Annie Awards

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Each episode only has one director, so the (s) doesn't need to be there in the header

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why "Information obtained from TVShowsOnDVD.com on September 6, 2008." and "Information obtained from Amazon.com on August 06, 2008."? Just use the reference

I, uh, dunno.  Doing... NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some ref formatting is needed. Websites shouldn't be italicised. For example, Ref [1]: ""Avatar Sneak Peak". Nick.com. Nickelodeon. Retrieved on 2008-05-29." you can remove "Nick.com" completely and keep "Nickelodeon" as the publisher. You should link them when they have articles, too

 Done. I think? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Same with "Amazon.co.uk. Amazon.com, Inc." Remove "Amazon.co.uk"

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unless the season is officially titled "Season One", don't refer to it as such. It is misleading. Just call it the "first season" and "this season", etc. but not "Season One".

I dunno about this, but I changed it to: "The first season (Book One: Water) of Avatar: The Last Airbender..." NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Later changed to "Season One (Book One: Water)"

• "best animated television series" – is this an official title? If so, then capitalize the words. If not, then is it just original research?

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Pole, attempting" – "Pole and attempt"

They are going to the North Pole to find a teacher who lives there, so I think it is good at present. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"attempting" is not a verb; it is a noun. "attempting to find a Waterbending master to teach Aang and Katara" has no verb. Gary King (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be either. In this particular case, it is a verb meaning "to try." *SIGN* 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In the 2005 Pulcinella Awards, which gives awards for excellence in animation, Season One won "Best TV Series"." – "Season One won "Best TV Series" at the 2005 Pulcinella Awards, which gives awards for excellence in animation."

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In addition to awards, it attracted more than a million viewers each time the network aired a new episode, and earned the title of "Best Animated Television Series" in the boys 9–14 year old demographic." – a generally confusing sentence. How is awards related to how many viewers the season has had? "It" should probably be changed to "Season One" so that it does not seem like it's implying the "Pulcinella Awards". It should probably be reworded to something like "each episode had more than a million viewers"

Reworded to "Each episode of Season One attracted more than a million viewers each time the network aired a new episode.Season One won "Best TV Series" and "Best Animated Television Series" in the boys 9-14 year old [[demographic]] at the 2005 Pulcinella Awards, which gives awards for excellence in animation.<ref name="Pulcinella" />" NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Season One (Book One: Water) of Avatar: The Last Airbender, an American animated television series on Nickelodeon, began airing on February 21, 2005, and ended on December 2, 2005, with twenty episodes aired." How about: "Season One (Book One: Water) of Avatar: The Last Airbender, an American animated television series on Nickelodeon, aired 20 episodes from February 21, 2005 to December 2, 2005."

I like it. (yours, not the one that was in the article) *SIGN* 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The series was created by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko[3]" Inline citation needs to be outside punctuation.

 Done *SIGN* 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The season focuses on the protagonist, Aang, and his friends Katara and Sokka as they journey to the North Pole, attempting to find a Waterbending master to teach Aang and Katara." Delete the comma as well.

 Done Makes sense, especially seeing the contention over it.*SIGN* 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "boys 9-14 year old" En dash instead of hyphen.

 Done *SIGN* 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Zach Tyler Eisen and Mae Whitman provided the voices of protagonists Aang and Katara, while Jack DeSena was Sokka's voice." "while"-->and, it is additive information.

What about "with"? *SIGN* 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How would that work? Write how you would phrase the sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Zach Tyler Eisen and Mae Whitman provided the voices of protagonists Aang and Katara, with Jack DeSena as Sokka's voice." Or something very similar. *SIGN* 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Dante Basco and Mako starred as antagonists Zuko and Iroh,[3] though their role in the show would begin to change near the end of the season."

 Done *SIGN* 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• "9–14-year old" Why does this instance have a hyphen but the previous example of this phrase didn't?

Dunno, which is the correct one? *SIGN* 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Will look this up tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, use the hyphenated version.

Don't they both have hyphens? *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the one above this. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• "as well as attracting many age and gender grops in its pool of 1.1 million viewers who watch each new episode.-->and has attracted many age and gender groups in its pool of 1.1 million viewers of each new episode.

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "a race of people that were believed to have been deceased for 100 years." For 100 years or 100 years ago?

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, Zuko, banished Prince of the Fire Nation," Needs a the before "banished".

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "is patrolling the seas looking for the Avatar"-->is patrolling the seas in search of the Avatar.

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "who ban any sort of Earthbending"-->which bans any sort of Earthbending.

Isn't "who" the proper term here? Because people banned earthbending... *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Fire Nation" is not a person. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Aang has to travel to the Fire Temple in order to receive the message from Avatar Roku on the Winter Solstice.

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "When Aang leaves the sanctuary, he is attacked by Zhao and the Sages, who are all defeated when Aang manifests the spirit of Roku, who destroys the temple." Repetition of "who".

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Aang sets off to a nearby herbalist institute in hopes of finding a cure for his friends." "sets off"-->goes.

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Katara, Aang and Sokka to go into a village who relies solely on the predictions of a fortuneteller."-->Katara, Aang and Sokka go into a village that relies solely on the predictions of a fortuneteller.

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Sokka, Aang and Katara locate a seemingly abandoned Water Tribe fleet ship" locate-->find.

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The protagnonists travel into a Fire Nation town which is hosting a festival of Fire Nation culture. " Comma after town.

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "More importantly, he is a firebending master not with the Firelord." Means?

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "A storyteller tells the gang of "air walkers" at the Northern Air Temple." Tells what?

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Unfortunately, the Fire Nation manages to recover the invention, a war balloon." "Unfortunately"-->However.

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "After the journey to the Northern Air Temple, the group lurk"—lurks.

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Each DVD, with only one exception"

 Done *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In the United States, all Season One DVDs were encoded using NTSC. Since this is not compatible in most countries outside North America, Nickelodeon had a separate release for each DVD, where the video would be encoded using PAL instead. These releases began on February 19, 2007, with each DVD release occurring months after the original release. As with the original DVDs, each set contained four episodes on one disc, with the exception would be The Complete Book One Collection Box Set, which contained all of the twenty episodes in the season on five discs." Rewrite:

In the United States, all Season One DVDs were encoded using the NTSC (film?) standard. Since this standard is not compatible in most countries outside North America, Nickelodeon released separate DVDs in regions where the video would be encoded using PAL instead. These releases began on February 19, 2007; each DVD release occurred months after the original release. As with the original DVDs, each set contained four episodes on one disc, except for The Complete Book One Collection Box Set, which contained all of the twenty episodes in the season on five discs.

NTSC is not standard. I have incorporated the other changes though. *SIGN* 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:58, 20 October 2008 [35].

---

Tampa Bay Rays seasons

I based the format of the article off of Boston Red Sox seasons which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good, but would it not be better to have a general reference for the season statistics. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Fully support the avoidance of concealed year-in-X links—excellent. But why not exclude "the" from the blue? Also, "the 1998 baseball season" halfway through made me wonder whether the previous ones weren't baseball seasons. I'd remove "baseball" as assumed by now. If I were the nominator, I'd link only the first "year-season", which happens to be 1998, and let it stand out as the gateway into all of its siblings. That way, the lead would be less of a sea of blue. The third alternative would be one that is currently under discussion at MOSNUM: not linking these at all in the main text, but listing them in a "See also" section, where they're nicely centralised and prominent. I see an autoformatted date; these are deprecated now. Tony (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RyanCross

Comments from RyanCross:

• Link MLB.com in reference #1.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question: Why is the publisher for reference 4 italicized while the publisher for reference 6 is not? They are the both from the same publisher anyway (Baseball-Reference).

Re-formatted all references to be italicized and linked. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

– RyanCross (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More...

• Delink publishers in references 2, 3, 5, and 6 – no need to overlink reference publishers. linking only once when the word is mentioned is enough.

– RyanCross (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support – Looks like it meets featured list criteria from here. Well done, – RyanCross (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:58, 20 October 2008 [36].

---

List of American Idol finalists

I feel that this list meets the Featured list criteria. It is fully sourced and has gone through three copy-edits. Of course things may have been missed, so any concerns will be addressed.

This FLC is a part of the Featured list contest. iMatthew (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SrX

Comments

• During every season of American Idol, the final round of competition features twelve singers.1 The American talent reality television series first aired in 2002, and as of December 2008, there have been seven seasons. - to follow the flow of other FL leads, it would be better to state these 2 sentences in a different way such as American Idol is an American talent reality television series that first aired in 2002, and as of December 2008, there have been seven seasons. During each season, the final round of competition features twelve singers, the finalists. Also, why is it December 2008?
• Overall, Carrie Underwood, season four winner, holds the record for the biggest-selling American Idol album, as more than six million copies were sold in the United States.[1] - this sentence just stands out, you say overall like if you already stated other album sales.
• Runner up should have a dash.
• In the pre FLC review you told me that the notes couldn't go vice versa, if you use {{ref}} and {{note}} it is possible, just saying.

--S_RX 20:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

All are done. iMatthew (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I was waiting for you to contact me to revisit here, but I guess you didn't want my vote, after the resolved concerns, it meets WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 20:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Is http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/realityrocks/13980/irish-idol-smithsons-secret-past a reliable source?
• Sources look good otherwise. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Source replaced. iMatthew (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Suppport - With all of SRX's comments addressed, I see no reason why this shouldn't be a Featured list. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • You should wikilink all the hometowns to their original articles.

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't they already? iMatthew (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just click on them, I'll see that they are redirects. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 18:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. iMatthew (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• A total of 106 contestants have made it to the top twelve (or ten) of their seasons. "Made it" → "reached".
• In the second season, finalist Corey Clark was disqualified after it was revealed that he had been arrested during the competition after he was charged with resisting arrest, battery upon his sister, and criminal restraint. Avoid using "after" twice in that sentence.
• Smithson remained on the show, and was placed sixth in her season. Remove "was".

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. iMatthew (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mr.crabby

• Comments
• Maybe you should clarify what state Camile Velasco lives in.
• Brooklyn, NY Any reason this is abbreviated, but no other states are?
• Albemarie, North Carolina, as a native North Carolianian, I can confirm that it is actually spelled Albemarle, North Carolina
• Why aren't town such as Albemarle, North Carolina; East Amherst, New York; Haiku, Maui; and Town & Country, Missouri linked?

--Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• All are done. iMatthew (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - my issues have been resolved and article now seems to meat FL criteria. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose reluctantly for now Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the empty External links section; however, on second thought, I think you should re-add it, with a link to the season's webpage; if there isn't one dedicated to the season, then link to American Idol's website.
• "series first aired in 2002" – "series that first aired in 2002" – otherwise, the tense just jumps from present to past
• "2002, and as" – "2002. As"
• Sort the names by last name first; use {{sortname}}
• "the final round of competition featured twelve singers" – "the final round of competition features twelve singers" – since the show is still running
• "top twelve (or ten) of" – should be explained that some seasons have had top tens before this is mentioned
  • See the first footnote in the sentence before that.
    • Should be in the prose though; it can't be assumed that the reader will click on the footnote. At the worse case, it could be in brackets. Gary King (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Finalists for the show have never been younger than 16 years of age, or older than 29 years of age." – isn't this because they have rules that don't allow people outside of those ages to enter the competition? Should be mentioned
• There's a few more of these types of problems throughout the article. Ping me when they're done. Cheers!

Gary King (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Finalists for the show have never been younger than 16 years of age, or older than 29 years of age, as that is the show's age requirements." – rewrite as something like "16 to 29 is the show's age requirements"; that's the only point it needs to get across. People will infer from that that finalists can't be outside of those ages."biggest-selling " – "higehst-selling "; biggest and best aren't really comparable adjectives
• "as more " – "with more "
• "During season five, voters claimed that phone calls dialed for Chris Daughtry during the first few minutes of voting were misrouted to Katharine McPhee's lines, when they heard her recorded message thanking them for voting for McPhee." – why's this first in the paragraph if it's season five info?

Gary King (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done with everything. iMatthew (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Can you help me with your statement in lead which says: " The album sold 378 copies, and is now available on iTunes.[4]"? Your ref [4] seems to say " " the CD sold fewer than 400 copies in its first three months of release" which isn't quite what your statement says, nor does it mention iTunes...
• Why isn't MCA records linked?
• " the top twelve (or ten) of their seasons" - why not just "the final of their seasons" - or better? right now it reads awkwardly.
• "ages of 16 and 29 years of age" - age x 2
• "he had been arrested during the competition after he was charged" this sentence reads clumsily.
• "The age with the most contestants is 24, including no winners, and one runner-up." - this is awful - a trivial statement and "including no winners" - poor.
• Consistent linking of seasons in captions should be considered.
  • It isn't already? iMatthew (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No. Check the lead image caption. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Contestant's age at the time the season was filmed" - was the season filmed on one day? Are you sure none of the 106 had a birthday during the season? Just need to be more precise.
• Just one contestant without an article? Seems a shame...
  • What should I do about that? Create the article? iMatthew (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Why not?The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns. iMatthew (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I got the image concern - and I'll try to get article going tonight, maybe expand it some and grab a DYK?;) Is that all? iMatthew (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:58, 20 October 2008 [37].

---

List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers

I have nominated the list as part of an expansion of other comparable lists. This one offers additional information about the reason that so few home games were played on Opening Day and other historical facts, along with an assortment of relevant images. Alansohn (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SrX

Comments

• Liván Hernández has the worst winning percentage as the Opening Day starting pitcher with a record of 0–3, all of which were pitched on the road. - worst is not adhering to a NPOV.
• 1981 Opening Day pitcher Steve Rogers, facing Phillies ace Steve Carlton, won the first game of the series by a score of 3&nash;1. - 1)facing' -->(should be) faced (for past tense) 2)typo in the em/endash.
• The score should be in a {{sort}} template.
• Why does one of the scores have {10 innings)?
• Which source is verifying the attendance?

--S_RX 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Liván Hernández has the worst" -- Done, changed to "lowest"
• "1981 Opening Day pitcher Steve Rogers, facing" -- Done, 1) changed to "faced", other cleanup in tense, 2) nash fixed to ndash
• Why does one of the scores have {10 innings)? -- Reply, three of the games went into extra innings
• Which source is verifying the attendance? -- Reply, the second source in each entry, provides the game details, including stadium and attendance.
• The score should be in a {{sort}} template. -- Done Sort can be done based on number of runs scored by Expos/Senators. Alansohn (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - resolved comments to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 22:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RyanCross

Comments from RyanCross:

• Consider making ref 1 just a general reference. - Done
• You probably don't need to link all Baseball-Reference and The New York Times words. Linking it the first time it is mentioned once is fine. - Reply my understanding per WP:REF is that the links to Baseball-Reference and The New York Times are appropriate, especially as rearranging portions of the article can change which appears first. I will be happy to make the change if this is what needs to be doen/

• Very well then. I was only using the idea from List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers, a current FL. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid small fonts – no need - Done

– RyanCross (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good now. Thank you for your contributions, – RyanCross (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It looks great. Only comment is that I think it would look better with the "Decision" column and probably the "Score" column centered. Rlendog (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done both columns have been centered. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - Excellent job! Rlendog (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from K.Annoyomous

Comments I think you should note how to put the scores, since some readers will think that the away team goes first and the Nationals goes first. I think you should mention which ones are the home Opening Day games and also with the away games. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Done: 1) Key modified to explain that Expos/Nationals score is always listed first 2) Home stadium is listed in bold. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)}} Support Excellent job on this article! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 03:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Liván Hernández only had a 0-2 record since one of them was a no decision, even though they lost. --Patrick (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done thanks for the catch of my error. This has been corrected. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC) {{Hidden|titlestyle = background-color: #E0FFFF;|contentstyle = border:1px #4682B4 solid;padding:10px;|header=Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)|content=Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• In the 1981 row, you forgot to add asterisks as specified in the key. - Done
• First image caption: "Liván Hernández, one of three pitchers to start on Opening Day three times. Started Opening Day 2004-2006."-->Liván Hernández, one of three pitchers to start on Opening Day three times. He started Opening Day from 2004 to 2006. - Done
• Last image caption: "Odalis Pérez, the 2008 Opening Day starter in the team's first game at Nationals Park, their current stadium." Should not have a period. - Done
• Year ranges should not have en dashes when preceded by "from":
  • "from 1969–1976"-->from 1969 to 1976 - Done
  • "from 1977–2004"-->from 1977 to 2004 - Done
  • "from 2005–2007"-->from 2005 to 2007 - Done
• "Olympic Stadium, their home from 1977–2004 hosted six Opening Day games, with five different Expos starters accumulating a record of 0–3 (and three no-decisions)."-->Olympic Stadium, their home from 1977 to 2004, hosted six Opening Day games; five different Expos starters accumulated a record of 0–3 (and three no-decisions). - Done
• "The team was known as the Montreal Expos for 1969 to 2004." "for"-->from. - Done
• Overlinking of "No decision". - Done second reference was unlinked
• "1981 Opening Day pitcher Steve Rogers, faced Phillies ace Steve Carlton, and won the first game of the series by a score of 3–1." Add "In" before "1981", delete the comma after "Rogers", add "the" before "Opening". - Done
• More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've taken care of the first wave. Thanks for the updates and improvements. Let me know if there are any other suggestions or questions I can address. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Until 1988, early season cold weather kept the Expos on the road for their first 19 Opening Day games, when the availability of Olympic Stadium and its retractable roof allowed Dennis Martínez to become the starting pitcher of the team's first opening day home game."-->For their first 19 Opening Day games, early season cold weather kept the Expos on the road. In 1988, the availability of Olympic Stadium and its retractable roof allowed the team to have its first Opening Day home game, in which Dennis Martínez was the starting pitcher. - Done
• "The team won the NL Division Series to become Eastern Division champions, winning three games to two over Philadelphia Phillies, who had been the first-half champion, with a 34–21 record."-->The team won the NL Division Series three games to two over the Philadelphia Phillies, the first-half champion(s?), to become Eastern Division champions, with a 34–21 record. Who had the 34–21 record? - Done removed the two extraneous commas after Phillies to clarify that they won the first-half and what their record was in the first half of that season.
• "As the Washington Nationals, the team played their home games at Robert F. Kennedy Stadium from 2005 to 2007, with their only home opener there a 9–2 loss in 2007 by starter John Patterson."-->As the Washington Nationals, the team played their home games at Robert F. Kennedy Stadium from 2005 to 2007; their only home opener there was a 9–2 loss in 2007 by starter John Patterson. - Done
• In the table, there are links that go to the individual season pages, but look like solitary year links. Could you add a note in the key, like List of Nashville Sounds managers? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC) - Done

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 17:27, 18 October 2008 [38].

---

List of New Zealand Land Wars Victoria Cross recipients

Hello, another Victoria Cross recipient list for your perusal. I think this meets all the criteria and follows in the wake of List of Zulu War Victoria Cross recipients. The New Zealand Land Wars is the name for a number of conflicts that occured in 1850–1870. So, here we go again, thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - although shorter than some of the other ones, it looks just as well formatted as the previous who-knows-how-many featured lists Woody has put together. Cam (Chat) 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry, WWI is 625 recipients, so will be considerably longer! ;) Thanks for the review. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - a well constructed and comprehensive list the meets the criteria. Although, would it be possible to increase the size of the memorial image? It just seems a little small. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done, the MOS actuall prescribes a lead image of 300px for portrait images. As this was landscape, I have reduced it slightly. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, nice work.-gadfium 05:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ref fix. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - The first paragraph is a little choppy, everything else looks great. I love the abiloity to reorganise by your preferred field. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support at least the List of Iraq War Victoria Cross recipients will be easier Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support but a few things you could sort for me to scratch out that weak...

• Is it "New Zealand Land Wars" or "New Zealand land wars"? I'm guessing the latter - so this list probably needs renaming.
• Maori or Māori?
• ISO date in ref 3 ought to be human-readable...

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Arthur book, it is all a proper noun so "New Zealand Land Wars" in the same vein as World War Two. When it is on its own, so "... the land wars were fought ..." is uncapitalised. I used what the book used (though initially it lists them by individual conflict.) I have done the other ones, it should be Māori by the way. Thanks for the review. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

Two suggestions:

• I don't think the sortability of the "Unit" column is useful. It's pretty much free text, and who's to say that Infantry comes before ship names?
• If it were me, I'd put the image of the medal somewhere other than next to the table, for two reasons:
  1. The article is sort of *about* the medal, so it should be more prominent
  2. The width of the table is shortened, making the "Campaign" column wrap. It's just a visual thing. (I realize that this is simply on my screen, and knowing that everyone's screens are different.)
• Other than that, everything looks very good - nice work. I Conditionally Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorting by unit is used on the other VC lists which have already made it to FL. Woody's been careful to entitle units in the same way, so it does mean you can quickly see how many people from a given unit received the medal in this campaign. THis is a relatively short list, but for consistency across the lists it seem sworth keeping. David Underdown (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said...! I have removed the image of the medal now as I don't want it to wrap, there is a large amount of whitespace on my browser which is why I didn't think it would be a problem. I don't want to remove the unit sortability because of the consistency element. This is universal across all lists and I think that some people want to see it by unit. It is an area of study. If you prefer, I can fix it to go by seniority of regiment/ships, but that would be a pain and confusing to some people. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support; you could perhaps re-add the image of the VC to the lead section on the LH side before the bottom paragraph. Bencherlite^Talk 19:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks to be a good FLC, Woody. Can't see anything wrong with it. Keep up the good work! Skinny87 (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Originally the VC was not available to colonial troops, even if under British command; this was changed in 1867." Comma after "Originally".
• "The extension was made following a recommendation for gallantry regarding colonial soldier Major Charles Heaphy for action in the New Zealand Land Wars in 1864.[5] He was operating under British command and the VC was gazetted in 1867." What exactly did the major do that influenced the decision to gazette the VC?
• "the British Army attacked on 17 March 1860 starting the First Taranaki War" Comma after "1860"."
• "After a series of sieges by the British, a truce was signed with the Māori people in March 1861 where the disputed land became British-owned territory but it remained in possession of the Māori people."-->After a series of sieges by the British, a truce was signed with the Māori people in March 1861; the disputed land became British-owned territory but it remained in possession of the Māori people. Alternatively, you could replace the semicolon with "in which".
• "In July 1863 the British Army and the Auckland Militia launched the Invasion of Waikato against the forces of Tāwhiao and the Māori King Movement." Comma after "1863".
• "swiftly moving South" Why is "South" capitalized?
• "The British pursued him across the country as far as the fourth Waikato defensive line which later became the border of King Country." Comma after "line".
• I would put the general references before the specific refs.
• In ref 6, is "230–236" the page range? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 17:27, 18 October 2008 [39].

---

List of UEFA club competition winners

This list is an overview of the various UEFA lists that I have contributed to over the past month and a bit. I'm hoping this list will eventually become a featured topic, as this list is the umbrella to the other sub articles. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the article says Juventus received a special plaque in 1987 to commemorate having won all the trophies covered, but they didn't win the Intertoto Cup until 1999 according to that article....!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I think I have clarified this now NapHit (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still reads as if the plaque was given to Juventus in recognition of winning all four trophies, which isn't correct as they'd not won the UIC at that time.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

At this time Juventus had won the European Cup, UEFA cup, Cup Winners' Cup and Super Cup, and I make it clear that the Intertoto Cup did not come under UEFA jurisdiction until 1995, so I think it might need a slight rewording NapHit (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've reworded it a little bit, is it any better? NapHit (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I still didn't like it. I've now reworded it myself and feel it is now a lot clearer. One other point - in the "by club" table, surely the first column should be the club, not its nationality......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, rectified this now NapHit (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think "...UEFA trophy club winners" would sound way less confusing. Nergaal (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not confusing at all, it is also in line with List of UEFA club competition winning managers, so I think it should remain. NapHit (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

in this format it IS confusing because one may read "(UEFA club) winners" rather than "UEFA (club winners)" Nergaal (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference which way they read it, most people will understand what the title means, and trophy should not be used as they are competitions not just trophies. NapHit (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I've tried to give the article as much TLC as I can, and I'm almost ready to Support its promotion to FL status. However, I do believe that the tables themselves could do with a bit more of a prose description. I realise that you've described the content of the tables in the lead, but more prose would be necessary for me to support this FLC. – PeeJay 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Added some prose albeit not much, but I think it's satisfactory NapHit (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, what I meant was that you should do a summary of the table, not just say what it is. For example, point out the nations/clubs that have won the most titles in each competition. Needs more IMO. – PeeJay 19:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Added some prose know I think it is satisfactory NapHit (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I've fixed the grammar and punctuation a bit, as they were a little shoddy, but I think the list is now in a state where I can Support its promotion to FL status. – PeeJay 17:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The UEFA is not human; it is an organization. Refer to it as "it", not "they". Same with the teams. I am opposing for now because this list is at the very bottom of FLC so a decision needs to be made; I will revisit my comment when this issue has been resolved. Gary King (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've changed "they" to "it" and written UEFA out in full on its first use. Thanks for the comments NapHit (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Found a few more. Gary King (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of changing a couple of those changes back. The organisation is never ever referred to as "the UEFA". That would be like referring to "the NASA" or "the UNESCO" and simply doesn't happen -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• Take out the 75% width for the first table and the 50% for the second. The Netherlands keeps wrapping, and specifying the width isn't really necessary.
• Make the "Specific" references just one column? Since there are only two refs, it looks a bit strange.
• I Conditionally Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've addressed your comments, Cheers NapHit (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks great, good work. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:07, 14 October 2008 [40].

---

List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka

I have been improving this list in the past few days, and trying to meet up with the criteria. I think I have met the requirements now (hopefully). This is my first nom, so any advice, comments for improvement will be welcome. Chamal ^Talk ± 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.island.lk/2000/10/21/featur01.html

    A better reference is already there for this, but I've left this one as a 'secondary' source.

  • http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/sirjohn.html

    Added new reference http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CK17Df01.html for this part of the article.

  • http://countrystudies.us/

    Replaced with http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,894341,00.html?promoid=googlep

  • http://www.lankalibrary.com/

    Replaced with http://www.uklankatimes.net/Insidepages/OpenFile/OpenFile.aspx?SID=1

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my replies to two of the refs. I could not find better references for the other two, but those parts in the article are covered by the three general references. Should I add one of them to the article as an inline reference? And should the other two that now have better sources be removed, or is it OK to keep them as well? Chamal ^Talk ± 11:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally would remove the two unneeded ones, as having unreliable sources doesn't really help much. It's up to you about the other two, if you really think that the information is so contentious that the general reference won't prevent questions, then yes, otherwise no need. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The three replaced refs have been removed. Chamal ^Talk ± 13:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done All unreliable sources have now been replaced. Chamal ^Talk ± 05:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good list. :) --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• SupportLooks good.--LAAFan^sign _review 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good, but can you change the publishers in the references from web addresses to publisher names; for instance www.thehistorychannel.co.uk. to The History Channel. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

   Done, except for history.com, which is generally known as "history.com" and that's the way it appears on the website too. Thanks. Chamal ^talk _work 02:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• No "This is a list of" stuff please. Also, remove bold or link per WP:BOLDTITLE.

  Corrected. Boldface removed. Can you tell me if the current version is OK?

• "(1947 - 1972)" and other date ranges need an en dash (–) per WP:DASH.

  Done. There was only one occurrence. Thanks. Chamal ^talk _work 03:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also in the section titles. Gary King (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry. It's fixed now. Chamal ^talk _work 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done All suggested correction have been made. Chamal ^talk _work 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 02:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I think more or less is a colloquial term and should be removed.

    Done.

  • In the "dates" columns you're using the US format "March 6, 1989", but in the "notes" column you're using the other format " 28 March 1990". I don't care which one you pick, but you can't use both.

    Fixed. Notes changed to first format.

  • In the references, some dates are linked and some are not. Could you fix that, too, please?

    Fixed. All dates are now linked.

  • Mentioning that a reference is in English is a little redundant, isn't it? I mean we all expect them to be in English.

    Well, {{Cite web}} has a field "language", so I used it. But you're right, the documentation says not to specify "english". I've removed it.

--Crzycheetah 04:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and fixes, Crzycheetah. Chamal ^talk _work 12:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • You should list the reporters under the "author" field of the {{Cite web}} instead of the "work" field. Other than that, this list is a high quality list that should be featured.--Crzycheetah 02:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

     Done. Thanks again. Chamal ^talk _work 07:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:07, 14 October 2008 [41].

---

List of anthems by country

previous FLC (18:30, 9 July 2008)

I've been working on this on and off for six months. It has been through two FLCs, and I think it's ready now. Gary King (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.national-anthems.org/origins.htm a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Replace with an NPR link. Gary King (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge

Comments

• "Near the end of the century, the ... , written in 1792 and adopted in 1795" - near the end of the century seems redundant with the dates there.
• I am sure you have considered this but is it not worth noting the exclusions of Scotland, N Ireland, Wales as by definition they are I believe countries (see constituent country)
• Being picky I believe the UK national anthem is "God Save the King" regardless of the monarchs gender, it is just the words that are replaced - [42] (this might cause more trouble than it's worth though)
• Lebanon's date "1927" doesn't sort properly.
  • Fixed. Eklipse (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Might be worth linking Czechoslovakia in the Czech Rep. year notes
• Czech anthem links [[Kde domov můj|Kde domov můj?]] which redirects to [[Kde domov můj?]] - remove piping
• The Slovakian national anthem was originally the "second strophe" of the Czechoslovakia anthm (see Kde domov můj?) whereas the Czech Republic anthem was the "first strophe" of it. It seems inconsistent to note the founding date of Czech Rep. anthem to Czechoslovakia but not Slovakia's.
• Thailands royal anthem is listed in the table with a civil one. Is neither/both of these the national anthem?
  • The royal anthem should be noted in the notes thought as this currently isn't a "List of national anthems by country". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Solomon Islands has [note 1] but nothing in note 1 about it.
  • Not what I meant - I mean Solomon Islands should be added to the list as part of note 1, as "God save..." is their royal anthem. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. Countries used are listed at list of countries as the box at the top of the table says. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The box at the top fails WP:Selfref and it's worth keeping an eye on the fact that it is also currently a TfD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (for now)

• With the removal of {{About lists of countries and territories}} per my previous comments, the essential content of what was in the box needs to be added to the list as prose (as suggested at its TfD).

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrt that added summary

• "Depenedent territories"? - this list doesn't include Puerto Rico, Faroe Islands etc.
• "Independent states? - this list doesn't include Abkhazia, South Ossetia etc.

I'm afraid that latest addition isn't enough, you'll need to be more precise about the criteria of inclusion for the list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you check the latest version that sources the United States government? Gary King (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest to use the list of UN members which would include all the states widely recognised excluding Taiwan and Vatican. Nergaal (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with a final comment

• São Tomé and Príncipe should sort as Sa... but currently it comes after Sy... when sorting by name.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Gary King (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Many countries have anthems, defined as "a song, as of praise, devotion, or patriotism";[1] most anthems are either marches or hymns in style many and most are very vague. Please use a more precise term (i.e. over half, over 60%, etc.)
• A hymn can become a country's national anthem by a provision in the country's constitution, by a law enacted by its legislature, or simply by tradition perhaps give an example for each case?
• Some countries also use the royal anthem as the national anthem please give some kind of figure, or an example at least.
• the historic paragraph describes only 3 cases, without making the reader why are the UK and the French examples relevant. What about outside Europe? When did countries start having hymns from when they got independence? (i.e. when did it became truly a common practice?)
• The multilingual country of Spain has no words in its anthem => I am not sure multilingual is the best possible word & has no words officially
• Why is the image chosen for that of Hungary? There is no access to the Dutch one?
• What about the usual length of the anthems? (timewise)
• Is it possible to put the exact references used somewhere in the article? perhaps right after [13] or after "National anthem"

Nergaal (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. I've switched to the UN. Instead of "many" I've used "most"; I don't want to get much more specific than that so that a dispute won't flare up. It's accurate as it stands now. I've given the anthem of Jordan as one that is used both as a national and a royal anthem. There is sheet music for the Dutch anthem online but I'm uncertain about how the copyright works on those, so I'm sticking to what I can find on the Commons. Length? Sources will definitely disagree with each other on that, if I can even find any. I think the three general references are sufficient; they cover the entire table. The information is from them, and the information found in each one backs up the other. Gary King (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• What is the difference between List of anthems by country and List of national anthems?
• "The oldest national anthem is the Dutch national anthem "Het Wilhelmus", written some time between 1568 and 1572."
• "Anthems became increasingly popular among Europe countries in the 18th century." European countries, right?
• "For example, India's anthem "Jana Gana Mana" is written in a Sanskritized version of Bengali, both official languages of India." Add which are before both.
• "Countries with more than one national language"-->Countries with multiple national languages...
• "On the other hand, South Africa's national anthem is unique in that five of the eleven official languages are used in the same anthem, with each language comprising a stanza." How does this example contrast with the previous? No with + -ing construction please.
• "The multilingual country of Spain has no official lyrics for its anthem 'La Marcha Real'." So the anthem is instrumental, correct?
• "A national competition to write words for the anthem was launched in 2007; however, widespread public criticism forced the new lyrics to be withdrawn in January 2008." This information seems kind of trivial.
• Why is national flag in the See also section? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. List of anthems by country is for countries; List of national anthems has a definition in the article written as "A Nation can be a country (including countries that are part of larger countries), a nation state, a people, or an area with a self-identifying populace who regard themselves as a nation." Gary King (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:07, 14 October 2008 [43].

---

List of universities in Ontario

Gary King (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary, if you wouldn't mind, could you please hold off on nominating any more of these university lists until after the BC one finishes? It's a test case, so you really should have waited for it to finish, otherwise you could have the same problems in three different FLCs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my last university one for the time being. I've just been working and submitting the ones that I've been working on for months and finally got around to finishing them. Gary King (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of image problems: in the table, the use of three thumbs is gratuitous and seems like cherry-picking. First, why these, given that they are not noted as iconic or examplar for the topic or the "most something" in some category? It's especially problematic for stability since some schools seem bent on boosterism and try to add lots of their own pix to these types of pages. Worse, these thumbs cause the whole section to render poorly if one isn't using "state of the art screen width and normal font-size". MOS:IMAGES and its linked pages explicitly advise against stacking of images. If a bunch of images is desired here, a gallery would give a clean layout of them. MOS advises to edit for accessibility rather than perfect layout for "some standard type of display". But really, what do they add to this section? While we're talking about images, why is the map, that supplies some useful information about the topic, relegated to the end, and instead the lead thumb is another cherry-picked example of one specific list entry? DMacks (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have responded at User_talk:DMacks#List_of_universities_in_Ontario since this discussion affects more than just one FLC. Gary King (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Can we spell out less common abbreviations in the footnotes? Or at least explain it better at the first occurance? Like this: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC)?
• http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bios/02/history11.htm deadlinks

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The first reference already spelt out the acronym, but I've added (AUCC) after it to make it clear that that's the acronym for it. I removed the dead link. Gary King (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is Waterloo listed with multiple campuses but not Laurier? It has a campus in Kitchener, as well as Laurier Brantford. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Added Gary King (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than having the locations of Guelph, Waterloo and Laurier below, I suggest you add them to the table. List the main location first, then use the <br> thingy to list them below. Then you will be able to sort by them, but it won't make the table too wide. Also, a map that shows the locations of the Universities would be very useful. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the main campus in the table and moved the rest to the note; I think that's a reasonable compromise? Gary King (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. What about a map? It would be really great if you could do one like this -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Matthew for help; I think it's his specialty? It certainly isn't mine. Gary King (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It'll be done in a day or so Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Heh, it may take a little longer than this, it's not the image mapping I'm used to. I'm going to have to render an .svg map of Ontario, make some little dots, stick them all in the right place, and then do the mapping. This is my first time working with .svg's, so bear with me. I will try to do it, but you might be better off asking someone who's previously done an .svg map with locators. -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made the map, working on the location markers now. Not as hard as I thought, but Inkscape is taking time to understand! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 14:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well take your time. There's no rush; this FLC will be here for at least a week I'm sure :) Anyways, which image type do you usually use? I thought SVG was the easiest because of its flexibility. Gary King (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo image mapping, as seen in List of tallest buildings in Atlanta etc. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any preference to what colour and shape markers are used? I was going to use one of the ones from NFL#Current NFL teams, which I can make any colour, but if you want triangles, stars or whatever, I can do that too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

← Doesn't matter Gary King (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well according to National symbols of Canada This is Canada's colour, so I'll go with circles in that shade. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nearly finished. Do you want me to include placemarks for satellite campuses, such as the other four of Guelph, U of T's Mississauga and Scarborough campuses, Lakehead's Orillia, etc, or stick to just the main ones? It's just that for Toronto, for example, it'll end up having six markers, and it's looking a bit ugly. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Then let's try with only the main campuses and see how that goes. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright all done here: {{Ontario universities map}} thanks to Matthew! He's done an awesome job with it. In hindsight, Ontario is probably not the best province for this as most of the universities are indeed crammed together in the southern parts of the province :) I have added it to the article now. Gary King (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. Great job Matthew. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• One request - change the key to read "Undergraduate enrollment", "Postgraduate enrollment", and "Total enrollment". You know what those are, but coming in to it cold, it's not necessarily apparent.

Otherwise this looks really good. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The 3 images in the Universities section need periods at the end of their captions—they are complete sentences.
• "The oldest university, the University of Toronto, was established in 1827, and the newest university, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, was established in 2002." Needs a source.
• "Founded in 1827, the University of Toronto is one of the oldest Canadian universities." Repetition.
• "The largest university in terms of enrollment is the University of Toronto, composed of campuses in three locations"—"composed"-->which has.
• "Five of these universities have campuses in Toronto, the most populated city in the province and the province's capital city"—Repetition of "province".
• Why does this article need these See also links: List of Ontario students' associations, Ontario Student Assistance Program, and Ontario Universities' Application Centre?
• "Guelph & four locations" Shouldn't this be: "Guelph & four other locations"?

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. I'm keeping "List of student associations" link since it's a list and it's related. I want to keep the table concise so I don't want to include the "other" otherwise the column will stretch. The same point is still made, in that each & represents another location. Facts that are mentioned in the lead and are already referenced in the table don't need to be referenced again as they are just summarizing the information found in the table. Gary King (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I still can't find a source that says U of Toronto is the oldest university in Ontario. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you sort the Established column you will see that this is true. Gary King (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Stupid me. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:07, 14 October 2008 [44].

---

Timeline of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season

Here's another one. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• See also goes before References, WP:LAYOUT

Gary King (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "2006 Pacific hurricane season" should not be bolded in the lead because that's not the subject. The subject is: "Timeline of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season".
• "After no storms formed in June, the season became active in July when five named storms developed, including Hurricane Daniel which was the second strongest storm of the season." Not sure, but it sounds like there should be a comma after "Daniel".
• "Three storms developed in October and two formed in November; this marked the first time on record when more than one tropical storm developed in the basin during the month of November." Source?
• July 13 bullet seems to have rogue formatting.
• July 15 – "Hurricane Carlotta is weakens into a tropical storm again." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• (Whaps Julian) Spell out NOAA in those two first appearances?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I must have missed those two; fixed. Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, though I disagree with Dabomb; the hurricane season is the subject, so it should be bolded IMO. --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• I agree with Golbez that "2006 Pacific hurricane season" should be bolded.
• There are several overlinks - Acapulco is linked four times, Zihuatanejo twice, Cabo San Lucas three times, Manzanillo five times, Baja California twice, Baja California Peninsula twice, Central Pacific Hurricane Center twice.
• I don't know for sure, but if the list is in the Category:Meteorology timelines, it doesn't need to be in the Category:Timelines, does it?

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done with the last two. I'm not sure what to do about the bolding, though. ~`~~

Reply to Golbez and SatyrTN: MOS states that: "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface". "2006 Pacific hurricane season" is not the page title, in fact, that is the title of another article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The opening sentence is very clunky with the three "seasons". Why is there no link to 2006 Pacific hurricane season? What about "The 2006 Pacific hurricane season was the most active since the 2000 season," or something? Pacific hurricane is linked to from both those articles so it's not really necessary here
• Contradicting facts with "The season officially began on May 15, 2006," and "The season began on May 27"
• What does "These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year" mean?
• "the season became active in July" add an "again" maybe?
• "During August, Hurricanes Ioke and John formed, as well as four other storms." --> "Six storms formed during August, including Hurricanes Ioke and John."
• "September was a relatively quiet month", hmmm, not a fan of this
• Time for May 26 seems wonky. Surely 11am should be before 11pm?
• Wikipedia:MOS_(time)#Times says colons should separate hours and minutes for the 24-hour clock, and colons and minutes should also be there for the 12-hour clock.
  • Does this still have to be done when there are no minutes? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Provide links to specialist terms such as "Remnant low", "tropical depression", etc, on first usage

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done with most everything, though I'm a tad confused by one of your points. Thank for the comments, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies

• I'm pretty sure the minutes need adding even when it's on-the-hour. "11 p.m." read like something I would say in general conversation, but "11:00 p.m." reads like an encyclopedic entry. Colons still need adding for the 24 hour clock times, btw.
  • Done, hopefully correctly. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• I still don't understand "These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year". It's the "conventionally delimit" bit that confuses me.
  • Changed to "Typically limit". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Other stuff

• "The 2006 Pacific hurricane season was the most active since the 2000 season, which also produced 19 tropical storms or hurricanes." -- does this mean that both seasons had 19 tropical storms or hurricanes? Because 2000 Pacific hurricane season shows 21 storms, and 2006 Pacific hurricane season shows 26.
  • The 2000 PHS season had 21 tropical depressions, of which only 19 made it to tropical storm or hurricane status. Similarly, the 2006 PHS produced 26 depressions, but again, only 19 attained tropical storm status or higher. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• You should link to 2006 Pacific hurricane season somewhere.
  • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies are above. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why link PDT and UTC second time?
• You say the official season began but then in the list subdivide it into Eastern and Central official seasons... this is a touch confusing.
• 1295 needs a comma.
• "140°W boundary " unclear to a non-expert that you're referring to a line of longitude.
• 1575 needs a comma.
• And 1250. Loads more of these.
• " into a low." low what?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I got everything. Thanks for the review, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:50, 13 October 2008 [45].

---

List of Bleach episodes (season 8)

Nominating another episode list. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ugly signature :) Anyways, on to the review.

• Better? <_< — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The episodes [...] The episodes"

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "twenty-ninth through thirty-second" – I guess you like spelling out numbers, but I think this should be "29th through 32nd" at least; it's requires more effort to read numbers as words with hyphens, I think

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "in order to save" – "to save"

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "which is licensed" – "licensed"

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The English adaptation of the Bleach anime, which is licensed by Viz Media,[1] has yet to announce when the series will air. " – I don't think the English version announces when it will air. I think a television network or something does?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "to "Kansha."" – "to "Kansha"."

• It's the song title. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't taken a look at the prose for the episode summaries. That's way too much anime for me!

• Pff...this is nothing. Wait 'til I chuck episode lists with 51 summaries at you :p — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What about information on reception, release, etc.? Gary King (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Left to the main article for reception and all that. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Season 5 begins "The fifth season of the Bleach anime series is named the Bount Assault on Soul Society arc." but this one reverses the structure of the sentence with: "The Arrancar: The Fierce Fight arc is the eighth season of the Bleach anime series." Stick to one format for each and every season.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Again, please state which region or countries the DVDs were released in

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• perhaps say when Bleach: The DiamondDust Rebellion was released?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:50, 13 October 2008 [46].

---

The O.C. (season 3)

The next one in the series, which I now think meets FL criteria. It has recently undergone a peer review. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 56 (The OC Season 3 (Aus)) Is lacking a publisher.  Done 16:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Is there any way to reduce that wall of blue in the cast section?
  • ✗ Not done, I appreciate your concern, but I can't see any way round it. It is not uncommon in featured seasons and (someone correct me if I am wrong) I think this is allowed as it is essentially a list within prose really.
    • Yeah, I see what you mean. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• "The first half of the season averaged 6.3 million viewers, representing a substantial decrease in the shows popularity." Need a apostrophe in "show's".  Done
• "The third season was nominated for five Teen Choice Awards winning four of them," Inconsistent tense.  Done
• "a Julie Cooper in the making – returns home." Sorry if I missed something, but what does "a Julie Cooper in the making" mean?
  •  On hold - Julie Cooper is Kaitlin's mother (see==Cast==), and it just means she is very similar to her mother. It is also referenced by [4]. Sorry if this isn't what you meant, can you explain further. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you make this more reader-friendly? People like me who are unfamiliar with the series could be confused by that phrase. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done removed statement as is a bit of a peacock way to say caused trouble. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• "While Marissa does all she can to get to know her sister again, Kaitlin just stirs up trouble for the gang as she prepares to celebrate her birthday."  Done
• "Ryan makes a life-changing decision that Sandy surprisingly supports"—"surprisingly" according to whom?
  •  On hold I've tried to add context to make the suprise in understandable, but "suprisingly" is ref'd in the first general reference.
• "The season did, however, come in for some praise."-->The season did, however, recieve some praise.  Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate how you like to bold text, but I still think it makes more sense to remove the bold so that the text in "The third season of the television series The O.C." can be linked; it makes it easier when people want to find a link to The O.C., for instance. Makes more sense in my opinion.
  • ✗ Not done - for people wanting to find a link to the O.C. it is in the second sentence, I have also added a link to the infobox (a parameter I didn't know that existed)
• "a terrestrial" – is that really necessary? Would it be mistaken for a satellite television network? I don't think it would.
  • ✗ Not done, personally (not being from the U.S.) I have no idea which channels are terrestrial and which aren't, so I guess I can't be the only one.
    • This was my suggestion, from an old one by TRM on one of my TV lists to WP:PCR. It depends which country you're in whether or not you know, I suppose. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • My point was that it doesn't help the reader understand the article any more if "terrestrial" is there or not; but I guess it can be left there. Gary King (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• "however from January 12, 2006" – "however, from January 12, 2006 onwards," – or – "however, from January 12, 2006 until the end of the season"  Done
• "characters lives" – "characters' lives"  Done
• "of school." – "of high school." – I think?  Done, but final year of high school is also final year of school.
• "Creator Josh Schwartz" – "Series creator Josh Schwartz"  Done
• "said that he" – "said he"  Done
• "Creator Josh Schwartz said that he wanted to move the characters" – this whole thing makes it seem like Josh wanted to "move" the characters, as in, emotionally; use something more obvious, like "he wanted to change the show's location"  Done
• Use full names in the lead, at least for first occurrences, as audience is still unfamiliar with the characters  Done
• I have only gone through the first few sentences. With these issues and the ones brought up above, please copyedit the rest of the article and then let me know on my talk page when it's done.

Gary King (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• these are to give a bit more context; it's not as easy to understand the show if relationships are not laid out
• "Kirsten Cohen attends" – "Seth's mother Kirsten attends"  Done
• "while Sandy Cohen assumes" – "while her husband Sandy assumes"  Done
• Same as the above for the whole paragraph  Done, I think, added context for where Kaitlin returns from.
• I think that's the main problem; context. Leave out the details that don't help improve the reader's understanding of the situations in the story.  Done got rid of "a Julie Cooper in the making"
• "As well as being broadcast in the US, season three also aired in a number of other countries." – "Season three was broadcasted in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom." – sounds more straightforward to me
  •  Done, kinda, I changed the wording but didn't use what you suggested as it sounds like the broadcasting was limited to those four countries, whereas actually it has been syndicated in other countries.

Gary King (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Link terms in the lead, like character names, etc.
  •  Done, the ones I linked in the lead I unlinked in the cast section. I hope that's correct Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Disambiguate Johnny Messner and Tiki torch  Done

Gary King (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have nothing to add since I said it all at the peer review. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:50, 13 October 2008 [47].

---

List of Bleach episodes (season 5)

Nominating another episode list. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment The prose in the lead is good – I see you've taken my comments from the other list(s) and applied them here. I haven't taken a look at the prose for the episode summaries as I can only take so much anime reading. Gary King (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The opening and ending themes for episodes 106 to 109 use footage from the Bleach featured film, Bleach: Memories of Nobody, in order to promote the film."

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• Support. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Could you state what region the DVDs have been released in, or to what country(ies)?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is "TONIGHT, TONIGHT, TONIGHT" correct as all caps? Same for "MOVIN!!" (and the two exclamation marks), and JUNE?

• Yes. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please use publishers etc for the general references, as has been done for the specific ones.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:22, 13 October 2008 [48].

---

Chicago Bulls seasons

previous FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)

After the disastrous first nom, I have improved the lead section, hopefully I have addressed every concern. A special thanks to User:Zagalejo who helped me copyedit the lead. —Chris! _ct 21:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from SRX

Comments

• Now considered one of the best basketball players of all time, Jordan averaged 28.2 points per game as a rookie and immediately turned the Bulls into a perennial playoff contender. - source for Jordan being "the best"?

Fixed—Chris! _ct 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• the Chicago Studebakers, - is this suppose to have a red link?

I created a stub.—Chris! _ct 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• # ^ Sachare, 5–7 - you use this book ref, but you don't note it anywhere.
• Also, what is verifying the list itself?

The sources is below the references. I've moved it up.—Chris! _ct 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 00:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - my comments have been resolved and the list has improved heavily since it was at FLC, it now meets WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 14:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • What info was taken from the "Team Index" and "Playoff index" sources?
    • Team Index is removed since it looks irrelevant. Playoff index is kept since it shows what teams played in the finals.—Chris! _ct 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Doesn't this page serve the same purpose? Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Never mind, I've made use out of it. Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • It's weird that I still see it on the page.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Maybe you need to purge the page.—Chris! _ct 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Why color the "finish" in the seasons where the Bulls won the division? I understand coloring the "division", but why the "finish"?
    • It indicates a playoff berth.—Chris! _ct 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Is there a reason why some of those cells are light blue, rather than teal? Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • You're contradicting with the Key section now.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Light blue indicates division champions while teal indicates a playoff berth. How is that a problem or contradictive? ??—Chris! _ct 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, why not just use teal for every playoff berth in the "Finish" column? It may not be apparent to everyone that a division title guarantees a playoff berth. (Which, I assume, is the logic you're working with.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I see that Crzycheetah removed the coloring from some of the cells in the "Finish" column. Honestly, I think that just muddles things even more - people who quickly look at the list might not realize that the team also reached the playoffs in those seasons. Could you please elaborate on your comment, Crzycheetah? Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Zagalejo, in some instances, the "finish" column was colored in light blue, which indicates the division title per the key. At the same time, the "division" column is colored in light blue as it's supposed to be. My question was why color two columns in light blue, so I removed the redundant light blue color from the "finish" column. Later, my changes were undone, so now I colored the "finish" column in orange because, in those seasons, the Bulls actually won the championship.--Crzycheetah 02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
              • OK, but the whole coloring scheme still seems messed up to me. Look at Boston Red Sox seasons. There's just one color for each row. Couldn't we do something like that? It would be a lot simpler. Zagalejo^^^ 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
                • I agree. Let's do it.--Crzycheetah 04:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, I started editing the table, but upon preview, I had some doubts whether this will work. This list is a lot denser than the Red Sox list, with much smaller letters. Because the letters are so small, they might not show up very well against a teal background. Plus, we have those little symbols to go along with the colors (†,*,^,¤), which will alter the spacing within the table, and make things look messy. So, here are our options: 1) leave the table as is; 2) pick a different color for playoff berth, drop the little symbols, and then use one color per row; 3) come up with a new solution. Any thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 06:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(→)How about New York Giants seasons as an example?--Crzycheetah 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just leave the table as is. The colors we have now aren't confusing at all.—Chris! _ct 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see a huge difference between that and this, beyond the fact that the Bulls' list colors in the season columns for a championship year. I guess we can just leave the article as it is. Zagalejo^^^ 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Why is there no team seasons for some years? It seems like they were demoted from the league in those years, were they?
    • I presume they were left out because we don't have articles for every season yet. I added some red links. Zagalejo^^^ 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • In this case, red links are better than no links and no text whatsoever.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there any references to verify the awards?
    • Well, this source mentions everything but Krause's two Executive of the Year Awards and Jackson's 1996 Coach of the Year Award. Krause and Jackson's awards are easily verifiable, though. I'll get going on that. (Also, now that I see it, we should mention that Elton Brand was Co-Rookie of the Year in 2000, not the sole winner.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added some refs, and a comment about Brand. Zagalejo^^^ 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There has to be a note in the "1980-81" row explaining how the Bulls moved from the Western conference to the Eastern and how Midwest division became Central.
    • Done. Zagalejo^^^ 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 20:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support--Crzycheetah 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zagalejo

• Comment I have a question about the image of the United Center. Is there any particular reason that one was chosen over the other available pictures of the arena? Zagalejo^^^ 06:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I choose it simply because it is the current arena in used.—Chris! _ct 02:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • • Can we use this? It actually shows a Bulls game in action. The picture of the entrance is a little dull. Zagalejo^^^ 03:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        • OK —Chris! _ct 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Also Some of the items in the "Abbreviation" column are not actually abbreviations. How should we fix that? Zagalejo^^^ 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "symbols/abbreviations"—Chris! _ct 02:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, not everything is a symbol, either. We can just get rid of that top row altogether. I don't see why that section needs to be sortable. Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • OK —Chris! _ct 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from Orlady

This is much improved since the previous FLC review. Congrats! However:

• I would like to see the first paragraph provide an overview summary of the Bulls' seasons. As things currently stand, the lead section is a detailed recounting of the Bulls' history, but there's no summary to start it off. (There was an overview summary at the end of the previous FLC discussion; it had some writing issues, but the substance was good. Can the substance be reclaimed?)
  • Hmmm... I'm not sure what part of the old version you're referring to. It's a little tough to provide a pithy overview of a sports team's seasons. Maybe we could mention their all-time record, and how many times they've been in the playoffs...? Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd expect to see something like "In the 41 (or is it 42?) full seasons since the team's founding in 1966, the Bulls have had xx winning seasons and xy losing seasons, and advanced to the playoffs on xz occasions. The team has won six NBA championships, xth most of any team in the league." --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll see what I can do. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I've tried to include something like that. However, I just mentioned the number of winning seasons, because if I mentioned the number of losing seasons as well, then I'd have to say something about the one season the Bulls finished exactly .500, and that would just makes things too complicated. Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• The article lead still has some sportswriter-style idiom that (IMO) needs to be replaced with normal English (wink). In particular:
  • "Every previous professional basketball team in Chicago had either folded or relocated, but the Bulls prevailed" -- Can "folded" be replaced with an alternative term? (My best idea is "ceased operation"; I'm sure there's something better.) Also, I'm not sure that "prevailed" is a good way to say "succeeded" or "survived"; the topic isn't a competition or a war, but simply "remaining in business."
    • Yeah, I guess "folded" is somewhat informal. I don't think "ceased operations" is too bad. That could work for the time being, but I'll ponder it a little more. I'll replace "prevailed" with "survived". Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I've reworded that whole section. Zagalejo^^^ 04:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Any other sportwriter idioms I should fix? Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Bulls advanced to the post-season". -- I know what that means, but it's NBA-speak, not standard English. Could this be revised to "reached the playoffs" or "qualified for the playoffs"?
    • I think so. I used "post-season" just to inject some word variety. (I figured that anyone who needs this level of detail is already somewhat familiar with NBA parlance.) But I'll change it. Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

--Orlady (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC) My previous concerns about the lead have been resolved (sorry -- I tried to post this a couple of days ago, but the server didn't cooperate at that moment), but I have a couple of new minor issues with the article as it has evolved:

• The dates in the colored legend that precedes the main table (for example, "(1966–1970/1971–present)") are a source of confusion. I don't think the dates are necessary. Could they be deleted?

• They could probably be deleted (and the second part could be renamed as simply "Conference Champions"). I think the idea behind those dates is that the Western Conference was originally called the Western Division, which leads to unwanted complications. But those complications have no bearing on the color scheme of the table, since the Bulls were neither Division champs nor Conference champs until 1975.
• I'd like to hear Chrishomingtang's opinion, though, since he was the one who actually worked on the list. Zagalejo^^^ 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem having the date deleted.—Chris! _ct 01:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• What's the difference between the "Season" column and the "Team" column in the table? To the reader, they look identical, except for one footnote. Can the headings be edited to clarify the difference between the two sets of links?

• One column refers to the NBA season. The other column contains links to Chicago Bulls season articles (eg, 1995-96 Chicago Bulls season.) I tried to clarify this. Zagalejo^^^ 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

--Orlady (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good now. Support. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TonyTheTiger

A review of my FAC1 complaints is as follows:

• What happened to the fact about the third most championships.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll add it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• What happened to the fact about initially playing at Chicago Stadium and moving to the United Center in 1994?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, their first home was the International Amphitheater. There are lots of details about the Bulls that aren't mentioned here. This isn't Chicago Bulls, this is simply Chicago Bulls seasons. I think the lead should mainly focus on their varying levels of success over the years. Can you think of a good place to mention the arenas? Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The Chicago Bulls should have details of which years the team played in which stadia. It should also have a lot more pre-Jordan information. If you don't want to add any further info here that is O.K. as long as other WP:FL NBA team season lists don't do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I've mentioned the stadiums in the first paragraph. I've added a little bit more information on the pre-Jordan era, but I think I've hit all the highlights. Can you think of anything important I'm missing? The article is already much longer than Los Angeles Lakers seasons, so I'm hesitant to add much more content. Again, this isn't the primary Bulls article; it's just a list with an introduction. Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I apologize. I was not complaining about Chicago Bulls seasons. I was saying the stadium stuff may not belong here, but that Chicago Bulls needed more stuff. You did not need to add that stuff here for me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • • Ah, OK. Yeah, I think I'll get rid of the line about the stadiums. And I agree, the main Bulls article does need much more information about the pre-Jordan era. Zagalejo^^^ 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• FAC1 complaint that "The All-Time record section should have a footnote saying statistics include games through Month DD, YYYY. During the season this may get confusing." still stands.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the top of the "Year by Year" section says that statistics are correct through the 2007-08 season. When the next season begins, we can adjust the article as necessary. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That should be footnote info, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Could you put it where you want it to be? Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• The table key should be in the same section as the table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. Zagalejo^^^ 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I removed the subsection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, that's fine. I'm not sure why I added the section division anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support My concerns have been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:22, 13 October 2008 [49].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Green Day

Gary King (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• Prose looks okay
• Can't you decrease the size of the first table to fit it in more in between the infobox. Possibly decrease the column with the award name.
• The publisher ROTN should be spelled out, IMO.--S_RX 23:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily what I meant with the tables, now there is more white space. I meant decrease the size of the columns to squeeze it in.--S_RX 02:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome!--S_RX 14:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - my comments have been resolved to improve the list's stature to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 14:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)--S_RX 14:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Coments-Generally looks good, so Support ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I generally agree. Looks in mint condition for having only been created five days ago. --Candlewicke (Talk) 01:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:22, 13 October 2008 [50].

---

2008 Summer Olympics medal table

This one has been ready to go for about a month, but I've been waiting due to stability concerns because the games were just recently finished and there could still be some changes in the standings. The page is now stable and thus meets that part of the criteria. As always, any concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Well done, everything looks great! Although a Michael Phelps image would be nice. ;) TheLeftorium 15:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 4 (http://olympics.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mauritian_delight_at_first_ever_medal/articleshow/3394390.cms) is lacking a publisher
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/7736920 deadlinks

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - this is a great list, congratulations on all the hard work to all contributors, meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 23:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Excellent job. Just one thing: "The 2008 Summer Olympics medal table is a list of National Olympic Committees (NOCs) ranked by..." seems like a variation of "This is a list of so-and-so..."—unless "medal table" is an official term. Otherwise I find no faults. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I can't think of anything that could be fixed, though I've read the whole thing "carefully". -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 

• Sorry, but gotta oppose for now. Also, after seeing a few recently promoted lists that I don't think meet FL criteria quite yet, I hope I'll be able to find the time to do plenty more reviews.
• Format the references in "References" per WP:CITE/ES
  • They already are, aren't they?
• "medal, both of" – comma not the best here; the clauses have a strong break in between
  • Done.
• "China athletes" – "Chinese athletes" (they may not all be Han Chinese, but they are certainly all Chinese nationals? Just like "Canadian athletes")
  • Done.
• Why is "Games" capitalized in the lead? The word is not used prior to this in a more complete phrase, giving no indication as to why it should be capitalized (like saying "Olympic Games" would show that that is why it can be capitalized in subsequent uses).
  • Fixed.
• "The United States athletes" – same as above I would say
  • Done.
• "Athletes from Afghanistan,[2] Bahrain,[3] Mauritius,[4] Sudan,[5] Tajikistan[6] and Togo[7] won their first Olympic medals." – it is not clear that this "first" is for the country and not for the athletes – I think?
  • Done.
• "shooting." – remove period from non-sentence
  • Done.
• "which had previously held the record for most medals without a gold" – "previously held the record for most medals without a gold" – my reasoning: this is not part of the sentence; it's a side note, so instead of making it flow well with the sentence – which it doesn't anyways, in its current state – it should be kept succinct
  • Done.

• Please copyedit the rest of the article; I've only quickly gone through the lead.

Gary King (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done some more copyediting, thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support- Looks good. Meets every FL Criteria.—Chris! _ct 21:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment The caption on the map refers to the image itself, so there is probably a better caption that consists of good alt text.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 23:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - All seems fine. iMatthew (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:22, 13 October 2008 [51].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The White Stripes

previous FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)

Should be good to go ago. Co-nominating with Red157. Gary King (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my comments from the previous FLC page were resolved to meet the FL Criteria.--S_RX 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The publications/sources in the refs should be linked once each e.g. The Guardian. Otherwise, assuming accuracy and comprehensiveness, the list looks good. Great work! the skomorokh 19:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think. Red157(talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to do all of them, I think. RTE, BRIT Awards, XFM; anything with an article. What the VMA's were intende as an "alternative" to needs to be clarified as well. Almost there, the skomorokh 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I missed that issue with the NME "alternative" statement. It's because the normal British NME Awards have been removed and I'm not sure why. Red157 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. the skomorokh 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Support, assuming references check out and the list is comprehensive. the skomorokh 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great job. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - all concerns addressed above. iMatthew (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:11, 11 October 2008 [52].

---

Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons

I am nominating this article because I think it fulfills the FL criteria, in addressing said subject. It is modeled after Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons, a featured list. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• leads the NCAA in undefeated, untied seasons with 8 - I don't think you need a comma after undefeated, doesn't flow well when read.

Removed comma. Patriarca12 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Alabama leads the SEC West Division with its 5 appearances in the SEC Championship Game, and has a winning record against every other SEC team. - you need to place the South East Conference acronym in parenthesis early in the article so the reader will know what you are talking about , i.e. South East Conference (SEC).

Have indicated that SEC refers to the Southeastern Conference in the first sentence. Patriarca12 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• As a member of the Southern Conference, Alabama won conference championships in 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1930 - wouldn't it just be better to say from 1924-1926 and 1930?

Re-worded per your suggestion. Patriarca12 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• By 1933, Alabama again switched conferences, this time joining the SEC as a charter member, with the Tide still competing as part of the SEC to this day. - don't need to link SEC again per WP:OVERLINK + "to this day" weasely, how about "As of 2008"

Delinked SEC and re-worded per your suggestion. Patriarca12 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Other than that, the list looks great.--S_RX 14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - My comments have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria.--S_RX 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments

• What makes http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/index.php a reliable source?

It is a 3rd party source that serves as a single source for final poll rankings, and has been utilized in other articles as a source. However, I did dig around and took the same information form an NCAA source. Patriarca12 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• A number of your website references lack last acess dates.

Corrected. Patriarca12 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The images are squashing the text; this needs to be fixed urgently.

Corrected. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The Associated Press (AP) ranks Alabama 5th in All Time Final AP Poll appearances." Why is "All Time" capitalized?

Corrected. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Football was introduced to the university by W.G. Little in 1892, with the first win in the history of the program coming in its inaugural game, a 56-0 shutout over Birmingham High School on November 11, 1892." I think this sentence needs to split into two sentences. Also, the hyphen in the score needs to be an en dash

Revised. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• The footnotes need references.

Added references for each. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The Southeastern Conference introduced divisional play in 1992, with the divisional winners advancing to the SEC Championship Game to determine the conference champion."-->The Southeastern Conference introduced divisional play in 1992; the divisional winners advance to the SEC Championship Game to determine the conference champion.

Revised. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "With 787 wins over 112 years of football"—"seasons" seems more accurate than "years".

Revised. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "After amassing five national championships and nine conference championships through 1946"—"winning" is a more neutral word than "amassing".

Revised. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Audit for unnecessary and POV uses of "only".

Reviewed and worked to remove any instance of POV wherever possible. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Bear Bryant was hired as head coach in 1958, and under his guidance Alabama would reestablish itself as one of the nations elite programs." Rather POV statement.

Reworded to remove POV. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Following the retirement of Bryant, Alabama has seen eight head coaches, three SEC championships and the programs twelfth national championship in 1992."-->Following the retirement of Bryant, Alabama has had eight head coaches and won three SEC championships as well as the programs twelfth national championship in 1992.

Revised. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• To help with accessibility, use other symbols in addition to colors.

For this, I am not quite sure what you are looking for. Other symbols were not used in the other FL's on similar subject (Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons, Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons and East Carolina Pirates football seasons). Please advise. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can set a new standard for college football season lists by adding symbols. For an example, look at Los Angeles Lakers seasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Have now implemented symbology into the list. Thank you for the link to the LA Lakers list as an example. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• En dashes for page ranges like "111-112. " per WP:DASH

Added

• "References:[9]" – "References: [9]"

Corrected

• "9-3-1" – "9–3–1" – en dashes too

Added

• "every other SEC team." – "every other SEC team." – I doubt people will think that they beat themselves

Corrected

• "1924-1926" – en dash

Added

• Otherwise, the prose is pretty good. I'm not so sure about the table, however, but I'll leave that for others to decide.

Gary King (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments addressed, thank you for taking the time to look through the article! Patriarca12 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Excellent work. Well-cited, aesthetically pleasing, and well constructed. Follows the conventions of your previous work and the prototypical example given above. My only hesitation comes from the large number of single-season redlinks, but I've never been afraid of those. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Excellent article.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 21:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Comment Any source for the number of ten-win seasons? --User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 16:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed statement altogether as I could not find a single source stating the fact, only comparison with varying sources that may bee seen as WP:OR. Patriarca12 (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, looks good to me. --Golbez (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:11, 11 October 2008 [53].

---

Arizona Diamondbacks seasons

I based the format of the article off of Boston Red Sox seasons which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Oppose+Comments - fails Cr 1,2,4, and 5

• The Arizona Diamondbacks are a professional baseball team based in Phoenix, Arizona. - no need to bold Arizona Diamondbacks since they aren't the subject of the list itself. So you can just go ahead and link it (no bold).

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Diamondbacks are a member of both the Major League Baseball’s (MLB) National League Western Division and of the National League (NL) itself. - no need for the second of.

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• From 1998 to the present, the Diamondbacks have played in Chase Field (formerly named "Bank One Ballpark"). - the present? Would be better worded as Since 1998, the Diamondbacks have played in Chase Field..etc

Changed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The "Diamondback" name, based off of the Western diamondback snake, was chosen among thousands of entries that were received from a contest to name the team --> The name "Diamondback"

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Arizona made their Major League debut in 1998, where they, along with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays were an expansion team. - why is it important to say that the Devils were also an expansion team?

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• After a losing first season, - do you mean After losing their first season,?

Changed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Arizona's 2000 season was disappointed, with the Diamondbacks finishing 3rd in the National League West. - disappointed IMO is not maintaining a NPOV. Would be better stated as Arizona's 2000 season ended with the Diamondbacks finishing third (not 3rd).

Changed

• However, the following year saw Arizona ride to the top of the league, and beat the New York Yankees, four games to three, to win the 2001 World Series.
  • Do not begin a sentence with However, it is not grammatically correct.
  • Ride to the top of the league? Very wordy, how about The following year, however, Arizona defeated the New York Yankess four game to three to win the 2001 World Series?

Changed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the following four seasons, the Diamondbacks didn;t make it into the playoffs once,[9][10][11][12], and had their worst season ever in 2004, where they won only 51 games and lost 111, giving them a 0.315 winning percentage.
  • Typo in didn't.
  • No need to say once, already established that it is the next four seasons that they did not go to the playoffs.
  • their worst season ever is also not adhering to a NPOV, how about, this followed with them winning only 51 games (a 0.315 winning percentage) in 2004.?

I'll just removed the whole 2004 winning percentage thing all together. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Surprisingly though, Arizona won their division in 2007, but lost in the National League Championship Series to the wild card Colorado Rockies. - again NPOV, Remove surprisingly. Would be better worded as Arizona would, however, win their division in 2007, but only to lose to the Colorado Rookies in the National League Championship series. (No need to say wild card, irrelevant).

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The table needs to be in it's own section.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Try to squeeze a table of contents, make the key a separate section and add a see also section.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the table, what is meant by Games behind?

Games behing division leader, changed template --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Did not make playoffs - I think instead of writing this, it would be better worded with an em dash.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Because they only were in the National League West, it's redundant to link it over and over.

De-linked --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused, what is the reference section verifying versus what the source if verifying?
  • If the source is a main source, it would benefit having that as a general reference in the reference section.

The one source at the bottom of the table gives a brief overview of the Diamondbacks season-by-season results, the others get more specific. I'll go ahead and make it a general reference--Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Because you abbreviate the Divisional series, you should include the abbreviation in the prose to avoid confusion.

Added into key --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• The following year, however, Arizona defeated the New York Yankees four game to three to win the 2001 World Series.[7] typo in game, needs to be plural.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the following four seasons, the Diamondbacks didn't make it into the playoffs once.[9][10][11][12] - don't have to say once, already known that during the 4 seasons they did not make it.--S_RX 14:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - after my issues being resolved, I feel it meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 21:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why not do it the modern way: instead of the hidden links to single years, which no one will click, make the first one explicit, and a gateway to all of its sibling articles. That way, you don't waste valuable blue, which dilutes the high-value links. So, instead of that silly template—Since {{Baseball Year|1998}}, try "Since Since [[1998 in Baseball|the 1998 baseball season]] ... Tony (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but you did it to the second occurrence, and haven't removed all of the other blue years that look like plain useless year-links. Tony (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I got it now --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments

• Current ref 3 (ARIZONA ...) the link title is in all capitals, per the MOS we dont do that even when the original is in all capitals.

Fixed caps --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I'd like to see some things fixed before I support...

• "The name "Diamondback" was inspired by the Western diamondback snake, was..." isn't grammatically correct - either change the comma to 'and' or the 'was' to a comma, so it reads one of:
  • "The name "Diamondback", inspired by the Western diamondback snake, was..."
  • "The name "Diamondback" was inspired by the Western diamondback snake and was..."

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "and made it to the National League Division Series were they..." - where not were.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The following season, Arizona just missed the playoffs, after the National League West has won the Los Angeles Dodgers." - has won? should be was won. Also not sure if the commas here are correct, but I'm terrible with them myself so would like someone else to weigh in here if possible :)

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think I'd prefer if the links to NLDS/NLCS/World Series linked to that year's version, not the page for them (ie 1999 National League Division Series#Arizona Diamondbacks vs. New York Mets instead of NLDS).

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Might be worth adding somewhere what the team's all-time record is, although I must admit I don't know where you can source this (I've been trying to find one for the Giants for a while but nowhere, not even b-r, seems to have it unless I'm going blind).

I'll look for it --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I haven't been able to find a source with the all-time win-loss record. I found with the win-loss record of all Arizona's managers, my understanding is that adding that up would be original research. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Award winners on the team would be a good addition: other featured seasons lists have this (see Yankees, Cards).

I'll look for that --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Awards have been added --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than that it looks good. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't like some of the grammar, even though some was taken from the Red Sox FL. For example:
  • The Diamondbacks are a member of both the Major League Baseball’s (MLB) National League Western Division and the National League (NL) itself. " Isn't the division a subset of the league? A better alternative might be "A member of the... National League (NL) Western Division."
  • "Arizona made their Major League debut in the 1998 baseball season, where they were an expansion team." This could be simplified by saying, "Arizona made their Major League debut as an expansion team in the 1998 baseball season".
  • This is more of a general question, but do all those things in the lead need sourcing? They are repeated in the table below, and any reader wanting verification can just go to the refs in the table. --Golbez (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:11, 11 October 2008 [54].

---

List of universities in British Columbia

This is fairly different from my typical lists. I think it meets the FL criteria now. The map was created by Matthewedwards! Thanks! Gary King (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a particularily long list, and there aren't too many Universities in Canada. Any reasy why this can't be merged with a List of universities in Canada? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think some people are insistent on having a separate article for the universities of each province. Of course, some provinces have less than ten universities, so those can be merged with a good reason. This particular one, however, contains fourteen items, so I think it is supposed to be a separate page. Gary King (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think a list merged with List of institutes and colleges in British Columbia would be valuable. In the lead could you explain what makes a school a "University"? Like, why Vancouver University Worldwide is not included. --maclean 07:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  Here you go. Gary King (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think you should just put the location of the main campus instead of all the campuses in British Columbia. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's useful to have all of the campuses listed. The main campus is the first location mentioned in each cell. Gary King (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Consider expanding the lead image - WP:MOS#Images (last time I looked) advocated up to 300px.
• Anyway of tightening the caption - I'm sure that image doesn't encapsulate the whole of the Uni of BC?
• "in the province of British Columbia, Canada. " - it's personal but why not "in the Canadian province of BC"?
• I'd link degree.
• And what's "post-secondary" here? Think "non-expert".
• ministry of advanced ed and the labour market development could be linked?
• "also grant consent to private institutions to grant degrees" - grant x 2

" the most populated region " - regions?

• Should "graduate level" be hyphenated?
• School seems synonymous with University. This may be true in US/Canada but definitely not in the UK. Consider rephrasing or explaining. Or renaming the list.
• If an institution has multiple "locations", would they be considered campuses? Is it worth discussing this in the lead too, that a single entity can be spread over multiple locations?
• Consider right-aligned the numerical columns on this occasion as centrally, it's hard to gauge the differences from one row to another...
• Ref 3 should be explicitly defined as a pdf.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. Graduate level can be hyphenated or not; I prefer not. Locations are not always campuses; sometimes they are just a single floor of a building or something. I applied these to the other university lists, too. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - all concerns addressed, thanks Gary. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support

• University of British Columbia, I think, should be sorted out as B, not U. Also with all of other universities starting with a "University". -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Done for these. The French list seems to prefer including "University" when sorting so that's why that one differs. Gary King (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One more comment

• There are 2 locations of the University of British Columbia, the main campus, and the location at Robson Square. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's still Vancouver. The list lists the cities of the campuses, and if multiple campuses are in the same city, then it still only lists the city. Gary King (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't you just put Vancouver (2) to indicate that there are two campuses in the city? -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm wary of doing that because sometimes universities have several "campuses" in the same city that are really close to each other, so officially there is no distinction between the two campuses. That's why universities typically only announce that they have other campuses when they are in completely different cities. Gary King (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - A few problems need to be banged out - but nothing major. iMatthew (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• My "problem" was that I though that the key would be organized better, but I can't think of a better solution. iMatthew (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:11, 11 October 2008 [55].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Justice

Do the D.A.N.C.E

Stick to the B.E.A.T

Just easy as A.B.C

— Justice, "D.A.N.C.E."

Gary King (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - you couldn't have waited? Not even a week old.

• Lead
  • Justice is a French Grammy Award-nominated electronic music duo consisting of Gaspard Augé and Xavier de Rosnay.[1] The band is known for incorporating a strong rock influence into their music and image. - so is it a band or a duo? You use both, which is it?
  • Their debut album † was released in June 2007 to critical acclaim,[5][6] coming in at number 15 on Pitchfork's "Top 50 Albums of 2007"[7] and number 18 on Blender's "25 Best Albums of 2007" list.[8 - coming in? How about ranking number 15 on ..etc.
  • Tables look okay.

--S_RX 14:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All done. They are a duo AND a band. Gary King (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment needs copyediting. For example, They are the most successful group on Ed Banger Records, and are managed by the label's head, Pedro Winter. Too much use of passive voice in the introductory paragraphs and somewhat confusing jargon/syntax. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  That could be broken up into two sentences but I think it makes sense to keep it as one; the first clause should probably stay passive at the very least, and so the second is passive as well to follow suit. Gary King (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The duo has found success"-->The duo has been successful...
• Feist needs to be disambiguated.
• I don't think that Justice needs to be linked in the MTV Europe Music Awards table.

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. I'm going to leave the Justice link; normally I link items at least once in the body, ignoring whether or not they were linked in the lead. Gary King (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support All issues seem to have been resolved, and the article looks good. iMatthew (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:11, 11 October 2008 [56].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Blink-182

After looking around for awards that they have won, it was a bit surprising for me to find out that they hadn't been nominated for as many as I would have thought. Gary King (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hallelujah, I'm having an impact. I prefer not to support articles that haven't been in the wild (and this one is only a day and a half old), so I won't vote. --Golbez (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  You break my heart Golbez :( Gary King (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, company policy. --Golbez (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Created about a day ago? You couldn't have waited?

• Lead
  • Blink-182 was an American pop punk trio formed in 1992 at Poway, California. - at? Doesn't make sense since you are talking about a town/city and not a specific place like at a house.
  • How come there is no information on how they split up? Since the article states that they were a punk rock band.
• Tables look okay.

--S_RX 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support but something Tony1 said a while ago strikes me here. It's a short list. Gary, you're a go-ahead kind of guy. Fancy knocking this up in a sandbox with the mini-tables merged and an additional column for the award providers? And perhaps footnotes to encapsulate the "X is an award ceremony blah blah blah..."? Just to see how it looks? I know you said to him that until things change you'd rather not rock the boat on these award formats, but hey, let's see what it looks like - it might just work? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Gary King/sandbox: I personally prefer the current layout because it makes it much easier to add new awards for future editors. If I was forced to choose from the sandbox, though, I'd choose "Grouped by award". Gary King (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I appreciate your efforts. I hope others do too and that they consider these alternative layouts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the "Grouped by Award" version. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. May be short, but it's well-referenced, well-formatted, well-cited to reliable sources, and complete. Good introduction. Durova^Charge! 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support As Durova said, it's well-referenced, well-formatted, and well-citied. The prose checks out great, and the article appears to be in excellent shape. iMatthew (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on the other two designs Gary knocked up at his sandbox? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:06, 7 October 2008 [57].

---

Gillingham F.C. records

The format of this list is a straight crib from equivalent articles for other clubs which are already at FL, such as List of York City F.C. statistics and records, but please let me know if there's anything I still need to tweak....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.fchd.info/index.html a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FCHD is regarded as the most definitive source for historical club-by-club/season-by-season data in English football. Please consider these football clubs' official sites: Cobham F.C., whose history page starts "For a full breakdown of Cobham's history in the league and FA competitions, check out the Football Club History Database." Abingdon Town F.C., which refers readers from their history page to the FCHD for major milestones and cup results. Biggleswade United F.C. says "For a breakdown of our history in senior football go to the Football Club History Database website". Langney Sports F.C. takes its historical data from FCHD. The South West Peninsula League website takes the entirety of its historical data straight from FCHD. There are many more. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Works so well I updated my cheat-sheet! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• Please add references to the lead for information that needs it, such as the history of the club.

Gary King (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Done, I think - paragraph 2 is a "distillation" of the body of the article, so is sourced there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support but you should fix...

• The New Brompton caption is a fragment so remove the full stop.
• I'd prefer to see [6][14] instead of [14][6].
• Not entirely your fault but "notable seasons" in the template is a little POV and should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • All fixed :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Between 1938 and 1950 when the club..." - think it would read better with a comma.
• Do you know the specific match that Sancho played at the World Cup?
• Is a source for the first match at Priestfield available, for the "Firsts" section?
• Or for the lowest attendance at Priesfield?

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Sorted the comma and the Sancho thing. The club's first match at Priestfield was the club's first match, I feel stating it twice would be a bit silly. I have no source which specifically lists the lowest gate at Priestfield. I could look through all the attendances in Brown's book and find the lowest but a) that's probably original research and b) quite a few early ones don't appear to be recorded, so I can't guarantee that the lowest gate in there is the very lowest gate of all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's fair enough. But what I meant for Sancho was to mention what game it was he played for Trinidad, although the number of appearances he made should still be mentioned under "Most World Cup appearances" or such like. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Done that now (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Now comments dealt with, good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:06, 7 October 2008 [58].

---

List of Bleach episodes (season 3)

After a long while, I'm bringing another episode list to FLC. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the page yet, but is the title correct for the Japanese season pages? The American and British TV shows do simply "Bleach (season 3)" Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the style that's always been used (and has been used for other anime episode lists). I was under the impression that [Series name] (season X) was for season articles trying for featured article status and that List of..(season X) lists were for those trying for featured list status. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Bleach Soul Society: The Rescue arc is the third season..." Are you sure that the first "the" is necessary?
  • Take it as "The arc is..." as versus "Arc is...". Needs the article. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "the title of the season is simply The Rescue." Simply seems a bit subjective, why don't you use the phrase from the season 2 FL: "...the title is translated as..."
  • Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The plot of the episodes centers"-->The episodes' plot centers...
  • Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why are the dates unlinked in the prose but linked in the table? Is the date linking necessary (remember, date linking is now deprecated by the MOS)?
• "Hitsugaya and Ichimaru begin to fight, with Ichimaru eventually overpowering Hitsugaya." Awkward structure.
  • Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Afterwards, Yoruichi shows Ichigo a device that allowed her to fly," Shouldn't it be "give" instead of "show"?
  • I don't see where this line is in the article. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
    • *bangs head on desk* Sorry, I had two similar lists open in separate windows. Disregard this. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Renji travels to Rukia's execution area, but meets his captain, Byakuya Kuchiki." False contrast, how does meeting the captain contradict the traveling to the execution? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Think that's everything. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)))

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• "After a clipshow episode" → "After a clip show" – -show and episode are synonymous

Gary King (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, there's not much else to say. A couple of the individual episode summaries were worded a bit awkwardly, but since those are minor fixes I performed them myself. --erachima talk 03:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:06, 7 October 2008 [59].

---

List of micronations

previous FLC (01:11, 24 September 2008)

After much progress with the last nomination, I am resubmitting the list. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons: (1) almost none of my comments in teh previous FLC have been resolved; (2) not even 10h have passed since teh previous fail. Nergaal (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Disregarding again - Nergaal, you keep repeating yourself and again I have to state here that your comments A) were completely useless, not constructive and were refuted (especially the false claim that some micronations have unknown locations - they either exist or they don't Nergaal!) and B) the nomination didn't fail, it was not promoted, meaning that not enough consensus was gathered to make a decision. What difference does it make if I nominate it again? It isn't against any policies or guidelines. You haven't responded to any refutations, yet you constantly oppose this list's nominations even though you don't have a single strong argument to back up your claims. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Funny reply1 Anyways, as I've already said, there should be another column with some location coordinate. Please check List of historical unrecognized countries (especially the "part of") since that list is probably the most similar to this one. Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And as I have already said, it is impossible because micronations do not necessarily exist on land, they can exist in many forms across the entire universe. Next, there is this problem of land micronations existing globally and across national boundaries (constantly changing in many cases). We cannot make such a sufficient description of location in a list like this, however with the links provided the main articles can describe the location in the fullest detail. And finally, there is a huge difference between sovereign states (currently existing or not) and micronations, with sovereign states we can provide a simple description within national boundaries - yet micronations can exist, as I have mentioned earlier, in many forms. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Then categorize (i.e. add a column) by their forms. At this point it almost looks like a random list of entries from the category of micronations. Also, REMEMBER that NOT EVERY SINGLE list may be featurable! If there is an apparently random list of that can not be proved to be complete or detailed (as it seems to be the case with this one), then it may be one of those lists! Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This list is far from random - they are all micronations aren't they? We can't categorise them by form because of the simple reason that there is an unlimited number of forms, and therefore there would be no consistency and the list would definitely be random (remember visual appeal in the criteria?). It is detailed enough - leave the in depth analysis of each micronation to the main articles. And this list only presents notable micronations, of course this list can be complete by the standards of the criteria because it is limited by this requirement.

You have once again failed to use policies, guidelines and evidence in general to back up your claims, and this is the fourth time that I have had to explain all of this. My refutation stands, you have yet to reply - this is starting to resemble disruption of the nomination process. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - seems as if previous comments in the previous FLC have been addressed to meet the FL Criteria, and I cannot find any flaws.S_RX 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Suggest you place model countries and new country projects in quotes or italics or something so it's clear they're alternative names.
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Stick with US or Brit English - you have "recognise" and "recognize" in the same article.
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• "They can also exist in various forms..." not clear what "They" is in this context so reinforce "Micronations can also..."
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Such trappings of recognised sovereign states are created as a way of seeking to legitimise the micronations that produce them." - this reads like WP:OR as it isn't cited. Can you prove this?
  • Removed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• For the references sub-headings, just use ";" instead of the heading level so the TOC doesn't see them.
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Lizbekistan" has no foundation date - the cell is blank. Either add a note or put a date in there.
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Sorting on the foundation date column isn't quite right - four clicks, four different results.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• "50 metres2" - use the {{convert}} template for this kind of thing.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid the in-line links you have for the Kingdom and Republic of Talossa - make it a footnote and cite it there.
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Shouldn't "An Absolute monarchy" just be "An absolute monarchy"? And Matriarchy just matriarchy?
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• And "Czech republic" - Czech Republic?
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Year ranges should use the en-dash, not the hyphen, per WP:DASH.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• No spaces between citations and punctuation per WP:CITE.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• ref 56 - p. not pp.
  • Cite news template - This is part of the cite news template, with two letter "p"'s being used in cite news templates but only one in the cite web templates. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed - Thanks Pagrashtak. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Cite news}} handles that last problem just fine. Pagrashtak 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose

• List doesn't appear in alphabetical order initially so when ordering by name it changes subtly - not desirable.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• "6 metres2" can you use a superscript for the "squared" or the {{convert}} template?
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• "organization " - US Eng again.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• "United States of America " vs "the US" - consistency.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:06, 7 October 2008 [60].

---

Rachel Stevens discography

It's relatively short since her career wasn't exactly a success. I removed the B-sides and unreleased material based on the recommendation of MOS:DISCOG, but I don't have any objection to adding them back in if people think there's not enough material there. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from SRX

Oppose

• Lead
  • The discography of British pop singer Rachel Stevens consists of two studio albums and seven singles, all released on Polydor Records. - "under" not "on"
    • Changed. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stevens gained fame as a member of the pop group S Club 7 (see S Club discography). - why are redirected to the group's discography, in the lead? That should be in the See also section.
    • It seemed odd to create a separate section for one link when it could easily be included in the text. Plus, many current FLs use that form (Dave Gahan, Geri Halliwell, Gwen Stefani). PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The group had its last release in 2003, and Stevens signed a four-album solo record deal with 19 Entertainment and Polydor. - How about The group released it's final album in 2003, while Stevens...etc."
    • Reworded. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The album's lead single "Sweet Dreams My LA Ex" reached number two on the UK Singles Chart,[2] and the album was certified gold in October 2003. - most discographies use "#2" versus "number two." Also, certified gold by who?
    • WP:MOSNUM states that one-digit numbers like this should be spelled out. Added the organization. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The album debuted at number twenty-eight on the UK Albums Chart,[2] and its three singles were commercially unsuccessful. - same comment here.
    • WP:MOSNUM suggests spelling out numbers that can be expressed in two words. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Albums
  • The chart positions should be separated into a different column than certifications, that's how other FL's are modeled.
    • Most discographies have more than one country in which the artist charted, meaning that the positions in different countries can be compared. Stevens' albums only appear to have charted in the UK, so it seems odd to do an entire chart positions section for just one country. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Sources
  • What makes mvdbase.com reliable?
    • It's published by someone whose writing about arts/entertainment has been published in reliable third-party publications, so it seems to pass WP:SPS. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notify about any comments.--S_RX 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• CommentSupport - will support once sourcing issues is resolved. Sourcing issues resolved as well as my comments to meet WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.mvdbase.com/index.php? a reliable source?
  • See above for my response to the same question. If necessary, I can reference them to the bonus DVD of Come and Get It, but it seems better to avoid using a primary source. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Likewise http://acharts.us/performer/rachel_stevens?
  • The site's software automatically retrieves information from charts, and the Q&A page says the staff checks when there are errors in the software or source chart. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Their site states that they analyze the charts themselves and that the method is to cull information from the charts using their software. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
        • That page also says "There may also be some errors in the charts, these are made by our sources or by the software which analyses new charts and adds them to the website." So either they sources they use may be wrong, and/or the software they use to cull information goes wrong. And they rely on waiting for Joe Normal to tell them when it goes wrong. What happens if noone spots a mistake? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Back in the archives of WT:RS, it was determined that it wasn't a reliable source for the reason I just gave, and the same page you offered :/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I believe you're referring to this discussion, which didn't really go as you say. User:Stephan Schulz commented that "it might [emphasis added] be better to go to the original sources". The issue here is whether or not the site checks its information against the actual chart positions, and it clearly does if that's where it's getting the information. The fact that it has a way for readers to notify it of possible errors (which still happen in reliable publicatons with editorial oversight) should only attest to its reliability, as compared to UWC in that discussion, which I'm pretty sure has no method of contact on its site. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Just to make it clear, he didn't add the emphasis on "might", and he said that referring to http://acharts.us/help - the same page you did; however, you have made a good argument. Let's see what others think before any other action is taken on it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
              • That works for me. As a sidenote, the "[emphasis added]" note was meant to indicate that I had italicized that; I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, just point out that only one person replied in the discussion, and that person wasn't definitive about whether or not it should be used. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support

• Not a nice photo of her - I think the one on her own article is better - at least you can see her face... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - mainly references...

• "(see S Club discography)" - nah - make it a See also.
  • There's really no reason to create a separate section for a three-word link. Looking at other FLs, it's a common practice, and it's no more obstrusive than year in music links. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's what See also sections are designed for. Adding "See..." mid-prose is awful when we can link things either intelligently or in sections of their own. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Moved. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• "three singles were commercially unsuccessful." - comparatively, perhaps, but two top ten singles out of three is not, in my opinion, commercially unsuccessful. Perhaps that's the problem - the statement is possibly too POV.
  • The statement isn't POV, but I think your interpretation of it is. Peak chart positions alone don't indicate if a release was commercially successful. The sentence indicates that the singles didn't generate enough sales to offset the cost to record and promote them, which helps to give context to the following statement that she hasn't released any music since. If it'd help, I could add additional articles from Allmusic, Stylus Magazine, or Popjustice that support the statement. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The statement does need support - commercial success can also be gauged by peak positions, and two top ten singles is, in some people's minds, successful. So yes, you should support this statement.
      • There are two more sources there that support the statement. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Certifications column is oddly named when you're including sales figures and chart positions in the UK...
  • Broadened the column's scope. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Did all of her singles actually get released in every country in the singles table or is there a significant likelihood that they didn't? If they weren't released you need to change the note which says "releases which did not chart".
  • The sources don't say where the singles were released. Regardless of whether they were released in those countries though, the singles still didn't chart. Is there a better message to use? PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • People have started using something along the lines of "– indicates a that a single was either not released or did not chart." or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Reworded. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• What was the promo single all about? It isn't cited either.
  • I left that in there when I was working on the article since the list seemed to already be on the short side. I forgot only official releases are included, so it's gone now. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Other appearances aren't cited by anything.
  • There's nothing to cite. The fact that those songs exist on those albums is very obviously referenced to the compilations themselves, so there's nothing that's likely to be challenged. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Ref [4] can have a date added.
  • Added. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• You could also add the {{Commonscat}} template.
  • Commons doesn't have anything related to Stevens' releases, unlike the external links which all have information about her releases and not just Stevens herself. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:06, 7 October 2008 [61].

---

List of Calgary Flames award winners

I still have an FLC ongoing for the head coaches of the Calgary Flames, but after a complete reworking of this article over the past while, I believe this one is FL quality as well. It lists all players honoured by the league and team, for both individual and career achievements, during the 28 years the Calgary Flames have been around. Many images, easy to understand tables. (at least I think so. ;o] ) I look forward to all feedback. Resolute 02:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The NHL's trophies on display at the 2006 NHL Awards Ceremony." – remove the period from the non-sentence

• Done.

• link "Canada"

• Done. Seems like that got hit as part of the battle against overlinking, heh.

• Disambiguate: exhibition, Gary Roberts (multiple times), Mike Sullivan, and Tim Hunter

• Oops, done.

• Why are reference titles italicized?

• Because of how the {{Citation}} template works. I've simply gotten into the habit of using Citation rather than Cite x templates.

• "Retrieved on 19 September 2009" – this came from the future? :)

• Umm, oops. Fixed.

• "pp. pg. 23" – "page page 23"?
• "2008-03-25" – either link the date so that it formats, or spell it out like "March 25, 2008"

• Whoops. Both are cases of copying existing Cite x tempaltes from other articles and converting to Citation. My bad on not noticing the errors those caused. Both are now fixed.

Gary King (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And appreciate the comments. Resolute 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose several "assumptions" in the prose are particularly worrying....

• Not sure of the relevance of the lead image, especially considering the caption - just NHL trophies - could be relevant to any NHL list?

• I picked that lead image as it was the most appropriate I could come up with at the moment. Unfortunately, I don't have an image of a player receiving an award to use. I could just move a player up, but that is no less general than the current awards picture. I do hope to replace it with a specific image related to a Flame receiving an award during this season.

• "are a professional ice hockey team" vs "The team has captured" - plural vs singular.

• This is standard usage in North American descriptions of teams. "The Flames are" and "the team is" are both correct, as "the team" is treated as a singular entity, while "The foos" are referred to in the plural. I can't say for certain why this is, but I believe it is related to the general use of pluralized team nicknames in North America.

• "—1986, 1989 and 2004, and —winning..." - odd placement of the em-dash at the end. I'd suggest a minor reword.

• Umm, yeah, that was pretty bad. Fixed.

• "Individually, Jarome Iginla is the team's most decorated player..." - is there any other way to be the most decorated player other than individually?

• lol, good point. removed

• "to go along " - "to go" is redundant.

• Agreed, removed.

• "in team history." - which team? Flames or all-star games team?

• Fixed

• "their numbers retired " - I'm sure there's a link to retired numbers somewhere around here.

• Hmm, I guess I should have realized there is an article on everything.  ;)

• " raised to the rafters" - means what to a non-expert?

• I was trying to avoid a repitition, and ended up using a coloquialism. Reworded.

• "who were associated with the Flames" - what do you mean by associated with? (question)

• I'm referring to people who spent a significant time with the orgnaization. As this involves both players and management, that seemed the best wording.

Do you mean employed by the Flames? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely Johnson and Fletcher were employees, but the players themselves I've never heard described as employees. And, of course, Hotchkiss is an owner, not an employee.

• "hall of fame" - is this "Hall of Fame"?

• I'm not referring to a speficic place name, but rather a general observation of the quality of the player's careers, so it doesn't seem proper to capitalize it. I'll happily change if this is incorrect.

• long-time - quantify.

• About this long: <--------------------->  ;) Actually, I just removed it, it's extraneous, and the time he spent with the organization is specified in his chart

• builders - in the UK this unilaterally refers to people who construct buildings. Link or explain or something.

• I've added a clarification statement. Basically, the NHL considers a "builder" to be anyone in management.

No decent link for builder? You use it in the lead and it's not clear to non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I missed that usage. I've linked to a section of the Hockey Hall of Fame article that desribes who makes up the builders category.

• " most three-star selections " - what's a three-star selection?

• Clarified.

• "and respect and courtesy respectively" - this sentence just becomes a little confusing..

• reworded.

• You have individual awards which haven't ever been awarded to Flames players. Why?

• It was suggested by two others on the talk page that it would be good to have. I'm not convinced, but accepted the suggestion.

• Be consistent with linking titles/names etc in captions.

• Checked and changed where needed

• Chronological tables should be in chronological order.

• I am going to presume this is specific to the list of Hall of Famers, as it is in chronological order while the rest are in reverse-chronological order. I've corrected this. If this is not what you meant, could you clarify?

• If it's not sortable, you're really overlinking in each table.

• correcting. This should be completed before the end of the day.

• 1982-87 - use en-dash.

• oops, cut and pasted from another article and failed to correct that. fixed.

• Don't just use MVP without explaining it.

• I would have figured it would be self explainatory. Is this referring to the individual awards chart?

No, you use the abbreviation MVP once - to a non-expert this is not self-explanatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. Found and spelled out the abbreviation.

• Retired Numbers -> numbers.

• Fixed.

• 1982-94 and 2000-02 - en-dash again.

• Same as above, fixed.

• Why bold year ranges?

• It's the way the chart came out. As a personal preference, I like how it sets a contrast from the player name column. I can correct this if desired.

Remove it - the other years/seasons etc aren't bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Can do.

• 94/95 not awarded Ralph T. Scurfield Humanitarian... why not?

• I haven't found a citation for it, but the only logical reasoning is the 1994–95 NHL lockout which caused half the season to be cancelled. Given I can't cite it beyond the fact that it wasn't awarded, I'm not certain how I can explain this.

Shame - it needs to be explained. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an outside chance I could find a newspaper article from 1995 that would explain this, but it would be a few days at least before I'll have a chance to check.

• J.R. "Bud" McCaig Award - no need for a table. Just write prose.

• Personally, I disagree. I think it looks better with consistent formatting, and these tables will grow as each season passes by.

• Ref 1 - pg. 4 vs Ref 7 - pp. 23 - be consistent with single page notation.

Ref 1 only needs a p. - pp. is used for multiple pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 1 is "In Hanlon..." while all other refs to same work are simply "Hanlon..." - consider a General references.

• Both errors were the result of a Cite x template that I failed to update to Citation. This has been corrected.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Appreciate the feedback, Resolute 20:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Prose looks okay.
  • Why is it that in the lists you list mention content and list the recipients as none? If there is none, why are they listed?--S_RX 14:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That was added on the suggestion of two other editors. As consensus now runs against their inclusion, I've removed such listings. Resolute 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from 2008Olympian (talk · contribs) I would think that you would need to add the players and awards (such as they are) from the Atlanta Flames as well, in light of Calgary's acknowledgment of the Atlanta Flames' history. --User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 23:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While the Atlanta and Calgary Flames are the same franchise, and Calgary does acknowledge the Atlanta history, it is really treated as a form of "pre-history" by the Calgary Flames. i.e., the Flames don't care when the franchise reaches a milestone - i.e.: last season was the 35th season of play for the franchise as a whole but went unmarked, where the Calgary Flames' 30th season next year will be. There is also an editorial decision within WP:HOCKEY to give each incarnation of a team its own article, or set of articles. As such, the two articles: Atlanta Flames and Calgary Flames would encompass the history of the Flames franchise.

With that in mind, and given that the scope of this article specifically states that it is limited to awards won in Calgary, I'd just as soon keep the lists separate. I would be willing to consider an exception in this case, given the Atlanta Flames won only three individual awards in their history, so a separate list would be pointless, but I would very specifically denote that it was outside of the Calgary history. Resolute 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• It was a suggestion based just on that notion: that since there is so little there it might be missed and that we would rather be encyclopedic rather than just formulaic.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can see that point. I worry about the slippery slope, but I'll add them in tomorrow. Resolute 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Further Comment In the Awards column of the tables, the name of the award should be left justified. For the longer names, the lack of justification makes them spread out awkwardly. (e.g., Art       Ross, Lady       Bing).--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't showing up that way on my browsers. Is this perhaps a custom setting you are using? I'll look into it as well, however. Resolute 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose

• NHL All-Rookie Team selections, NHL First All-Star Team, NHL Second All-Star Team, All-Star Game selections, Hockey Hall of Fame elections, Retired numbers are all honors, and are not specifically awards just to clarify.

• True enough. I've revised the lead to clarify.

• NHL Plus/Minus Award is a disambiguation. The article is NHL Plus-Minus Award.

• Ahh, I hadn't realized that article had been moved. Corrected.

• You should denote player who have won the same award multiple times. For example, "2007–08 Jarome Iginla (5)" instead of "2007–08 Jarome Iginla".

• I'm not sure I see that as strictly necessary. In things like the all-star game appearances, I think that would just clutter the page.

• remove the template, Template:NHL.

• Done

• Is Category:Calgary Flames the only category to put on this article?

• So far, it seems so. I don't think very many articles of this type exist yet in the NHL. Like was done for the New Jersey Devils article, I split a lot of stuff out of the main Flames article and called it Calgary Flames notable players and award winners. Since a lot of that information was duplicative of other lists, I reformatted it into this style. I know of one other article (List of Philadelphia Flyers award winners that has duplicated the style. I'll create Category:Award winners by National Hockey League team and populate it as I am able.

-- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 23:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support By the way, thanks for making this article "Canadian" since I noticed that you put "honours", instead of "honors". Also by the way, I'm also Canadian. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah! It's so annoying when I work on articles for American players or teams to have to adjust to that goofy spelling. ;o) Resolute 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really for me. I'm kind of Americanized on Wikipedia. When I write on homework assignment, I usually use American English. I should really stop editing Wikipedia since it's making my wording non-Canadian, but I love wikiing! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 04:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [62].

---

List of Indonesian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

Nominating another submission list. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I was unable to check the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - really gives a little content, but meets the FL criteria and I found no flaws.--S_RX 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• "Indonesian director Riri Riza had one of his films, Gie, submitted for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film" can have a period at the end since it's a full sentence.

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Indonesia has submitted films for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film since 1987." – I think "Indonesia has submitted films to be considerated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film since 1987." is clearer? I was thinking of making it "Indonesia has submitted films for consideration for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film since 1987." but then there are two "for"s.

• The "for consideration" seems to be implied by "submitted" IMO. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "the United States Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to" – "the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to" – otherwise it seems that "United States" is part of the organization's title. Also, unlink the United States/American.

• Cut. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "It was not created until the 1956 Academy Awards," – "It was created in 1956," or something along those lines

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Think that's it. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose - redlinks, presentation and some phrasing...

• A lot of redlinks. If you think these are worthy are linking, can I (boldly/cheekily) request you, at least, create stubs for them?

• Per past FLCs, I'm more than happy to make stubs for the films, which are the main subject of the list, but not for the other stuff, especially the directors, who may or may not be notable. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Again, (and I guess this is Safari under MacOS for you) the lead image overlaps the top-right-hand-side of the table.

• Fixed (hopefully). If this doesn't work, I'll cut the image. It's not that necessary. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "is handed out " - a shade colloquial - perhaps - "is presented to"..?

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Indonesian director Riri Riza had one of his films" - "had one" yuck. Can we rephrase this a bit? "...Riza, whose film... was nominated for..."?

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Think that's it. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - still not keen on the number of redlinks but everything else is in order. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [63].

---

Ricki-Lee Coulter discography

Self-nomination. I have significantly contributed to the list and believe it meets all attributes of the featured list criteria. The discography follows the same format as Joel Turner discography, a featured list supported just a week ago. I'm willing to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes: Ricki-Lee Coulter has only charted in Australia (except for her U Wanna Little of This extended play, on non-notable UK component charts). Hpfan9374 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, Ealdgyth. Its a very handy tool. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead
  • The release performed poorly, despite producing two top ten singles, certified gold by the ARIA. - "the release performed poorly" violates WP:NPOV.
  • The release was certified platinum twice by the ARIA and produced two top ten singles, certified platinum and gold by the ARIA.[5] - How about 'The release was certified platinum twice by the ARIA and produced two top ten singles, which were also certified platinum and gold by the ARIA.?
  • She released an extended play, U Wanna Little Of This in 2008, with major record label Ministry of Sound. - no need for comma after 2008, I also don't understand why the link to major record label is pipelinked to Music industry.
• General comment
  • You should add a dash aligned in the center in the tables that don't have information, I'm talking about the certifications columns.
• Solo
  • I feel there is no need for the note about the single being a "current single." It's already ranked and will be off the charts in a couple of weeks.

Notify when done :)--S_RX 00:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I feel I have made the necessary changes. Thankyou very much for your comments you have once again expanded both the article and my knowledge. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Shaidar_cuebiyar

• Lead
  • Does she perform/record as Ricki-Lee? Or only as Ricki-Lee Coulter?

The artists' article is called Ricki-Lee Coulter. She records as Ricki-Lee, though as a past Idol contestant, Ricki-Lee Coulter should be used. It's a real dilemma. I suggest keeping the name Ricki-Lee Coulter discography, as Ricki-Lee discography redirects here anyway. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect the article to be renamed but the Lead should refer to the fact that some material is released under the alternate name. (More on this later: see refs for video directors).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. How do you propose this be done; "Ricki-Lee Coulter, often shorten to Ricki-Lee is an Australian..." I would appreciate some assistance here. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Album titles (studio albums and EPs) should be italicised: you've missed a few.

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Young Divas - did she join them after they were formed or was she a co-founder? Reword the sentence to straighten this out.

She was a co-founder. Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Overlinking terms - e.g.1 ARIA does not need to be linked four times in such a short space, just once. (After the first mention that ARIA certifies gold records it does not need to be mentioned in the Lead (keep in refs though), its implicit that certs are from ARIA unless otherwise specified - but that's up to you.) e.g.2 gold only needs one wikilink in Lead.

I agree it is implicit. Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Fix U Wanna Little Of This to U Wanna Little of This, also explain its relationship to "Can't Touch It" - I expected to go to a different article for each release.

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nearly, you've missed the of instead of Of. See WP:MUSTARD for more of same.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Refs
  • For newspaper refs: Use cite news instead of cite web. All newspaper names should be given in full and italicised. e.g. The Courier Mail. Authors names should be given where available: I found two fairly easily.

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Don't you like Guy Blackman? ... who wrote "On the road with Ricki Lee". I've also found yet another author fairly quickly. You've got more work to do on these. Check each article closely, authors names are usually near top or bottom of article. Some of these are reprints of original article found elsewhere: sometimes they leave the author's name behind. In any case, original site is preferable to reprint site (even if it acknowledges original).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read the news articles thoroughly and have found another author's name. I have edited both authors, Guy Blackman and Sarah Nicholson to the references. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • All Australian Charts Portal or australian-charts.com refs can be combined by Discography Ricki-Lee, which summarises both her albums and singles charts.

Never seen this before, it's very good. Thanks and fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Check the two video director refs. Something confusing is happening: the titles appear to have been swapped. Also, one of the refs takes me to just a general page and I don't see any Ricki-Lee video information there: is it on a sub-page? If so, fix the url to go directly to where the information is that you're referring to.

Changed the names on references around. Also changed the reference to Bart Borghesi to his curriculum vitae, as the site recently changed to a flash-based website. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In changing this reference you will have to add, |format=PDF

into your ref, so that users will realise they'll be downloading an additional file. This particular ref also reinforces need for "Ricki-Lee" or "Ricki Lee" to be added to Lead sentence, if I search this page for "Ricki-Lee Coulter" or "Coulter" how many of her videos do I get?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. How do you propose this be done; "Ricki-Lee Coulter, often shorten to Ricki-Lee is an Australian..." I would appreciate some assistance here. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notify when done :)--Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I feel I have made the necessary changes. Thankyou very much for your comments you have expanded both the article and my knowledge. Notified. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

More required, see above.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your additional comments. I believe I have made the necessary changes. Notified. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Rather than have a 'Miscellaneous' table my preference would be to rename it 'Contributions', as it would appear that Coulter has contributed a track to that compliation album - are there any other contributions that she has made?

I have renamed it to 'Contributions' as requested. Coulter has not many any other original contributions. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the 'Miscellaneous' table don't have a separate column for references - this probably should be a footnote - check Paul Kelly discography

Footnote added. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the infobox it indicates there are footnotes when there are none

There is now a footnote, as requested above. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• For consistency the table for the 'Extended plays' should have columns for peak chart positions and certifications

I have edited the 'Extended plays' and included peak chart positions and certifications columns. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• The standard convention for discographies appears to be that rather than 'Studio albums' it be 'Studio releases' and if you do this then the 'Extended plays' should be incorporated into a single table 'Studio releases'.

No thanks. This convention is only used in Paul Kelly discography. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Similarly there probably should only be one table for 'Singles' with "Good Times" incorporated into that table - with a footnote explanation as to the fact Coulter performed as one of the overall group or performers.

Okay. Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk)`

• Support - my issues have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria.--Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your support Shaidar cuebiyar. I greatly appreciated your comments and assistance; they help me expand as a wikipedian. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk)

Comments

• Rather than have a 'Miscellaneous' table my preference would be to rename it 'Contributions', as it would appear that Coulter has contributed a track to that compliation album - are there any other contributions that she has made?

I have renamed it to 'Contributions' as requested. Coulter has not many any other original contributions. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the 'Miscellaneous' table don't have a separate column for references - this probably should be a footnote - check Paul Kelly discography

Footnote added. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the infobox it indicates there are footnotes when there are none

There is now a footnote, as requested above. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• For consistency the table for the 'Extended plays' should have columns for peak chart positions and certifications

I have edited the 'Extended plays' and included peak chart positions and certifications columns. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• The standard convention for discographies appears to be that rather than 'Studio albums' it be 'Studio releases' and if you do this then the 'Extended plays' should be incorporated into a single table 'Studio releases'.

No thanks. This convention is only used in Paul Kelly discography. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Similarly there probably should only be one table for 'Singles' with "Good Times" incorporated into that table - with a footnote explanation as to the fact Coulter performed as one of the overall group or performers.

Okay. Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk)`

Notify when done :)-- Dan arndt (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I feel I have made the necessary changes. Thankyou very much for your comments you have expanded both the article and my knowledge. Notified. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comment

• In the lead paragraph it states 'The release reached the top thirty, producing two top ten singles...' however it doesn't indicate which top thirty charts you are refering to (i.e Australian music sales charts)

Fixed, I have specified the ARIA Charts. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I feel I have made the necessary changes. Thankyou very much for your comments you have expanded both the article and my knowledge. Notified. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Comments

• "Ricki-Lee Coulter, often shortened to Ricki-Lee..." ?

Requested by supporter Shaidar cuebiyar. The artists' article is called Ricki-Lee Coulter. She records as Ricki-Lee, though as a past Idol contestant, Ricki-Lee Coulter should be used. It's a real dilemma. What do you suggest I do?

Don't need make anything more, I understand this sentence, after your explanation (of course). Cannibaloki 03:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• eponymous debut album → eponymous debut album (attention to correct links)

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • "Coulter" (×4) on lead!

The second and fourth occurrences of "Coulter" have been replaced with "Ricki-Lee". Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Studio albums
  • Peak chart positions > AUS[10] → AUS peak<br />positions[10]

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Certifications → AUS certifications

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Extended plays
  • Remove: Peak chart positions & Certifications (fully redundant!)

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Singles
  • Peak chart positions > AUS[10] (Please, don't use this when you have just one column.) → AUS peak<br />positions[10]

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Certifications → AUS certifications

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Upcoming compilation album (?) → non-album single

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • width="175" to Singles, Music videos, and Other appearances (refers to Song width)

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Contributions → Other appearances (also should be in the infobox)

Fixed and placed "Other appearances" in the infobox. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Where is the reference to song "Proud Mary"?

Under "Other appearances" click "[nb 2]" and this will direct you to a footnote as requested by supporter Shaidar cuebiyar. At the end of this footnote, it is referenced by ref 17. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose With their poorly layout, this list become several redundancies. Cannibaloki 16:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your comments. I have addressed all your objections, except the lead sentence, I request your assistance in fixing this. Otherwise, I believe I've fixed everything. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks much better now. Cannibaloki 03:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your support Cannibaloki. I greatly appreciated your comments and assistance; they help me expand as a wikipedian. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose - lead needs work, everything seems in order....

• Three paras in the lead is too much for an article of this length per WP:LEAD - try two.

Should the "Young Divas" sentence: "The release was certified platinum twice and produced two top ten singles, "This Time I Know It's for Real" and "Happenin' All Over Again", certified platinum and gold respectively" be removed? Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to remove stuff, just merge it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "...came to prominence after placing seventh on the second season of Australian Idol ..." - really? 7th place in Pop Idol usually results in complete anonymity. Did she come to prominence after being given a record deal despite coming 7th?

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Ricki-Lee co-founded girl group Young Divas and released their commercially ..." - gone from singular (Ricki-Lee) to plural (released their)... - reads oddly.

I don't know how else to word it. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"...Divas and with them released the commercially successful..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "which were also certified platinum and gold" - again reads a little odd since you just said "two singles" - which singles were certified what?

Specified the singles and their certification individually. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I guess you could link extended play.

Linked. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "in 2008 with major record label" - what do you mean by "major"?

Removed "major" from "major record label". Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "is currently working" - context - date it, so "As of September 2008..."

Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your comments. I have addressed several of your objections, however require further assistance in address lead length and singular to plural sentences. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your further assistance, The Rambling Man. I have merged the paragraphs and changed the sentence as requested. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak support not keen on the placement of the references in the Singles table but other than that, no big problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your support The Rambling Man. I greatly appreciated your comments and assistance; they help me expand as a wikipedian. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [64].

---

UAB Blazers football seasons

I am nominating this article because I think it fulfills the FL criteria, in addressing said subject. It is modeled after Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons, a featured list. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I gave this list a quick copyedit, and suggested some changes, which have already been made. Although short, this list is comparable to Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons and East Carolina Pirates football seasons, both of which are featured lists. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from SRX

Oppose

• Lead
  • This is a list of seasons completed by the UAB Blazers football team of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), representing the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) as the Blazers. - Featured Lists are discouraged to begin with "This list is ___"

Have re-worded the first sentence to adjust for this. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • UAB is a member of Conference USA (C-USA) and has competed in the conference since 1999, when the Blazers joined after playing as an independent. - as an independent what?

Have wikilinked "independent" to the NCAA Division I-FBS independent schools article it refers to. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • After two years of club football play, on March 13, 1991, UAB President Charles McCallum and athletic director Gene Bartow announced that the university would compete in football as a NCAA Division III team beginning in fall 1991. - how about After two years of club football play, on March 13, 1991, UAB President Charles McCallum and athletic director Gene Bartow announced that the university would compete in football as a NCAA Division III team beginning in the fall of 1991.

Thanks for the suggestion. Have implemented, and it does flow better. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • No link to what football the article is talking about.

Have now wikilinked to College football in the first sentence. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Season
  • You should use the <br> parameters on the seasons column to place the notes under the word "Season."

Have made the necessary change. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • (only includes bowl games; 1 appearance) I find the "1 appearance" not needed because its self explanatory in the total.

Amended this fact, it does look better. Thanks. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• 'Footnotes
  • This is horrible. All of the information related to individual season records was taken from the Records & History section of the 2008 UAB Football Media Guide - This should instead be incorporated as a row into the table with the Source: (name of source with link) like in the FL 2008 WWE Draft or cite the source using {{citeweb}} and divide the references section into general and specific.

Have reformatted per your 2008 WWE Draft suggestion. This is my first submission, and I was not quite sure to handle this type of citation. Will use this formatting for future articles. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notify for any changes.--S_RX 00:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• Lead
  • UAB is a member of Conference USA (C-USA) and has competed in the conference since 1999, when the Blazers joined after playing as an independent. - no need for comma after 1999.

Comma removed Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • After two years of club football play, on March 13, 1991, UAB President Charles McCallum and athletic director Gene Bartow announced that the university would compete in football as a NCAA Division III team beginning in the fall of 1991. - how about instead "that the university would compete for the NCAA in their Division III"?

Reworded and simply removed reference to NCAA as it was indicated in the lead that the team competes as part of the NCAA. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • From 1991 to 1992, UAB competed as a Division III independent. - as someone unaware of the subject, it would help to explain independent rather than just linking, WP:IN-U could be cited here.

Added statement to clarify what "independent" means in this context Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • During this period, the Blazers compiled an 11–6–2 overall record before making the jump to Division I-AA for the 1993 season. - how about instead, "before switching to Division I-AA" no need for the long phrases.

Re-phrased as "before moving up to Division I-AA" Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • From 1993 to 1995, UAB competed as a Division I-AA independent, and compiled a 21–12 overall record as a I-AA school prior to making the jump to Division I-A before the 1996 season.[1] - same thing here.

Re-phrased as "before moving up to Division I-A" Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Already a participating member of Conference USA in other sports, on November 13, 1996, C-USA commissioner Mike Slive announced UAB would be admitted to the league as a football playing member beginning with the 1999 season.[6] - "announced that" (change is in bold)

Added Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 00:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Lead is too long per WP:LEAD - probably two paras for an article of this length will suffice.

Cut the text down to two paragraphs, removing redundant information present in the UAB Blazers football article. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image could do with being "thumb"ed with a caption.

Done Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Expand where UAB is for non-US experts, so add something like "situated in Birmingham, Alabama..." and appropriately wikilinked.

Done Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• No need to abbreviate FBS as you don't use it anywhere after the first time.

Removed Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "regular-season " - is this really hyphenated?

Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• 3rd->third.

Removed statement using this Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Organized football.." - tempted to link football to American football here to avoid alienating billions of "soccer" readers.

Removed statement using this Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "From 1991 to 1992" - is this one season or two?

Clarified and appropriately wikilinked to the supporting article Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "or not as a member of a NCAA-affiliated conference" - reads odd - was it one or the other or does the "or ..." mean an alternative meaning?

Clarified Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "During this period, the Blazers compiled an 11–6–2 overall record before moving up to Division I-AA for the 1993 ..." - this "period" was 1991 to 1992 last sentence...

Reworded and clarified Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Link NCAA first time, not second..

Removed excessive wikilink Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "1996 season" - link both words, not just the year.

Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Auburn links to a specific team year - avoid this - link to the team by all means but avoid this kind of easter egg linking.

Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• 1999 and 2008 "season" links to the "team" so, once again, avoid the easter egg linking.

Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Scores and overall records need explanation i.e. you have " record of 31–37" and then "record of 91–97–2" - which isn't clear to non-experts.

Clarified all records illustrated on the list Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP:MOS#COLORS says don't just use colours for representing a property - add a dagger, asterisk or something as well.

Added symbology Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why is 2004 season bold?

It should not have been, corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• See also is not required.

Removed Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Where is footnote 1 cited?

Citation provided for now next to footnote Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 3 has a raw URL, and a Pg for page ref.

Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 4 cites a single page but uses pp.

Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to make comments, as this is my first attempt at creating a FL. Please let me know what else may need to be addressed.Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose

• "Beginning in the inaugural..." - "Since their inaugural..." - because it is redundant to say they began in their inaugural season.

Corrected.

• Remove space between colon and [2].

Space removed.

• Still don't see where footnote 1 is referenced.

Finally figured out the proper syntax for this and corrected.

• en-dash for page ranges still.

Added

• And use "pp." for multiple pages, not Pg. (ref 1)

Corrected

• And use "p." for single pages, not Pg. (ref 6)

Corrected

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for taking the time to comment!Patriarca12 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support

• Why is the footnote [A 1]?
• You have a key for conference champs but it's never used - optimistic?!

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As below, to get the nom out of the way, I fixed these. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• While I am by no means an expert on the subject I feel certain that the image (logo) fails WP:NFCC. The image in question currently claims fair use on 14 pages! It is not an image particually relevent to the page. Neither of the similar featured lists mentioned above—Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons & East Carolina Pirates football seasons—use non-free images so why should this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To get this nomination out of the way, I removed the logo and put an image of their stadium up instead. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [65].

---

List of Toronto Blue Jays Opening Day starting pitchers

I am right now going straight to a featured list nomination, and skipping the peer review, since I know this article is ready for this process. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I see that a template is used to pipe specific game seasons into a solitary year. This is deprecated by some WikiProjects, rightly so, since most readers will pass over solitary blue years, thinking they're of the useless type. I tried to change the piping to more than just the year ("the 1990 season", I think I used), but it turned red. Does this template make it impossible to do so? Tony (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So what do you want me to do, since the template is impossible to pipe more than just the year? -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 04:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - article looks very good. The only problem I have with it however is the format of the references. All other Opening Day starting pitcher articles have a reference column in the table, which I think is better and more specific than just having a list of "General References" at the bottom. Obviously this isn't set in stone and I'm interested in your opinion of the matter. Besides that however, the article looks great and I'll vote "support" after the reference thing is addressed. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at all my other featured list nominations, you'll se that most of them use that arrangement for references. I know I only used approx. 5 (not looking at my article) references, but I still think it has all the WP:FL? criteria. I hope this issue won't be such a huge problem. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency it might be better to put the references in the table. If you'd like I'll help with that, but since all the other Opening Day starting pitcher articles do that, it would probably be best if this did too. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I have homework to do. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've redone the refs. Once you add them to the opening paragraph so everything is cited, I will change by opinion to support. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't need the refs on the prose because the refs are already on the table. Even ask The Rambling Man. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My fault, I misinterpreted that part of the MOS. One more thing though: in the lead it says "The Blue Jays are the first and only team outside the United States to win a World Series, and the first team to win a World Series in Canada". Is that neccesary for an article on Opening Day pitchers, and if you believe it is, the second part of the sentence should be deleted, as it is already explained by the first part. I will go ahead and change my vote to Support, because I trust that you will make that change. Good luck! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - meets the FL Criteria.S_RX 01:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support but you should fix...

• Year heading in table would be better as Season since you pipe link to the seasons from them.
• "and 14 no decisions" I count 8?
• "all of which were pitched on the " both?

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE ALL! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Not necessary to link Canada. It can be reached from either Toronto or Ontario.

'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The 18 starters have a combined Opening Day record of 11 wins, 13 losses and 8 no decisions. No decisions are only awarded to the starting pitcher if the game is won or lost after the starting pitcher has left the game." I know it's wikilinked, but it doesn't help people reading a paper copy, or those who don't wish to navigate away from the page. WP:PCR. It's all a little jargony for the non-baseballer. For example, "11 wins, 13 losses and 8 no decisions" is this how many games were won, or something only the pitcher wins that has no outcome on the game's result?

The article tells you that, "The 18 starters have a combined Opening Day record", which means what it's telling you. I can't think of any other way to say it. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Blue Jays first ever Opening Day starting pitcher" -- "ever" not needed

'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "who got a no decision" not got. "received", "won", I don't know, but got is not encyclopedic tone

'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "at Exhibition Stadium" is there a need to say this again? It was already said that the first 13 years were played there

'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "has an Opening Day record of 2–3." 2 wins vs 3 losses?

'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "both of which were pitched on the road." they didn't play on a field?

'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Opening Day starting pitchers have a record of 0–1 at Exhibition Stadium" again, as a non baseball fan I don't understand this. I'm guessing it's w-l, but the table shows 3w, 6l, 4ND

'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [66].

---

List of New York Yankees Opening Day starting pitchers

I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 03:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Quick comment You've made a bunch of these pitcher lists, why not create a brand-new category for MLB starting pitchers?...or just add a navigational box where you can provide links to these lists.--Crzycheetah 06:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  Looks like someone else just went and did it. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit

Comments

• The years should be centrally aligned, so should the decision column as well

Done and Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The first season is a Baltimore Orioles season, I think the fact that they became the Yankees should be made clear in the lead to avoid confusion

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Jim Bouton image should not be used as it is not free use, I'm sure there are other free use alternatives you could use

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise with Marius Russo and Lefty Gomez, there are loads of images in the commons which I'm sure you could use instead

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall the list is very good NapHit (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose

• I've recently seen a list which states whether the NDs were winning or losing when the pitcher departed. Good additional info you can add it?

Yeah I like that better. Added results. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "...in modern baseball ties are..." - comma after baseball.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "had been lacking appropriate lighting equipment" -lacked adequate lighting.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Other pitchers with two or more Opening ..." - since there are so many, maybe making it three?

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Larson seems to be called Larsen?

Corretced --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Last para is an odd mix - no real flow to it at all - odd trivia facts here and there - please rephrase.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid small text in the (2) etc..

Is there a specific policy regarding this? I personally think it doesn't look as appealing when the numbers are normal. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this discussion, it might be better to leave the text as it is. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Make ref 1 a general ref?

I think the table wouldn't flow as well to have 50 years or so with a ref and then suddenly there be none for the next 40. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• NY Times should be "The New York Times" and is a work - unless that's the name of the publishing company too?

The article was orginally published by the New York Times in 1910. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support good work on my comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • You should mention that there was a time this franchise was known as the "New York Highlanders".
  • The ref#1 is cited way too many times. I strongly recommend having a general reference for such a long list. Pages 17-19 of this PDF file have all but 3 lineups and can easily be used as a general reference. For those three seasons, you can put a citation next to the pitchers' names. Page 20 of that file has opponent's name and the result.
  • As for the results, why don't you add the scores next to the W, L, T?

--Crzycheetah 04:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a reason why these opening day starting pitcher lists don't fail WP:NOT an indiscriminate source of information? I appreciate the amount of work that went into these... it's just, I think it would be nice if there was some reason why we believe the opening day starting pitchers are more notable that the day-two starting pitchers. — PyTom (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Because Opening Day is a lot more notable than day-two. —Borgarde^talk 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• typo "fraanchise"
• WP:PCR. I know there are links, but explain what wins and losses are. Do they refer to the games, or something that the pitcher wins?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with a few comments. First, avoid pipe-linking a stand-alone year per MOS. Also per MOS, spell out numbers below 10. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "Key" section would do better as a part (or a sub-section) in the "Pitchers" section. iMatthew (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Gimmetrow 12:32, 4 October 2008 [67].

---

Josh Homme discography

re-nominated. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC) previous FLC (16:20, 18 August 2008)

Support Having had no involvement with this current nomination, I hope my support is worth as much as everyone elses. My support is cautious, as the lead is quite long, though it does a good job of explaining the importance of Homme's involvement with these bands and why he deserves his own discography (He's not a solo artist but is the founder of multiple bands and a serial collaborator). Red157(talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Aren't discographies of artists who have been in bands supposed to just be solo discogs? By that reckoning this list shouldn't even exist?! Andre666 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If wikipedia didn't ever progress into new territory it would be a terrible site. Yes, discographies are normally restricted to solo artists and bands, but every once in a while something has to come along that's an exception to that rule. Homme has founded all those bands (Without discographies of their own currently) and as I've said before, needs to have a place where all his collaborations can be seen. As there's loads. Red157(talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_E.HTM

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• John Garcia links to a dab page.
  • Corrected link;
• "second guitarist, he befriending vocalist" what?
  •  Done
• You call the Desert Sessions a collaboration but in the infobox you have 20 collaborations...?
  •  Done
• "releasing several extended plays (EPs)" you've already abbreviated this.
  •  Done
• " with Homme back behind the drum kit" reads like a music mag, not an encyclopedia.
  • " Done
• Eagles of Death Metal is singular, so "released their second studio " ought to be "released its second ..."
  •  Done
• "several related bands" what does related mean in this context?
  •  Done
• "Rekords Rekords" is overlinked.
  •  Done
• Headings should not have links in them.
  •  Done
• "—" denotes releases that did not chart - are you sure? Do the sources prove they were actually released?
  •  Done
• No chart positions for anything beside the Eagles of Death Metal?
  •  Done None of the other artist have charted. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The other artists haven't charted. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Collaborations - centrally align ref column.
  •  Done
• I think I count 24 collaborations.
  •  Done
• Artist should be Artist(s).
  •  Done
• In Your Honour should be In Your Honor.
  •  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• "with 26 different artists" prove this? I count 25 including the four bands he released albums with - and are you classing a band as an artist? Are you counting his collaboration with "Nick Oliveri, Brad Wilk" as two different artists? It's a little confusing. Done
  •  Not done - are you classing bands as artists?
    • Sorry for that last one.  Done
• Two collaborations have no references.
  •  Not done
    • Sorry for that last one.  Done
• Rancho de la Luna should be Rancho De La Luna. Done
• "two albums, Volumes 1 & 2" but the link to the Volumes 1 & 2 describes it as a single album. And so do you later on. Done
• "as the band developed " what? not sure this is true. Done}
• "including the break-through Songs for the Deaf (2002)." - prove it was a break-through - it isn't cited. Done
• " the Desert Sessions" should be "The Desert Sessions" shouldn't it? Done
• "although Homme rarely tours " this sentence changes tense and the touring bit reads oddly compared to the clause before it.  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The only thing I want to point out is that why isn't it that in the lead there is a sentence stating how many albums he has released overall like in other discographies. Other than that the list looks good and has a great prose.--S_RX 23:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Same as SRX
  • SEE COMMENT BY SKOMOROKH BELOW
• The Desert Sessions is described as a "weekend of collaboration". I don't know if the subheading "With The Desert Sessions" is correct. "During" perhaps?
  • HOMME'S IS THE ONLY MEMBER
• It says "Outside of his full-time projects, Homme has appeared on the releases of several bands, including ... Cocaine Rodeo (2000) and A Drug Problem That Never Existed (2003) by ... Mondo Generator" Mondo Generator lists him as an actual former band member, not just a two-time collaborator, or whatever. If that's so, this piece needs changing. If the information here is correct, then shouldn't the "With Mondo Generator" section be merged into the collaborations section? Done
• Some of the "albums" are EPs, judging by their articles.REMOVED THE EPS SINCE THEY ARE NOT ALBUMS Done
  • WHATS WRONG WITH THAT
    • EPs are not albums? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why no QotSA albums? You could transclude the table instead of writing it out all over again. Done
• Wot, no singles, EPs, soundtrack appearances, etc etc?REMOVED THE EPS SINCE THEY ARE NOT ALBUMS Done
  • THE POINT WITH THIS LIST IS TO LIST THE ALBUMS HE HAS DONE
    • Then per WP:FL?, the scope of the list should be clearly defined in the lead. ie, say it only includes albums, otherwise it appears to be incomplete. You might also want to retitle it Josh Homme albums discography Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is ambiguity in the use of "The Desert Sessions" and "Mondo Generator". The former refers to both the event(s) (i.e. "during the Desert Sessions") and the "authors" of the albums (i.e. "With The Desert Sessions"). Similarly, Mondo G was not a proper band when Homme was a "member" - just a series of once-off gigs in which Nick Oliveri and his friends would play around. Mondo later became a fulltime band.

I agree that the Qotsa albums should be included. Done

Is it really beneficial to separate albums from EPs? The most intuitive two ways of doing so - all albums followed by all EPs or all Artist1 albums followed by all Artist1 EPs - break up the chornological order badly.

An EP is different. It's like including a single in there. They're different. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To SRX; there is no correct reliable source stating how many albums Homme has released. This is a problem unique to individual person discographies, as there is no boundary on what are "official" Josh Homme releases. Any number we would choose would be arbitrary. the skomorokh 12:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

perhaps something along the lines of "Homme has released #n albums with his bands, and has collaborated with other artists on a further #n." but better, obviously!  DoneMatthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I was about to support the promotion to FL of this list, but then I saw new problems with the "new changes"
• Josh Homme is an American rock musician. This list only includes albums he released with other bands. Homme's has released 18 studio albums and has collaberated with 26 different artists. - umm, discouraged using "this list." Also it would read better as "Josh Homme is an American rock musician, who has released 18 studio albums and has collaborated with 26 different artists." (Notice the flow and correct spelling of "collaboration.") Done
• I am not to happy with the name as it is very redundant, discography means "albums released" What the title reads literally is This is a list of Josh Homme albums list of albums released (that's what it is literally saying) Who told you to move it to that name? Done

S_RX 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did, as all other discographies include singles, EPs, videos, etc. This one isn't supposed to, so similar to Mariah Carey albums discography, I suggested moving it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the Mariah Carey list is not Featured and it is a redirect to Mariah Carey discography. I'm not sure whether other FL's are like that, but the name doesn't seem right, as discography is a list of albums or released work, or in other words it's the same thing as Mariah Carey albums so IMO it's either or.S_RX 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked it wasn't! :P Well, I don't care if it moves back, so long as the lead clearly defines the scope, and says that it doesn't include singles and everything else. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - meets WP:FL?.S_RX 02:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [68].

---

List of The Office (US TV series) episodes

I believe that the issues from the previous FLC were resolved in the PR. Specific comments are very welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues (includes sourcing check) , Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs): Sources

• I note citation inconsistencies: Sometimes, the {{cite xxx}} template is used, other times the citations are made manually.

Yeah, that is because of the pipe character in the url, and is anyways irrelevant to FL criteria. Nergaal (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current refs 7, 11, and 12 are dead.

Please check them manually. It is the same reason as with the previous complaint. Nergaal (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.hollywood.com reliable?

It has been discussed in the previous FLC. Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1236462/ (Ref 34) can be replaced with http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/theoffice.html, a more reliable source.

Thanks, I'll do that! Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current refs 18 and 23 need publication dates.

Done

Other things

• The following is a complete list of episodes from the American situation comedy television series The Office." Featured lists don't start like this anymore.

Ok, I am going to submit the List of Lost episodes for FLR then. Any suggestions/examples though? Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Define (in plain text) what The Office is—"The Office is an American situational comedy series." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now? Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• "...it is a mockumentary that follows the day-to-day lives of the employees of the Scranton, Pennsylvania branch of Dunder Mifflin, a paper supply company." You might mention the paper supply company is fictional.
• "Series Overview" Per MOS, only the first word of a section heading should start with a capital letter.
• "The first episode of season four premiered on September 27, 2007,[27] while the last episode aired on May 15, 2008." "while"-->and, while should not be used as an additive link. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now? Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)))

Comments

• Please see how List of Lost episodes displays episode lists. It transcludes them from the other articles; please do the same here. The reasoning behind this is so that changes made to the separate seasons will affect the main list, so only one edit needs to be made. Gary King (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand you really don't want to allow me to get this as an FL, but this is getting ridiculous. You gave completely opposite reasons for opposing last FLC which took +100 edits to resolve and were still not helpful. Now you are trying to throw an oppose for the sake of it AGAIN. You should also notice what other comments were made during the last FLC and notice that this format is accepted (check the Simpsons list of episodes if you are paranoid and don't trust me). Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked a few and noticed that they don't all do that – although most do have the descriptions on the page itself because they aren't notable enough to have separate season pages. Simpsons FLC was promoted over two years ago; Lost was last year. I'd still think that the rationale makes sense; perhaps not a requirement, but would be nice for it to be done. Gary King (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The previous FLC I was told it is fine. In this case anyways, linking from subarticles would (1) make the article huge again; (2) not add anything necessary that is not covered now (except for the 5th season which is unstable anyways). Please show me where else has been your rationale used for opposing a FLC. Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was to transclude the season tables but exclude the descriptions, so that only the Title, Director, Writer, Original US air date, and Prod. code information were included. Gary King (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you translude without descriptions, without clogging the original page to a point where it looks ridiculous. Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would undoubtedly agree with transclusion. And I don't believe either Gary or myself "don't want to allow [you] to get this as an FL", rather it's just the best way of doing things. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a slightly longer story with Gary and I. And to me, opposing only because of a transclusion issue does not sound like a friendly & constructive comment. Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith on my part. I have opposed many other FLCs; this one is no different. I am involved in this FLC because I was interested in a long time in getting this article to FL status and now that that is possible, I would like to see it at its best. I have also commented before on your previous FLCs without opposing when I didn't feel that the issues were problematic enough to hold the nomination back. Anyways, back to the question at hand. Please check the Lost episodes article and the respective seasons articles to see how it is done; I am certain it will be clear to you once that is done. Gary King (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

←they use {{:Lost (season 1)}} and I have no idea what ":" does. Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Without a namespace before it, ":" resolves to article space. Without that, all you get is a regular template. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If it hasn't been addressed already, I will carry out the transcluding if noone else knows how to do it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have experimented a bit but I got stuck. So yes, please. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I had to edit {{Episode list/The Office}}, because you were using the Rtitle= field but hadn't included it. When I did include it, it forced it so that every entry that didn't need it, now did. I had to change it one last time so that it only included it when it was needed, but unfortunately, my edit got rid of the alternating light grey. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Matthew! Gary King (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks! Nergaal (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is actually one problem now, and that is the writers and director entries are switched. I tried to fix it but I couldn't. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

NP, I know what the issue is.. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Please check that that's right now. If it is, the writers/directors columns for The Accountants and Kevin's Loan need switching for consistency

Also, put the years in the heading for season five, since they're there for all the other seasons. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting those. Somebody has been playing with the Season 5 section... Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please unlink part dates as in "The webisode series began its run on July 10, 2008, and ended on July 31, 2008. And be aware that the MOS no longer requires dates to be linked, in fact it is depreciated except for in certain circumstances
• "although she appeared in the sixth episode, Branch Wars," Episodes should be wrapped in double-quote marks
• "Oscar, Stanley and Darryl also participated." Are these actors or characters? Either way, "appeared" would be better
• "The list is ordered by the episodes' original air dates and not by the production code numbers provided by NBC's official episode guide—which show the order in which episodes were filmed." I think the emdash is overkill here. They're usually used to provide a sharp break in the flow of sentences, but a comma would do, I think
• Why is Victor Nelli redlinked?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything else should be done except for the redlink (because it is not unlikely that an article will be created about him at some point). Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reluctant oppose (moved to Support see below) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge

Comments

• The season 5 episodes yet to air should have references for their proposed air dates and names. I can kind of accept "Business Ethics" and "Baby Shower" because they have a link in the episode page but "Crime Aid" has nothing. I think this is important as it helps prevent the addition of unsourced speculation of names and airdates of future episodes.

done

• Production code for "Weight Loss" cannot be TBA considering it has been produced and aired.

done

• Season 4 episodes are two lines away from the paragraph text whereas the others are one.

it took more for you to write this than it would have taken you to solve it. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Viewing figures, and the two rank figures in Series Overview are completely unreferenced.

And yet you haven't addressed this!! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. They should be there now. Thanks for spotting it. Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Change either the background colour or text colour on the webisodes as black text on dark grey is not easy to read.

not sure how to solve it. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done, I have provided a fix. If you have any specific requests for colours just ask? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 34 is IMDb. Reliable how?

done

• Is the note about adapted from UK pilot and the § actually used anywhere.

done

• That same note also has Pilot capitalised but not italicised. The name of the UK episode was "Downsize" or "Episode One"

done

• If your going to remove links for overlinking be consistent for example season 3, episode 40 & 41 have identical writers and directors but are linked both episodes. Just needs looking over.

done

• The second paragraph for season 1 uses only ref [8] but multiple times. Is there a reason not to just put ref 8 at the end of the paragraph.

done

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• The ref's you added current [7] & [9] that you added for the series overviews need a note saying that subscription is required or something.
• I realised you took the option to remove Season 5 to address the issues I raised with it. However in doing so it means that this list now fails Criteria 3 for comprehensiveness, as season 5 has started airing.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have met stupid reasons for opposing but never so many in one single nomination. Do you even understand that this nomination was STARTED CLOSE TO A MONTH AGO??? There is a single episode missing and the next one will not be out in almost 2 weeks. Seriously you should have come one month ago to write the review when this was not an issue. Wikipedia is not a news feed so you should back off about requesting information that is available only for a few days (I am actually not sure it it possible to get the production code yet). In order to be consistent, you should go nominate all the FLs about the running shows for removal. Also, you should show me based on which rule you oppose based on not having subscription to the refs, otherwise your reasoning will be seen as stupid. Nergaal (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't call me stupid. Lots of things mentioned at FLC are not opposes, hence they are under a comments section. As people are not opposing when they say that there is a stray comma or something. In the same way I'm not opposing on the references, it is a comment that it is probably worth noting that one needs a subscription. However I am opposing on the fact that it is not comprehensive (criteria 3), as it does not include all the episodes aired. I'm sorry that I didn't come along a month ago but there is nothing I can do about that now. We are judging the current list here. Which is currently not comprehensive. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I notice that you seemed to have backpedalled and put back in the Season 5 transclusion. It means we have the issues I raised before of providing verifibility (one of the criteria) that the future names are correct and not just unsourced specualtion. Also please refrain from personal edit summaries such as "go piss somewhere else". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I called your REASONS stupid. And seriously, you should go ahead and nominate all the present FLs that deal with running seasons based on this reason and see what replies you will get. And again, wikipedia is NOT a news feed so you should (1) read what other reviewers had to say before you, (2) go read other pages that are called "Breaking news" to find production codes. Also, you should also go piss somewhere else. Nergaal (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the FL's dealing with running seasons. List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Heroes episodes, List of 30 Rock episodes cites air dates, names, directors for future unaired episodes. Whilst List of Lost episodes doesn't transclude the unaired future series. If your not going to change anything I suggest any conversation is continued on my talk page. I'm off to piss in a toilet. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Simpsond`s does NOT offer sources. If veriafibility is the issue, then go ahead and nominate for FLR the Simpsons. If comprehensiveness is the issue, then go ahead and nominate the Lost one for FLR. Nergaal (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, these issues should be solved now. Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What you did wasn't actually adressing my comment, so I spent a bit of time on the NBC website and managed to find refs for the future episodes in season 5. They are only required for future episodes which are not easily verifiable by RS's. I hope you don't mind but I have added them and now can give my support this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The IGN ref right before the table did actually cover the first three episodes. Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • The series premiered on March 24, 2005 in the US - "U.S." per WP:MOSABB, as used in the article's title.
    • That same link says when "UK" is used, "US" should be; however, "UK" is only used twice here, and "United Kingdom" isn't. The first "UK" needs changing, and the "US" in the intro should be changed to "United States". In the tables, "Original US air date" could be "Original air date" without any harm. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • On this note, I think the article should be moved to List of The Office (US TV series) episodes. Gary King (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Is it ok to move it during the nomination? Nergaal (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah; if the article is moved then move this nomination page as well, and update the nomination transclusion on WP:FLC. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Wait, wait, wait. Read WP:MOSABB - "U.S." but "UK". I do believe I was the person who actually moved The Office (US TV series) to The Office (U.S. TV series) a while ago on this basis. I'm proposing a move back. —97198 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Actually, yeah, that link doesn't say what I said it did. I was thinking of WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations which says: "In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout; never add periods to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.)." If "UK" became "United Kingdom" on both usages, either "U.S." or "US" would be fine. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
                • In terms of the article title, though, it's my understanding that "U.S." is preferred over "US"; there are no other country abbreviations within the title. —97198 (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • From what I understand "US" is preferred. I think there's a slow change from "U.S." to "US" as it's beginning to slowly become accepted that the periods are unnecessary as it's fairly obvious in most cases that these are acronyms. Gary King (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • and as of September 2008, 66 original episodes have been broadcast - I'd personally put in a comma after "and", with the commas acting kind of like brackets. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else! Not a big deal, anyhoo.
  • A fifth season has started airing in fall 2008 - specify time of year using months not seasons per WP:SEASON. I live in Australia and it'd be hard enough for me to figure out the time of year that was even if I was in the right hemisphere!
  • A fifth season is expected to debut on September 25, 2008 - needs updating, we're in October now.
  • Should "The Accountants" be italicised or in quotes? I'd italicise it, but the lead uses quotes, as does the summary, but the subheading (title) uses italics. Should be consistent, either way. Same issue with "Kevin's Loan".
  • All the seasons' tables use colours to match those in the series overview, but season 3 is blue in the overview and grey in its section... ?
  • Pam's storyline overview for season 1 is basically "trying to deal with Michael's insensitivities and flubs" - correct me if you disagree, as you're probably more familiar with it than I am - but I'd say the more overarching part of her storyline was her relationships with Roy v. Jim. I see that's more detailed under season 2... Your thoughts?
    • the only time Roy is mentioned is at the end of the season. And Pam is not quite interested in Jim, but rather Jim in her. Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Broadband Program - Comedy - endash, not hyphen per WP:DASH.
  • the webisodes became a point of argument for the Writers Guild of America for their strike - technically, the WGA is an "it", not a "they" as we're referring to a physical organisation not a bunch of writers.
  • creator of ABC series Alias, Lost, and the movie Cloverfield - why specify "ABC"? Stations aren't specified for Buffy or Firefly, and aren't needed, either. Also, "film" is a little more formal than "movie".
  • The entire third season was given an 85 out of 100 on Metacritic with 85% positive reviews and Universal Acclaim - I think people can't really grasp the difference between Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. You've described here what RT does, but Meta is different. Meta doesn't calculate the percentage of positive reviews; it calculates an average point-score. E.g. Critic A gives the season a score of 80/100 and Critic B gives it a score of 90/100 - Meta would assign the season a score of 85/100 if those were the only two reviews collected. That doesn't mean Meta collected 100 reviews and 85 were positive (which is what RT does).
    • Please take the freedom to edit it yourself, since I am not quite sure what you mean. Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • How's that? —97198 (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Season 5 lists the writers first with an ampersand (no-no for consistency) and then without an "and" at all (another no-no). Yes, it's picky.
    • ha? - about the first half Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I mean, in the writers columns for each episode list/table/thing, "and" should be used for consistency - in season 5 there's an "&" that doesn't fit in and there's one with just commas and no "and". —97198 (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • You should purge your cache. Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• That's all I've got to say, really. Overall, it's a nice article but just needs a few improvements. —97198 (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • except for the three replies, everything should be fixed now. Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [69].

---

NBA All-Rookie Team

I am nominating this article with Chrishomingtang for featured list nomination as we both believe that this article is ready for this promotion. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

• Comments from SRX
  • Lead
    • The NBA All-Rookie Team is an annual National Basketball Association (NBA) honor given since the 1962–63 NBA season to the best rookies during the regular season. - best? What makes them the best?

Replaced by the word "top." The honor is determined by voting.—Chris! _ct 22:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • The All-Defensive Team is generally composed of two five-man lineups, a first team and a second team. - what is the All Defensive team?

Fixed—Chris! _ct 22:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Overall
    • Looks good meets the FL Criteria besides the flaws I pointed out above.

--S_RX 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Further comments
    • Lead
      • No respect is given to positions. ?
        • Gave an example. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 04:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That is still confusing, what are you trying to say, that positions don't matter in the process?--S_RX 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, that is what we're trying to say. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Then you should straight forward say that.--S_RX 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
                • If you haven't noticed, No respect means the same thing as don't matter. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 19:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • There are No images, would benefit by having one.

No room for image.—Chris! _ct 18:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • In the infobox?--S_RX 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a navbox, not an infobox.—Chris! _ct 00:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

S_RX 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My comments have been resolved but one, which is cr 6, no images.--S_RX 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest an image to even add on this list? I really can't think of any image you can put up. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

An image of one of the recipients (a major one). Or upload a logo under FUR.--S_RX 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to put just one picture of just one honoree? Or upload what logo under FUR? -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 02:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ONE. A logo, of the NBA All Rookie Team, if there is one.--S_RX 20:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no logo for the NBA All-Rookie Team. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 23:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Then an image of a recipient.--S_RX 02:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Look below SatyrTN's last comment. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 04:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, it seems like s/he also agrees for the addition of an image. One image of a recipient will not hurt, is there a way to squeeze it in the lead? Make the table smaller? Or add it in the key section, a small one.--S_RX 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support - original comments resolved but there is still no image.--S_RX 01:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Cr. 6: can you rob from the First-team "Nationality" column to make the other nationality column wider?

No, because some country names on the left "Nationality" column are longer.—Chris! _ct 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• first-team vote, et al.

Hope I did it right...just make sure. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I undid it because the NBA doesn't put hyphen between "first team" or "second team." See [70].

• Comma after 2007, perhaps?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Respect" is not quite the word.

Then what word do you prefer? -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• MOS breach: "currently" is a dangerous word. "As of 2008", unlinked please.

I linked the season. Hope it won't be a problem. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Inconsistent case for "second team". I'd minimise caps.

Currently, I'm at school doing this, so I don't have time to do that. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 19:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Tony (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What you do mean by OK? Does it mean you support, or are you answering the last question? -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Tony rarely supports, so an "OK" is a sign that all his concerns have been met. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• MOS:FLAG suggests that the nationality flags should be removed.

May you be more specific since I don't see anywhere on WP:MOS that the flags should be removed from ths article. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you read the second point "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand", you will see that these flags are appropriate.—Chris! _ct 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So the citizenship of the player is intimately tied to their place on the NBA All-Rookie Team? I don't think so. Their nationality has nothing to do with being on the team. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets just wait for User:Chrishomingtang's reply as he is currently unblocked for less than 24 hours. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• The "Selections" header is redundant

Sorry, I only have an intermediate understanding of English. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The current row at the top of the table that says "Selections" doesn't need to be there - it doesn't add anything. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets just wait for User:Chrishomingtang's reply as he is currently unblocked for less than 24 hours. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done —Chris! _ct 18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• The headers "Players" and "Teams" should probably be singular - each row is a player, each player is on one team.

But ithe article is called, NBA All-Rookie Team, not NBA All-Rookie Team selections. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article has nothing to do with it. The table lists players and information about them - each "Player" (singular) and their "Team" (singular) when they are on the All-Rookie team. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets just wait for User:Chrishomingtang's reply as he is currently unblocked for less than 24 hours. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not done The reason is that each year's teams consist of more than one players, so it would make no sense for those words to be singular.—Chris! _ct 18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bob Lanier (1970-71) - Detroit Pistons isn't linked.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Now that I think of it, I'm wondering about over-linking. Seems like "United States" doesn't need to be linked throughout the table, and that you could probably save a *lot* of room by indicating "(USA)" by the player's name instead of "FLAG United States" in a separate column. And linking every instance of "Boston Celtics" seems redundant and over-linky. That being said, if you linked to each season (as in [[1972–73 Boston Celtics season|Boston Celtics]]), that would probably be good.

Why would you link the team to the player's team season of that year? -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To see who else was on their team that year. But I could be wrong. But I *know* that overlinking Boston Celtics doesn't work for a Featured List. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But you're wrong according to SRX on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/All-NBA Team/archive2, he said , "Well citing WP:OVERLINK The same link multiple times. Redundant links make future maintenance harder. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own). So you can do what you want, but tables are the exceptions." You should really read these things carefully. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please - you're close to attacking with comments about *me* instead of about *the content*. My point is that every row of the table has a team that is wikilinked to the same place - that's the absolute definition of overlinking, and I would disagree with . I've given you two options - link to the specific year for that team (ie 1967-68 Boston Celtics season) or remove the links for all the teams. The way it is doesn't make sense. The substance of WP:OVERLINK says "Avoid obvious, redundant, and useless links" - IMO, these are redundant (which means repeated several times unnecessarily). -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets just wait for User:Chrishomingtang's reply as he is currently unblocked for less than 24 hours. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But table is an exception to WP:OVERLINK. In "What generally should not be linked" section, bullet 4: The same link multiple times. Redundant links make future maintenance harder. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own). If you disagree with that, I guess you will have bring that to the talk page of WP:OVERLINK.—Chris! _ct 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with the need for a picture or logo.

1. NO LOGO FOR THE NBA ALL-ROOKIE TEAM 2. Are you seriously suggesting me to put a random picture of a random honoree? -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that was necessary, though the pictures of some of the more well-known people on the list might be appropriate. Are there team photos? Or *anything* to add a picture to the article? It's quite barren without. Just my opinion... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But you can only put one picture in the article as the table is too big. Putting one more well-known person is redundant (I don't know what that means, but sound cool). No team photos. If you can find a picture that I can possibly put on, then I'll maybe consider. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is Wikipedia:Featured list criteria #6 - "it has images if they are appropriate to the subject". Is there nothing available? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm for sure that there are no images that are appropriate to the subject. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I too question the use of Flags, and even the entire Nationality column. What does it do to enhance the understanding the scope of the list? Including it makes the table extremely wide. I'm lucky I have a large widescreen monitor. I'd hate to think what it looked like on a normal 19" screen

I have a 19" monitor and it's fine. Lets just wait for User:Chrishomingtang's reply as he is currently unblocked for less than 12 hours. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 07:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• What does the name "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar" have to do with this list? Seems like trivia here -- it might fare better at his actual article

His name was Lew Alcindo, but was changed to what most people know him as Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Just in case some readers don't know who's Lew Alcindor, but knows areem Abdul-Jabbar. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 07:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, then what does the meaning of his name have to do with it? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Tim Duncan is ... eligible to play for the U.S. internationally." -- Again, wrt this list, so? Etc, etc

We put the nationality of the VIR, but Duncan plays for the U.S. internationally. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 07:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

VIR? Still, what does his nationality have to do with him becoming part of the All-Rookie Team? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• While an image would be good, it isn't mandatory. Does the All-Rookie Team have a logo? If so it might be worth adding.

For the last time, there is no such thing as a logo for the NBA All-Rookie Team. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 07:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Since several people has commented about the flag or the nationality in different places, I will address this here again. Because of the numbers of foreign players, the nationality column and the flags can provided additional info to the readers. BTW MOS:FLAG allows the use of flags on table. —Chris! _ct 18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Their nationality can be found by clicking on each individual's own article. While of different nations, their nationality had nothing to do with their selection on the Team (or at least the article doesn't say it does). Again, what does knowing their nationalities do to aid the reader in the understanding of the topic? I have left a message on the talk page of MOS:FLAGS and asked someone involved with the guideline to come here and comment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If this was only my nomination, I would change it automatically. Since this is a co-nomination, I am for sure that Chrishomintang will appeal like usual. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 06:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is the type of table the MOS is intended for their is plenty of space for full country names. I'd suggest a removing of the flags and converting the table to sortable table. Gnevin (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is the big deal if there are flags in the table? I don't mean to offend anyone but it seems to me that many FLC reviewers dislike flags and like to pick on them. I guess that if I want this to pass, I will have to remove the flags.—Chris! _ct 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

One user told me (I forgot who) told me that adding the nationality will make the list more bigger instead of one thin list. If this is about showing the flags, I think this is ridiculous, but we have to follow MOS:FLAGS and remove the flags. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE.—Chris! _ct 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD, {{sofixit}} Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I also added some images. Hopefully everyone is satisfied.—Chris! _ct 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not an actionable comment towards this list, but now that you've removed the flags in this list, you probably should remove the flags from the other awards lists for consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I read through the prose and examined the table, and see nothing of concern. Well done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 16:40, 2 October 2008 [71].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Paul Kelly

List is well researched & referenced. Dan arndt (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Needs a little attention to WP:MOS

• You've misused {{tl:Main}}. See the documentation on the template. It should only be used when you've split a big article into several parts, and the main article is written in summary style.

removed Paul Kelly (musician). Dan arndt (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Grammar of your lead paragraph needs a look. I think the second sentence could be reworded to flow a bit better.

Second sentence has been reworded: hopefully it scans better now.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Footnotes link in the Infobox style table is broken.

fixed footnote link. Dan arndt (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• You have a certain amount of inconsistency between the tables. In some you have a column 'Nominated work' and in others you have 'For' for example. I also dislike the way that entries in the second column frequently 'half-span' entries in the first column. I would prefer to see the entries in the second column repeated.

fixed the column headings to ensure consistency & have fixed 'half-span' enteries - as per suggestion. Dan arndt (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• You introduce abbreviations at odd times. For example, you've used 'Australasian Performing Right Association' a couple of times by the time you start using APRA. Might as well just use it from the first.

Good point, should look better.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• You have some overlinking going on: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking. You don't need to keep linking the same term throughout an article.

In trying to correct some of this, you've started linking section titles, which you shouldn't do according to WP:MOS. Mrh30 (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

De-Linked section titles, used linked abbreviations within first sentence after section heading (where applicable).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Get these done and the article should be well on the way. Mrh30 (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Further comments Definite progress. Compare some of the other similar lists currently in the nomination procees, such as List of The Neptunes awards. That list has several key things that raise it above the Paul Kelly one currently.

I've just had a look at the FLC awards articles including List of The Neptunes awards, List of Aerosmith awards, List of Metallica awards and List of Ciara awards. I have a better idea of what you mean. I based my work on this list by modelling it on the FL List of Crowded House awards which was passed just over a year ago.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Consistent width of tables

See next point.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reorder columns of tables Year-Song-Award-Result

Both of these problems seem to be handled by using {{awards table}}, which I've just learnt about (by following your advice and looking at those awards FLCs). I've converted the ARIA table but the others will have to wait for tommorrow.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rest of tables should now have consistent widths and reordered columns.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• You've still got some overlinking going on. For example Paul Kelly himself is linked multiple times. Kev Carmody is linked in two different but consecutive notes.

I've delinked a few more, hopefully its enough.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Can you use the 'Infobox Musician Awards' template instead of your own custom box?

Thanks for the Heads-up there. I didn't even know there was such an Infobox!Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting there! Mrh30 (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.howlspace.com.au/en/kellypaul/kellypaul.htm

Ed Nimmervoll runs Howlspace, he has been an Australian rock music commentator/editor since 1966 and Howlspace editor for about ten years. He also writes reviews for allmusic, including the entry for Paul Kelly which is summarised from his Howlspace entry.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.mvdbase.com/index.php?

See Paul Kelly discography discussion at its FLC comments.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that there have been other posts claiming that mvdbase is not reliable. I'm not sure that I can definitively demonstrate that it is reliable for all those users. However I will attempt to support my opinion that it is reliable:

1. mvdbase Introduction claims that it has existed since 1998 (initially as VideoZone), that it is maintained and produced by Alex S Garcia, that input is by email or online forms.
2. mvdbase stats claims 56070 videos in its database with 41498 having a director named.
3. mvdbase Goals and motivations also asks for input and adds that it will be acknowledged on a credit page.
4. Alexa Internet analysis at Site information from Alexa shows mvdbase was first registered in December 1999 and is run by Alex S Garcia from a site in France.
5. According to Top reference related websites by number of links from Wikipedia it has 55 links from within Wikipedia.
6. It is cited by UK Screen The Film and Music Network e.g. Andrea Chiozzotto: Director of Photography.
7. It is cited by Poemhunter e.g. Melissa Byers references bibliography.
8. LinkedIn profile claims Alex Garcia has been an entertainment journalist for 15 years and a webmaster for over ten years.
9. Westfield State College Ely Library lists mvdbase as Film & Televison Web Resource.

In summary, #1, #2 and #3 show that the website gives its sources and methods, the others either reinforce some of the claims made on the mvdbase website or show that it has a reputation for reliability.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to use the mvdbase ref as a backup, I now have ARIA (search by history of Year: 1988) itself confirm that Claudia Castle directed the video. I hope this resolves the problem for this article.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.users.bigpond.com/nfspublicity/awards%202000.html#vic

Telstra is an Australian telco which runs BigPond (an internet provider), they sponsor webspace for the Not For Sale Country Music Awards archive. The awards themselves are not determined by BigPond. The sponsor for the awards in 2000 was Toyota.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.apra.com.au/site/public/searchworks.stm deadlinks

APRA has recently reformatted its webpage and moved its Search engine tool. I've found the new url and inserted it into the ref.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think we need the stray awards at the end of the first sentence, there's a certain reasonable time when bold is not useful anymore. Also, I think the title sounds more like "Awards given out by Paul Kelly"; it would be good to rename "List of awards won by Paul Kelly". The crusade starts somewhere. --Golbez (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

fixed lead sentence - deleted highlighting of awards. Have been following the discussion on FLC talk page and don't have a problem with the renaming of the article - provided that there is some sort of agreed convention, with all similar articles being renamed accordingly. The only point I would raise is that most of these articles deal with nominations as well as wins so "list of awards won by Paul Kelly" would not be entirely correct. I would hope that this issue as it is unreslved would not delay the finalisation of the article's FLC. Dan arndt (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, under those same circumstances, "List of Paul Kelly awards" is not entirely correct. :) I did not oppose, merely commented; the crusade is not bloody yet. :P I have no opposition to this being a featured list. --Golbez (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Lead should be expanded to a pair of beefy paragraphs.

agreed, totally new paragraph added to Lead which details all his studio albums. Add some more detail to previous Lead paragrah (now paragraph two.)Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "who has either won, or been nominated, for " odd phrasing - I think he's won and been nominated, right?

Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "has won includes eight " include.

Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• What criteria for inclusion are being used? You have a number of award ceremonies which don't have Wikipedia articles. Check Criterion 3 of WP:WIAFL for "defined scope".

I believe this has been addressed in re-writing the Lead paragraphs, first paragraphy details main studio albums, second paragraph describes awards being considered.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to be 7 nominations short in the infobox?

whoops forgot to fill in last two for some unknown reason.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• " under many guises " I think you perform in many guises, not under them.

Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "under many guises including as a solo act, the Paul ...." I still find this and the rest of the sentence confusing.

I've restructured this whole sentence: is it any better?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "...performed or composed award winning or nominated songs with other artists Christine Anu, Uncle ..." "other artists including ..."?

Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "His most nominated category ..." The category for which he has received most nominations...

Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "years in a row 1995–2002 " "...row from 1995 to 2002"

Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "honour songwriters and music composers" for what?

Expanded the information here.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Australia's longest running music awards" citation?

It's a claim made on the awards page but I've modified the sentence to say they started in 1973 (their archives support this claim) and then cited their stated purpose for the awards. No longer make the claim that they're the longest running music awards.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• "and recognise achievements in live entertainment " such as?

I've added more to the Mo Awards section with a listing of 2008 categories and 1989/1990 relevant (to PK) category.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 1 is not specific enough.

I changed the references order when I beefed up the Lead (see above) and before I read this point. I'm assuming that you're talking about the APRA ref has to give the specific songwriters per song? I've rejigged the "To Her Door" ref so that it points straight to the result. The Treaty ref has been changed to an ASCAP result as the APRA display runs out of room before getting to Kelly's name! The other songwriters' refs will be per particular song using APRA where possible.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As indicated above, APRA has recently reconfigured its webpage including its search engines. The changeover broke the ref that I originally had in place and which was fixed by using a different url to their new engine. As a consequence the search engine works differently from previously. Specificially: the re-jigging didn't stick. When you click on Search result it only gives the last searched result no matter whether you have searched six songs today or searched for a song some time ago. The user would then have to click on "search again" button and then input the song title they actually want. Hence the original note for user to input song title appears to be the best that can be done with the current APRA search engine. ASCAP results appears to stick but unfortunately not all Australian songs are registered with ASCAP e.g. a search for Paul Maurice Kelly gives 188 entries (some duplicated) but does not show "Last Train" performed by Anu and Kelly, which is verifiable at APRA engine after input of LAST TRAIN.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - good stuff apart from the non-specific reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added ASCAP specific references for the following Kelly songs "To Her Door", "Treaty", "Jindabyne" and "Lonesome but Free", unfortunately some songs are not registered with ASCAP and so the less specific APRA search engine is supplied where users will have to input the songs' titles e.g. LAST TRAIN, LANTANA, I WISH I WAS A TRAIN, ONE NIGHT THE MOON, and FROM LITTLE THINGS BIG THINGS GROW.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not being entirely satisfied with the APRA search engine I have tried a 'work-around' to provide a more specifc result for all the above songs. The ASCAP refs remain in place, particularly important for "Treaty". The user no longer needs to input anything: the search results occur on a re-direct page from the base search engine. The APRA search engine only operates on song titles, it provides up to 250 outputs for a search string. Thus some results here may have considerable outputs e.g. "Last Train" gives 89 works and the required one is 12th down. I hope this is closer to being a specific reference.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 16:40, 2 October 2008 [72].

---

New York Giants seasons

Here's my second FLC nomination, this one a seasons list from the franchise that my user name is based on. I'll be here to handle any concerns, but I believe this meets the standards now. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 03:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• • The lead image can get bigger, 250px, maybe?
    • Increased size of picture to 250px. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The "#" sign is usually a symbol for a "number", so I'd appreciate if you could substitute it. It's a little weird to see "1st #". Hmm, after thinking a little, maybe it's better not to indicate division titles in the "finish" column, just in the "division" column will do.
    • Changed the symbol. Just so I know, are you saying that the finish column should have all indicators removed, including bolding and colors (excepting wild-card years, etc.)? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, the conference and division titles are already indicated in their respective columns.--Crzycheetah 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The links in the See also section should be in the Giants template instead.
    • I just removed them. The main history page is already in the template, and the links didn't add that much anyway. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to cite the remaining notes, as well?
    • Done. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In ref#2, "Associated Press" should be mentioned as "work", not as "author".
    • Done. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Maxwell's link cannot be opened; it's a dead link.
    • It works for me, but I replaced it to be safe. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the review! I'll get the picture sorted out next. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I've done all of these now. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Out of all NFL team seasons lists, this one is the closest to perfection. Great job!--Crzycheetah 03:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose - odd formatting is the key for me.

• Link $ to USD.
  • At the article's peer review, I was told that the U.S. dollar doesn't need linking, especially not in a U.S.-based article. Tony1 has complained about this practice numerous times at FAC. If you really want me to do it, it's no problem, but I need to work on the formatting first. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair play, leave it - just for such an historic quotation about money, I thought it was worth the link. No worries either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Behind the defensive play..." - a little colloquial for my taste.
  • I got rid of this, keeping the focus on the title they won that year This matches better with the rest of the lead, at least in my view. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe (just maybe) worth emphasising quite how much of an upset beating the Patriots in 2007 was? Maybe not - could be POV I suppose, but what an upset...
  • How about "widely considered to be one of the biggest upsets in Super Bowl history."? I won't say it's the biggest, because this game has a firm grip on that claim. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• What do blank cells mean? I avoid them like the plague - too much room for uncertainty... perhaps a general note?
  • I left a note after the date of the statistics' last update. The note is a little technical for my tastes, but I'm open to suggestions. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Is Wild Card Berth typically capitalised (question)?
  • It's used many ways (capitals, lower-case, hyphenated). The NFL uses Wild Card here,[73] so I imagine it can remain that way. The Berth really didn't need capitalization, though, so I made that and the other Berths and Champions lower-case. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• As I've always asked, why is the season link bold?
  • I assume this was the result of these lists having two sets of year links, with the bolding being used to differentiate them. It doesn't matter now, because they're gone. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support still not overly pleased about the blank cells, perhaps an en or em-dash instead? Explanatory note is, however, a good start. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I went with the em dash and updated the note as well. It looks much better to me now; what do you think? Giants2008 (17-14) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 16:40, 2 October 2008 [74].

---

List of UEFA Intertoto Cup winners

I'm nominating this list for featured status as I believe that after a peer review which addresses many issues this list is now meets all the criteria necessary to become a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I was not able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Am I missing something, or does the maths for 1999 not add up? Metz are listed as winning the first leg 1-0, and the second 3-1, but the aggregate is apparently 3-2. Also, I'm confused as to why some countries are bolded and others are not Is it the winners who are bolded? In which case, why are West Ham bolded if they lost? Gran² 16:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I got the scores the wrong way round, fixed them now, yeh the teams in bold are the winners of the matches, I'm sure that's mentioned in the key above the list of winners NapHit (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there wasn't one when I looked at it. So West Ham won the tie? If so, you need to change it because it says Metz won. Looking again, 2000 appears to be wrong as well. Zenit St Petersburg apparently won the tie 4-3 but are credited with just 3 goals. Aside from those things, everything else seems okay. Gran² 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep you're right fixed this now everything is hopefully in order NapHit (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Okay, I have no other complaints. Gran² 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support - please consider the following.

• " leading European clubs " - is leading required here? a bit POV - especially as you then go through the specific qualification criteria.

Done

• "after winning initially in 2003" - hmm, pretty obvious they won it that year since they retained it the next. Perhaps just "the previous year" or similar?

Done

• "have won the competition the most " - on most occasions?

Done

• caption - " a record two times, a record " - "a record" x2, needs work.

Tweaked it

• Not sure how fascinating the results per team table is. That kind of info could go in the lead (at least, the big winners could) - only the top 8 or so have featured more than once.

I think it should stay as it is as it provides useful information, and if it did not include all the teams it could be construed as being incomplete

• Don't pipe the football club publishers - it's a little confusing to think that, for example, the city of Montpellier is a publisher of UEFA Intertoto Cup results.

Fixed

• Is there a football list category this can be added to?

I don't think so I couldn't find one

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded to your queries, Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - made a couple of microscopic tweaks, all looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "...UEFA Cup, the Intertoto Cup..." - should be "with the Intertoto Cup"

Done NapHit (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• The 2006 and 2007 entries in the table seems a bit misleading. I'm wondering why the first qualifying round matches are included, which seem a bit random to me. But I might just be getting confused.

Those are the matces the two teams played to qualify for the uefa cup, and after 2005 the team that won the intertoto cup was the team that progressed the furthest, hence why those matches are included NapHit (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but maybe it could be mentioned with a footnote the match they played in that was the furthest of the UEFA Cup teams, or some way show how it was them that won the Intertoto. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the lead, if that's sufficient if not, I will add a note NapHit (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, my concern is that it's not really all that clear what the 2006 and 2007 matches were exactly, and how the team did win the Intertoto Cup. From reading the lead, we know that it is from progressing furthest in the competition that season, but I think it would be worth mentioning where that team did reach in the competition that season. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok added the notes NapHit (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 34 - "Lillestrom 0-3 Newcastle (agg 1-4}" - should be "(agg 1-4)".

Good spot, fixed NapHit (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments all taken care off NapHit (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now comments dealt with, good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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