Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2010

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 08:07, 24 February 2010 [1].

---

List of Saw media

Nominator(s): —User:GroundZ3R0 002_c/t 02:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating List of Saw media as per the new featured list criteria and that I based the article formatting and style off of List of Metal Gear media, another featured list with similar multimedia scope. The first nomination was failed because there was a lack of support votes. I have addressed all the issues noted and have been given grace by the editor who failed the last FLC to renominate this article. Unless there are issues present, please feel free to express support or fail votes to get the FLCs going along. Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 22:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Quick Comment - Can About.com be considered a reliable source? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 22:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think About.com is a reliable source. This is so for IMDB, too. Therefore I have to oppose.—Chris!_c/t 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not About.com? —Mike Allen 05:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think IMDB can be considered Reliable, I think on the About.com's Talk page the user summed it up well I think Talk:About.com#Use in wikipedia as sources, he also gives links to numerous discussions which you should feel free to look over. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 14:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is deemed unreliable because some of its info are user-submitted content. See the old discussion on Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb.—Chris!_c/t 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of IMDB's content is user submitted. And there are no controls on it that I am aware of. Resolute 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I know all about IMDb. Trust me. :) I was asking about About.com. I think in this instance it is a reliable source, because it's a fact (verified) that Tandera won the Scream Queens competition, About.com is just confirming that. However, if we must have a difference source reporting the same thing, then I'll look for it. —Mike Allen 00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may. IMDB has been deemed unreliable for sources but has been accepted for only casting information when no other sources are present, which is the case for the sources used. Next, I do not know if about.com is reliable, but they are only sourcing release dates of the DVDs, not disputable, little-known, or opinionated material therefore they should be acceptable for this use only. GroundZ3R0 002 01:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen about.com pages that summarize wikipedia articles. For DVD release dates try Amazon, or pretty much any general DVD releases sites. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay I will add those in a few hours. Should I leave the About.com sources to compliment the Amazon sources? And I'm assuming the IMDB is fine because it is only used for casting info? GroundZ3R0 002 23:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Since they are dubious it'd be much better to leave them out, also I doubt the Amazon sources need any complimenting. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk}

Okay, I have removed every about.com source and replaced them with amazon.com sources. For Tanedra Howard winning Scream Queens, I got a source from The Inquisitr site. GroundZ3R0 002 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick Questions & Comments - Why is the {{-}} used? Also I understand there is a |ref= parameter within the template used, why isn't it used? also the Video Game section should be formatted similarly to List of The Legend of Zelda media. I'll also look into the other sections unless someone else can comment on them as I'm pretty sure there is a specific way to format them. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Sentence fragments in the notes should not have periods (full stops) at the end. Example: "Currently in pre-production."
• Watch out for overlinking of commonly known terms. I doubt we need to link United Kingdom, for example.
• Why are some notes unreferenced?
• What makes http://www.flixster.com/ reliable?
• What makes http://www.freeonlinegames.com/adventure-games/obama-saw-game.html reliable? After looking at this one, I can't help but wonder a bit about the inclusion criteria. Is this just some Internet game with the Saw name in it, or has it been officially approved by the company owning the Saw franchise?
• Does footnote 59 have a reference?
• The alt text is decent, but needs work. It can contain only material that can be verified by a non-expert who just looks at the image (pretend you are describing the image to a friend over the phone). Also, alt text cannot have Wiki-markup, such as the double-bracket link syntax. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take some time to address the concerns raised above, and then feel free to renominate. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [2].

---

List of tallest residential buildings in the world

Nominator(s): Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list, because i have really worked hard for this article and it is the first list of tallest residential buildings in the world, in Wikipedia.It is well written as well, the peer review of this article is also been completed by a number of Users, and i have atleast made this article closer to featured list status Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments a topic that really interests me. Leads no longer start with "This is a list..." so that needs work. Your alt text says "enormously tall" which is non-encyclopedic. Lead is short, I would expect at least two beefy paras for a list of this magnitude. Last couple of sentences of the ranking section need refs. I have added the reference to the last important sentance. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Table "style" is odd-looking to me - strange border and some items are shaded and others aren't... Floors doesn't sort properly. Nor does "Built". You repeatedly link countries etc but not cities, this is a sortable table so link each one each time. Building doesn't sort entirely correctly either, I would expect 340 to sort before 1322... "Started / Ends" not proper nouns so no need for capital. Construction col doesn't sort properly. In the Under construction table, there are several 26=, two of which are taller than the others, so they shouldn't be =. Ref 21 has a spare [ There's a lot to do here, these comments have come from a quick two-minute glance at the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I am currently sorting the coulmns of "Built", "Construction / Built", "Floors", and "Building", by adding new sortable table, i have completed sorting the "under construcion" section of the article, and working on "Completed" section. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I have completed sorting all columns, with new tables. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC) ref 21 which had a spare [ has been removed, several 26= has been corrected, Started/Ends has been corrected, i had linked cities each one each time, shaded items has been corrected, i have added some more knowledgeable content in the lead section and i had expanded it with some good content, i have changed the lead sentance "This is a list" to " Thia list of tallest residential buildings in the world ranks buildings whose occupiable height........." Following are the points which i didnt understand please explain these ones: I don't think that's quite what TRM was looking for. Saying "this list" or something like that is repetitive and not engaging prose. I suggest that you look at recent tallest building lists, such as List of tallest buildings in San Diego, for examples of good starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Building doesn't sort entirely correctly either, I would expect 340 to sort before 1322... Your alt text says "enormously tall" which is non-encyclopedic.(i have searched and didnt find the word enourmously in the whole article) Ok i got it and removed it as well as it is non-encyclopedic. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Tell me how to sort the columns of "Built", "Construction", and "Buildings" Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC) The word "enormously" is in the alt text for the image of the Q1, that's what he's referring to.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Ok i got it and removed it as well as it is non-encyclopedic. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• The general references need to be formatted consistently
• The publishers for all references should be consistent
• For PDF files, format=PDF need to be added to the citation template
• For a list like this, I would expect to see more images

—Chris!_c/t 21:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added images to this article, i couldnt got your point in these sentances,

• The general references need to be formatted consistently
  • The two links under "General" headers need to have publisher and access date, just like the inline citations.—Chris!_c/t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok i did as you said.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• The publishers for all references should be consistent
  • Some refs use Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat as the publisher, while others use CTBUH. You should use the full name and use it consistently. Same for all references.—Chris!_c/t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok i did as you said.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• For PDF files, format=PDF need to be added to the citation template
  • For links that are PDF files, just add format=PDF to the citation template {{cite web}}—Chris!_c/t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok i did as you said.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC) please assist me in above mentioned queries Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I still see a lot of problems

• In the publisher in the references
  • Council on tall buildings and urban habitat should be Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
  • Emporis corporation should be Emporis Corporation
  • "Official website" is not the publisher; if a publisher is unclear, just use part of the url.
• Images need alttext
• Caption that is complete sentence needs a period at the end.
• The prose is poorly written. I already fixed several typos for you. I suggest you ask others to go through and copyedit the article

—Chris!_c/t 04:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have chnaged Emporis corporation to Emporis Corporation, and as well as that of Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and also removed the publisher elsewhere where there is official website mentioned.I am adding alttext to all the images.

please tell me about this:

• Caption that is complete sentence needs a period at the end. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I have addressed this concern. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok Done, i have added alttext to all images in this article.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: This lists the buildings that are 90%+ residential. I personally think it should also mention the highest residences; I was surprised when John Hancock Center was not mentioned anywhere in the article, as that is around ~50% residential, and offers, for now, the highest residences in the world. So my opposition is because I feel this list is too narrow. --Golbez (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, why are random rows in the table gray? I see no mention of this, nor any rhyme or reason to it. --Golbez (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • John honcock centre might be 50 percent residential but Emporis and CTBUH, the reliable sources says that the building should be atleast 90 percent rediential and this is the standard, and thats why i havent mention it in this article.You are wrong this list doesnt have all residential buildings, instead it list buildings whose use is 90 percent devoted to residential space, while it is the "List of worlds tallest residential buildings" not worlds tallest residentila records, so mentioning here about the tallest residences will be out of this topic.Also i have corrected the random rows with gray colour. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
      • We appear to have a disagreement over the scope of the list. I think any list which lists the world's tallest residential buildings should at least include some mention of the world's highest residences. Just as a list of the world's tallest hotels should include the highest hotel rooms, etc. (I just looked at that list and it shockingly does not include the Trump Tower in Chicago, I suspect because there's enough condos to push 'hotel' usage below 90%) Just because Emporis uses 90% doesn't require us to do the same: I think any list of the tallest residential buildings should at least contain a second list of the tallest buildings with a substantial residential element, and a list of buildings with the highest residences. --Golbez (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
      • And you misunderstand about the gray: It shouldn't be there. There's no point to coloring alternate rows in a sortable table, and you may have noticed very few tables on Wikipedia do that. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I got your point about gray color, i hah removed them all, as you said very few tables on wikipedia do that, and specially Featured List have no pattern like this.

Ok i will add highest residences, can you give some content regarding highest residences and reliable sources.By saying that Emporis said so i mean that it is a standard, on which the ranking of tallest residential buildings are based, like Council on tall buildings and urban habitat that sets the standards by which buildings are measured. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick Comment

• Shouldn't the caption The Cullinan Towers, are the 8th and 9th tallest residential building in the world say they are tied for the 8th tallest? In the table it shows them as tied but in the caption it says they're not the same height. NThomas (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I had corrected them, by mistake i did that. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - A substantial, well sourced article--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• File:Millennium Tower and Burj Dubai on 2 November 2007.jpg has outstanding copyright issues. See here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed that image, Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - This article is about those towers that are 90% under residential use, which automatically renders some opposes as pointless. Apart from this i felt it well worked and referenced. Perhaps its best list of its kind on internet (as its more informative then lists usually provided by emporis.com etc). It had some grammatical issues, which i think i have sorted out. Quit informative article btw. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just because the article has that limit defined doesn't mean the limit is valid. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Featured lists do not simply start "In this list of" or "This is a list of "... please read some of more recent FLs for examples of what we now expect.
  • I have checked many FLs but all those list have starting like this, "This list of Boston", so what matters here ???

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• "world[2][3] " punctuation.
  • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Metapolis is 1ft higher than its 73= counterparts.
  • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Cities should be relinked, just like the countries.
  • How ?? please explain.
• I would expect the Building col to sort in ascending by "21st" then "340" then "1322". It doesn't.
• Rank doesn't sort correctly.
  • I have changed the whole table in order to sort the other columns and i didnt got help in this respect from any user, so please assist me how to sort the respective columns corrctly.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• WP:ALT text is really weak. It's not just a case of repeating what it is, you have to tell the reader what it looks like.
  • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Don't mix date formats in the references (e.g. ref 5 should have human-readable dates)
  • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• ref 33 is missing a publisher.
• ditto ref 77.
• and ref 100.

Finally, I would urge the reviewers who have already offered "support" to familiarise themselves with our most up-to-date criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• • reference, 33, 77, 100 have no publishers because User —Chris!_c/t said so above, that "if a publisher is unclear, just use part of the url"

• Closing note This list has clearly received a lot of love, and the nominator has done a good job addressing suggestions. However, there are still a lot of issues remaining, evidence that the list not yet ready for FL status. Now, I understand the list has been through peer review twice already, so I won't thoughtlessly and mechanically suggest another. However, it is evident that work needs to be done on the list outside FLC before it is re-submitted. I would advise contacting editors who have brought skyscraper lists up to FL before and the reviewers of this FLC for further suggestions for improvement. Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [3].

---

List of North Carolina hurricanes (2000–present)

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) and Hurricanehink

This was largely split from List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980–1999) after it got too long, but I've updated the content, added a suitable lead, and fixed any formatting issues. Now that this article is published, it needs to be featured in order to prevent the featured topic from being demoted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Check External Links and Alt Text. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Should be sorted now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• For the 1st picture I count 4 segments not 2. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, there are two main segments and a bit of rogue sand between them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ok then, shouldn't the Rogue sand between them be mentioned. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 10:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jujutacular (talk · contribs)

• "... while May and November are tired for the least active months" – Typo.

• Fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The first storm to impact the state during the period was Hurricane Florence in September 2000, and the most recent is Hurricane Ida in 2009." – is this change in tense appropriate?

• I'd say so. "The most recent was" doesn't flow right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd have to disagree. I'll wait for a third opinion (if consensus is against me on this point I'll support). Jujutacular ^T · C 22:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hurricane Charley – source says it caused $25 million in damage in NC, not 50 million.

• Adjusted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• This source is used for Hurricane Bertha, but it discusses an event in Nevada.

• Yeah, those links are dynamic and change regularly. Fixed that one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm concerned with scope: is there a set time for this list to end and a new one to begin? Previous intervals for NC are: Pre-1900, 1900–1949, 1950–1979, and 1980–1999.

• As soon as it gets too long to reasonably navigate (around 2015, barring any 2005-like seasons in the meantime.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [4].

---

Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year

Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Life (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the requirements to warrant being a Featured List. I put a considerable amount of time into the article to ensure it is of a professional standard and meets all specified criteria. I will happily respond to queries or suggestions and add anything that is required for the article to attain Featured List status. Thankyou for your time. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support with the conversation below being completed. Excellent, thorough, and clear. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments The general layout is awesome. A few quick notes:

• David Norris and Paul McGregor are sent to disambiguation pages. I can't figure out how to fix it. See "disambig links" in the toolbar
  • Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm having connection issues with the "external links" in the toolbar. None of them are showing "dead" though.
  • I have noticed that some of the links from "Argyle Review" take a while to load. I'm not sure why, but they definitely exist. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Alt text (from what I understand) seems off. Adjust them to describe what you see.

• You cannot tell that Paul Mariner is "kneeling" from what the image displays
• You cannot tell that Johnny Newman is "standing infront of a building" from what the image displays

• Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Does "Level" in note 1 need to be capitalized?
  • Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Do the publishers in the references need to be italicized when they aren't works? Cptnono (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I went through it one more time and noticed a couple minor things. I expect I will be supporting this after your response or modifications.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Chronological items - Consider adjusting "The current holder of the award is..." just in case you are not editing when the '10 award is given. It will also be a notification to anyone to anyone reading it at that time to update it. "In 2009..." should work (the reader should assume it is current there). The "current" in the manager section might need to be changed as well.
• Do you need to link to associated football twice in the lead? I think that "player over the course of the football season." would work fine.
• Consider wikilinking "pitch" for audiences not familiar with the term.
• The "Pyramid Suite" means nothing to readers not familiar with the facility. Maybe try wikilinking [[Home Park#Structure and facilities|Pyramid Suite]] or adding in that it is the hospitality suite.

Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Very good, they've all been corrected. I especially like the wikilink suggestion for the Pyramid Suite, so it'll leave the reader in no doubt as to what it is.

Argyle 4 Life (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment This article should be named Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year, since it is the main article about the award, too. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll change it if necessary. I followed the lead of similar articles regarding Ipswich Town and Norwich City.

I assume they would need to be altered also? Argyle 4 Life (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I moved both of those. You can move this one when you get the chance; I'll take care of fixing links and such. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment – What makes Argyle Review and Greens on Screen reliable sources? I see from the Plymouth Argyle page here that the sites are databases. Who runs them, and are they considered accurate? This is important since they are the primary sources for the table. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bummer. It looks great to me and I trust it from what I have seen but it is not a published writer with an editorial staff vetting it.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

They are indeed databases maintained by supporters. The first, Greens on Screen, has been run by a man called Steve for over 11 years, which makes it older than the club's official website, and Wikipedia for that matter! In his words, it is an amateur website run as a hobby to bring supporters closer to their team. It is highly respected amongst our fanbase and I can't think of any better to be honest. Its only failing, if you can call it that, is that it isn't "officially" linked to the club.

The second runs along a similar theme, and I included sources to that one because it states when they won the award in their notable moments section. If the club's official website had a vast array of information on the past then I would use that instead, but it doesn't and I have come to rely on Greens on Screen for a number of years. I have a great deal of respect for Steve and all the work he has done there for no financial gain. If the statistics were false then the website would've been gone a long time ago.

I could link some players to Soccerbase, but it doesn't include them all as yet. Maybe that will change in the future. The official website does have small profiles on certain players. If I go through that and switch a few of the links around that would be okay? There is no guarantee all 45 players will have a profile on there, but I'll do my best. I understand your concerns, reliability is paramount. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

General note on establishing reliability: To determine the reliability 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. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further information. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to pretend I know all of the in's and out's of it, but I appreciate the help from you guys. I have found three areas so far. The first is on the main page of the site, a link at the top titled "About GoS". The second is shown here, on the main page of the database to the top left; "GoS's data has been verified using original newspaper reports to ensure a very high degree of accuracy". The third is the best I think. When Saturday Comes, a national football magazine which was established in 1986. Greens on Screen has featured on it many times, listed among "some of the very best sites".

"Greens On Screen (Plymouth Argyle) Everything an independent team website should be – packed with photos, video clips, stats, clever graphs and concise match reports. “An ama­teur website aiming to add, not compete,” it says modestly. If only every team had one." - When Saturday Comes, January 2005.

I hope that helps. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Another link; Neil Brown, a trusted source among WikiProject Football members, has Greens on Screen listed in its "links" section. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To offer a comment that isn't reference-related, a couple of unneeded commas after Paul Mariner and "1980s goalscoring icon" should be removed. If an uninvolved editor has any thoughts on the reliability of these sources, it would be helpful, for both myself and the nominator. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I was leaning towards Argyle Review being OK. It has received a positive write up as shown above, has passed some cross checking, and appears to have a focus on reliability. Unfortunately, it has been down for the last couple of days which brings up eve more concern. Anyone know if it is only a temporarily problem?Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to Giants2008, you were right, looking back there was too many commas, so I've rearranged the citations and reduced the number of them. Cptnono, I believe you have your wires crossed, the one which has received praise is Greens on Screen. I only included links to Argyle Review because it stated on the players profile that they won the award. As you said its been down for a week or so, and I noticed it hadn't been updated for a few weeks before that. I'm not sure what happened, but it could be any number of things. The most likely is that the renewal for domain hosting was coming up and the guy who runs it decided it wasn't worth the bother because its always been in the shadow of Greens on Screen, but its still a shame to see it go. Having dead links isn't good so I'm having a look now to see which can be replaced. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this list is close and feel that a few days to get that sourcing issue straight would be more beneficial than closing and reopening the review. Feel free to shoot me a message on my talk page if you get stuck on some and need a hand.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had a few hours to spare this morning so I've gone through the list and replaced the broken references with fully functional ones and I've added three historical books about the club, dating back to when it became professional in 1903. If you have any suggestions then let me know. I took out the FIFA links because they only cover appearances made in their competitions, so no friendlies, contintental qualifiers, etc, but I could put them back alongside what I replaced them with to add a bit more verifiability. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Glad to see someone using the Mariner pic which I went to so much trouble to get permission from a Flickr user! Tell me about it. I'd love to have more pictures of players, but its a minefield. We got ripped off by the way, I've heard stories about it from my elders! Not sure "England" needs to be linked in the lead. Done. I can be very liberal when it comes to links. "centre back Johnny Newman[3] in 1966, " move that ref to after the comma. Done. Corrected a few others too. "goalscoring icon" a bit POV - if this is a quote then ref it, otherwise try to be more encyclopedic about describing him. I've moved the reference so its directly after the text. It describes him as a legend, but I think icon is more dignified. The term "legend" is done to death these days I think. Remove spaces between words and notes (e.g. Position [nb 2]) Got them all I think. You should explain why two players won it in 1997/98 as it happened only once. There's no way that got precisely the same number of votes per your description of the voting scheme! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I haven't found anything that says why yet. I'm not sure myself because I wasn't that old at the time, but its safe to assume that the system was a bit different back then so I've altered the beginning slightly. Thank you for the input. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. In addition, there were concerns about reliability that, though they seem to be mostly addressed, might be fully resolved outside FLC. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of the backlog. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [5].

---

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because as I believe it meets all the FLC. It is based on the existing collegiate head coach FLs. NThomas (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments 9th–year I don't think an en-dash is needed here, a regular hyphen should work (I could be wrong on this). Forgot this one. Fixed. NThomas (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) References should be after the period. I should know better then that... Thanks. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Southwest Conference (SWC) No reason to include the abbreviation if it is not used elsewhere in the article. Fixed. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) You use both postseason and post-season; be consistent. It should be all one word. Fixed. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) If the first use of Matadors is italicized, so should the first use of Red Raiders. Or neither should be. Removed the italic. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) One week later, Tommy Tuberville was hired on January 9, 2010. You can probably drop the "One week later" and just say "The current head coach, Tommy Tuberville, was hird on January 9, 2010." Fixed. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I don't think it is necessary anymore to specify formerly known as Division I-A. If we do that, might as well also say "formerly known as Division I-A, Division I, and University Division". Removed. I've been adding that for almost 3 years, kind of a habit. I think after 4 seasons, I guess it's commonly known now. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I found evidence in the one general reference verifying the list of Leach's awards, but I could not find any mention of Dykes's award. Can you clarify the source for this? Fixed. I forgot to add that citation. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Thus, any coach who has two or more separate terms as head coach is counted only once. Not needed unless there actually has been a coach with two separate terms. Removed. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Your lead still says 15 head coaches even though your list only has 13 (plus Tuberville). Change to 14. I'm sure this was just an oversight after switching McNeil to an interim. Fixed. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Second paragraph, first sentence needs a reference (regarding the Matadors/Spanish Renaissance connection). Couldn't find it in the general reference. Added. NThomas (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) No need to link 1937, 1996 and 2008. Delinked. NThomas (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) the nickname the team has today. Reword this. This makes me feel a disconnect between the renaming in 1937 and today and not the fact that the nickname has been Red Raiders ever since. I was trying to stay consistent with the lead from List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons, it didn't seem to be a problem then. What about: the nickname the team has had ever since.? Wikilink bowl game. Done. NThomas (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) ninth-year head coach Did you mean nine-year? No, I ment in this ninth season as head coach. Reworked the sentence to flow better. I think it makes sense now. Double check your math on some of the entries or consider using {{winperc}}. On Steve Sloan, 15 wins and 8 losses is .652, not .571 and on Spike Dykes, 57 wins, 40 losses and a tie is .587, not .573. Thanks. Checked them all. The Dykes one did not change. Are you sure your percentage is correct? I hope not, otherwise my {{winperc}} template is broken.—NMajdan•talk I forgot to save my edit. Did that one separate from the rest. It's done now. Dykes changed and a few others too from copy editing mistakes. NThomas (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you're going to include division championships, shouldn't you also mention the fact that there was a three-way tie in 2008?

• In the lead, I added co- to the: ...to the program's first division co-championship in 2008. sentence. The division co-championship for this page would be easy, its the only one. If we're going to add footnotes about which years were shared titles, including national (Nebraska), conference (almost all the teams), and division, there's going to be some long entries or a slew of footnotes. I'd say leave it go as it is. NThomas (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• We've also discussed this in another FLC, but I am against including division championships but the inclusion wouldn't prevent my eventual support. Editor's choice on this one.

• I'm gonna keep it on this one. If Tech When Tech wins a few more division titles, it'll fill out better. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010

• I am not a big fan of small paragraphs. A paragraph should have at least three sentences (preferably four). The first paragraph in your lead is one sentence and the second paragraph has around 15 sentences. Can you balance these out a bit more, or at least expand the first?

• I added a sentence from the second paragraph but the first is all general information while the second is chronological history. Where would you split the second paragraph to balance it out?

• What about splitting the 2nd paragraph into two paragraphs? They may at least balanace them off a little to make the 1st seem a little less disproportionate.—NMajdan•talk 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I was asking where you would split the second paragraph. I went ahead and separated it from the Border Conference years to admission to the SWC, historically a turning point for TTU. NThomas (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• It does look better. However, I won't strike this one to allow other reviewers to comment if they feel like it.—NMajdan•talk

• I am against the inclusion of interim head coaches as they are not considered official head coaches in the long run and are rarely included in statistics from schools and the NCAA.

• When Tuberville was announced, he was named the 14th head coach, so I changed the list to show McNeil is not the 14th head coach. Removing him completely seems like too much, I'd rather see McNeil stay on the list, as he was the head coach, but keeping the number scheme continue with Tuberville. I also included not including interim head coaches. Interim head coaches are represented with "Int". about interium head coaches in the column's note. The other solution would be to create a separate list in a subsection with the interims and their records. The same problem will arise with Gary Darnell on the Texas A&M football list as both interim head coaches only coached the bowl game. So lets iron this out here for consistency. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm curious on the opinions of other editors. This may just boil down to editor's choice again.—NMajdan•talk 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking as an editor (not as director), I prefer NThomas' method, but I value consistency in these head coach lists more, so hopefully you two can decide on a happy medium. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at the NFL FLs, theres no consistency at all. Example: List of New Orleans Saints head coaches shows Wade Phillips as the ninth HC (even though his title was interim HC) and Sean Payton as 14th HC. On the Saints' website, it also list Payton as the 14th HC here. However, on the List of St. Louis Rams head coaches, Steve Spagnuolo is listed as the 26th HC because 2 interim HCs and a coach with two nonconsecutive terms, boost up the numbers. Spagnuolo's NFL.com bio lists him as the 23rd HC here. So there's nothing existing to help guide us.

Hope this helps!—NMajdan•talk 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Please see my sorting comments at List of American League pennant winners's current FLC, in particular columns with 0's, —'s and numbers. Corrected. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I don't think I can see P% anywhere in the table. Good catch! Right under my nose... Thanks. NThomas (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC) If the awards are so notable, they should, at least, be redlinked. The Big 12 Coach of the Year is now wikilinked and so is the Woody Hayes Award. The 3rd was removed. NThomas (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "The team has had 14 head coaches since the football program began play during the 1925 season." Little redundancy in the sentence. To fix, try "The program has had 14 head coaches since it began play during the 1925 season." Done. NThomas (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Comma after Tommy Tuberville in last sentence of lead. Done. NThomas (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC) In that sentence, delink the date and year. Done. NThomas (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Note 2: "Texas Tech was not in an athletic conference from the 1925 through 1931 and 1957 through 1959." Either one missing word or one too many. Removed "the". NThomas (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Remove all caps from reference 5. Done. NThomas (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [6].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Efe

I am nominating this for featured list because, as another former featured list, it appeared really straight-forward to fix. It was demoted after nobody paid much attention when it was nominated for delisting. Having looked at four further WP:FLRCs identical in nature, it was clear this could be easily fixed. And it was... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I may be incorrect and I haven't reviewed for a while, but isn't this list just essentially nine items. My memory may mislead me, but I thought we went over to number-ones by decade not individual year. Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I haven't opposed this as I realise I may be out of the loop). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, there have been list for decades, but I can't recall us stating it was the only way to do it... I guess it isn't our unwritten "ten items" but that's kind of unusual for a chart to have only 9 number ones in 52 weeks, so I'm wondering if this confers some notability which may supersede the minimum number of items issue. It was only delisted a month or two ago, based simply on the lack of references, hence my re-nomination... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Did some digging. The only precedent I could quicky find is a for a smaller single year list here which failed FLC, then these were merged into 3 year groups and promoted here but after that a merge discussion gave consensus to make decade lists and the groups of three year lists were delisted. Have there been single year promotions since this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I bet Dabomb will know the answer to that. Incidentally, that list had just five distinct items so wasn't even a borderline case for FLC... I think groups of three years were an easy (and arbitrary) get-out. Most, if not all of the other Hot 100 lists meet the unwritten rule easily, it would seem a little odd if this one couldn't be at least thought about.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree and I've messaged Dabomb, the Latins were much shorter and definitely arbitrary in their threes. I just happened to know that the UK number one FLs are by decade and was wondering why and if it's worth trying to make all formats consistent (which is always asking for trouble). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely worth the discussion. The merge Latin list had a total of 36 items for 10 years, at a quick stab, it looks like a similar Hot 100 decade (2000 to 2009) would have something like 130 items and could easily hit over 500 references.... perhaps a decade is a little too much for this chart? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 500 refs would take way to long to load up but, playing devil's advocate, could this be used to reference generally like Guinness hit singles is for the UK lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Would be more useful if it had been published later than 2003....! But something like that (if it were up to date) would be more useful, and may reduce references down to a more manageable 130+... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, good spot. On a similar vain this Billboard source categorises by decade (to 2008) which might be useful. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, good link. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Rambo's Revenge is right. In fact, since that 1990s list was promoted, we have not had any record chart lists promoted, let alone a single-year chart. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, RR may be right that no list has been promoted, but I'm not sure we all agreed that "decades lists" were the only possible solution here. If we did, can someone point me to that specific discussion. While this list may just drop below the unwritten ten-item requirement, there are several other Billboard FLs for a single year with plenty more than 10 entries. How could they possibly fail the FL criteria right now? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way. I'll look into the pros and cons of years vs decades when I do my next batch of reviews, which will probably be at the weekend. But can I suggest that the success/failure of this be tied to the current FLRCs? It seems odd to me that those ones could be kept by default, yet this one not promoted by default. As I say, I'm reserving judgement for a few days, but at a glance they're all of similar quality. WFCforLife (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping those FLRCs open for this reason; hopefully enough editors pitch in so that consensus forms before I have to close them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

One problem I have with all this is that at least two of those FLRCs don't currently fail any criteria (objectively and since they contain more than the mythical "ten items") so preventing them from being kept wouldn't make any sense. If we need to add a criterion that says "7. No single-year chart FLs are allowed" then that's a different discussion, but right now those FLRCs with ten items or more can't really be removed as a result of failing any of our current criteria. Just because a bunch of smaller lists were merged, it didn't set a precedent suggesting no more single-year chart lists could be promoted, did it? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I am the "latin guy". I've been checking this nomination and since I been through several revisions and opinions about the record chart lists (1 year, 3 years, decade), I was wondering if we can have a 'consensus' to work with this lists, as I'm writing articles for each song included Top Latin Songs lists and arranging them on decade-long lists in order to nominate them, (as I did with the list below). What should I do?. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, with a wider proposal. This meets all the other criteria, 3b is disputed. In disputes with the content of an individual article or list, the normal procedure is to restore the status quo, temporarily cease action, and start a wider discussion. Given that we're unlikely to acheive consensus between The Rambling Man and a small number of reviewers (some supporting, some opposing), I see no reason not to do the same here. The status quo is that these were Featured Lists. I therefore propose that this is promoted, the related FLRCs are closed as keeps with no prejudice to re-nomination in future, and we simultaneously start an RfC. I see no harm in us taking our time to get this right. I also think that an RfC would be less of a drain on the FL process than bringing special attention to this FLC in the closure log, while also having four identical FLRCs open. WFCforLife (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably will close the FLRCs tomorrow unless someone comments there between now and then. However, I don't feel that it's necessary to circumvent the FLC process and "speedy-promote"; we might have fresh reviewers find issues on this list that nobody else had noticed. If this list meets the FL criteria, it will eventually accumulate the support needed to promote. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [7].

---

List of characters in South Park

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. Nergaal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think role column should be sortable and incomplete sentences shouldn't have periods. Image also lacks alt text.—Chris!_c/t 04:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed both the sorbability and the punctuation. Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the image of characters meets WP:FUC. Anyone else have opinions on it? In any case, it'll need a much stronger fair-use rationale, not the same one used for South Park. Mm40 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "To show the four main characters of the show (present in the foreground), together with a large portion of the characters in South Park." sufficient? Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – eh, this isn't how I normally prefer character lists (see List of Naruto characters, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII for two examples). Where is the creation/conception/development information on the cast and the cast's overall reception? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, never mind, saw the sublists. Still don't like it though. Text entries are still better than the tables (have a paragraph or two for the sections with sublists that describes generally the characters in the list), and my point on the lack of overall conception/reception information still stands. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Th difference is that this list has way more than 20 characters who are important for the series. There are actually almost 60 of them, and having even a short paragraph on each would make this a humongous article. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's not a short paragraph on all of them; it's a short paragraph on what the general content of the list is. That's far better than having a table per section, and still, the list needs conception/reception information. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is the conception section that I have added sufficient? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks okay, although I'd recommend others to evaluate whether it's comprehensive or not. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Excuse my inexperience but there are some things I'm questioning. The Alt Text needs to be more generic, blind users would not know who Kenny is. The tables don't seem to be the way to go, even if the list is extremely long. Also the information seems incomplete since Kevin McCormick and Stephen Stotch are missing their voice actors. The separation seems a bit in-universe though such as "South Park Elementary". Some characters seem to be irrelevant such as Mr. Kitty. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The two characters are not important enough for anybody (I have seriously looked for a long time) to declare their voice actors; almost all of the male voices are done by the two creators, Stone and Parker, but putting that in would be wp:or; I was tempted to remove them, but for the sake of consistency in the families section I have kept them in. Mr. Kitty is actually relevant in several episodes. Nergaal (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation section. "though he is portrayed to give the impression that the show still utilizes its original technique" Who's he? Also I still feel that the list still needs re-arranging and the tables need to be removed. If I had to suggest, the sections should be made so its "Protagonists or Main Characters" and "Other characters" with level 3 headers for "Students at South Park Elementary", "Staff at South Park Elementary", and "Others"; I suggest the others to contain the families and the supporting cast which are summarized in a paragraph. This would also solve the two characters missing voice actors. I'm inexperienced though and the character lists I've worked on were from anime and video games only. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I missed this reply somehow. I fixed the "portrayed" part. As for tables vs paragraphs, I still believe tables are better: with so many characters that are actually notable (I think I remover about half how many entries are now for characters that don't make multiple appearances throughout the seasons), it would become just an enumeration of characters with very repetitive prose (four ppl do almost all voices), and with awkward prose to list all the initial appearances. As for unknown voices, four of them doesn't sound too much to appear problematic to me. Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments "has become infamous" needs refs. Added 2 pertinent reviews. Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "home to an assortment of frequent characters " no, home to assortment of characters who make frequent appearances in the show. switched Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Is a "family" a character? Switched with family members Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "various residents.,[1][2] of " - spare period. fixed Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "Since 1999, respectively 2000" what does that mean? reordered Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "for what would later become the show South Park, came in 1992 " reads poorly to me. Is the reordered sentence ok? Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "talking stool" perhaps link stool appropriately as it doesn't mean a four-legged piece of furniture in this case. Added feces in paranthesis to clarify. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "characters ofSouth Park, i" space needed. Fixed. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "They is not offered the same free" not good English. Ups, fixed that. Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "hough he is portrayed to give the impression that the show still utilizes its original technique." I don't have a clue what this means. rephrased Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) You relink episode names but not Tray or Matt, why not? linked all Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) The "Role" col seems to be your own personal commentary on what these guys are like, no refs or anything. Isn't this case very similar to the plot sections in episodes articles? Asides from the more detailed descriptions of the more complex characters I don't understand why would this require any referencing. Nergaal (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "The boys' classmate " when you refer to "boys'", do you mean the main characters? It's not clear. Yes. Is there to make it more clear without becoming extremely repetitive? Nergaal (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Some problems with RS: e.g. what makes nowgrounds.com reliable? That reference is used in the merchandise section for "Similar possibilities have been available on multiple fansites". Its point is to exemplify such a fansite selling items. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Plenty to do here. I'll come back with a detailed review if these are suitably addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "he characters are composed of simple geometrical shapes and primary colors" not true per the image - I see brown, lime green, and the skin tone is definitely not a primary color. I agree. But the reference says the animation is as simple as possible (watching it, you can imagine the cel-makers at Disney writhing in apoplexy), with big, uninflected patches of primary colors and simple shapes for heads, eyes and mouths. I think he meant basic color; do you have a specific suggestion how to fix this? Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe talk about the predominance of primary colors rather than simply stating they're composed of primary colors. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC) How's now? Nergaal (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just noticed that some episode names aren't italicized. They should be.—Chris!_c/t 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Episode names are not in italics but are enclosed in quotation marks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then the episode names in the prose should not be italicized. They are inconsistent.—Chris!_c/t 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Think I fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Also, there seems to be unresolved issues regarding the format of the list that I think would benefit from a centralized discussion or peer review. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of the backlog. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [8].

---

List of Los Angeles Dodgers first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In the style of all the rest. The one question I've got is if you guys think the odd role that Dave Anderson played in the Kirk Gibson 1988 World Series home run is worth mentioning in the lead. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Why are positions linked in both the second and third paragraphs? This is particularly harmful as it makes the links to players less noticeable. Also, in Scioscia's alt text, shouldn't it be "in a red warmup"? On the Anderson thing, I don't think it's worth mentioning, particularly as there's plenty of other stuff to discuss. Mm40 (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fixing now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "for assinging amateur baseball players from high schools, colleges, and other amateur baseball clubs to its frachises." Check the last word again.
• "Welch was also on the Oakland Athletics 1988 team". Apostrophe needed at end of Athletics. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments If you abbreviate MLB, why not use it? Inserted and replaced with this a bit. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC) "the Rule 4 Draft is Major League Baseball's primary mechanism for assigning amateur baseball players from high schools, colleges, and other amateur baseball clubs to its franchises" no problem with the facts, but do we need the word baseball three times in one sentence? Removed, since obviously the MLB draft is MLB's way of assigning baseball players, not amateur football players or something. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC) For non-experts, is there an easy way of explaining how a player can be drafted and then not being signed? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not quite sure how. Essentially all being drafted means is that team is the only MLB team you can be associated with for one year and they're drafting the rights to negotiate a contract with you. Sometimes players will reenter the draft if they feel like they were taken too low (and can do better) or aren't offered enough money (or, I guess, if drafted by a truly awful team). And then there's the near-unique case of J.D. Drew gaming the system with help from Scott Boras. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [9].

---

List of counties in Florida

Nominator(s): Jujutacular ^T · C 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets criteria. I have greatly expanded it over the last week or so. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't really taken an expansive look at the article but the References could use a little bit of organising, like for example Black Eyed Peas discography#References. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 15:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, using Black Eyed Peas discography#References as an example. Thanks for that. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I hate to do this to you, but all the images (including those in {{countyrow}}) need better alt text. The lead image should describe the shape of the state and describe general trends, such as the larger counties tend to be in the center. For the highlighted maps, describe the location ("high on the panhandle"), the size, and maybe the shape. See List of counties in New Jersey for an example. Also, be sure to exclude "in red" per WP:ALT#MAPS. For other things, the main table is centered while the other two aren't, retrieval dates are in different formats (YYYY-MM-DD vs. Month day, year), and EPA should be spelled out in ref 5. Mm40 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Why are Jacksonville and Tallahassee picked out and in orange in the image? Any reason why the county names are in bold in the list (see WP:MOSBOLD) "Florida" is repeated again and again in the first para. I know it's the subject but can't we be a bit more creative with the prose? Indeed, second para has "Florida" four times in four sentences. "Today, the counties of Florida provide ... " the counties provide this? Not municipal services paid for by the county via tax collection or something? " 5268. km2" odd . there. Refs in numerical order is preferential (e.g. [4][6] instead of [6][4]) Don't think "Palm" in "palm tree" needs to be capitalised. Two headings have capital C for country, not needed. What makes myflorida.com a reliable source? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed everything except the bold county names. This is done by the template: {{countyrow}}, which is used in every other featured county list I can find. I would be open to changing it, I'm not quite sure how to though. Jujutacular T · C 01:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [10].

---

List of Gunsmoke television episodes

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Gunsmoke is a television classic that warrants a good episode list. This is a long one! 635 episodes! Please help improve it if you can. I've already had help from a peer review, now lets "fine tune" it some more.

Two things to note:

• One of the show's producers was named Norman Macdonnell (small "d"), not Norman MacDonnell (side note: the Wikipedia article on him needs to have its title changed. Can we do this?)
  • Sure, you can move the article, although it would be nice if you could cite a reliable source verifying his name was indeed spelled that way. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Episode 554 is titled "P.S. Murry Christmas" and not "P.S. Merry Christmas" Jimknut (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the fair-use image significantly increases readers' understanding of this article. It definitely belongs in the main article Gunsmoke, but nothing here helps out with understanding the episodes as a whole. Most episode lists that have been recently promoted do not include fair-use images for this reason. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 I agree with the assessment of the fair use image given by Dabomb87. Thanks. However, I must confess that I didn't write the assessment. It and the picture where already available by way on the main Gunsmoke article. Actually, I meant that there isn't really a fair use claim for it that would be suitable for this article. It should be removed per the fair use guidelines. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC) "The list below is presented with the title of the episodes, their directors, writers, and original airdates. Unless otherwise cited this information is derived from the books Gunsmoke: An American Institution by Ben Costello and Gunsmoke: A Complete History by SuzAnne Barbaras and Gabor Barbaras." - the first sentence is self-explanatory from the headers of the table cells. The books should be turned into general references instead of mentioned in prose. This has been removed. Remove links from "Season 2" prose to be consistent with other seasons. Removed. Pardon my ignorance, but is there a reason why the episode numbers are listed "43(4)" (without a space) rather than "43 (4)" with a hard space? Also, this notation should be explained in a key, as it's not eminently clear what it is (I would guess from the format that it's overall episode number followed by episode within that season?). Changed. There are now two columns for episode numbers: One for the entire series and the other per season. All tables should be sortable, and each row of a table "should be able to stand on its own" per WP:LINK#Repeated links. I disagree. None of the other featured lists of television episodes have sortable lists, so I see no reason why this one should have them. Also an episode such as #9, "The Hunter", will have to be listed as "Hunter, The", and its director, Charles Marquis Warren as "Warren, Charles Marquis" for the list to sort properly. You don't have to change how the items are viewed; you need to use sorting templates like {{sort}} and {{sortname}}. Sortability is a featured list criterion, and WP:WAX isn't a reason for this list not to conform to the criteria. Keep in mind that other lists that are FLs may have been promoted some time ago, and the criteria are more stringent now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I have upgrade the lists so that they are now sortable except for the airdate column. In this column the dates are already presented in chronological order, so I think a sorting system isn't needed.Jimknut (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC) What makes "ClassicTVHits.com" and Amazon reliable sources? ClassicTVHits is used as a convienient reference since it's easily assessable. The info it contains is identical with the information in the Barbaras book, so it should be reliable. Amazon has been used as a source for other featured lists, so I presume it should be okay for this one. Jimknut (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC) References can't simply be used for "convenience"; they must also be reliable. If the info can be sourced to the book, which is definitely reliable, then it should be changed to the book if the reliability of the website can't be proven. I can't speak to Amazon, so I'll let other reviewers comment on that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC) There should be no problem with Amazon especially since its used to source information about the dvds and Amazon is obviously a well known DVD distributor, if its to much to ask but I would like to hear your opinion as to why it may fail WP:RS. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC) WP:RS is less about whether a source "fails" it and more about whether it passes it. When it comes to referencing for featured content, the source isn't innocent until proven guilty; reliability must be proven. To determine whether a source is reliable, evidence must be presented that the source has a reputation for fact-checking. "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." If this is truly only used to verify information about a DVD, that's probably a fine use of Amazon, but beyond that is likely a different story. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Well the question would still stand, what'd make it fail passing. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I just said it: evidence must be presented that the source has a reputation for fact-checking. I see no such evidence. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Yes I understand what you said but I wasn't asking whats in the policy, I was asking what specific about the site would make it fail passing. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 15:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC) We're talking in circles. If evidence can't be presented, it fails. End of story. If evidence can be presented, it should be, and it passes. Another end of story. If you're asking what I personally think about why Amazon may not be a reliable source, it's because it's a marketplace, a business, an entity which exists to promote and not to provide knowledge. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC) There is another website that has been used for DVD charts in Wikipedia TV episode lists. It's called TV Shows on DVD [tvshowsondvd.com]. I could use them as a source as well, but no doubt you will be questioning the reliability of them as well. As a result I have placed the Home released section into a hidden text mode. Jimknut (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Now that the table is sortable, each item with an article should be linked per WP:LINK#Repeated links. I believe I have the links fairly well covered. All linkable names are linked once per table. Per the above linked section, the article should be linked each time they occur, not once per table. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I've changed the links so they're all covered now. Many names, however, remain totally unlinked as there is currently no article for most of the writers and many of the directors of the series. There are a couple of pictures of actors from the show's cast that could be added to the list. There is a picture of Amanda Blake which might be suitable for the lead, since she was a member of the cast for 19 of 20 seasons. Added picture of James Arness. This is a fair-use image, and no rationale can be provided for its inclusion since a free image (the aforementioned picture of Blake) can replace it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC) The picture of Amanda Blake by herself shows her in the movie Stars in My Crown (1951), and not Gunsmoke. I have nonetheless replaced the picture of James Arness with one of him, Blake, and director Charles Marquis Warren on the set of the series in 1955. I think this is better suited overall. The picture is from Wikicommons (by way of Warren's nephew) so it should be okay to use the picture. Jimknut (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good find on the image. In its current format, this list has my support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments good effort! No images at all? Ugh! First I had no images. Then I was asked (per peer review) to add one, so I did. Then in the initial stages of the FA review I was told that it doesn't add to the article (see above), so I took it out. Now I'm asked again why no images! I've put it back in ... and personally I think it does belong. "which was developed for television " you've just said television so "for television" isn't needed as you go on to say it's based on a radio show. Changed. "All the episodes of the series" no need for the first "the". Changed. "In Great Britain the series..." not the United Kingdom? Changed. black and white appears to need to be hyphenated. Changed. "broadcasted" - weird, I have it in my mind that "broadcast" is the past tense of "broadcast" but I won't argue...! Actually, both are correct. Wiktionary, however, says that "broadcast" is more commom in the United States. You win, it's changed. "Between 1987 and 1994 five televison movies based on the series were aired by CBS." no refs for this? Ref added. "centers around United States" don't you normally "center on" things? Changed. Sortable tables usually link linkable items every time as there's no guarantee which item the reader sees first after a resort. That would be a lot of linking! I think that the way I have it now conforms with WP:LINK#Repeated links. "Season #" is a little misleading in the table heading, it's the Episode of the season # really. I've changed the headings. Tell me what you think and, if you can, please offer any suggestions how to change it. Any reason why airdate isn't sortable? I know you can sort by episode but there's no guarantee that the episodes were necessarily aired in episode order... The episoded are listed in order of airdate (I've added a comment at the top of the list). I've changed the airdate headings in the charts so that they're now sortable. You have "Writer(s)" but "Director" and sometimes there are multiple directors... Changed. "half-hour" but then "one hour" - consistency? Changed. "for a thirteenth season" - but no notes as to how it continued to be made after season 13... Notes are now added at the top of season 13. "Note: "Pike", the two-parter that ended the season, was later developed into a spin-off series entitled Dirty Sally." no ref. And this could easily become a proper footnote. Ref added. For the year ranges, since you don't cross a century, you could easily drop the 19 from the second year in the range, e.g. 1966–67. Changed. Timeslot needs to use en-dash. Changed. If you put the colspan cols before the non-colspan col, you can make that table sortable. I've tried it many different ways, but nothing works. I've anyone else wants to have a go at it, I have no objections. You need to explain what "opposing programs" are. Changed to "Programs airing opposite Gunsmoke" See also needs a bullet point. Added. Footnotes are references really... Changed to one section marked "References" The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• One other item: It seems fairly common in episode lists that have achieved FL status to have a home video release chart. I have one for Gunsmoke but it's currently in a hidden text mode. One of the above commentators objected to using Amazon.com as a reliable reference, although Amazon has been used frequently in the past. Personally, I think that Amazon should be okay, since they're a worldwide business that's been in operation for many years. If Amazon is clearly selling Gunsmoke DVDs and displays them on their website this should be obvious proof that the DVDs exists. As for release dates, number of discs, extra features, etc., I presume that Amazon receives this information from the manufacturer of the DVDs (which in this case would be CBS). That Amazon would list this information inaccurately, while possible, seems (to me at least) to be highly unlikely as accurate descriptions of merchandise is mandatory in any retail business. I'd like to reinstate the Home Video section but I know of no other reliable source (CBS's web page does not give release dates). Any comments? Jimknut (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well yes, home video releases are usually noted. I (personally) agree with your view of Amazon as a reliable source. I would reinstate the hidden text and see what others have to say... The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I found three. They're fixed now. Jimknut (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [11].

---

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

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards of other featured lists, as well as the criteria neccessary to be featured. It also has been peer reviewed. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Dare one ask for a link in the opening part of the lead to latin music? Fixed. "that features Latin music airplay information" isn't it more the case that it's a chart based on airplay information? Fixed. "Latin speaking" - I think you need a hyphen and do you really mean Latin-speaking??! Fixed, I meant Spanish speaking. " based on the number of listeners each one had" based on their number of listeners? Fixed. Link airplay first time, not second... Fixed. "...entered to the Billboard computer system, which calculates points for every ..." tense change. In fact the first para of the lead reads oddly (to me, at least) because you talk about what was going on in the 80s then you start talking current timeframe. Fixed. " in the the chart printed publication" what does this mean? Fixed. The electronic database points as the first number-one song "La Guirnalda", but in the printed version of the chart (magazine) the first one is "Yo No Sé Qué Me Pasó". "in the 80s." (caption & lead) shouldn't this be 1980s (per MOS)? Fixed. "In 1987, a biography film about Ritchie Valens produced by Taylor Hackford and written and directed by Luis Valdez was released. The director chose to record new music for the film rather than use Valens' own recordings. American band Los Lobos were among the musicians chosen for the movie." reads choppily to me, can we merge these 3 into 2? Fixed. Spaced en dashes in those references please rather than spaced hyphens... Fixed. At least you've got something to work with now! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you Rambling Man. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Should "¿Y Quién Puede Ser?" sort after "Yo No Sé Qué Me Pasó"? I do not know why the sort does that. I can erase the question marks... You should look at using {{SortKey}} to force it to sort correctly rather than modify the (correct) name of the song. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Alt text, contributors, dab and external links all check out fine.

Lead

• Introduced in 1986, the information was compiled by the Billboard chart and research department with information from 70 Spanish-speaking radio stations in United States and Puerto Rico. -- formerly its the United States

Fixed!

• Those radio stations were selected based on their number of listeners. Stations were asked to report their playlists for the week, and this information was entered to the Billboard computer system, calculating points for every song. -- how about, Those radio stations were selected based on their number of listeners, and were asked to report their playlists for the week. This information was then entered to the Billboard computer system, calculating points for every song. ?

Fixed!

• According to the Billboard electronic database the first one was "La Guirnalda" by Spanish singer Rocío Dúrcal in September 6, 1986. --> According to the Billboard electronic database, the first was "La Guirnalda" by Spanish singer Rocío Dúrcal in September 6, 1986.

Fixed!

• By the end of that year another of Gabriel's compositions, "De Mí Enamórate" sung by Daniela Romo, also reached number-one. -- comma after that year

Fixed!

• So with Rocio and Juan, was their an official listing as to the first one?

While researching for this article I found the Billboard magazine online and Juan Gabriel was at number-one in the first chart published, but Durcal appears as the first number-one song in the Billboard electronic database.

• Cuban singer-songwriter Gloria Estefan became the first artist to simultaneously peak at number-one in the Billboard Hot 100 with "Don't Wanna Lose You", and the Billboard Top Latin Songs with the Spanish version titled "Si Voy a Perderte" on September 16, 1989 -- no need to link to the Latin chart again per WP:OVERLINK--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed!

• Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [12].

---

List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk), Andrzejbanas

Been working on this and its many sister-articles for some time now, mostly in my sandbox, and then eventually on the page itself. I came across these articles in a bit of haphazard shape, so it's been my goal to organize and streamline the entire series of lists. This is the biggest and most inclusive of them all, so the success of this nom will probably have an affect on the other lists I plan to work on soon afterwards.

I've tried to simplify things, but I am open to any and all formatting and logistical suggestions any of you may have. Specifically, I have one question I wasn't sure about: do you think it's worth noting the upcoming releases in the way that I have? I would say ideally yes, but since the release dates are so staggered, I feel like it's just inviting trouble, and will more often then not be out-of-date. So I was thinking about removing the denomination altogether, but I wanted to ask before I did that. Also, what do you guys think about the box-set table format? Any ideas?

Also, I had a bunch of help from User:Andrzejbanas, so you could consider this a co-nom, if you like. Thanks for taking the time to look. Drewcifer (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Fantastic list. I'm a big fan of criterion, and since their website is kind of hard to navigate, I'm sure this list will prove very useful. I haven't checked the details yet, but one thing that strikes me after a first look, is that the directors aren't sorted by last names. Is this because there are japanese names in the list? The Ministry (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. They're alphabetized like that because I don't know how to do it any other way! Anyone know how? Drewcifer (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. Drewcifer (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox.

I have; the two left are intentional. Take a look at the context and the actual dab pages, and I think you'll agree they're the most fitting links possible. Drewcifer (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Very Good list, I would think it would be easier for the user if the Key (or Legend as you've noted it as) was in a table similar/along the lines of this page. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, done. Drewcifer (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment per WP:COLOR, all colors also need a symbol; this is for those who can't see color. Also, all linkable items in a table should be linked at every mention, not only the first. This is because you don't know how the reader will sort the table, so you don't know what will be on top (I hope that makes sense). Mm40 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I believe this is being sorted out with the † symbols. Is this what you suggested? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already added the little cross thingies. As for the repeated links, I'm not so sure about this. WP:LINK says in tables it's at the editor's discretion, and I don't really have a strong opinoin about it, other than the fact that leaving it as is is easier. That said, if it is redone so everything is linked, I'd like to wait until (if) we figure out the last-name sorting thing mentioned above. Doing the two together would save some time/work, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorting can be done with the sortname template. I think all names should be linked, if you sort by original release for example lots of directors aren't linked on their first appearance. Smetanahue (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right per Wikipedia:LINK#Repeated_links. I've added the sortable names, but some of them have the nolink banner. You want to fix this up drewcifer? I'm out to see a film! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I was actually in the middle of doing the sortname thing just as you did yourself. Good work! I could go either way with the linking every name thing. It seems like there's two people in support of it. Any other opinions on it? I'll take care of that eventually, but I'll wait until (if) there's more opinions on it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think the directors should be linked every time. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(Although not in the two short tables "Merchant Ivory Collection" and "Other releases") P. S. Burton (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've linked all of the director's names. Drewcifer (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - You list 79, 100, 339, 495 as Various, I'm just wondering why aren't the Directors listed? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 16:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they were listed like this before just because of the sheer amount of directors listed to these compilations. I've listed them in there now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any particular reason why the Keys need to be dented? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 09:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I believe is it pushed out a bit more to make it more apparent that it is separated from the list below. I can't find any information from WP:LIST to say what to do in this situation, so if it is really disliked, we can move the spacing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is the dent really needed is the point is what trying to get at, I'm sure people can deduce easily that its a different table. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not really essential, but personally I like it, since it does visually seperate the two. I don't think there's any guideline/policy or otherwise on this. Really, this is small potatoes, but I'd prefer to keep it. Drewcifer (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The Spine No. and LD no. columns does not sort correctly when clicked on several times. To fix this please see m:Help:Sorting. P. S. Burton (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That is seriously the most unhelpful help page I've ever seen. Can anyone tell me what to do? Drewcifer (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - My earlier comments have been resolved. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments No period in the image caption. FIXED " in the Laserdisc format" no real need for "the" there as far as I can see. FIXED That "pioneering" sentence has no reference. "into online distribution, through an online video on " any reason to repeat "online"? "core Criterion Collection catalog" is it "Criterion Collection" or "The Criterion Collection"? Merchant Ivory could be linked. FIXED Interesting that the list is clearly in US-Eng ("catalog") but there's a clear preference for "film" over "movie"... any reason? I don't think the words "film" and "movie" are necessarily american versus british English. I think it's more of a cultural thing. As in non-film buff type people tend to call motion pictures "movies", while the type of people Criterion caters to tends to call them "films". Or am I missing something? Two (French?) movies sort out of order because of an accent grave. I fixed the French films, but what about titles in determined form? Should they be sorted under "The" and "Le" or the word that comes after? Smetanahue (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Original release sorts very oddly for me. Not sure why, works fine for me. Exactly what's the problem? First two sorts are incorrect, then subsequent sorts are okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC) "A release not assigned a catalog number." not a complete sentence so why have a period? Check others. External links could use a better description. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [13].

---

List of Pop Idol contestant music releases

Nominator(s): 03md 22:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe with a bit of work it could be ready to become a featured list. The list is complete (to my knowledge) and well referenced. 03md 22:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You also have List of best-selling singles of the 2000s (UK) at FLC. Note the instructions at the top of WP:FLC: "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I don't personally have a problem with it, but others might as it creates a backlog. I would suggest putting this on hold until the first nom seems clear to pass. Mm40 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also, images need ALT text and there are three links to dab pages (see here). Mm40 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments "to find a new singer" seems a little understated to me. Changed the sentence - is this any better? Feel free to suggest an alternative. "series [1] and" please place references per WP:REF, i.e. after punctuation where possible, and with no spaces. Done "allowing him to begin his music career" not really. His music career had to have begun for him to be in this show... Removed that phrase "Anything Is Possible" / "Evergreen" or "Evergreen/Anything Is Possible"? Made consistent by using the former "He continued to have chart success.." reads poorly for me. Changed "In the second series in 2003," you need a comma after series because this could be read that there were two series in 2003. Done "she left the music industry" uncited. Removed this sentence "He had further success..." Gates, not He, as you last mentioned Young. Done Double A-side doesn't need to be capitalised. Changed "before leaving the industry, only briefly returning in 2007." uncited. Cited the sentence "quickly came together" really? Changed Hopes & Fears entry formatted inconsistently and has no ref. Formatted correctly and added reference You only have one ref for each so remove (s) from ref(s) until you really need it. Done ""Come Back" [a]" remove space before note. Check others. Done Several release dates missing an actual date. Done Any of these releases made internationally? If so, that should be included here. Will Young's last album isn't referenced. Done Series is left aligned (mainly) in the first table, centrally in the second. At least be consistent from table to table. Done Album peak position col doesn't sort correctly. It now sorts correctly You have a section 2.1 but no 2.2. Perhaps you need "Solo albums" and then "Pop Idol albums" as subsections to section 2. Changed to your suggestion Suddenly record label makes an appearance - does this information exist for the other singles/albums? I have removed it from the final table as I don't believe it is necessary. You may disagree. Other releases, while not prohibited, looks not so good as a bullet point list. Any chance of turning this into prose? No big deal. Changed to prose "two of only 10 songs that have achieved that feat as of 2009. " needs both context (i.e. in the UK only?) and reference. Done "385,00 copies" missing a digit. Done " Virgin Megastores ," remove the spare space. Done "1.2million copies at HMV stores" space after 1.2, you linked Virgin but not HMV, any reason? Changed Last sentence of "Chart records" is unreferenced. Added ref The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Cheers for all your comments TRM. I have left a few queries. 03md 15:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure about the title. Perhaps "List of Pop Idol contestant music releases"? Let's see what everyone else thinks...
• 3rd, 4th and 5th "other releases" are unreferenced.

Should I just remove them completely as I can't find Reliable refs.

Without RS, the information probably should go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Removed the uncited parts. 03md 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General I like the title suggestion by TRM. Moved the page to that title. Images need alt text. Done. Dab and external links and contributors all check out fine. Lead During the next seven years he recorded a further two number-one singles( "Light My Fire" and "Leave Right Now"), while two of his four albums were number-one in the UK Albums Chart. --> During the next seven years he recorded two further number-one singles( "Light My Fire" and "Leave Right Now"), while two of his four albums were number-one in the UK Albums Chart. Done. I'm not keen about the UK acronym since United Kingdom is spelled out in the British pipelink. Changed. In the second series, in 2003, Michelle McManus emerged victorious. -- Non need for the 'in 2003', since only two series ran and you noted this, its too repetitive. Removed the repetition. The lead should have some overall count of releases, releases by contestants from each series, stat. info in that nature. Done. I have also added a table of statistics near the bottom of the article. List Why do the notes about the rank cutoff have inconsistency, one is written in regular font while the others are in italics? Changed. What company is behind the Pop Idol albums? Done. See also Should be under the notes header not above it.--Truco 503 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Done. Thanks for all your comments. I think that I have addressed them all but let me know if I have missed anything. 03md 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I think you should make the headers like this... ==Releases== ===Singles=== ===Albums=== ===Other releases=== and so on.. I am not keen either on the By artist name of the header. But I also can't think of another name.02:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 21:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:43, 20 February 2010 [14].

---

List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain

Nominator(s): ResMar, Awickert

This list is the end result of a split from Hawaii hotspot, when it got too long to manage. I'm nominating it for FL because it's well-referenced and well-written. However, this list is a bit bold, because it has issues with completeness that can never be really surmounted, that is that in addition to the stuff listed, there are countless more. The list covers signifigant seamounts, but I can't find a clear distinction between what's listed and what's not, other then that the vast majority of what's not listed has a coordinate and a name, sometimes not even a name. ResMar 20:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Some comments after a very quick glance (mainly on sorting): Sorting the first table breaks formatting (intermediate colspan headers). Uh...I don't know what to do with that. It's pretty important information, what island it is on. ResMar 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC) It should be its own column. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Island column now exists and the columns have been removed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Nice. ResMar 02:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC) How do the "coordinate" columns sort? It sorts by coord, but then again it's pretty redundant considering it's in that order already, ok I'll remove it. ResMar 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC) The sorting should still exist. If the list is sorted by coordinate to begin with, it's going to have to be able to get back to that point somewhow. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) And added right back again. ResMar 02:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC) OK. So it sorts by latitude. I just wondered about the usefulness of sorting by coordinates. Since it appears that going north is like (roughly, not always exactly) going west along the seamount chain it is probably useful.bamse (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Sorting of the age column is broken at least in the first table. I get this order: 4.9 million - 1 million - 4 million. Shoot. Sorting problems. Exactly what I expected...sigh. ResMar 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Still an issue, I can fix it via hidden sortkeys but for a lot of them there is an overlapping range of values in age, any suggestions? ResMar 02:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC) I would suggest that it should probably sort by the lowest number. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC) It probably depends on what the ranges in the age column represent (Should be explained in the text somewhere!). Are they ranges of activity or ranges in uncertainty of age determination. If the former i would sort by the oldest age, if the latter I would sort by the average of the two numbers. bamse (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Uncertaincy in age. ResMar 14:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC) In that case, I suggest sorting by the average of the lower and upper age limit. bamse (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Done. ResMar 18:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Are you sure? For me none of the three tables sorts correctly in the age column.bamse (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I've gone over it again and added sortkeys to two of the table sections...should work fine now. ResMar 15:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Almost. 2nd and 3rd table are fine. In the first table, the Waiʻanae Range (3.7–3.9 million years) is sorted as oldest, which it is not. It's probably up to personal preference, but I would have used the years themselves as sortkeys (instead of 0001, 0002,...). Makes possible extensions of the table easier and requires less thinking when creating the sort keys.bamse (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Oops, missed this one. Sorry :) Um no in fact using the ages is partially why it doesn't want to work, it puts "70 years" back of "700,000", for example (dunno why). Easiler to work with numbers, less fidling to make it work. Plus I'm sure I can handle it, I'm a <not> whiz with math xD. ...but seriously, it's easier to use number because it is less prone to breaking. ResMar 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC) The reason behind it is because the sortkeys require all significant digits. For example, to sort 70 before 70,000, you would have to have the sortkey for 70 be "00070", to account for all sigdigs. I will take a look at it and see if I can't accomplished this. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC) I don't understand why it doesn't want to sort properly though, everything is in order, it has a key of 13 between 14 (above) and 12 (2 above), but doesn't want to go right... oO Do you know what the issue is? ResMar 00:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Hopefully the sortkeys I added have fixed the issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC) In the second table you might want "Last Eruption"->"Type". Done. ResMar 23:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC) What does the "Back to Top" in the last table do? Removed. ResMar 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Add alt text to the image. There are two images in the article. The lead image has alt text, and the one in the template does not require it because it is for purely decorational purposes. ResMar 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I added "alt=" to what I believe is the alt text of that image. Please check. bamse (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC) One more quick comment: I was told in one of my FLC, that featured lists don't start like: "This is a list of..." anymore, so you should probably change the start.bamse (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Done. ResMar 01:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Support now. All issues have been resolved. bamse (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from M4gnum0n (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is six paragraphs long. Should be four or less per WP:LEAD. --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC) This was a concern of mine too but I think that for this article it can be a little long; its not as simple as awards and nominations, so it needs a 1-para introduction. In addition, the first paragraph just states what the article is. The next paragraph on ages, that can be removed, but the last 3 paras on how the chain is divided is vital information. ResMar 14:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Ok reduced to 4 paras. I blended paras 1 and 2 and kicked the para on age. ResMar 14:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Just a couple of things: "The Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain is a chain" - two chains in quick succession, the second could be changed. Actually its one chain, with 2 subsections. ResMar 22:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Lo'hi Seamount or Lo'ihi Seamount? Both appear in the list. Loiʻhi Seamount. ResMar 22:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC) "All of the volcanoes in this part of the chain have long since subsided below the sea, becoming seamounts and guyots." - it's not evident without clicking on the link that these go somewhere different than the links to seamount and guyot in the first paragraph. I would make it more evident; perhaps All of the volcanoes in this part of the chain have long since subsided below the sea, becoming seamounts and guyots (see also the guyot and seamount stages of Hawaiiam volcanism). Added. ResMar 01:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Make sure that your formats in the "Age" column match. Some "~" symbols are spaced, and some are not. If they are to be spaced, then they need to use non-breaking spaces. Done. ResMar 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC) "Well documented seamount" - well-documented And...done. ResMar 01:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Note: At the time of the review, KV wasn't a signifigant contributor to the article, although I asked him for help with it (which he's been doing a wonderful job with ;) ) ResMar 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it typical for FLCs to backlog for so long? ResMar 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We are short on reviewers right now. Additionally, the header on the main FLC page does state that nominations remain open for at least 10 days or longer (this one has only been open for nine) and that the bot only runs twice a week for promotions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very short...ResMar 14:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You might ask earlier reviewers to re-visit their comments, as lnog as your aren't canvassing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Emperor" or "Emperior"? Spaced en dash or hyphen? These consistencies in the main article have me confused about this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Emperor and en dash. ResMar 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Lead - "..chain is a chain.." - can we do better than that? eg." chain is a series..." or something less repetitive? Fixed. ResMar 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Especially as you then mention chain twice in the following sentence. Changed. ResMar 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "Being closest to the hotspot..." not sure you need "Being..." here. Changed. ResMar 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC) " is comprised of" a classic problem of mine. comprises or consists of... never, ever sure if either is correct! Uh, so should this be changed or no? ResMar 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC) You follow diacritics with "Lōʻihi" but not with Hawaii. Any reason? Added. ResMar 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "Erosion has long since overtaken activity at these..." not clear what "activity" you're talking about by now... Clarfied with volcanic. ResMar 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "atolls, atoll islands" - earlier you linked atoll islands specifically to Hawaiin atoll islands, but this time you link to nothing. I'm perhaps stupid but I always though atolls were islands? They are - a specific type of island. ResMar 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "or at the least extinct islands" not sure what you mean. You mean they actually are extinct? In the stages of Hawaiian volcanism, it's extinct island, atoll island, atoll. Removed "at least". ResMar 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "atoll[...] in the world" repeated twice in too quick succession for good prose. Is there any other way to say atoll...ResMar 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "The monument ... calls for a phase-out..." - really? The monument itself? Or are you talking about something else? Not sure... Fixed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Any reason why itself is italicised? Removed. ResMar 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC) "Lōʻihi Seamount" missing "years" in its age in the table. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "Haleakalā" note starts in a small letter. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Islands and seamounts tables should have same column widths. Names are shortest in the last table, medium in the first, and longest in the middle one; standardizing the width will cause the last table's name cell to be overly lengthy; do it anyway? ResMar 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Where no age is available, don't leave a blank cell. At least place an en-dash and add a note. Doesn't seem to sort correctly on those blank cells either, unless you're doing something invisible... Added endashes all around. ResMar 01:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC) "Named after" or "Named for"? Be consistent. Done. ResMar 01:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC) "Well-documented " - says whom? Haha, no0b mistake from a while back, actually a few of them are well-documented (sites for the drilling expeditions). ResMar 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• "only known " should be hyphenated?

? Please elaborate. ResMar 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

only-known... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would put Notes above References, but would also ensure that Notes are all referenced.

The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed. ResMar 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes need references? oO The notes outline a trend to mot include the two volcanoes in the ordinary defenition of Hawaii island, that's a little hard to reference...ResMar 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I really can't find a ref for that. It's true, yes, but not directly implied anywhere...should I remove it? ResMar 01:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes need references in general, particularly if you make claims in the that some may dispute. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed, still can't find applicable source. ResMar 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks overall great. I made some tweaks to the lede. I have two suggestions:

1. Although it may be obvious, I think it would be helpful to make a note at the start of the tables that you're going from the present-day hotspot location to the farthest point away from the hotspot on the Emperor seamount chain. Done.

   Dunno about a full-blown note, but I added to the part of the intro about the list that it's organized by distance. ResMar 21:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Looks good, thanks. Awickert (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

2. What do you think of the grammar of, "Named after former emperor of Japan Emperor Kammu."? It seems clunky to me, but I can't find a better way to say it except for, "Named after Emperor Kammu of Japan," which leaves the reader to imply the "former" and so is arguably worse. Done.
3. I just asked Dabomb87 if sentence fragments are OK; if they are, great! If not, there are a bunch of minor edits to do to tweak the notes in the tables. [Update: Dabomb87 says that they are OK so long as they don't have sentence-ending punctuation. Done. Awickert (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)]

Other than this, I'll just do a grammar/style check of the descriptions in the table (once I know whether or not they need to be complete sentences), and I'll be happy to support. I'm just going to assume that you all have cross-checked the numbers :-). Awickert (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Point 2 uh, so is there a better way to say it? Seems just fine. 3 seems to be resolved...ResMar 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Point 2 isn't very important. Point 3 is not resolved: there is sentence-ending punctuation at the end of non-sentences. Awickert (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

For point 2, if I may suggest: Named after Emperor [so-and-so], former ruler of Japan? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll do it. Awickert (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And point 3 is now sorted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! This takes care of all of these concerns. Awickert (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• There seem to be some issues in date consistency: the dates given for Kilauea are for its first subaerial eruptions, while the dates given for Mauna Loa are for its first eruptions, period. A convention should be decided upon, and noted (maybe as a footnote), such that we know what "age" means. I'd suggest (where possible) giving a full range of dates from the estimated first to most recent eruptions. Another viable option would be to only give the date of first eruption, or perhaps the date of first subaerial eruption (so when the volcano surfaced). I guess that there are 3 important dates actually (start volcanism, breach surface, and end volcanism), so there are multiple ways to include some or all of these. Awickert (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is, I believe, the last outstanding issue, and I am unsure about the best way to execute it. I can certainly provide a footnote; I just need to know what it should say. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hm... well, a range of dates given could be from first (submarine) eruption to final eruption. Then if we wanted, we could put in the table (or as a footnote) a surfacing age. Does this sound good to you? If so, I'd be happy to help straighten it all out. Awickert (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be eminently grateful for any help you could provide, as the topic itself just isn't a strong suit. I must say, though, that helping ResMar with this list has made me more interested in volcanoes! And that's really the point of Wikipedia, isn't it? Collaborate; learn; lather, rinse, repeat... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, it's fun! I'm no volcanologist either... Awickert (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Volcanologist? Where? ResMar 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Starship Enterprise.

Comments from Bencherlite

• "is responsible for the volcanism that forms the volcanoes in the chain" – perhaps "is responsible for forming the volcanoes in the chain", to avoid near-repetition of a word?
• "cause the volcanic edifice to become lower" – "make the volcanic edifice smaller"?
• In the Northwestern Hawaiʻian islands table, the cells with dashes sort in between the cells with numbers. This took me some time to work out. Am I right in saying that it's because Maro Reef, for example, is in between Laysan and Gardner Pinnacles in the chain and therefore in age, even though the actual age is unknown? Ref 29 (eventually) yielded that information to me, but a simple browser search didn't find "Maro", for example, because the text is sideways on in the diagram! Perhaps a note to explain this, at the head of the table if nowhere else strikes you as suitable? It was particularly confusing because the Emperor seamounts table sorts differently, with "unknown" together at the end.
• Otherwise, a very full list that is clearly the product of much hard work. Bencherlite^Talk 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Bencherlite: I've addressed your first two concerns, and can explain the third since I did the sorting stuff, but you've essentially explained it yourself. It's easily inferred that the age is between x and y due to location, but the true age or even estimated age is unknown or unrecorded. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, that makes sense. I've added a note to that effect, which I hope is OK. That would just leave Awickert's point about dates, I think. Bencherlite^Talk 01:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note is good; spelling corrected :-). I've left a reminder for Awickert so he can perhaps revisit this. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Spot the geological noob... Anyway, if you can satisfy Awickert, then I'm happy too, so that's probably a conditional support (I know FL Directors like bold type...) Bencherlite^Talk 01:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawl

Unfortunatly this nominations trawled its long and painful path into finals week. I have no time to devote to Wikipedia for at least a week and a half. Sorry. ResMar 00:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ResMar, I can help out with the last few outstanding issues, so if you want to consider striking the withdrawal, I'll see what I can do for you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, ResMar. And if KV5 can get this one over the finishing line, that might even put a smile on your face during exams. Bencherlite^Talk 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, K5, if you can wrap it up I'd be grateful. No pressure though. Immense thanks...you can put up a star for yourself when all's said and done :) ResMar 02:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Crawling through the list

• Made it down to Koolau, but the refs leave me confused as to whether it is truly a part of the island that the article says it is. I'll come back to this later on, but if someone who knows about Hawaii has a chance to clarify this before then, I'd greatly appreciate it! Awickert (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have checked and haven't been able to make sense of it either, at least not enough to verify that. Although I fixed the spelling there, I don't know if that verifies the refs. We might need ResMar, or perhaps we can recruit a member of an appropriate WikiProject to translate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can make sense of it then, probably later in the day when I have more time. Awickert (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• What's the status of this? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Woot, finals are all done. Now I have 6 days to relax...ahhh... Ok lemmie see...ResMar 14:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno what your issue is, this pretty clearly states where it is...ResMar 14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to contact Awickert to ask if his concerns have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Saturday - and now I'm back too. The source says it's on Oahu, but we say that it's on Molokai. My question was whether its location is in error, or is just something I don't know about Hawaiian geography. Awickert (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved.[15] Errors accidentally introduced by User:Killervogel5 on 19 December 2009.[16] Further review of diff may be needed. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The dates for the whole Hawaiian chain are now done. Emperors will come soon. Awickert (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Loihi Seamount is generally classified as part of the Big Island, but someone has also removed the category from the Loihi article as well. It was appropriately classifed under the Big Island in December 2009.[17] I think it should be listed as part of the Big Island category (as it is on the flank of Mauna Loa) and the category should be added back to the main article. Books and papers generally categorize Loihi under any discussion of the Big Island, and category literalism is not helpful. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed. ResMar 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Avenue

• Some scientists have argued that Kauai was not formed by a single volcano, but from two.[18][19] Even one of the sources we cite acknowledges the two-shield model as a valid alternative.[20] But we list it as a single volcano, without any indication that this is controversial. -- Avenue (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• The lead says "As the volcano sinks and is eroded, it first becomes an atoll and then an atoll island." How is an atoll island different from an atoll? The linked article doesn't mention the term.
• Next the lead says "Further subsidence causes the volcano to sink below the sea surface, becoming a seamount and/or guyot." Neither the cited source nor our Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes article suggest that further subsidence is to blame, instead saying it is due to the coral reef dying. This in turn is blamed on the volcano's movement into colder waters, past the Darwin Point, in the "Evolution ..." and various other articles.
• I have two main concerns about the next part of the lead: "This list documents the most significant volcanoes in the chain, ordered by distance from the hotspot; however, there are many others that have yet to be properly studied."

1. The first is that it seems to gloss over the distinction between volcanoes and the islands, atolls, and seamounts they produce. This is linked to my initial point above about Kauai possibly comprising two main volcanoes. Other islands or seamounts might likewise represent more than one volcano, and future research might bring this to light, but we do not acknowledge this possibility anywhere.
2. My other concern is that "most significant" (previously "most notable") doesn't seem to be a good description of what's included here. I would be happier with something like "known". Again, I think this should include a caveat about some seamounts etc being listed singly when the true situation may be more complex. -- Avenue (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, based on the problems noted above with the lead and comprehensiveness. -- Avenue (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dates

I've been noting whether dates are an estimate, whether they span the whole lifetime of the volcano, or whether they're a single radiometric date. I've been spot-fixing a couple of the numbers at the same time and finding some new ones. Some things I need help with:

• I've been identifying tons of potassium-argon dates. This seems to clutter things; should I just make the dating method be a footnote?Awickert (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not. I really want to keep notes out the way; it's not that bad of an issue; any other opinions? ResMar 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I'll leave them, easier for me that way too. Awickert (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can't find any of the dates noted in this reference, Duncan, R. A. and Clague, D. A. (1984) The earliest volcanism on the Hawaiian Ridge (abstract), EOS American Geophysical Union Transactions, volume 65, page 1076. Can anyone access this and confirm the dates in the article, and how they were obtained?Awickert (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). Argh, I like FLC because I can stay away from science lists. Oh well, geology isn't that bad.

• "The chain has been produced by the" just checking, you mean to imply that the chain is still being formed? Is there some way you can clarify this?
• I guess you can use "ocean crust" and "oceanic crust" interchangeably?
• "and is eroded" why not just "erodes"? (sorry if I don't understand verb conjugations for you ecology types)
  • Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• "it is both the youngest part" either take out "both" here or the "also" later in the sentence; I'd prefer taking out "also"
  • Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• "in the chain that is in the submarine pre-shield stage"
  • Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Is there a link for "extinct islands"?
• Is there a more common synonym for "phase-out"?
• In the "Age" column, some date ranges use dashes while others use "to"
• I have no idea what a "rift-zone eruption" is; elaborate
• In Lanai's column, there should be some sort of punctuation after "Sixth-largest island"
• "the southern half remains above the sea today"
• "including religious places" is there a better word than "places"?
• Can you link "rock outcrop" somewhere?
• In the notes for Lisianski Island, you may want to link to the captain himself; you might pipe it like you do with "a key battle" in Midway Atoll's notes.
• The plus-or-minus signs (±) are sometimes spaced and sometimes not; be consistent
• The Age box for Suiko makes no sense; you can be plus-or-minus a date range, just go with the bigger value, and what does the second ± mean?

References

• There are a couple abbreviations in the references readers may not be familiar with. I noticed USGS, KQED, and QCC.
• Add the authors in reference 5
• You note that links are PDFs 3 different ways: letters before link (ref 6), symbol after link (end of ref 6, ref 44), and symbol with letters after link (34).
• Ref 6 claims the first link is the pre-press version, but the second link is titled "Pre-press version"
• Sometimes you link the USGS, sometime you don't
• Refs 7, 10, and 11 cite the same observatory three different ways
• Reference 11's retrieval date is in a different style than the others
• Can geology.com (ref 13) be replaced with something of higher-quality?
• Funny typo in ref 18: "Vulcanology"
• In ref 43: You know Clague's first name (David, from ref 15). More importantly, though, why not use {{cite journal}} as it's formatted differently than the other journals
• Ref 46: "page 199" -> "p. 199"

OK, that's enough nitpicking for me. I found this article accessible and not too covered in unexplained jargon. Thus, I'll gladly support once these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Have these been addressed? Mm40 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go through and fix the grammar and formatting nit-picks in the next few days; hopefully Awickert or ResMar can address the other things. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Based on the above comments I also have to oppose at this time. --Kumioko (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? The above are all minor nitpicks ("that's enough nitpicking for me"), and I said that I was about to support, not oppose. Please rescind your oppose or come up with a better rationale. Mm40 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As you stated, I wil gladly support once they are corrected. I am most concerned about the reference issues and the inconsistent plus or minus signs. All of these are fairly easy to correct but at the same time I think they should be correct and consistent for a featured article/list--Kumioko (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the ± inconsistencies, this is the result of my large-scale ongoing updating and spot-checking of dates. I'll fix the ones that I've gotten to so far. Awickert (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note for nom: this paper summarizes a lot of dates for the volcanoes. As I've already put in 10+ hours on this article (looking things up, formatting them, checking info) and have other articles that I'd like to work on, I'd appreciate if you went through this and checked it against the current dates. For now, I'm going to add a couple more things and then sign off, Awickert (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind on the newness; looks like you already found it, so I'll add a link to that ref. Might be good to double-check against the others anyway. Note that multiple K-Ar dates don't provide a date range per se (due to inadequate sampling to say something that specific), so best to just state what the acquired ages are. But I'll fix these (I already have done many) so no worries, Awickert (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If Mm40's tweaks are implemented I'll support; until then I cannot, so hopefully it's done quick else this will probably be archived. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Content Support: the content is correct. Can't say much about MoS or inclusiveness (though it seems to include every volcano that is usually talked about, and a few that aren't), but I've finally gotten through all of the dates and they look good. Once these non-content issues are taken care of, you (pl.) can assume that I fully support. Awickert (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:54, 12 February 2010 [21].

---

List of New Testament uncials

Nominator(s): Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete, referrenced, and based on all important editions of the lists of the New Testament manuscripts... Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose/Comments from KV5

There are a lot of style issues with this list that need to be corrected before it's of featured quality. I've included some of the more glaring issues below, and this is without even a full review.

• No links in the bold text of the lead.
• Large amounts of unexplained abbreviations and pipelinked last names without first names throughout the entire article. Abbreviations should be explained at first prose mention or, if they are only in the table, keyed. This is a very large issue and is currently epidemic throughout the entire list.
• All ranges of dates and verses joined with hyphens should be changed to en-dashes (see WP:DASH).
• Throughout the "Classification of uncials" section, em-dashes are used inappropriately. There are also some sentence fragments and comma splices throughout this section that are created by the incorrect usage.
• Blank cells in the table should be filled with em-dashes, footnotes explaining why they are blank, or both.
• Daggers in the table should be superscripted, and I don't see any indicator as to what those actually mean.
• "074, 084, 090, 0110, 0112, 0113, 0117, 0119, 0123, 0124, 0125, 0137, 0138, 0139, 0149, 0179, 0180, 0190, 0191, 0193, 0194, 0195, 0202, 0215, 0224, 0235, 0285, 0293" - is this giant list of numbers really needed in prose? Would be better indicated in the table using an asterisk and color or some other method like a footnote.
• "So, the number 318 is merely nominal, the actual figure should be somewhat lower." - this is unencyclopedic, informal tone.

All in all, the entire article needs a good copyedit, and likely should have been peer-reviewed before its nomination. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Almost everything is done. "So, the number 318 is merely nominal, the actual figure should be somewhat lower." - in this language are written books which I use. In fact I use this style in every language. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • If that's a direct quote from one of those sources, then it should be quoted. If not, it should still be changed because the language is much too informal. As to everything else, I see evidence that some things have been completed, but other comments appear to have been overlooked (the incorrect usage of dashes, unexplained abbreviations, daggers). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Aland wrote (in 1989): "Insgesamt 299 (...) Majuskeln sind heute bekannt, und zwar nominell, in Wirklichkeit wird ihre Zahl infolge der im Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung fortschreitenden Arbeiten zur Identifikation bisher getrennter Fragmente ständig niedriger..." Erroll F. Rhodes translation (1995): "(...), this is only a nominal figure. The actual figure should be much lower as a result of the Institute fo New Testament Textual Research's success in identifying fragments separated from their manuscripts." - (p. 104 - book is quoted in the article and it was the basis for the article + Aland's Kurzgefasste + weblinks of INTF). Since October 2009 - 320 manuscripts (source - weblink of INTF).
        • The Rhodes translation is much better formally, so I think that you should simply replace the paraphrasing, which sounds informal, with a direct quote of his material. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm also going to oppose, if there wasn't enough evidence above, the "Other uncials" table looks vastly incomplete and there is no indication as to why information is missing which is why I'm going to oppose. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The List is complete, but I agreed there is some work to do. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Question - Just 2 quick questions. Why are some of the rows completely filled with blanks? eg 0179, 0180. also "0136=0137" is linked but "0149 = 0187" isn't why aren't they linked? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 03:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• A few comments:
  • "Vatican City-state" is not the name of a country.
  • Why use Munchen when there's a perfectly viable English name?
  • Why say and link Athos when you mean Mount Athos?
  • Why are there random blacklinks in the city column of the second table?
  • No explanation is given as to why 0190-0194 are blank.
  • You have some "c. ###" in the year column, implying circa; but the rest lack that "c.", but are all rounded to the nearest 50. Should you simply say the column is all "circa"? --Golbez (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • All is done. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • "Vatican" is not the name of a country either. The name of the country is Vatican City.
      • Still several Athos remaining.
      • I'm reading through the prose and I'm also not seeing any explanation for the equals signs; are these uncials identical to the numbers they're equal to?
      • "Now 320 sigla for uncial codices have been catalogued by the (INTF) in Münster." This is a bad sentence, for one thing because of the parentheses, but I just don't understand what it means or why it's in its own paragraph. One table says there are 45 sigla, this says 320?
      • In the text, you say the years are given to the nearest 50, which matches what the table used to say; however, the table now only gives centuries, and no x50 years. So either the old years should be put back, or the note about rounding to the nearest 50 should be removed. If you keep the current system, some mention, perhaps a footnote of the Date column, should point out that these are xth century AD. --Golbez (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of dead links too. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I found one. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The dab link still needs to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In the table, both United Kingdom and UK are used. Please be consistent and use the full name.—Chris!_c/t 01:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 13:59, 10 February 2010 [22].

---

List of forty-plus point games by Kobe Bryant

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. And I am competing in Wikicup. —Chris!_c/t 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Restarted, old version.
• Note I have restarted this nom, as the page was getting long with comments, and it was not clear what had been addressed and what hadn't. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment still not sure what makes 40 points more significant than any other number of points. Seems like an arbitrary choice to me. Regardless, the list quality is high. So I'll remain neutral. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The middle column between Team and Opponent, I'm wildly confused about.

1. Is Note B meant to be for this column or the Opponent?
2. Isn't it easier just to split it into Winning Team and Losing Team?

I'd like to specify, Currently I'm remaining Neautral on this. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 21:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

At and verses are used to distinguish between home and away games. There are other ways to show this, but this is the easier and clearest imo. And I can called the columns Winning Team and Losing Team, but Team and Opponent captured the same meaning.—Chris!_c/t 22:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

KV5: My comments had all been resolved when the nomination was re-started. I believe that the media examples that Chrishomingtang provided establish the notability of the forty-point guideline and, as before, I support the promotion of this list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support – My comments were taken care of before the re-start, and everything appears fine on a second look. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• The list looks good but as someone who knows nothing whatsoever about basketball my main concern, like The Rambling Man above, is that the article gives no indication of the significance of a "forty-point game". Why do we have this list rather than, say, List of thirty-plus point games by Kobe Bryant or List of fifty-plus point games by Kobe Bryant? Is it simply that players' totals of "forty-point games" are a widely-reported stat, one of the "magic numbers" by which players are measured? Is there some way in which this could be briefly touched on in the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See below.—Chris!_c/t 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose on indiscriminate grounds. The list is good but, per TRM and Chris, 40pts seems rather arbitrary. I readily admit I know little about basketball but in a quick google I found hits for Kobe lists of 60+ and 50+. The only significance of the 40 seems to be that he hit the 100 milestone of them late last year[23]. I realise the 60+ is unrealistic as a list but 50 also seems widely reported and I'm not sure of the significance of 40 over 50. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can use 50 as the arbitrary cut-off point, but likewise I'm not sure if 50 is anymore significant over 40. I totally did not expect that the use of 40 points as the arbitrary cut-off point would cause such a concern. Not trying to use WP:WAX as an argument, but there are many other FLs that involve the use of arbitrary cut-off point. Tallest building FLs, for instance, often use 300 feet as an arbitrary cut-off point. As I said the only reason "forty-point games" are used here is that it is a widely-reported figure that media often used and it seems like a reasonable cut-off between 50 points which is quite notable and 30 points which is a typical occurrence in basketball.—Chris!_c/t 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"I totally did not expect that the use of 40 points as the arbitrary cut-off point would cause such a concern" - well, speaking only for myself, it's solely because I know absolutely nothing about basketball and the significance of the stat is lost on me. If "number of 40-point games" is a widely reported stat for players, then I am absolutely fine with the scope of the list, as long as the significance of the stat is explained, even if only briefly, in the lead. But to me, with my lack of knowledge, there's no obvious reason why 40 points would be chosen. As a football (soccer) fan, if I put together a list of, say, List of twenty-plus goal seasons by Alan Shearer, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see US editors popping up and asking "why 20? why not 10? or 25? or 30?" But, as mentioned above, if the stat is a widely-used one and that is explained, I will support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't think there is anything I could do about that. Forty-point games is indeed widely used by the media, but unfortunately they typically do not mention or explain why that is the case.—Chris!_c/t 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an in-depth analysis of why 40 points has been deemed to be significant in the grand scheme of things, just one sentence explaining that a player's number of 40-point games is a widely reported and analysed stat, something like that will be fine..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion you'd also need some evidence to support the fact that Kobe has done it a significant number of times - I don't know if he's 999th of a list of 1000 or top of a list of five.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I added a general statement about the significance of 40-point games and his numbers of 40-point games relative to other players.—Chris!_c/t 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I said I would support if that was taken care of, hence I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the scope issue, I raised this article for discussion at a thread at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Notability of lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• (Referred here by Dabomb87 from above). I have to agree that this list is problematic. First, as we don't generally list regular season games of pro sports save for box scores for a team for a season, these lists are normally not things we include. Now, recognizing that scoring a lot of points in a game is something that can be notable, but there needs to be some source(s) that assert that 30, 40, 50 - whatever - points is an extraordinary result, otherwise it is an arbitrary value. But once you assume that, the question becomes, why are we limiting that to just Kobe? Surely others have reached this goal, and if the value is chosen right, this is representing a rare feat, similar to Mile run world record progression, that covers all athletes of the sport. That is, a better list is List of forty-plug point games by single players in the NBA, presuming 40 is the magic number for justification. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can't help but think all the "opposes" and hesitations are pretty nit-picky. Bryant is one of the top NBA scorers ever, so having a list of his top-scoring games seems quite encyclopedic to me. If we don't have similar lists for Chamberlain and Jordan, we ought to. As for what the cutoff/inclusion criteria should be, 40 seems very reasonable to me, at least for Kobe. It produces a good-size list (~100 entries); is something of a "wow" figure (I know any time I hear about a 40-point game -- by anyone -- I think, "ooh, nice"); and so what if the cutoff is 40 or 50 or whatever? The point is to have a list of his top-scoring games, so as to underscore what a top scorer he's been.--Father Goose (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If the goal is simply to show how good Kobe is by indicating how many games he scored more than 40 points, that can be done in one sentence in the article about him or in List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant; a full list with both the arbitrary break for including and the strict focus on Kobe is again before our goals of being indiscriminate and unbiased. That's not to say a list of individual achievement across the NBA of highest individual scores above some threshold (50?, I dunno) wouldn't be appropriate, as long as that threshold is clearly shown to be considered significant by the field. I point out that other similar individual achievements, like perfect games, 50 goals in 50 games for NHL, or winning a Grand Slam (golf) are considered across the board for all applicable players, so it seems very strange to focus on just one achievement for one player here. --MASEM (t) 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • If the argument about bias is that we don't have similar information about other players, the answer is to add similar information about other players. Balancing by adding is always preferable to balancing by removing, even though removal is tempting because it's so much easier to do. And "indiscriminate" -- that one tends to be as bad as "unencyclopedic". Ten different people will give you a different answer as to what an "indiscriminate" vs. a "discriminate" list is. A 40-point game is, to me, noteworthy. It's not a made-up list and this particular cutoff makes sense to me for this list.
      I have to veer far off the track to editorialize for a moment here: Wikipedia seems to be getting more and more closed-minded as time goes on. I keep seeing people voicing more and more reasons for doing stuff or not doing stuff that seems to have less and less to do with our mission: gimme information. Any time I see someone arguing that we shouldn't add information in one form or another, I want to hear a really solid reason for it -- preferably one that derives from the five pillars. I suppose you could say, well, it isn't neutral, but if there's no compelling reason to not add a set of lists to round things out, then the answer is balance by expansion. And what would be wrong with having a "highest-scoring games" list for all players in addition to "highest-scoring games" lists for the highest-scoring players?--Father Goose (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
      • You can claim "nit-picking" but most, if not all of us are just asking to be informed of the significance of this list. As you yourself said, the cutoff makes sense to you, and that's key, we need a rational, neutral reason for this list to have such a cutoff, not just a "feeling" (from someone who clearly knows about basketball) that it's okay. The list has to be universally accessible as does its reason for existing and being Wikipedia's finest work. If NBA players don't have analogies such as hat-tricks, centuries, five-wicket hauls etc, which are widely accepted as a benchmark of excellence, then it's unfortunate and these kind of lists (and their inclusion criteria) will always be questioned at FLC. This doesn't mean (and no-one is saying) the list shouldn't exist, by the way, as you seem to be asserting... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
        • A 40 point game is rare enough that it is noted in records (streaks,[24] career,[25] season[26]), and in general it's just a rather high score. It's not one of those things that "has a name", like a triple-double, but it's a big deal in basketball to have gotten as many as Kobe did. Mind you, if we did a similar list for Chamberlain, I'd choose 50-point games, as he had 118 of those, vs. 271 40s. The point is that these guys are amongst the highest scorers ever, so they each deserve a list of their highest-scoring games ever. Where the actual cutoff is, is to me unimportant: 40 is a suitable "round number" that is impressive in its own right and produces a list of a good length for "The highest-scoring games of one of the three highest-scorers in the NBA ever". If we were doing a list of "all players ever", I'd probably go with 60-point games[27], since there have been almost 400 50-point games,[28] which is too long a list. It's the "high scoring" that is important, not the specific cutoff -- much like with our skyscrapers lists. And Bryant, being one of the premiere scorers, gets to have a list of just his best scores.[29]--Father Goose (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Well these are precisely the kind of refs we're looking for, although "in general it's just a rather high score" is still vague. Once again whether something is "unimportant" to you and whether a score is, in your opinion, "impressive" doesn't cut it, a widely reported and universally significant statistic, on the other hand, is worthwhile reporting in its own right. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
            • I would still also argue that even if one is able to show that a 40pt game is considered through sources a "rare" personal achievement (though the fact there have been 400+ 50-pt games suggests that 40pt games are certainly not "rare" when one comes to perfect games or hat tricks), this is the type of statement that is better summarized on WP in one or two sentences rather than a full list like this. Part of this is the fact that we don't consider individual games notable and the only time we list such games out is generally as a box score for a season page for a team; individual stats for players are typically averaged per course of the season (spot checking, I cannot find any other use of single game player stats for major sports). In the case here, I would certain limit this to, at most, a season-by-season breakout of the number of 40 pt games. It is important to note that that is giving me the same information that this list does now from a high-level perspective. So don't get me wrong, the number of 40+ games is impressive and should be stated for sure, but providing a detailed list of each of those 40+ games is indiscriminate. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To Chris, "The number of forty-plus point games players accumulate over their careers is often reported in media." this needs multiple refs, as you say "often" reported. But good work thusfar expanding the explanation of the significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as no matter how skillfully this list is arranged, it is for all intents and purposes a synthesis, because it lacks an externally validated definition in accordance with WP:Source list.
  Synthesis in this context involves collecting and organizing material based on an editor's original understanding of the subject, not in a way that has been externally validated or defined. The rationale for this list is provided by the (unsourced) statement "The number of forty-plus point games players accumulate over their careers is often reported in media". However, this statement provides a rationale for this list that is based on mass attribution.
  If I was Chrishomingtang tutor, I would award him with top marks for his research efforts, and would say he had a bright future in sports publishing. Alas, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and that lack of a clearly defined and externally validated rationale for this list disqualifies it from being a featured list. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Closing note This is uncharted territory for an NBA list at the FL level, and I'm glad Chris put in the effort. However, the concept of a list with a seemingly "arbitrary" inclusion criteria does not have consensus among FL reviewers, or even in the list guidelines, so I am archiving this FLC as unsuccessful. I hope discussion about the scope continues so we can solidfy the boundaries of what is acceptable in a list. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 13:54, 10 February 2010 [30].

---

List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in international cricket

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't originally intend to bring this to FLC. However, now that I've finally created it, I think it's worth a shot. All comments and suggestions would be much appreciated, as always. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Bencherlite

An interesting idea. However, a couple of obvious things jump out at me.

• Perhaps you can clarify – if someone has bowled in a test before taking a wicket with their first ODI delivery, do they make the list? Or is it only for their first delivery in any form of international cricket?
• T20s? Has anyone taken a wicket with their first delivery in T20s?
  • Answering my own question: yes. Although Cricinfo doesn't have a list, surprisingly (unless I missed it), at least one bowler has taken a wicket with his first T20 delivery: Joe Denly (SA v England 15 Nov 2009). This stats page shows it was his first over in T20s, this news report says he took a wicket with his first ball. Or, to go back to the previous question, would you only count someone if it was their international debut, not just a T20 debut?
• First sentence: "A limited number of bowlers have had the opportunity of capturing a wicket with the very first ball they bowled in an international cricket match." Wrong – every bowler has the opportunity of capturing a wicket with his very first ball! What you are trying to say, I think, is that few have done this.
• Later on you say "joined the record holders", but I don't think it's a record, really.
• "this coveted accomplishment" – your words, or somebody else? Sounds a bit POV without a citation;
• Please sort the names (bowlers, victims) by surname, not first name. {{sortname}} is what you want.
• At the moment, the lists aren't well referenced. Clicking on a reference for a name at random in the ODI list, Clive Lloyd, I get the match scorecard, but nothing about him taking a wicket with his first delivery. So I clicked on a couple more: Shane Thompson and Wavell Hinds both have scorecard references but no reference for the accomplishment. I think you need to reassess how you're using your ref 3 and your ref 11, which give the lists of people who've achieved this in Tests and ODIs respectively and are the key references for the list.
• Refs 6 and 14 have typos.

Perhaps more later. Bencherlite^Talk 18:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I completely forgot about T20I. There's obviously a lot more work to be done here, and I'd like to withdraw the nom for now. Very sorry for the trouble. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 10:29, 6 February 2010 [31].

---

List of hydroelectric power stations

Nominator(s): Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i believe that this list now suites to be a FL after changing the page from this to this, (note that i have moved smaller stations to regional lists). Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Formatting definitely improved the look of the list greatly. However, there are no references. The list must be verifiable. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand. But just a question, what would be the case if all the links were blue, meaning that should be duplicate the refs from the article? Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, duplicate refs from the 'child' articles are fine. Jujutacular ^T · C 08:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. Just asking, would i be able to withdraw the nomination? These points makes me feel like its just not the right time for the article... :) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – the formatting did improve this list, but without references, it fails the FL criteria. It also has barely any lead to speak of; see WP:LEAD and WP:SAL for information on leads in stand-alone lists. Also, see recently promoted FLs for better opening sentences than "This is a list of...". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point. :) I will be working on the lead asap... Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:27, 5 February 2010 [32].

---

List of Britney Spears concert tours

Nominator(s): Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i worked on it, and i feel it's well written and organized.Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose from KV5

• This fails criterion 3B (it can "reasonably be included as part of a related article"), not to mention the deficiencies in the prose of the lead. This information could probably be covered in two paragraphs of prose in the main Britney Spears article. It doesn't need its own list and is thus a content fork. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - It fails 3 of the Criteria, the Comprehensiveness is lacking in an extreme way, the image also doesn't have any Alt text. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 15:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I added the alt text, but i actually worked on the article after seeing List of Kylie Minogue concert tours had passed. I think they're quite similar and i don't understand what's wrong with the prose. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah it passed 2 years ago now by the edit from 2007 it doesn't look as if its been updated to current standards. This article is more of the standard you should be trying to meet. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 16:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I still oppose, with my original reasoning that it doesn't seem to be comprehensive enough. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 04:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• It's nice but as the previous reviewers have said, not reason at all why this shouldn't just be merged into Britney's main article. Certainly not up to WP:FL standards per our 3b criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:27, 5 February 2010 [33].

---

List of Slipknot concert tours

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA ^{03:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)}

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's of a comparable standard to existing featured lists. If you see any problems, flaws, or something, please notify me on my talk page or please fix it. Thank you. CrowzRSA ^{03:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)}

• Support Mephiston999 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mephiston999 (talk)

* the picture is missing alt text Put in alt text. CrowzRSA 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC) refs need to be fixed, they are not all complete, especially the ones taken from article that could be found online should have the url as well Fixed. CrowzRSA 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC) i am not sure you can use another wikipedia article as a reference, but you can use the reference on the other wikipedia article instead Mephiston999 (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed. CrowzRSA 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Is "solo tour" normal nomenclature for a band?

I'm pretty sure it is, it sounds correct and would make sense. CrowzRSA ^{22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)}

Changed CrowzRSA ^{22:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)}

• "in which it was named after" poor grammar.

Fixed. CrowzRSA ^{22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)}

• "This tour showed a record amount of " poor again.

Fixed. CrowzRSA ^{22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)}

• "the classic Slipknot song " classic is WP:WEASEL.

Fixed. CrowzRSA ^{22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)}

• "The tour lasted for 28 months, performed in ..." was performed in...

Fixed. CrowzRSA ^{22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)}

• "In this tour, Slipknot toured in " tour repeated, reads poorly.

Fixed. CrowzRSA ^{22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)}

• "a few shows that had to be done a few members short" poor grammar.

Fixed. CrowzRSA ^{22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)}

• The lead needs an overhaul, once that's done I'll look at the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Still issues with the lead - please find a copyeditor... for instance:
  • " two minor tours emerged" tours don't "emerge"

• For the record, emerge means arise. Two minor tours arose makes perfect sense so why shouldn't emerged make sense. Emerged also means came out, so "...two minor tours came out/arose..." CrowzRSA ^{19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)}

• Yes, I understand the literal meaning of "emerge" but in this context, it reads badly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reworded CrowzRSA ^{01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}

• • "a record amount of Slipknot concerts in one tour" poorly worded.

• Fixed CrowzRSA ^{19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)}

• • "Slipknot performed the Slipknot song from the first issue of Slipknot's" Slipknot, Slipknot, Slipknot....

• Fixed CrowzRSA ^{19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)}

• • "Slipknot toured in new countries," what's a "new country"?

• Fixed CrowzRSA ^{19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)}

• • "There were, however, a few shows where few members short could not perform, usually because of injuries[7]." this doesn't make sense, and the ref is incorrectly placed.

• Reworded and Fixed reference. CrowzRSA ^{19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)}

• Still an oppose I'm afraid, and that's just the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• What's wrong with the "Tours" section. This is my first nomination for anything basically. CrowzRSA ^{19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)}

• Nothing yet, I haven't reviewed it. The lead needed a lot more work before I was prepared to move onto the next section. I hope you understand that the criticism is designed to improve the list, and while there's a way to go, it's great to have you here nominating the list, I'll hopefully be able to help you further, when I can review the rest of the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife

• There should be introductions to the "solo" and "supporting" sections.
  • List of Michael Jackson tours is a featured list, and it doesn't have introductions for those, that is the tour that I used as a guide for this. CrowzRSA ^{16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)}
• Perhaps change "solo" to "headline".
  • Done CrowzRSA ^{16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)}
• I thought Slipknot wore masks for the majority of their tours?
  • I don't see where that's mentioned in the article, but if you think I need it, I have a reference I could use.
• Europe wasn't, isn't and never will be a country. It should be treated the same way as "North America", and certainly not compared to Canada, Japan or New Zealand.
  • Europe just symbolizes many countries In Europe such as Germany and UK, I can change United States to North America though. In that case it's Done. But I can't imagine what I could do with Japan and New Zealand, they didn't perform in other places of those, so I think it looks fine the way it is. CrowzRSA ^{16:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)}
• I don't get why Ozzfest 2004 is treated differently to the other two.
  • Fixed CrowzRSA ^{16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)}
• (I don't know that much about them) did they really go three years without touring? Perhaps worth discussing this in the prose? I'm in the wikicup. Not sure if you were, just thought it safer to mention. WFCforLife (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • After there release of Iowa (album), Slipknot only toured afte there releases, and there third release and fourth release were 4 years apart. CrowzRSA ^{16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)}
• Oppose since this list is so short, it ought to include more details than it has now to make up for it. Furthermore, supporting acts should be added as another column. Nergaal (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is almost as long as List of Michael Jackson tours, and it is two groups combined, yet it is a featured list, and it has the ideal layout IMO . I don't see what you mean by "supporting acts should be added as another column," if you mean other bands (including side projects), they should not be included. If you mean other tours, thay are included in the "Supporing tours" section. If it's neither if those, please clarify. CrowzRSA ^{23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)}

Way to aim low. Anyways, jsut look at "World Domination Tour was a tour including the band Slipknot in late 2000[20]." Do you see this being worth featuring? Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Okay, and yes It is somewhat necessary. The minor tours that include Slipknot are also performed with others, and where it says "included the band Slipknot," that is naturally what someone would think, but should still include that context. CrowzRSA ^{22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)}

• Comment - nine separate wikilinks to Slipknot (band) is eight too many........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Done CrowzRSA ^{23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)}

• • Also, contrary to what you stated above, the image still does not have alt text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait what is "alt text?" CrowzRSA ^{21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)}

WP:ALT Gary King (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Done CrowzRSA ^{23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)}

It has been partially done, thanks. However, much of what you wrote in the alt text cannot be verified by just looking at the picture. For example, I could not look at that picture and be able to tell that Corey Taylor was on vocals; in general, proper nouns should not be used in alt text. Please look at the examples in WP:ALT to see how to improve the alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. CrowzRSA ^{02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)}

• Comment - It's not terribly a big problem but it worries me about the lack of information given, especially on the Tour Durations nothing terribly wrong with stating the months but I would think there'd at least be some type of source out there which is reliable enough to give end dates or start dates or both for that matter for the tours. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 14:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Done CrowzRSA ^{20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)}

• I don't see how adding references to the Tour Durations settles down my worries about the lack of information on the list. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 23:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, now everything but "World Domination Tour" is fixed, I couldn't find anything on that... CrowzRSA 01:51, 25 January 2010

• Ref #18 I'm confused about and the confusion should be obvious as I don't understand the sourcing. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 13:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ref # 18 gives a list of Slipknot tours from December 5, 1998 all the way to July 13, 2008. It's pretty obvious that between every large gap in between each date (varying from a month to 3 years) represents the start of a new tour. From other minor references, such as separate wikipedia articles (i.e. Livin La Vida Loco and Iowa World Tour), an derived and idea of which tour the gap represents. CrowzRSA ^{21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)}

• Well the people shouldn't have to search for the information it should already be linked in the references, they shouldn't have to go round their elbow to get to their wrist. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• So your saying I should cite wikipedia articles? CrowzRSA ^{00:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)}

• I have no idea where you derived that from what I said, I honestly don't get how Ref 18 helps any information on that article it does not cite any information regarding tours. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 00:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, well I put some more in, I couldn't find any for Livin La Vida Loco or World Domination Tour. CrowzRSA ^{22:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)}

• [34] I still don't know how this is useful as a source... Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• It pretty much just specifies tour dates, but gives no names. The other places cited are much more specific, but the reference pretty much confirms that the tour date did exist. CrowzRSA ^{22:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)}

• (undent) ok let me put it this way, for the Kill the Industry tour, the dates it sources are "May 9, 2001 – June 2, 2001", where will I find this within the source? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well for basic it can be found here, it only says mid-2001, this is a fan website but has dates close to those, this is another fan-site, but it states the same dates as Kill the Industry, but "Rebels With a Cause" is the closest thing I can find, it isn't a website though, I didn't include anything but the last source.. CrowzRSA ^{23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)}

• Not which sources can it be found at, but where can it be found within the link we are discussing, if you have forgotten which link its this one. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 23:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I get it, the reference isn't really useful, But I did find some for others, so i think your comment has been half-resolved. I'll continue to try to find a source for the tours that need it. CrowzRSA ^{00:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}

• ok, we got there in the end, now the Ref can be removed. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I took the reference off. CrowzRSA ^{01:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}

• (undent) You need to sort out the refs since most of them in the Duration column are small, plus Ozzfest 2001, 2004, theres no need for the "June 2001". Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done (sorted references), and Fixed (the 2001 Ozzfest date was messed up and I fixed it). CrowzRSA ^{21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)}

• I was actually talking about "June 2001 – June 8, 2001 – August 12, 2001 (United States)[3][20]" "June 2001 – July 10, 2004 – September 4, 2004 (United States)[3][20]". Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 04:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Done CrowzRSA ^{23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)}

• Comment As far as I can tell ref 9 says absolutely nothing about the nations or dates for their first tour, yet it's the only ref applied for that information (and the only place it's used). It seems to be an article that just gives some background info on the band and talks about Anthony Soprano, Jr. liking them. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed CrowzRSA ^{23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)}

• Support —Terrence and Phillip 00:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:27, 3 February 2010 [35].

---

Italian orders of knighthood

Nominator(s): Chrisieboy (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it gives a comprehensive account of the Italian orders of knighthood. Chrisieboy (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife

My initial reaction was to oppose, but I normally let a review run its course before making a final decision. While this is some very good work, I have multiple concerns. I'll deal with the technical, stylistic and more general prose-related things first, and when these are addressed I'll be happy to do a detailed review.

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk)

* One of the images is copyrighted, and I'm unsure if it falls into the fair use category. My gut reaction is that it doesn't, but if it does, a rationale needs to be provided. It doesn't, because there's already a free-use image in the article. It doesn't significantly diminish the reader's understanding of the article by removing it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for explaining. WFCforLife (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Alternative text needs to be provided for the images. All images now have alt text Mephiston999 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Notes and references should be separated. See Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire for an example. Previously struck fixed Mephiston999 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC) A brief history lesson would help in my opinion; a short paragraph at the start of each of the Italian Republic and Kingdom of Italy sections should suffice. As no response was given, I thought I should clarify for the closer that I haven't accidentally capped this. I'm happy with the progress here. WFCforLife (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) In the references, ensure that the language is given (where it is not English), and that the language is correct. Previously struck fixed Mephiston999 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC) In the references, ensure that all dates are given in English. Also, the |accessdate= parameter should always be filled in for an online source, and date formats consistent. Date formats are now consistent; access dates are given except for convenience links where publication dates are given instead. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• What does "Below these are a number of other medals" mean? Is this a reference to the other medals in the Kingdom of Italy section? Or that there are medals below knighthoods? If it's the former, the sentence doesn't belong in the lead, and if it's the latter it could do with a bit of expansion.

Hopefully I've clarified this; that sentence now reads differently. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • It reads differently, but the issue is the same. WFCforLife (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that better? Chrisieboy (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The paragraph (indeed the entire article) starts by saying that "there are currently five orders of knighthood", closely followed by "Below these are...". It's a nicely constructed sentence, but what it is saying? That the "Kingdom of Italy" awards are not knighthoods? That they were knighthoods, but are now lesser awards? That there are other awards, not mentioned in this list, which you have chosen to introduce before even explaining the contents of the list? WFCforLife (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is essentially saying that the orders of knighthood are at the top of the honours system. It is nothing to do with the Savoy orders. First, there are the five orders or knighthood; second, there are a number of other decorations (some related and mentioned in the list) that are not knighthoods. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• There seems to have been a bit of a content dispute on the 12th. I can't tell whether it stopped because of adherance to 3RR, or because it is now resolved. Can you enlighten us on this?

I'll keep this on my watchlist, and return to give further feedback when most or all of these points have been addressed. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please leave comments when points are actioned; I'll be the judge of whether of not they can be struck completely. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of these points have now been addressed. I'm not sure if the ribbons are purely decorative images and should instead have |link=; if so, this can easily be changed. Per my nomination, I believe this article meets the featured list criteria. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It could go either way here. There definitely should be alt text in each subarticle's use of the ribbon image. For this, the main article, I'd lean toward omitting alt text as needless detail. and using "|link=|alt=", but it's not a big deal. I did one spot check, and the ribbon for the Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity disagrees with what's in Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity, so there's a bug there somewhere. I suggest double-checking all the ribbons. Eubulides (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

D.P.R. No. 385 of 21 September 2001 modified the insignia of the Star of Italian Solidarity, but also retained use of previous insignia. This is the only one without an additional clasp. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've been asked to revisit this. The comments I have made that are not capped or struck are still issues. From a brief look, this has improved considerably. I look forward to re-reading it properly in the near future. However I would prefer to do so after those outstanding points are actioned (or responded to if you feel that I am wrong to raise them). Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Weak support Neutral A lot of good work has been done in this FLC, and I have moved from oppose to neutral. But I have a slight concern about criteria six, which will hopefully be resolved with a response to this. Also, but I remain unsure about the lead. WFCforLife (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments The bold prose in the lead doesn't match the title, why not? Fixed. "Below these are a number of other medals" - what's the relevance? Clarified. "effectively replaced as national orders" - effectively - what do you mean? Three very short paras in the lead, probably better off being two bigger paras. Fixed. I would put the first image at the top of the lead, not the bottom. Fixed. "Except for exceptional .." except x 2 Fixed. "2 June, anniversary" - the anniversary. Fixed. Second para of Order of Merit of the Italian Republic section is unreferenced. Fixed. "armed forces or individual personnel that has" reads oddly because of plural/singular/singular to me. Fixed. there are just 14 - remove "just". I think the "just" is important here. "Stella della solidarietà italiana" that italiana really not capitalised? Really. "Since 2008, however, it lies dormant." do you mean it has been awarded since 2008? Clarified. "Duke of Savoy to" comma after Savoy. Fixed. "was also abolished in 1944" why "also"? Fixed. Footnotes are unreferenced. They are primary sources. References - can we have a consistent language and format for the dates please? Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) The above points have now been addressed. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Letters patent.." caption doesn't need a full stop.

I have kept this, per MOS:CAPTION.

It's an incomplete sentence isn't it? I don't see a verb... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mephiston999 (talk)

* is the see also section at the top of the article really necessary? can we just put it in the see also section at the bottom of the article? Fixed. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC) some references do not have a proper formatting, especially the ones with extra notes about the regulation number and revisions Citation templates are not appropriate for footnotes. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) some references are missing the retreived part It is included where required, for convenience links publication dates are given instead. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) i've started to archive some of the urls so we will not have dead links in the future, it can always come in handy Thank you. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Mephiston999 (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - it might just be me but I am kind of confused about the brackets in the lead "Knight (Cav.), Officer (Uff.), Commander (Comm.), Grand Officer (Gr. Uff.)," What are they supposed to mean? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 15:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

They're abbreviations of the Italian translations—Cavaliere, Ufficiale etc.—prefixed to names like "Sir" is in the Commonwealth. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well wouldn't it just be easier to spell the whole thing? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 16:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is they are prefixed in their abbreviated form, like "Mr." rather than "Mister". Chrisieboy (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look at this. I hope it's clearer now. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

this may seem confusing after my previous comments but after viewing a little closely I notice that the Abbreviations are only used in the top paragraphs, I was just wondering why are the abbreviations included anyway. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:27, 3 February 2010 [36].

---

George Orwell bibliography

Nominator(s): Justin (koavf)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is on a par with the other featured bibliographies. The Ministry (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support but possible conflict of interest, as I made most of this list. I had always intended on submitting it after I got a hold of Davison's volumes to round out the list of publications, but I suppose it can go through the procedure now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems you are the primary contributor, so I added you as a co-nominator and unbolded your support here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I just want to clarify, that koavf is without the primary contributor. I just found the list while browsing, did some edits, and then nominated it since I thought it was of FL quality. The Ministry (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comments This article is going to need a bigger lead. Also, I thought the book section was lacking, perhaps the original publishers of the books, and possibly a more specific publishing date could be added? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Done The lead is somewhat longer to give some more context and I made more detail to the books and novels list. Of course, the intro could probably be better. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

Resolved comments from Kumioko (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

--Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose for know There seems to be a few minor things that I recommend fixing. :*There are disambiguous links for John Freeman. Not done I included that link precisely so readers could see who "John Freeman" is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC) this ones done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC) There are some minor issues with reference and date formatting according to a review using AWB. namely references 4, 10 and 11 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Comment I think Koavf should be included as a nominator since he contributed a lot in building this list.—Chris!c/t 19:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC) dates with preceding zeroes such as 06 should be 6 per the MOS. Not done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) I don't see any preceding zeroes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) If you look at the dates in the table you'll see them. WP isn't displaying them but they are there.--Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Okay I'll do that now. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC) I think the alt text should be a little more clear Not done Strictly speaking, there isn't any alt text, but a caption. I suppose if you think it's unclear, I can really only advise you to be bold, because it seems sufficient to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Alt text is seperate from a captiomn. Alt text should describe what appears in the image so that readers who cant see it know whats in it.--Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) See below For alt text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Comment Apologies for mutilating your text, but I figured it might be the most intelligible way to respond. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Also I notice that there are some empty cells in the table. If the cells are emtpy you should put a dash in the cell. If you need an example look at List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients. Can do I'll do that now. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC) I did a couple of minor edits with AWB and I see a couple more I can do with some regex code including cleaning up most of the dates. --Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry I keep nickle and diming you but this list is huge and its taking a while to go through. I noticed one more thing. the sorting in the tables is off. --Kumioko (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC) No worries I prefer these simple, direct problems to address. Can you tell me how it's off? I spent a lot of time trying to fix that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Done—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC) It looks ok now good job. There were also a couple places where the dates were out of order based on the comments. I will try and find them again. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Images need WP:ALT text. If the infobox doesn't support it then it should be modified accordingly. Not done I have asked someone to add this parameter and I have  Done it myself by adding text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) We no longer start our lists "The following ...." etc. Have a look at the current FLC List of works of William Gibson for some ideas on what we'd expect to see as an intro to this type of list. For a list of this magnitude, we'd certainly be looking for more than one short paragraph. Not done I'm just bad at these, I guess I'll have to rely on someone else to add this or give it some serious consideration later. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, needs serious consideration for this FLC to be successful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Okay I'm not saying you're wrong (you aren't), I'm just saying that I cannot do this right now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC) What are "op/eds"? Op-ed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "probably best remembered" according to whom? This kind of claim could use a few citations otherwise it reads like your opinion. Done I figured the next sentence would substantiate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "by 1989" - we're now a few days short of 2010 - can we get an update? Not done I would certainly like one, but I don't have it. Do you know of a resource (site or book) that lists book sales? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Hate to say it, but it's not really my problem. You should be looking around for something that's more up to date than two decades ago. Or otherwise rephrase it to make it seem useable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Okay No, it's not "your problem" I was just asking for help. If you can't help me, that's fine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Done Update with the sales figure from The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell, from 2007, which claims "almost 50 million copies sold". Instead of the old 40. The Ministry (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "Notable essays include:" what makes them more notable than other essays that didn't make the cut? Could this list not be comprehensive? Not done This list would include over 300 essays (as included later in the article.) Some of his essays are better-known than others (as one would imagine), and some of them have been published independently. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Bottom line is, you've said "notable essays include" without any reference to what is notable. Either include them all, or clearly define what inclusion criteria you've applied to your own subset of essays which you consider to be more notable than other essays Orwell wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Not done but worth doing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "in 2000–2002" - between 2000 and 2002. Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "criticizing" - presumably we'd expect this list to be written in BritEng so "criticising" Done It is in British English, see Talk:George Orwell bibliography. I'm glad that you checked this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Ref 3 missing a comma before the ISBN. Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) What makes Orwell.ru a WP:RS? Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Ref 10 is malformed. Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) The table is mammoth. I'll look at it once these comments are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Oh, refs 13 and 15 need accessdates, publisher details etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

See Talk:George Orwell bibliography/Comments for a simple list of all of the suggestions.

Comment According to the list, "War Commentary" #7 and "War Commentary" #8 were broadcast the same day; while perfectly possible, I just want to check that this is correct rather than a typo when writing the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments The article is a valuable contribution, but:

• Surely the lead should mention that Orwell's real name was Eric Blair?
• There are a lot of red links ot BBC Eastern Service. Is there a reason why you chose to link it more than once? I notice that the service is mentioned in connection with Orwell in BBC World Service. While the latter article could do with an improvement around this area, I think it would be useful to create a redirect to the World service under the name you use.
• You mention six novels but this are not identified sepcifically. Form reading the subsection I wouldn't have immediately worked out that Burmese Days counted as one. I suggest you identify the novels explicitly.
• The foot notes needing checking for notable people to link such as Scott Bradfield and John Freeman (politician). There may be others.

--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Several uncited paragraphs and sections need references.
  • The ISBN's are ugly and hard to read when they are included in the prose.
  • In the full list of publications, what do the acronyms in the "Collected" column mean?
  • Does ref 3 really support the sentence it references?
    • Yes, I have now added page numbers. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What makes references 4 and 5 reliable?
    • If 4 is reliable, it needs a publisher.
      • I have replaced 5, with The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell. I can't find a publisher for 4, but I will continue searching. However, Peter Davison is the editor of the 20-volumes of The Complete Orwell and have written George Orwell: A Literary Life, published by Random House. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Refs 15 and 16 have really long quotes that I don't think are necessary. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the quotes are necessary, as the explain something that is quite complicated, and disputed. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Status?Have Peter cohen's concerns been addressed, as well as the uncited section issue raised by the_ed17? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Response I have taken it upon myself to fix these errors, but I have been slack about doing so for the past couple of weeks. I will try to get to them tonight or tomorrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 16:00, 2 February 2010 [37].

---

List of Australian number-one albums of 2009

Nominator(s): Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the featured list criteria. I have put a lot of work into this list, adding references to each entry, merging rows and ensuring each entry is listed. I have also created a prose heading which I believe is of a professional standard. Regards -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "....among the releases that have reached peak position in 2009" - wrong tense, 2009 is over
• "Kings of Leon's Only by the Night....spent 14 non-consecutive weeks atop the chart, beginning in the 2008 chart year and continuing until April 13, except for three weeks in March" - this does not match the table, which shows it as off number one for six five weeks in February/March
• Michael Jackson's name is spelt wrong in the lead
• I Dreamed A Dream was 2009's highest selling album on the ARIA end of year albums chart, before P!nk's album Funhouse" - odd use of "before" here - do you mean that Pink's album was the second best seller? In that case used "ahead of" rather than "before"
• Sorting is a bit odd. Because you have put multiple "issue dates" into the same row, separated by <br> tags, if you reverse sort that column, the first entry is for November 30. I'm not sure how likely it is that anyone would want to reverse sort on that column, but if they did they would get an odd-looking result
• Also, I think some people might take umbrage with you describing Susan Boyle, who is only 48 years old, as an "old woman" in the alt text :-)

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Suggestions actioned on. Tense fixed, MJ's name fixed, use of before changed and SuBo no longer described as old. The Kings of Leon bit refers to the total amount of time it spent at number one ("Kings of Leon's Only by the Night....spent 14 non-consecutive weeks atop the chart, beginning in the 2008 chart year and continuing until April 13, except for three weeks in March"), which included part of 2008. As far as the sorting goes, it makes sense to me, as the top entry would be the last number one for 2009. Thanks for your input -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • We seem to be at cross-purposes regarding the Kings of Leon point. As it stands, the lead states that it was number one from some time in 2008 right through until April, other than for three weeks in March. But it was actually off the top for five weeks, not three, according to the table. Does that make sense? -- 10:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Sk8er5000 deserves to be hit with a large trout xD! Done -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This is actually a pretty short list. How about a nice merged one like the FL List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)? This is close to a 3b vio. Reywas92^Talk 02:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.) contains the same amount of entries, yet is a FL. With all due respect, I personally think that this is long enough (per the precedent I just mentioned, and about another (at least) 10 more FL's). -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't see a need to bold Aria Charts.
• "ARIA also issues a weekly singles chart and an end of year albums and singles chart, among other charts." chart x 3 in one sentence...
• " 6 acts received their" - six.
• "November 30[2], " move ref to after punc.
• I would have thought end of year should be end-of-year.
• "Funhouse[3]." ditto re ref position.
• Your col heading says "Weeks at number one" and then you have "... weeks" in each cell. Do you think it's necessary to repeat weeks in every row?
• Both image captions need full stops as they are complete sentences.
• Don't mix up date formats in the references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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