Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2008

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:33, 29 July 2008 [1].

---

Cannibal Corpse discography

"The Time to Featured List Is Now". Cannibaloki 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: As always i'll support your nomination. Continue the good job on the metal articles and discographies. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A comment in 24 minutes, great! Realy thanks. Cannibaloki 18:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note - a support in 24 minutes with a comment such as "As always i'll support your nomination" is likely to result in your comments being discounted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Be Black: I hope you don't mean that you review on the basis of who the nominator is. Please review critically in relation to the FL criteria. (Nothing against Cannibal, BTW). Tony (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The lead is terrible I'm afraid. Just some examples of the urgent need for a copyedit by a native English speaker...
    • " Followed by 1991's Butchered at Birth and 1992's Tomb of the Mutilated." is not a sentence
    • "After this album, the guitarist Bob Rusay leaving the band, as been replaced by Rob Barrett, who joined the group in time to appear as a club band in the Jim Carrey film Ace Ventura: Pet Detective." simply not English.
    • " In 1994 released " ??
    • "To take the post of frontman, was named George "Corpsegringer" Fisher, with whom the band released Vile in 1996, this was the first band's album to appear on the Billboard 200 chart, debuting at number 151." rephrase required.
    • "In the next album" On?
    • "Pat O'Brien came in place of Rob " ??
    • "the group's first live, video and CD titled " ??
    • "Gore Obsessed arrived in 2002, followed by the boxed set 15 Year Killing Spree a four–disc career retrospective, " arrived? not really, it was released. Probably need a comman after "spree" as well.
    • "Their currently release " current...
  • Refs 2 & 3 need the correct publisher information (e.g. not French charts, but lescharts.com)
  • Two videos are missing directors.

•  Not done I can't find!

• • "and already sold 2,100 copies " remove the already.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done The fixes have been made, and mainly the copy edit.

Cannibaloki 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments (blackngold29)

  • "of Metal Blade Records, with whom signed a contract.." - should be "with whom they signed.."
  • Try to stay away from "current", try "As of 2008, their latest release..."
  • The Allmusic chart ref is fine, but why not use the official rankings?
    • See MOS:DISCOG
  • Where's the rest of the Music video directors?
  • Are you sure they didn't do something on the Mary Poppins soundtrack? ;) Looking good, Almost there. Blackngold29 05:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done Minor fixes... Cannibaloki 06:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Why did you hide the citations for the music video directors? Fix that and you have my support. Blackngold29 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done The reference was taken from the new DVD, already that the previous two not contain the name of directors. Cannibaloki 18:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice. Blackngold29 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:33, 29 July 2008 [2].

---

Minnesota Timberwolves draft history

I am nominating this article because I believe it should be promoted to a featured list. I would also like to thank Crzycheetah for giving me a reference which really helped me make this article into featured list criteria. Annoyomous24 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • 3 refs (11 to 13) are missing info (publisher and access date)

—Chris! _ct 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

DONE! Annoyomous24 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support —Chris! _ct 01:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Flag of the United States USA/Flag of Turkey TUR" would be clearer if the slash was spaced so the images don't cover it up as much

DONE!

• "currently located in" – I don't think that's the right word; perhaps "based in"? They aren't physically located there every second, like a building would be

DONE!

• "since the Minneapolis Lakers from 1948–1960." – doesn't sound smooth to me. I'm reading "They are the second NBA team to be located in Minneapolis since the Minneapolis Lakers from 1948–1960." as two phrases: "They are the second NBA team to be located in Minneapolis" and "the Minneapolis Lakers from 1948–1960." and the latter one is missing a verb. Perhaps something like "They are the second NBA team to be based in Minneapolis since the Minneapolis Lakers were there from 1948 to 1960." – I think that would be clearer and easier to read

DONE!

• link "National Basketball Players' Association"

DONE!

National Basketball Players Association Gary King (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I got it.—Chris! _ct 21:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• "that missed the" – I think "that did not make the" would be clearer. The term "Missed" is used often in the NBA but if it can be conveyed more clearly, then do so

DONE!

• "Teams can also trade their picks, so some years a team could have more than or less than two picks." – not very clear, and full of redundancies. "some years" can be removed. I'd like to see this sentence explained more to someone who doesn't understand how the draft process works. I think "picks" is "draft-lingo" and so can even be removed and explained in other, simpler terms. Like "Teams can trade away their option to choose a player" or something.

I wrote "Teams can also trade their picks, which means that a team could have more than or less than two picks in one draft." hope that makes more sense.

Gary King (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 04:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • In two successive sentences, 2nd and 3rd, you tell us that they're based in Minneapolis. It's boring a little.

'DONE!

• • Why is there " at the end of the 1st paragraph?

DONE!

• • Throughout the years, the Timberwolves had traded away some of their picks as well as traded for other teams' picks. - This sentence repeats previous statement and can be removed.

DONE!

• • Numbers should be centered; columns "Draft", "Round", "Pick".

DONE!

• • Tim Burroughs and Sherron Mills should be created.

DONE!

• • I am pretty sure Sherron Mills was not Turkish at the time he was drafted. Turkish flag should go.

DONE!

• • There should be no space between periods and citations.

DONE!

• • There are many links to dismag./wrong pages in the Notes section. Fix them please.

DONE!

--Crzycheetah 08:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Footnotes g and h are not sourced
  • What does footnote l have to do with the TWolves?
  • You have "The" with a capital T in the middle of sentences.
  • What is the current ref#4 for? I didn't have to use it, maybe I missed something?

DONE ALL! The 4th reference was for referncing Ray Allen being drafted in 1996. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 04:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this whole list states that Ray Allen was drafted per the general reference. I think this ref isn't needed, but it doesn't do any harm either. Can you provide the second footnote for "j" trade note, since there are actually 2 different picks involved in that trade? Take a look at footnotes f and h in the Toronto Raptors draft history, for an example.--Crzycheetah 05:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I do the ref labels right? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 05:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The footnotes look great!
  • One more thing I noticed just now. In the "university" column, some of the universities use their full name, some not. They are linked to different pages, as well. For example, take a look at Connecticut. There are 3 instances - one is linked to university and another two are linked to the main athletics page. It just needs consistency.

--Crzycheetah 06:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

DONE! Check if I missed any or give me more comments about the article (or Support/Oppose). -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 06:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Crzycheetah 07:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I'd explain who the Timberwolves are (briefly) before saying that they were involved in the draft.

DONE!

• • Presumably you can link the 1989 draft?

DONE!

• • "about five months" -not exactly encyclopaedic is it?

DONE!

• • "The NBA agreed with the National Basketball Players Association to limit drafts to two rounds from 1989 onward.[1]" what relevance does that have to this specific list?

DONE!

• • Date of first draft in the lead is unreferenced.

DONE!

• • Lead could use expansion. Perhaps some more discussion over more successful draftees?

DONE!

• • You could use more images down the side - Ray Allen has one, for example.

DONE!

• • No discussion over what the "round" means - first, second pick etc is fine but if you make a big deal over that in the lead then you should cover the round as well.

I don't know what you mean

• • Player should sort by surname.

DONE!

• • Ref 5 needs accessdate at least.

DONE!

• • NBA lists rather than just basketball list (category).

DONE!

• The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:33, 29 July 2008 [3].

---

2000 Summer Olympics medal count

This is modeled after the myriad other medal count FLs. It's complete and sourced to the officials, with bits about Marion Jones's medals being stripped. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Medal productivity

Would a "Medals per capita" and/or "Gold medals per capita" column be a good addition? Daniel (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Would said statistic be based on number of people per team, or number of people in the country? I'm not sure it's wholly necessary, but it could be interesting. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I would suggest the 2000 population of the country. Shows how many medals they got relative to the size of the country. Daniel (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Medals per citizen. There is a table of exactly that at [Economics Expert]. Seems like a good idea to me. Lightmouse (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Should it be done in a separate section, or mess with the table and add it in to the "medal count" section? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the per-capita information needs a separate table. So a separate section is better. Lightmouse (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've added it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Although I would change 'Population/Medals' to 'Population/medal'. Lightmouse (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

IOC designation of 'nation', 'country' or 'Region.

I notice that the article uses 'Nation' in one table and 'Country' in another. I know that these are not a direct match to what we would think of as countries or nations. Many people are not aware of this indirect mapping but it is important. For example, the UK and Eire are countries or nations but their Olympic selection rules overlap). What is the official term? Lightmouse (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, a nation is a group of people who have a common culture (but not necessarily a country - which is a "self-governing political entity" according to about.com.) It should say "country", but there is at least one nation/sort-of-country (Taiwan) that competes; that seems to be the reason the template says "nation". Should I change it to "country"? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As per my comments below, the table with "Country" should be removed ASAP—the reference for that data is a mirror of a Wikipedia article since deleted through AfD. Look at the very small text at the bottom of that page for the link. Anyway, the intro to the medal table explicitely defines a "nation" as "an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee". This is perfectly sufficient. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it pending my finding some reliable population data and a calculator, then I'll do the division myself if you all feel it's necessary info to have for FL. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the consensus from WP:WikiProject Olympics in the past is that we do not feel it is necessary—on the contrary, we find it to be original research, POV, and/or misleading at the least. I recommend you solicit feedback from that WikiProject if you feel strongly that the data be computed and included. Also, it would probably be best to withdraw the nomination for FL, as a change this substantive is certainly opposite to the stability requirements of WP:Featured list criteria. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Then that's what I'll go with. I only added the data in response to concerns brought up here—I have no strong feelings either way. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Other

• Comment I don't understand the second sentence in the Reallocation of medals section. Can you rephrase and/or elaborate? Who will get the other medals?--Crzycheetah 06:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Effectively, the second-place winner in one of Jones's events also got banned, so the Olympic Committee hasn't decided if they are going to give her the gold, or strip her of her silver and give the gold to the bronze medalist and so on. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That's just the discussion about one gold medal, how about the other two gold medals? Who gets those? Who gets the bronze medals that were stripped off of Marion?--Crzycheetah 23:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
      • As far as I know, they haven't done anything with any of her medals; according to my sources they "have them [all] in [their] possession." Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Sayng that the reallocation is on hold because of that other athlete is incorrect. I think you should mention that it is on hold because "IOC officials need more details from the ongoing investigation into steroids in the US to determine whether any other Olympic athletes were linked to the scandal."--Crzycheetah 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I support.--Crzycheetah 07:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image captions are fragments and so don't need a full stop.
    • Fixed.
  • Not keen on such a short lead with another section (the reallocation section) - why not merge into a more fulsome lead?
    • Well, I think they're separate topics, but considering that Jones's medal was the only one reallocated (as far as I know), then the sections can be merged. Done.
  • "with 4 individual " four.
    • Fixed.
  • "least 1 medal" one.
    • Fixed.
  • There are a few more of those.
    • I think I got all of them.
  • "(in this context a country is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee)" why in parentheses? Why not just have a sentence of its own?
    • Changed to "The ranking sorts by the number of gold medals earned by a country—in this context, an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee."
  • The Guardian is a work, not a publisher. Check the others.
    • Fixed. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Support I'll support since I don't see nothing wrong with this article. Good job! Annoyomous24 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• MOSLINK and CONTEXT both say to avoid the linking of common geographical names, especially of anglophone countries.
  • Delinked the stuff in the lead; in the table it's all linked to relevant articles - ex. United States at the 2000 Summer Olympics.
• "2 year ban"—see MOS on spelling out numbers and hyphenating.
  • Changed to "two-year ban".
• Cr. 2—the lead is threadbare; can't you fill it out to make it more interesting for the readers?
  • There's not much more to say; is there anything that I'm missing? Thanks for your helpful comments. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

TONY (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as long as the "per capita" information is present in the article. We have already deleted such material by consensus, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita. Also, www.economicexpert.com is hardly a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All#www.economicexpert.com. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that an article is deleted containing content X does not mean Xcannot be added to another article; it is the rationale for merge and redirects. That being said, I think it should simply be incorporated as one row onto the main table, rather than a whole separate table. For reliable sourcing, simply use the data at <http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=1> and do the division yourself. Daniel (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you not read the AfD discussion? The consensus was that the content (including "doing the division yourself") was original research. Why is such a fundamental change to this article, which was previously stable, being made now? I thought that once an article reached FLC, only minor prose edits and MOS changes were left to complete, not major additions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, and that consensus doesn't translate here as binding precedent. Any changes can be made at any time. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think the other Olympics FLs have this information, and I don't think it's particularly necessary. Daniel, the problem with adding it on is that the first table is a template, and as it's used in all the Olympics articles I'm not too keen on messing with it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that dividing one number by another counts as original research (we're allowed to make elementary manipulation of data in a consistent manner). However, any conclusions drawn from this data does count as original research. And simply including the data may be POV Bluap (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the idea is not original or controversial. It is often mentioned (sometimes in passing) in Wikipedia and elsewhere. The claim that the IOC does not support 'medals per country' is interesting.

• Wikipedia: East Germany at the Olympics "doping allowed East Germany, with its small population, to become a world leader in the following two decades, winning a large number of Olympic and world gold medals and records"
• Wikipedia New Zealand Olympic medallists First two sentences of article: "New Zealand Olympic medallists have built up a fine sporting reputation for their small country which has only a fifth of the population of greater New York city. The international media has often reported that New Zealand punches well above its weight in Olympic Games competition."
• Wikipedia User:Medalstats "the International Olympic Committee IOC rejects medal tallies and rankings of nations (e. g., Sports Illustrated), the mass media publish them anyway. ... Many mention the medals per capita"
• Sportsletter (1996) "California, with about 12% of the nation's population, produced 28.5% of the U.S.A.'s medalists ... India, with a population of 937 million, produced only one 1996 medalist"
• Bernard and Buse 2000 Why does China win 6% of the medals even though it has 1/5 of the world's population?"
• Economist "While rich countries typically win most medals, the top ten looks different if population size is taken into account, as calculated by our sister publication Intelligent Life.
• Sydney Morning Herald "when population is taken into account, this country, Australia, population 20 million, de-couples itself from all the other top nations when assessed by medals per million population."
• Quote of The Times of London "The Times table, which was compiled using the United Nations official population figures, shows that Eastern European and Scandinavian countries, along with Australia, punch well above their weight in Olympic competition
• Austrialian Bureau of Statistics "The ABS said the traditional measure of medals as a 'raw score' did not take into account the population of the competing country, a possible factor in the ability of nations to field medal winning athletes. When this was considered, it presented a different picture to the traditional measure."
• CNN "The International Olympic Committee does not officially recognize national medal totals, nor recommend using one way of assigning medals by country over another. The original Olympic charter forbade a medal count that included a "ranking per country." Also, early official Olympics reports, up until at least 1920, are ambiguous and incomplete. From 1896 to 1906, athletes entered the Olympic Games as individuals, not as members of a national team. Athletes from different countries would also join one another during team sports, regardless of their national origin.

Google is your friend. Lightmouse (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're using the user page of "Medalstats", a single-purpose account from a couple of years ago that pushed POV everywhere, as a reliable source to help make a point? Seriously?

As has been pointed out before, it is highly misleading at the least, synthesis and original research at the worst, to combine these numbers. It presumes a directly linear relationship between medal count and population, which is false on both sides of that fraction:

• Not all medals are equal. Team sports only offer a single medal per nation, but individual sports like athletics, swimming, etc. are "medal rich".
• Nations cannot enter numbers of athletes in proportion to their population. Team sports have a limit of one entry, and many individual sports also have limits (one per NOC for boxing, sailing, etc.; two per NOC for swimming, etc.)

Also, why compute medals per capita—why not per GDP? Surely the wealth of a nation is more relevant to a nation's sporting success than its raw population. Well, the reason we don't try to make that calculation is that it is as much OR as any other calculation of this sort. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Why is Australia's medal count in a blue row?
• The source that verifys the table should be placed in a general reference section in the reference section, and all other references in a specific reference section.

S_RX 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia's medal count is blue because it was the host country. I'm not entirely sure that the table reference should be in a separate section, as it doesn't reference the entire article. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - shouldn't use just colors to indicate certain attributes, per WP:COLOR. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:21, 29 July 2008 [4].

---

New Orleans Hornets draft history

All right, I think it's time to nominate this list now. All comments/suggestions/questions are welcome and will be dealt with.--Crzycheetah 00:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Change the verb in "The New Orleans Hornets is an American" to plural.
• "same up the the present time" - Should the first "the" be changed to a "to"?

Reorion (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Fixed, thanks for noticing those.--Crzycheetah 05:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments- Great list, I feel though that the Key doesn't need its own section, it should just be with the selections section.--S_RX 17:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, Teams can also trade their picks, which means that in some drafts teams may have more or less than two draft picks, although they must have at least one first-round pick every other year. in this sentence, its a run on, either split it or place a comma after "drafts."--S_RX 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, why isn't the NBPA wikilinked here? - In 1989, the NBA agreed with the National Basketball Players' Association to limit drafts to two rounds, an arrangement that has remained the same up to the present time.[3]--S_RX 17:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments! NBPA is linked. I made some changes to that sentence, tell me how it reads. As for the Key section, if there were one or two abbrs., then I'd agree. Since there are 9 of them here, I believe a new section is needed.--Crzycheetah 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "The New Orleans Hornets are an..." should be "The New Orleans Hornets is an..."
  • "2005–07" should be "2005–2007" since 2005-07 confused me since it looks like a season.
  • "The franchise..." should be "The Hornets" ot "The New Orleans Hornets" because it is in another paragraph.
  • link "1989" to its NBA Draft.
  • "an MVP" should be "a MVP".
  • The rest of the third paragraph looks good (since I wrote most of it...jokes)
  • In the thumb picture of Baron Davis, "Baron Davis has played in NBA All-Star Games..." should be "Baron Davis has played in (1 or 2. I don't know) NBA All-Star Game(s)..." You should also mention that he was drafted in 1999.
  • If done all, I'll support.

Annoyomous24 21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for commenting. Your ## 3,4,and 7 comments are fixed. The rest will be grammatically incorrect if changed. The New Orleans Hornets are not is, when talking about 2 or more years the last year should be shortened to the last two digits, except when we're talking about "1999-2000". An MVP is grammatically correct, as well. Cheers!--Crzycheetah 22:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How is "an MVP" grammatically correct when MVP starts with a M? Annoyomous24 23:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Say it out loud! MVP! What's the first sound? Em-Vee-Pee! He is an Em-Vee-Pee!--Crzycheetah 01:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I dislike coloring the table heads. I see most of the draft FLs do that, but the Lakers one does not. Just a statement, not a vote; I would suggest going with a plain wikitable. --Golbez (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Coloring is removed.--Crzycheetah 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Great job, Crzycheetah! Annoyomous24 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Great list. But I think the top of the table should use the team color for consistency to other FLs such as List of Houston Rockets first and second-round draft picks or Toronto Raptors draft history. If done, I will support.—Chris! _ct 21:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like I miss the comment above. If we go with a plain wikitable on this article, perhaps we should modify other draft history lists as well.—Chris! _ct 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support —Chris! _ct 21:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "due to Hurricane Katrina" - well, strictly it was presumably down to the damage caused by the hurricane which meant they couldn't play there, or was it a franchise decision to ensure they had a decent crowd?
  • "Jeff Moore" seems to be the only player without an article - does he fail WP:ATHLETE? If not then he should have an article.
  • Ref 2 has publisher = USATODAY.com while ref 3 has work = USA Today -but they both point to the same website.
  • Ref 1 has "p. 140 (70-78). " - what does the 70-78 refer to? Same for refs 8 to 11...
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • Katrina is explained and Jeff Moore is created. USATODAY.com actually published the work of Associated Press in the first instance while the second instance was their own work; I mentioned Associated Press. As for the pages, the first one is the page number of the media guide and in the parentheses the first number represents the page number of the PDF file where the info is and the second number represents the last page in the PDF file. Could you suggest a way to explain this better?--Crzycheetah 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 29 July 2008 [5].

---

List of submissions for the 73rd Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

Nominating another submission list for FL status. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 19:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Under the "original title" column, Russia's and Georgia's film titles are missing their local writing. For consistency's sake, could you add them? Their WikiProjects may help you out.
  • Also, I think Georgia's flag has to be Image:Flag of Georgia (1990-2004).svg, since this award was held in 2001.

--Crzycheetah 05:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Added both. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Georgian writing doesn't look right. There are four words with "27" in the middle, while the transliterated version has "27" in the beginning followed by only two words.--Crzycheetah 07:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's the Russian transliteration that was used. Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Fixed again. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support--Crzycheetah 19:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 29 July 2008 [6].

---

List of Norah Jones awards

Gary King (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent nomination statement :-) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  Keeping it short and succinct Gary King (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  Alright, nonsense aside, I have a quick comment. In the sentence, She received her eighth Grammy, eleventh overall, for "Best Female Pop Vocal Performance" for her song "Sunrise", "eleven" → "11", per MoS. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  Okay Gary King (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Bold the topic that appears in the first sentence. See WP:BOLDTITLE. -- Reorion (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  As I said the last time you suggested this, WP:BOLDTITLE says not to bold when there are links. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have striked out that comment. Reorion (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Link "Bengali"
  • Perhaps, for context, mention who her father is?
  • "Her second album Feels like Home was released" commas before and after the album title?
  • "16 million records" - perhaps i'm too 'noveau' but I suspect it's now "units" as in CDs, etc?
  • "has won multiple awards" - so literally she's won "more than one"? Can we be NPOV but more imaginative here?
  • "nominated for multiple awards " zzz - multiple... sometimes precise is better than vague... reads dull right now though..
  • " "Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals" for her collaboration...." - 2 x collaboration -let's work on the repetitive prose.
  • ", 11th overall," what does that mean?
  • "The song was nominated for a "Grammy Award for Best Pop Collaborations with Vocals" at the 48th Grammy Awards."...... but didn't win. A shame to end an "awards" lead with a failure?
  • EL's, don't we have standard templates for commons and quotes?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. Regarding commas, I try to not use them when I don't have to; I don't believe they need to be used in this instance. Gary King (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Current refs 3, 7, and 8 need author information. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  Okay done Gary King (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  Ref 7 is still missing an author. :-) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  Done. I typed it in improperly the first time. Gary King (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I can't see anything wrong with the list. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:19, 28 July 2008 [7].

---

List of Linkin Park awards

This is a co-nomination with Gary King (talk · contribs). We believe it meets all criteria. As always, comments will be addressed. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 03:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I like to support. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Bold the topic that appears in the first sentence. See WP:BOLDTITLE.
• Wikilink the album names that appears in the lead (paragraph 2, sentence 1 & 3).

-- Reorion (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have linked the albums. WP:BOLDTITLE also says to not bold the lead when there are links, which there are and we would rather keep. Gary King (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have striked out that comment. Reorion (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support- meets the FL criteria, it is comprehensible and the list is understandable with no flaws. My comments that I would have addressed have been brought up by Gary.--S_RX 18:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Linkin-park-lyrics.com is not a reliable source; the popstarsplus.com link is a Wikipedia mirror. Rateyourmusic is not reliable either as it is "an international metadata database where musical albums, EPs, singles, videos and bootlegs (collectively referred to as "releases") are added, rated, and reviewed by users." Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  I have removed all of those references because the information is backed by other references. Gary King (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  Support Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "This is a list of awards ..." zzzz - articles don't start with "This is an article about..." so why should lists? I'd try to be more imaginative. Something along the lines of "Linkin Park are a Grammy award and multiple MTV award winning band from..." or similar?
  • "...in 2006. [7]" remove the space.
  • I find the first paragraph a bit choppy - can you improve the flow of the short sentences by merging?
  • "...band would then win ..." why not just "band won"? And if you're linking MTV awards, why not the Grammy?
  • " After Meteora success" - "the success of Meteora" or "Meteora's success" surely?
  • "In 2004, the band worked with Jay-Z to produce a album, entitled Collision Course. A single from the album "Numb/Encore" won a Grammy Award. " can you merge these two short and clunky sentences?
  • Same idea for the last two sentences of the lead.
  • Ref 9 can have an author and date added.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. I copyedited the lead a bit further, however, because I realize it could have been better, so please take another look. Gary King (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 15:34, 28 July 2008 [8].

---

Sugababes discography

I'm nominating this discography because I believe it to be well referenced and complete. It covers all of the official releases from British girl group Sugababes. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Dammit! I wanted this one! :) Guess I'll have to do Girls Aloud instead! :)
• Everything looks good, except there are two entries (that I know of) missing from the Miscellaneous section:
  • The group performed a cover of Hard-Fi's "Living for the Weekend" at BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge. It later appeared on the compilation Radio 1's Live Lounge.
  • In 2002, they performed Adamski's "Killer", which appeared on War Child presents 1 Love, a charity album from War Child.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. And good luck with the Girls Aloud discography! :) -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: How about an extra column in "Music videos" to let us know which album each track is from? Also, why so many references for the directors? You use ref #31 like a dozen times – I'd recommend just moving it up to the column header to tidy the display up a little. Seegoon (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 49 looks a bit odd - a date after the accessdate? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Ref 17 is not specific, it's general. It goes to the homepage. And I'm aware it's because the URL is hard to access but I'm afraid that doesn't really cut it for me.
  • Same for ref 3 and ref 26.
  • Perhaps this is something for WP:DISCOGS to discuss.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support Very solid work! Two complaints: I'd like to see links to Music recording sales certification and List of music recording sales certifications (perhaps a la Garbage discography) in the first table. Second, the NZ and SWE columns in the Compilation albums table aren't neccessary. Drewcifer (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - since they were missed last time, here they are again...
  • Last ref has an extra date field.
  • Refs 5, 16, 25, 36 and 42 are not specific - they do not provide the required citations.
    • And ref 3 Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about taking so long. I was trying to figure out what to do with these citations. I have used these sources before in other featured discographies. If I do what Drewcifer did with the Garbage discography will that be sufficient? -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would cover it - but make sure your instructions are specific to each site i.e. what to enter in which box. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #9 says to "avoid links to the results pages of search engines", so why is it okay in a reference? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough Matthew, that's a reasonable extension to that guideline. Perhaps these discogs need to look again because they all use this method of reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found other reliable sources and have used them to replace the more general references that were included before. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support I made some changes in relation to the table's layout, according to the resolution of my monitor that is 1024x768, then, if the nominator agree with my amendments... Cannibaloki 17:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Good work. Cannibaloki 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Support Really very good! Cannibaloki 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why in the table Compilation albums this writing below: ""—" denotes releases that did not chart.", if all did charts?
• Reword the table Studio albums, because many informations are written in a redundant form.

• Sales and notes -- example=(UK sales: 219,763+) better (UK: 219,763+);
• Certifications (sales thresholds) -- example=(BPI certification: Gold) better (UK: Gold)

• The tables aren't aligned.
• "Change produced four singles, three of which reached the top twenty." Where?
• "vinyl" better "LP";

Cannibaloki 06:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added your suggestions into the list. Also, the first columns are aligned. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please fix TRM's references concerns, and then I will consider giving my support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I have the same concerna s Cannibaloki, why is a "-" denotes releases that did not char, if they all did chart. Also, fix TRM's references.--S_RX 15:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why not just put "UK sales" in the album table, put the reference in the header, and remove "UK:" from each entry. Same could be done for Certifications. Change it to "UK certifications", and remove "UK:" from each entry.
• Why is there a Other singles section? Merge it into the main singles table. I'm guessing it's because they are collaborations, but other discogs don't do it this way.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Band Aid link is not specific (currently [42]) - fix this and the list will be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support as I won't be around tomorrow. My concerns have been addressed so when Ref 42 is fixed, assume that this has my full support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Fixed it. Cannibaloki 14:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:21, 28 July 2008 [9].

---

List of Arcade Fire awards

This is based off of List of The Killers awards, a featured list promoted a few weeks ago. Gary King (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Got the feeling this a little light. The lead could be expanded at the very least.
  • "...and has sold over 320,000 copies in the United States and over..." 2 x and in a single sentence becomes, for me, a little hard work.
  • Question really, is "favourable" Canadian English (i.e. with the u which US English omits but which Brit Eng mandates?)
  • "Arcade Fire has received five nominations...." maybe "...but no awards" or something, since this list is called "list of Arcade Fire awards"..
  • Consider making the columns in each table the same % width so they look similar throughout the list. Especially as Juno Awards year column is masssssive.
  • "Arcade Fire has won five awards from 20 nominations." - not according to your infobox...
  • Expand the caption to say where and why as the info seems to be available in the Commons description.
  • Maybe worth clarifying that Grammys are US since you've said BRITs are British.
  • I'd prefer to see ref's ordered numerically unless there's a really good reason not to.
  • How is this a WP:RS?
  • Your EL's have a Polish fansite and a forum, are these quality links we need at FL?
  • Pity the Arcade Fire template doesn't link to this list?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. "Favourable" is Canadian. Columns in each table are same size, at least for me. They all use the exact same code to create them. The reference in question is reliable because several reliable news sources have used it in the past, including:

• "In tune with the GRAMMYS". Star Tribune. 2006-02-08.
• "Online Service Helps Bands Create Tours". Post-Standard. 2005-10-05.
• "Web Sightings". Ocala Star-Banner. 2000-06-04.
• "Grammy Odds & Ends". Dayton Daily News. 2004-02-08.

Gary King (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cols are still mega-screwed for me in Safari under Mac OS X. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Gary King (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments on column width 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment In {{Awards table}}, width is fixed in pixels; should be changed to percentages. The columns look weird whenever width is fixed in pixels. I am talking about pages where more than one table is present.--Crzycheetah 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, perhaps, Gary, this is the problem with all those tables I've commented on. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I made the tables fixed widths. Looks fine in Safari now. Gary King (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks weird in IE still. The columns in the first and second tables do not have the same widths.--Crzycheetah 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Should be fixed in IE now. Let me know if it's not. Gary King (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry to say it's not working for me still. I guess the use of the {{Awards table}} hasn't been fully tested across browsers... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Sigh why do you have to use Safari :) I removed the fix for Safari when working on Internet Explorer; now should look fine across the browsers. There's a different fix for each browser! Why can't everyone just use Firefox and be done with it :) Gary King (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) Perfecto for me now. Rather than ask everyone use the same browser, ask Microsoft etc to implement HTML correctly, ok?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You think that's easier to do?! :p Gary King (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary, you've got influence... how many FLs? Microsoft and Mozilla are waiting for your call... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the fact that I wrote some code for Firefox is more important to them than some FLs :) Firefox's browser is the one that's doing things right; both Microsoft (Internet Explorer) and Apple (Safari) are lumbering giants that are too slow to move to improve their browsers. Gary King (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Knee-jerk Apple-fanboy oppose - how rude. I know what you mean though Gary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it look good now. Just to make sure, did style="table-layout: fixed;" fix this layout problem for us IE users?--Crzycheetah 22:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, while the width="" for the table fixed it for Safari. Neither is needed for Firefox :) Gary King (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Support Is "Rock on the Net" reliable?--Crzycheetah 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  I explained it's reliability above, to TRM. Gary King (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  Could you substitute that source to a more well-known publisher anyway? I can't verify any of your examples listed above, plus that site looks like a fan-site. I don't think it's hard to find another site.--Crzycheetah 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  Done Gary King (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:07, 28 July 2008 [10].

---

List of Arctic Monkeys awards

I believe this is FLC quality. Gary King (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a problem with the right hand side template - the link to the band at the top is emboldened when it shouldn't be, and makes the first non-bold link to the band extraneous.
• The lead is not particularly interesting. The "first band to win both "Best New Band" and "Best British Band" in the same night" is a real engaging point though - perhaps insert a couple more things with that sort of weight? WilliamH (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your edit, but I don't think it is necessary. The bold formatting at the top of the infobox is standard from what I can see – examples include List of 50 Cent awards, List of Kanye West awards, and List of The Killers awards. Also, bold text in the lead is no longer a requirement, and I have chosen not to do it because I would like to link the first mention of Arctic Monkeys; both methods cannot be used together on the same terms, per WP:BOLDTITLE. I have also expanded the lead and would appreciate comments on that. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, Gary - it's not finished. I believe I added loads to this ages ago and meant to add more, but sort of left it drift in the public domain for others to add to. Others have done a fine job - but I don't believe it covers all awards the band have been nominated for. Sorry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, poo. Perhaps I should have scrolled down before I wrote that :) Well, obviously, I'll have to support having put in a lot of work to this. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm? Which awards did you not spot when you wrote that? :) Gary King (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Musicslut.blogspot is not a reliable source. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  Ah yes; removed because the information is backed in the other seven references. Gary King (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  I believe this reference was for "Favourite Worst Nightmare - Best International Album", since this is not mentioned in the other references. I can't find it in the other refs; this one information doesn't seem to be backed by the other refs. (Note: I have to go now, I'll check back in some hours.)Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  I added an NME reference for all the 2008 awards from NME. Gary King (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  Support Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • What is the point of your image caption? I suppose it differentiates the image from Antarctic Monkeys, right?! :p
  • "The band achieved their success" - I think it's worth clarifying that their initial popularity came that way - after they "sold out" (i.e. went mainstream) their success was down to massive sales, downloads etc.
  • "début" is english now so you can ditch the accent.
  • " Their début album " maybe "Their first album..." so to avoid repeating debut?
  • BRIT or Brit Award?
  • "Their début album Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, released on January 23, 2006, was at the time the fastest-selling début album in British music history, beating Oasis' Definitely Maybe. It remains the fastest-selling début album for a group." - where's the reference for this?
  • Overlinking of Brit Awards (at least three times in the second para of the lead alone).
  • You could add a summary of their achievements as the last part of the lead?
  • "was first introduced in 1955" - citation?
  • Expand the Nominated work col a bit - avoid the wrap around.
  • Can you make the cols the same width from table to table?
  • "won one award from one nomination." - boring.
  • "[25][25][26][27]" - [25] x 2, how extreme!
  • piping {{reflist}} with 3 will annoy browsers. stick with two.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. I don't get the "Expand the Nominated work col"; it looks okay to me? Same with the col widths; they look the same to me. The reflist is not piped to 3 columns; it changes columns depending on your browser size. Shrink your browser and it will have two columns. Gary King (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

PLUG and MUSO tables are odd on my browser (Safari under Mac OS X) so you tell me where I'm going wrong! reflist does change as you said so no worries there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the tables fixed widths. Looks fine in Safari now. Gary King (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Saw only one mistake when I first checked it out and now it's all fixed. Red157(talk • contribs) 10:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 28 July 2008 [11].

---

List of Boston Bruins head coaches

previous FLC (06:38, 14 July 2008)

I am nominating this article with Milk's Favorite Cookie to be promoted to a featured list candidate because I think it is very deserving to become a featured list. Annoyomous24 23:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Issues raised in the previous FLC have not been addressed.--Crzycheetah 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done with everything. Except: I didn't fix the redirects per this. I also didn't limit the colors to the player names. Looking at the 30+ head coaches lists, it would just be odd for this one to stick out. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirects should be fixed per the link you provided. Read the second bullet in the "exceptions".--Crzycheetah 22:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. I only found two. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • OK! As for the coloring, of course, I meant all head coach lists, not just this one. There's just too much color in these head coach lists.--Crzycheetah 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "in their team history" should be "in its team history" as the history is for the franchise

DONE!

• for "an Original Six team," perhaps explain in a single phrase what that means? Perhaps something like "the original teams of the NHL"

Gary King (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't do your second bullet because it is originally called the Original Six. Annoyomous24 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• CommentSupport It would be a good idea to include Stanley Cups won in the awards section. After all, winning the Cup is the best a coach can do, even better than winning the Adams Award. DONE! Kaiser matias (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, but it would probably be better to rephrase winning the Cup to reflect the name, perhaps something like "Won Stanley Cup (year)" seeing how referring to the Stanley Cup usually involves the actual name of the title, not simply stating a champtionship won. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

DONE! –– K. Annoyomous24 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 28 July 2008 [12].

---

NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award

I am nominating with Chrishomingtang this article because we believe this is featured list material. Annoyomous24 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Many of the statements in the lead are not sourced with a ref.

I will do that.—Chris! _ct 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Add several refs.—Chris! _ct 05:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I suggest stating how the recipient of the award is determined.

Already did.Oh, I am looking at another page. Not done yet.—Chris! _ct 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.—Chris! _ct 05:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I also suggest stating the amount of different players that have received the awards.

I will add that.—Chris! _ct 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • In the notes section, Because Tim Duncan is a United States citizen by birth, as are all natives of the U.S. Virgin Islands, he was able to played for the U.S. internationally., why is "played" in past tense?

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

S_RX 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - my comments have been addressed.S_RX 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Not keen on "PLAYER (X)" why not "Name (X)"? DONE!
  • Why not make the table sortable? DONE!
  • "until a smaller trophy was introduced in 2005." needs reference.

Got it—Chris! _ct 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Not keen on "(naturalized U.S. citizen since 1993)" - why not flow it in the prose rather than crowbar in a statement in parentheses? DONE!
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The award was decided by a panel of 9 media members," -- "was" or "is"? If it's "was", then where is the bit about how it's decided now?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• "In at least one NBA Finals" this is too vague. Can it be tied down to a specific number?

I don't know how to find the exact number but I wrote "some" instead of "at least one". -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I noticed the statement has two references. What do those say, because "some" is just as vague unfortunately. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The first reference is the most recent one, which doesn't have fan balloting. The second one which it the 2007 one does. So I really don't know. -- K. Annoyomous24 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to "at least one" because that is the only fact we know based on the references. I know it is vague but at least it is better than "some" and is verifiable.—Chris! _ct 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the image of the trophy moved to the lede section

We can't do that as the NBA Awards template has to be the most uprighted thing on the article. -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. You could position it to the left, if it doesn't squash the text too much. I guess it's not a big deal. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I really do think it will squash it. I'll try it right now but I don't think it'll work. If it doesn't work, I won't reply. -- K. Annoyomous24 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, I feel that the picture looks sort of bad. Lets just see what others think. -- K. Annoyomous24 17:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks bad, too.—Chris! _ct 17:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too! :P Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks poor but since it exists, it must be used here really. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed it back! -- K. Annoyomous24 18:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there anything for an EL section?

There is none. -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Where is the [edit] tab for the Winners section?

To be honest, I don't know. -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the position of the template prevents the [edit] tab from appearing. That is my guess.—Chris! _ct 17:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Where is the contents table?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 28 July 2008 [13].

---

List of Miami Dolphins first-round draft picks

Another first-round picks list. Any questions/suggestions/comments will be answered.--Crzycheetah 01:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Make Marino's picture bigger if the image supports it - the WP:MOS#Images suggests a minimum of 300px for lead image.
  • "based in the Miami, Florida" lose the the.
  • "In the NFL Draft, each NFL franchise annually seeks " what about "In the annual NFL Draft, each franchise seeks"?
  • "Enshrined in" sounds a little terminal, why not "Admitted to..."?

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • The first 3 points are done, though the lead image could stay as is. The MOS does not suggest a minimum of 300px, it just allows the lead image to be up to 300px. What it suggests though is not to use fixed image sizes.
    • As for the enshrined, the whole process is called enshrinement, the members of hall of fame are called enshrinees, so the verb would be "to enshrine". I believe it would be very beneficial to non-experts to know that whenever players get admitted to the Pro Hall of Fame, they get enshrined.--Crzycheetah 02:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
      • First, you're right, the MOS has changed. It used to say "It is recommended that lead images not be smaller than 300px" so thanks for updating me on that. Secondly, enshrine to a non-expert means to be enclosed in a shrine - that is not happening to these players. Even Wiktionary doesn't have the definition you're using. That's all I'm saying, this means something very different to non-experts and should be explained, or linked or rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
        • With all due respect to Wiktionary's contributors, I trust Merriam Webster's Dictionary more and can provide this link that proves the relation between the word enshrine and Hall of Fame. Also, you can take a look at the official website of the Pro football hall of Fame here and see that they use the word enshrinement for the whole process. I agree that more explanation is needed, but not in this page.--Crzycheetah 07:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
          • No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comments- great list. However, I have a few questions/concerns.
  • Why is Miami written like Miami (FL) and not just Miami?
  • Why is USC in an acronym and not just called "South Carolina"?

S_RX 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Mostly per WP:COMMONNAME. Miami (FL) is written like this because there is another school that is known as Miami (OH). As for USC, it's more common to refer to it as USC than any other way. You can even see that the main page is called USC Trojans football.--Crzycheetah 17:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:11, 26 July 2008 [14].

---

List of Vancouver Canucks head coaches

previous FLC (06:38, 14 July 2008)

I am renominating this article for featured list status because no one supported or opposed for this article and I hope for more comments. Annoyomous24 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "Starting 2005–06 season," isn't correct English, perhaps "Starting in the ..." DONE!
  • Quinn's second term isn't reflected in the Vancouver Canucks Head Coaches template. DONE!
  • Don't know why the note under the table has to be small. DONE!
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Vancouver Canucks are a professional ice hockey team based in Vancouver, British Columbia. The team is a member of the Northwest Division in the Western Conference of the National Hockey League (NHL). They play at the 18,630-capacity General Motors Place. The Canucks joined the NHL in 1970 as an expansion team along with the Buffalo Sabres. " four sentences that don't really flow well together. (They all begin with "The", "They", which causes lots of breaks when reading)
• Please add references to the lead's first paragraph. There are a lot of facts there that should be referenced.

Gary King (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

DONE ALL!

• Comment
  • "2006–Present" in the Alain Vigneault row should be "2006–present"

DONE! –.– K. Annoyomous24 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "Hockey=Fans.com" in reference #3 should be "Hockey-Fans.com"

DONE! –.– K. Annoyomous24 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Is www.hockey-fans.com a reliable source? I am not saying it is not, but just making sure.

I think so. –.– K. Annoyomous24 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

—Chris! _ct 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support Like Crzycheetah said, it would be good to replace www.hockey-fans.com with a better one. But otherwise great list.—Chris! _ct 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support —Chris! _ct 05:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support The Hockey-Fans.com should be substituted because they state that "the information contained here is provided as is, with no warranties and may not be complete or correct." Also, the image caption says that Crawford was a head coach from 1998 while the table states from 1999.--Crzycheetah 01:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

DONE! –.– K. Annoyomous24 02:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The list looks great. I'm a disappointed in the lead section though. The first paragraph focuses too much on the general Canucks organization. I would like to see some narrative of coaching changes over time. I can do some work on this. -maclean 02:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I added a possible expansion to the lead in my sandbox here [15] It only goes back as far as 1996, though. What do people think? --maclean 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well referenced with a good size lead. I would support. -Djsasso (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Not bad, but the prose could use a little polishing.
  • "The 18,630-capacity General Motors Place is where they play their home games." Howabout, "The Canucks currently play home games at the General Motors Place"? We're talking about coaches, we don't need to bee too specific about their arena.
  • "...head coaches in the Canucks franchise history" - "...in Canucks' franchise.."
  • "as an expansion team along with the" - "as and expansion team[comma] along..."
  • Move "Alain Vigneault is currently the head coach of the Canucks.[4]" to the end of the second paragraph. Keep history in 1st para, coaches in the 2nd.
  • The list itself looks good. Almost there. Blackngold29 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done all of your requests. -- K. Annoyomous24 05:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Blackngold29 05:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Everything looks alright. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:11, 26 July 2008 [16].

---

List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C.

Self nom. I along with Raime (talk · contribs) and Remember (talk · contribs) expanded this list and a lot of hard work has went into it to meet the FL criteria, any concerns will be addressed.--S_RX 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Don't think that lead image is truely the "skyline" of Washington D.C.
    • I changed the caption.--S_RX 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "high rise" or "high-rise"?
    • "high-rise", fixed those instances.
  • Basilica caption is complete sentence so needs a period.
    •  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is the National Cathedral the second-largest or second-tallest? --Dem393 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: "tallest", I reworded that.S_RX 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Good job! --Dem393 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: It is still wrong, I think. It may be the second tallest cathedral, but not the second tallest church; the National Shrine, also on this list, is taller, so the National Cathedral can't be any higher than #3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.217.49 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply: Actually the National Shrine is a basilica, which differs from the church. There is a difference, so the National Shrine is (I think the biggest basilica in the U.S), while the Cathedral is the biggest church.S_RX 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The National Cathedral is the second-largest church (not tallest) in the United States, after the St. John's in NYC. At least, that's what the source says. The Washington Basilica is the largest Catholic church in the country, and the tallest occupied building in Washington. -epicAdam (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Correct you are. Thank you for fixing that.--S_RX 21:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Support: Article is well-written, complete, adequately sourced, and has some lovely pictures (I especially like the 19th century poster). The only minor issue I have with the article is that the general reference, "High-rise buildings in Washington", could be listed instead under External links. Other than that small issue, I believe this list should be promoted. -epicAdam (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Excellent, again. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:02, 26 July 2008 [17].

---

List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft

I am nominating this article for featured list status because I believe it is complete and referenced and meets all the criteria of a featured list. This is modeled after another featured list, List of East Carolina Pirates in the NFL Draft. Reorion (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've done a peer review for it, and as those items have been resolved, I feel it's among the best lists on Wikipedia at the present time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Lists should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order.--Crzycheetah 06:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Doing. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Converted table to earliest-to-latest chronological order. Reorion (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't expect it to be done this quick. I'll review the list later.--Crzycheetah 23:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "latest NFL Draft" - put a timeframe on it.
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:COLOR says not to use color alone to identify a particular attribute. You need to use an asterisk, dagger or similar with the colour.
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • On my screen there's plenty of space down the right hand side of the table for some more images.
    • Added some pictures, will look around on Flickr for some more CC-BY and CC-BY-SA of drafted players. Reorion (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a position key should be supplied for non-experts.
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 1948 reference cell is missing on my browser.
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A large number of the players don't have articles, why not?
    • Will start making stub articles on first/second rounders and those who made an impact with their NFL teams. Reorion (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I tend to discourage overlinking, when listing out Pro Bowls etc, I think it's worth linking them each time because I don't want to have to go off and find the first instance which is linked.
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the superscripted NFL and AFL explained anywhere?
    • Second paragraph now explains the two separate draft from 1960–1966 and the common draft 1967–1969. Footnotes in the table denotes what the superscripted AFL/NFL are. Reorion (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is DraftHistory.com. a work while HogNation.net. a publisher?
    • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please avoid using the done and notdone templates. Just a comment is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Will do. Reorion (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Players aren't robots or things: "who", not "that".
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comma before "but".
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Drafted" twice in two phrases; possible to change one?
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Six players were selected from the 2008 NFL Draft with the highest selection being running back Darren McFadden,...". This is not good prose. Try "Six players were selected from the 2008 NFL Draft; the highest selection was running back Darren McFadden,..."
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• A tendency to write over-long sentences; the last one in Para 2 makes my head spin—and the content is beyond me. Who's the readership here?
  • Will work on shortening the sentences. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't know if the current version is any better but it is more clear than before. Reorion (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Dashes centred in the Notes column, please. Don't we have a rule about this? If not, we should. They look like funny little spikes at the moment.
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Captions: when they're just nominal groups, no dot at the end. See MOS on captions.
  • Done. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Excellent colour scheme in table (pastels); it's rather vertical, like a skyscraper, because you're squeezing pics in at the right. Guess it doesn't matter. TONY (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Added pictures based from the third comment from The Rambling Man. Reorion (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the table's columns need to have a flexible width. The Notes and References columns are needlessly huge on my screen because I'm at 1440x900, widescreen format. It looks pretty bad. I suggest just using a fixed width on all the columns, or even better, no set width at all. Gary King (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you explain this? (by the way, I accidentally deleted something from the table that had made the reference columns look huge as everything go shifted over one in one of the rows). --Reorion (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks better now Gary King (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nicely referenced and equally impressive as the East Carolina list. Nice job man! Geologik (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good. Even though it isn't as good as the East Carolina list:). PGPirate 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:02, 26 July 2008 [18].

---

List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong

Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Chicago and List of tallest buildings in New York City. There are some minor differences that result from this list not being of a city in the United States, such as the use of metres before feet, but overall the list is very similar to the previously nominated American ones and List of tallest buildings in Dubai. I have been working with three other editors, Hydrogen Iodide, HongQiGong and Leitmanp, to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is finally there. We believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• In "Under construction" and "Approved," don't mention floor counts in the asterisk note since it's unnecessary. All of the table rows already have floor counts.--Dem393 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, removed "floor counts". Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Support Great list! --Dem393 (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support- a great tallest building list, agree with Raime's comments on being comprehensive and well sourced. I see no flaws.--S_RX 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Seems a shame that the name col is so squashed that virtually names go onto two, three or maybe four rows. I understand one or two of the notes are lengthy, but I'm sure you could expand the names column, reduce the notes col width and end up with a shorter, more aesthetically pleasing table?
  • International Commerce Center image caption is fragment so remove the full stop.
  • "220-222 Tai Kok Tsui Road 2" - should that hyphen be an en-dash?
  • "102 How Ming Street 2" appears in both Proposed and Approved tables.
  • Timeline table, height col doesn't sort correctly. Nor does address.
  • Are "Queen's Road" and "Queens Road" the same?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Fixed it. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 23:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Got one suggestion. I think you should replace the lead image with because it is a featured image and it look much better.—Chris! _ct 20:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done replaced the lead image. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very good.—Chris! _ct 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, it seems like there are no more issues with the list. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 17:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:56, 24 July 2008 [19].

---

NBA Coach of the Year Award

I am nominating this article with Chrishomingtang because we think this article does deserve to be promoted into a featured list. Annoyomous24 20:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are some names with asterisks, but without the yellow background.--Crzycheetah 21:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget to remove when I remove the color. Now fixed.—Chris! _ct 22:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Annoyomous, by making this edit, you didn't improve this list, you made it worse! I strongly suggest you revert that edit.--Crzycheetah 22:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • how did I make it worst? this article is about coaches, not about players or buliders/contributors. Annoyomous24 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      • You removed the {{sortname}} template from the "Names" column, so the names are sorted by their first names now.--Crzycheetah 23:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OR just add back the {{sortname}} template at least.--Crzycheetah 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Annoyomous24 made a correct edit by removing color and symbol of non coach hall of famer. It is just that he also remove the {{sortname}} template. I restore the template. So everything is good now.—Chris! _ct 01:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I would add Category:National Basketball Association coaches, though.--Crzycheetah 19:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok—Chris! _ct 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "top coach" not really - the coach who was voted as the best (or something similar).

Will change it once I thought of something better.—Chris! _ct 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "legendary head coach" - legendary = peacock term.

Fixed—Chris! _ct 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "1964–65 season, won the Coach of the Year Award that year." - that season perhaps? You've mentioned two years - 1964 and 1965.

Fixed—Chris! _ct 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Consider an image for the lead, e.g. Pat Riley or similar, as he's won it three times? The Phil Jackson image is weak so you could lose it and make some space for the lead image.

Removed the Phil Jackson image. I don't like the Pat Riley image because it is too blurry. I will see what I can do.—Chris! _ct 18:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Mike D'Antoni is the only winner to have a dual citizenship from the United States and Italy. - Is such a specific detail really worth mentioning?

Removed.—Chris! _ct 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Shouldn't the nationality column be to the right of the coaches' names? Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fine to have nationality column left of the name. All the award pages are like this. I don't think this is an issue.—Chris! _ct 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any advantage to having it that way? The coach's name is definitely more important than the coach's nationality, so it should be the first thing people see when reading from left to right. Zagalejo^^^ 06:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I will have to modify all the award pages.—Chris! _ct 18:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll help you out. Zagalejo^^^ 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help.—Chris! _ct 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm leaning toward support, although the article still looks a little bare-bones to me, with that big white space left of the pictures. Would it be possible to add win-loss records? Zagalejo^^^ 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. But I will need some help, though.—Chris! _ct 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to pitch in later tonight. Zagalejo^^^ 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Annoyomous24 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! Do you think we need refs for those? The information is only one click away from this page, so we could probably do without the refs, but I'm wondering what others think. Zagalejo^^^ 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:56, 24 July 2008 [20].

---

WWE No Way Out

Self-nom, I feel this article meets the FL criteria, though, concerns will be addressed.--S_RX 03:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "the main event of each event." reads clumsily.
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The In Your House event was titled..." this sentence seems to lose its way. Perhaps split in half at the "which took place.."?
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we abbreviate pay-per-view (e.g. to PPV?) it's used lots.
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't like the main events being {{small}}. You can narrow the other cols and use the space gained in this col.
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What does (c) mean?
    • (c) = Champion. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Add this explanation to the article then please. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Remove the space before the citation at "Bell Centre [23]"
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Order citations numerically unless there's a good reason not to. [22][5] for example.
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Overlinking of wrestlers in the main event col - it's not a sortable table so avoid overlinkage.
    •  Done--S_RX 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Unlink "American"; the link does not need to exist here and it also causes a denser field of links in that area Gary King (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The last three sentences of the first paragraph begin with an "In year" format; please change this so it isn't as repetitive.
• "one municipal of Canada" → "one municipality of Canada", or better yet, "one Canadian municipality" to keep the same format as the U.S. one

Gary King (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• •  DoneS_RX 14:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove all periods in "Main Event(s)" column that are not full sentences. Gary King (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done, hope I did that right as well.S_RX 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• CommentSupport There's no need for the fixed width, since there is only one table. The first column is too wide, as well.--Crzycheetah 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Re:  Done--S_RX 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I have two more minor comments. No Way Out dates and venues section should be renamed...to Events maybe? Also, the "Main Event(s)" section should be "Main event(s)", shouldn't it?--Crzycheetah 21:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes you are correct, and I fixed that.S_RX 00:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've never really been a big fan of promoting articles that have been gutted to being predominantly a list to FL status. This page should be an article with a small table showing the events, not a list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Re: - It can't really be that because the article does not have more information, what else could be added prose wise? This list will be getting bigger as more events will take place. Take a look at Royal Rumble, thats an FL, which has a lot prose and has a table and is an FL, what makes this any different?S_RX 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I objected to that FLC as well on the same ground. In my mind, they are both articles, not lists, and should be treated as such. However, in that case, I was over-ruled. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Welcome back, Scorpion. I think this page is very similar to all of those NHL and NBA award pages. They should be articles with a list of recipients, as well, but our experience showed that in order to make them articles we need information that is very hard to find, let alone cite it. What is the difference between any of those award pages and this page?--Crzycheetah 02:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:56, 24 July 2008 [21].

---

Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons

I've been working on this one for a couple days. It's as complete as I can make it, and follows on the heels of Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons, East Carolina Pirates football seasons, and Appalachian State Mountaineers football seasons. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, don't hesitate to drop a message on my talk page, and I'll get back as soon as possible. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image in lead can be up to 300px in size this res can be supported by the original image. Also, the caption could use some work, like get rid of "Seen here is.." and "Since those early days, " - perhaps just "Since then..."
    • Done.
  • The season links need publisher/work information.
    • Done.
  • In the references, use en-dash for page ranges, year ranges etc.
    • Done.
  • Why is final ranking col heading split into two cells?
    • The original plan was to put the Coaches' poll in there as well. I haven't found a citation yet, though, so I'm holding off on that. I didn't take it out because I like the look of the split header.
  • Why no conference finishing position in 1921?
    • Joined in the middle of the season, and only played a partial conference schedule.
  • I think you could use a key: bold, colors etc, not immediately clear what they represent.
    • Done.
  • Worth mentioning in the lead why they went "independent" from 1965 to 1990 inclusive?
    • Mentioned it in a footnote, which has been cited.
  • Don't need the periods in the bowl result col.
    • Done.
  • Where suspended for second world war, the table needs to span one more column.
    • Done.
  • Remove 2008 - the lead says this is a list of completed seasons.
    • Done.
  • I would left-align the bowl results.
    • Tried it ... looks horrifically ugly.
  • Why some seasons without AP ranking?
    • See footnote by AP ranking.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Changes made. Thanks for the input! JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Another excellent Hokies article from JK. Interesting to read and incredibly sourced. Certainly deserves featured status along with the other lists. Geologik (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support The only comment I have is that you use a inline citation for every season. I just wonder why you just didn’t use the latest media guide for all the seasons. 09er (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• When they went to the standard-length media guide (after the 2003 season, when every school switched to a standard length), the team results were one of the things to be cut. I've got an '03 guide, but this format allows a reader to jump directly to the season if they so wish. It was a lot more work, but I figured it was worth the effort. Thanks for the support! JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Looks good. The only thing is this sentence: "The Hokies won several games against larger, better-funded teams during this time, but did not compete in many games outside the American South." It would be better if it was cited. PGPirate 00:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• OpposeComments

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Throughout the lead you use either "Tech" or "the Hokies" when referring to the team. Just choose one. I recommend choosing "the Hokies".
    • I've found in past featured articles that using just one term creates an air of repetitiveness. It's kinda boring to keep reading the same term again and again, which is why the use of multiple terms for readability purposes has been upheld in various featured articles and featured lists.
  • Since the team's creation in 1891 by professor Ellison A. Smyth—who coached the team in its first game, which was played the next year—the Hokies have participated in more than 1,100 officially-sanctioned games, including 21 bowl games. — needs sourcing
    • Done.
  • Tech administrators, wanting to expand the football program, chose to leave the conference and become a football independent once more. — needs sourcing
    • Done.
  • … which represent the highest tier of postseason accomplishment. — Needs sourcing
    • Done.
  • The font in the Key is too small.
    • Done.
  • The "Conference" column has 3 citations. — Needs a little explaining as to what each reference is for.
    • Done. I've added elements in the citation explaining what they're for.
  • The very first citation says p. 140-142, which should be 140–142, by the way, but when I open the PDF file, it says p. 1 of 81 meaning there is no p. 140 or 142. I suggest putting these pages in the parentheses.
    • Done. I've also added PDF page information to the other PDFed style guides cited.
  • Preferably, separate notes from citations.
    • Done.

--Crzycheetah 04:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Let me know if there's anything else I can take care of for you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In 1993, Tech attended the first bowl game of its current 15-game streak, and vaulted into national prominence in 1995, when the Hokies defeated the Texas Longhorns in the 1995 Sugar Bowl. — Needs rephrasing and sourcing
    • Done. Split into two sentences.
      • I still can't verify this.--Crzycheetah 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Few more citations added. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You have green and yellow in the key, but green and orange in the table.
    • Done. I've also bolded the two items, since colors shouldn't be the only things backing those up.
      • Since you've bolded both of them, how would a color-blind person distinguish them?--Crzycheetah 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, uh, er ... magic? if that doesn't work, I've italicized the conference championship entries to make a textual difference. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Virginia Tech Hokies" row in the table is redundant. No one expects to see a list of UCLA Bruins or some other team seasons.

• Absolutely right. I simply like it on aesthetic grounds, and its use has been upheld with Appalachian State Mountaineers football seasons.
  • It still should be removed.--Crzycheetah 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to the Portal should be in the See also section.

Most of the footnotes need in-line citations, as well.

• What's the format for that? JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 06:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:51, 23 July 2008 [22].

---

List of operas by Mozart

This list has been researched and developed to provide a comprehensive and accurate overview of Mozart's opera canon, in a clear and regular format. It has received a thorough peer review, which has led to significant improvements, and I believe that it now meets the FL criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Don't have bold links in the lead.
    • Link removed Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " February 7, 1778 Mozart" comma between year and Mozart? - Yes, now included
  • Any reason why it's written in US-English?
    • Is it? What, particularly, makes you say so? Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      • "characterizations " The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
        • The "z" spellink is used in Brit-Eng, too. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Well that's certainly a modern interpretation. Characterisation is preferred as far as English Wikipedia is concerned.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, changed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • 1780 image on the left wrecks the layout (for me in Safari, at least). I suspect right aligned image would work better.
    • Well, it would have to be a different image, because this one would be looking away from the text if located on the right. I'll look for alternatives. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I've put a portrait on the right side, looking into the text. I don't think it's as good as the other, but it may preserve your layout. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth explaining the Kochel numbering in the lead.
    • Any reason why the footnote on the Kochel column-heading is not adequate, indeed better, for the purposes of this list? Also, it's linked at first mention in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • K.50 details has a full stop, the others don't. Be consistent. - Stop removed
  • Voice parts - MOS says numbers below 10 should be in text. - I'll come back to this Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • (Later) I've tried the text format. In my view, the table loses a lot of clarity by the form "Three soprano, two tenor", etc. There must be some circumstances in which the MoS rule is not inviolable (football results come to mind). If required I will make the change, but I really do think the quality of the table will suffer. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you link librettist to, say, libretto? - Yes, done
  • By Eng: I guess you mean English translation. Worth noting that in a statement above the table. - Done
  • K.345 uses a hyphen in the details column - use en-dash.- Done
  • K.208 links Opera but Opera has been used well beforehand - link the first time.
    • Actually, apart from in the bold titles, opera on its own is not mentioned, until K. 208. Earlier references in the table are all to opera buffa and opera seria, not "opera"
  • K.344 is missing a full stop in the details. - Done
  • K.366 looks like the details has a break or something... - Fixed
  • K.527 also seems to have the date after a break.-Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - I commented on this list in the peer review process, and think it's shaped up to be an outstanding addition. Well done, Brian! MeegsC | Talk 11:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

One comment: The sentence Ideas and characterisations introduced in the early works were developed and refined is a bit unclear. Does that mean they were already developed and refined, or that ideas and characterisations from those works were developed and refined in later works? If the latter, the sentence should be reworded. MeegsC | Talk 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've amended the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, though it might be useful to mention, in the lead, in what language the operas were originally written/sung. --maclean 20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this suggestion. I think that the language information should be in the table itself, and have added a column, which looks well - on my screen, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I dislike the article title. We seem to have gravitated towards a more informal title format; I would prefer something like "List of operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart". Or even "List of operas by Mozart". Not opposing, just stating an opinion. --Golbez (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • When I created the list it was called "List of operatic works by W. A. Mozart". Someone from Project Opera changed this to "Mozart's operas" on the grounds that this title would be more easily found. After some discussion, by way of compromise, it became List of Mozart's operas. Further discussion might swing towards your title of choice, which I would prefer. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • FWIW I'd go for "List of operas by Mozart" in pref to the current choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
      • "List of operas by Mozart" redirects to this list. How do I make a redirect into the main title? Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I believe administrators only can make this move.--Crzycheetah 06:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, most likely it'd need the redirect to be deleted to make way for the move. If you're sure this is the title you want then let me know and I'll do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, please do it. Will the present title then be a redirect to the new one? Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
              • That's right. I'll go ahead and do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support- I made a few comments about this list at the opera wikiproject and made a few minor edits to the list. This list is not only an excellent edition to the encyclopedia but exemplifies some of the best work done at the opera project.Nrswanson (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Why are the K numbers linked? They lead to the same places as the music titles so this is redundant and "surprising" linking. Also why is there an entry saying "Music for a Latin drama" which is unlinked to anything that would explain this classification while the article on Apollo et Hyacinthus calls it Mozart's first true opera? Rmhermen (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I linked the Ks that were linked in the Kochel catalogue list, but I agree that they don't provide any useful independent link, and can be removed. As to Apollo, while it can be properly described as Mozart's first true opera, to call it simply an "opera" gives little indication as to its unique character. The title page on the on-line NME score seems to be missing, so I couldn't pick up their description of the work. Osborne calls it a "musical intermezzo to a Latin comedy", but Kenyon's description is the one I have used: "Music for a Latin drama", and this is cited. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not concerned about it being sourced but that I don't know what it means - and there is no link to follow to learn more about it - what is a "Latin drama"? why does it need music? - drama doesn't generally, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I have chosen one of the formal descriptions of the work. I think the meaning of the title is self-evident - a drama, written in Latin, set to music. If I described it in the table as "a musical setting of a Latin text", would that clarify? There is no relevant link; space in the table is obviously limited, so I can't provide a longer explanation. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Well that would clarify that he wasn't writing music for a telenovela. That it meant a drama written in the Latin language, in fact, did not occur to me on reading this. I was trying to figure out what kind of Spanish form Mozart would ever have been working on. Rmhermen (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Modified. I'm glad to have resolved your difficulty. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, not only meets FL criteria but is genuinely useful and an adornment for WP! One minor quibble - why give the English of Così as Thus, All Women!, which apart from being rather meaningless is not even a literal translation of the title (I suppose, back-jobbing, the Italian for this translation would be Così tutte!). The article on Così does not suggest this wording but offers instead "Thus do all [women]" or "Women are like that", either of which I think would be preferable. But this is trivial in the overall context. Smerus (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, and agree with Smerus regarding the translation of Così. --Kleinzach 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I m happy to change the translation to the Smerus version. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Very well presented, and will serve as a useful model for listings of operas by other prolific composers. I've made a couple of small improvements to the lead. One comment: the English translations in the list aren't always the same as the translations given on the operas' own pages (example: La finta giardiniera, where the list translation is better) and it would be good if these were synchronised. --GuillaumeTell 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've amended the Schuldigkeit translation in the list to match the opera page. As to La finta giardiniera, the opera pages's translation "The Phony Gardener" is an Americanization that jars on sensitive Brit-Eng ears. I would rather leave the version I have, which is Osborne's; I don't think minor differences between translations are that important, and I don't see any instances where confusion is likely to arise. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 11:03, 23 July 2008 [23].

---

List of Academy Award-winning foreign language films

Linked to it in my last couple Academy Awards lists, so I might as well bring this up to par too :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "outside of the Best Foreign Language Film category" - may be just me but I found the opening sentence a little confusing! Especially as the title implies all Oscar winning foreign films would be in this list.
    • Um, yeah, that's the point of the list. This list is every foreign language film that has ever won an Oscar outside of the Best Foreign Language Film category. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm. So, the list implies it's all Oscar winning foreign language films but it actually doesn't. Do you get where I'm coming from? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh. Dammit, didn't think of that. Hmm...I can't think of a good title for the current scope, and if we keep the current one, I probably would need to add a section for the Best Foreign Language Film winners (which would just be a lot of copy/pasting from List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film but still) and change the current list section to "Other categories". Thoughts? I think this is necessary unless we can think of a new title. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, hmm. I need to think about it. At least we agree there's an issue. Do you have a reasonable, snappy identification of this list if you added something like "non-Best Foreign Language Film winners"? I dunno right now... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Um..."List of non-Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award winners"? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Never mind, that implies that every film that ever won an Academy Award outside the Best Foreign Language Film category would be on the list. I'll just expand the scope. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
              • You're happy to do that within the scope of this FLC or would you rather withdraw and reinstate later? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Oh, I can do it within the scope of the nomination. Again, it's just a lot of copy/pasting from List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film, formatting tweaks, and rewriting the lead a bit. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • Cool. Go for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • Okay, expanded. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "pass this criteria" - picky, but I would say "meet these criteria".
    • Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Second sentence in opening paragraph of lead is heeeuuuge. Consider splitting it?
    • Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse)
  • twenty-four -> 24
    • Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

But otherwise excellent work as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it, and thanks for the praise =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't it a bit redundant to copy/paste all the info from that list to this one? Why not just create a section Best Foreign Language Film category and add {{main}} template with the link to the winners page, then add a new section "other categories" and leave this table there. I just don't like the idea of having the same info in two separate pages.--Crzycheetah 20:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Probably a better idea. I cut the table out in that section. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks better.--Crzycheetah 21:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - organizationally, it would seem to make more sense to have each award be its own row, with merged cells for common films and common award ceremonies. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Doing that screws up the sorting of the list though. That and it detracts from the main item of the list, which is supposed to be the films themselves and whatever awards they won. The type of organization that you're suggesting is possible now via sorting in any case. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• On what other basis would the article be sorted? Most of the columns have lost fully-functional sortability on the basis of multiple entries within the columns (country, for example). Combining winners across multiple categories into a single cell is uglier formatting than losing a sort function of dubious utility, IMHO. Also, why is The Motorcycle Diaries simply listed as an "international coproduction"? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Via the year/award ceremony, which is the format already being used. I still don't see the advantage of doing it via awards (and I can't see how it's plausible in a technical sense either unless you repeat films for each award), and again, the primary items in the list are the films, not the awards that they received. As for "international co-production", I dunno, it was the entry when I started working on the page. I guess it's to avoid having to list the seven (?) or so countries involved in its production, but I'll list all of them if you want. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Foreign film" is difficult to define. The article relies on http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org to identify who the candidates are - who is behind the website? Spirited Away and Fellini's Casanova are domestic films? maclean 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• The website is maintained by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, so it's as official as it gets. I know Spirited Away doesn't count because the English-dubbed version was what the Academy reviewed for the Best Animated Film, but I'm not sure why Casanova isn't included. I went by what was included in the list, which is the official version (verifiability, not truth right?). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's what I suspected. As long as we are clear this list based on a list provided by the Academy it should be consistent with WP guidelines. --maclean 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove period from "A theatrical poster for Japan's Gate of Hell, a recipient of the Academy Award for Costume Design as well as an Academy Honorary Award." as it's a sentence fragment
• Both footnotes should not have periods as they are both sentence fragments
• Right off the bat, I don't like "Foreign language films have been recipients of Academy Awards since 1945." because it's in the passive voice. Could it be changed to the active voice? Something like "The Academy Awards have awarded Oscars to foreign language films since 1945." but better, because this example is full of redundancies and perhaps inaccuracies.
• "ten nominations for various Academy Awards" – more succinct: "ten Academy Award nominations"

Gary King (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Lookin' good Gary King (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 13:19, 22 July 2008 [24].

---

Mark Lanegan discography

Nominating it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Cannibaloki 18:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

• Comment The tables aren't aligned, there are two directors for the music videos that were missing and the first word of a sentence so that I know has to be capitalized (comments column). Cannibaloki 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Impossible to find not kiding used three hours on it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

• "succsess" → "success"
• Peak chart positions in all tables should be in one of two orders:

• Independent → Us Ind..
• US charts → All other charts (alphabetically). or
• US charts → English language charts (alphabetically) → Foreign language charts (alphabetically)

• The tables aren't aligned.
• I don't understand why the table that is With The Gutter Twins this writing ["—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart.], if all did chart.
• ["—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart.] is a little redundant. Can an album not be released and not chart? Write ["—" denotes a release that did not chart.]
• In Collaborations table, all albums titles should be in italic.

Cannibaloki 15:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Good work. I made some changes in order to help you improve the quality of this list, I understand that you are experiencing difficulties in some things. If you agree with my changes in this discography give you support, if not explain why. Cannibaloki 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I support and its always nice to get help from a user with two FL, and its true that i'm experiencing difficulties in some things. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "As of August 2004" - why not as of July 2008? especially when you go on to say "In May 2008 Lanegan and Isabel released Sunday at Devil Dirt."(DONE)
  • "and didn't chart" - "but did not chart"?(DONE)
  • " a hugh success" hey?(DONE)
  • Image caption is a fragment so remove period.(DONE)
  • You have a section called "With The Gutter Twins" but you don't mention them in the lead.(DONE)
  • "to influence a music chart." do you mean it actually entered the charts?(DONE)
  • Missing director for the 2004 videos.

Impossible to find. Tried for hours. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Avoid links in the headings.(DONE)
  • 2001 in collab table is left aligned.(DONE)
  • As are most years in the other appearances table.(DONE)
  • "(Willie Nelson tribute album)" parentheses, not italic, "Tim Buckley tribute album" no parentheses, not italic, "(The Kinks tribute album)" parentheses, italic. Pick one style.(DONE)
  • Which reference contains the collaborations and other appearances?(DONE)

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments-
  • Are there any references to reliable sources that verify the release dates of the albums?(DONE)
  • Where are the refs to the collaborations and other appearances?(DONE)
• In the lead, In 2006, Lanegan released Ballad of the Broken Seas with Isobel Campbell, which became a hugh success, there is a typo of "huge".(DONE)

--S_RX 14:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to reference the dates for the albums. I haven't seen it anywhere else on Wikipedia too. indopug (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you use ref [15] over 20 times, if you are going to use it for the collaborations for each one, just use it as a general ref in the column.S_RX 16:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting indopug - is that like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Why wouldn't we need to provide reference for these facts? If they are disputable they should be cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not disputable enough to have cite right next to it. More often than not there are general references included in the article that would give you the release date. Here for example, the Allmusic link. Or any books that were written on the band. indopug (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm disputing it and I'll be bringing it up at WP:DISCOG. Definitive date claims should be referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The links to Allmusic, I think it resolves the problem, because the other discographies not have references to the dates. Not that I am saying it is unnecessary, but is very strange! All release dates very loaded with references... Cannibaloki 17:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) not sure. The Winding Sheet has a release date of 1990 on allmusic, not July 1990. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And allmusic and discogs disagree with each other about Whiskey For The Holy Ghost - so it's not right yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Winding Sheet release date at the record label's page [25]. indopug (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And where does that particular reference appear in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess this page (Sub Pop releases) could be added as a general reference at the bottom. indopug (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there does seem to be a general problem with conflicting information in the various sources provided (and even those sources require a certain amount of delving into to get the info needed). Perhaps this should be discussed at WP:DISCOG too? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the existence of conflicting information, but in the case of Allmusic vs Discogs above, Discogs is a commercial, user-contributed non-RS, while Allmusic is an excellent RS. Another thing you need to consider is that albums are released n number of times in n different formats, but at Wikipedia, we are mostly concerned with the original release date (that's what is in the discography). indopug (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so if you're saying Discogs is not RS then it should be removed immediately from all discographies. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind; but its always just used as a EL, not a reference. indopug (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we be linking to non-reliable external links? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

External links are governed by WP:EL rather than WP:RS. Besides, Discogs is used everywhere in Wikipedia (music articles), not just discographies. I remember asking for its removal from the EL at an FAC, and the editor pointed out that discogs had its own template. While I couldn't care less about the site being in/excluded in the EL, I guess you could argue that it provides extra information (album art, release details, versions) well enough. indopug (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) Presumably fine if WP:DISCOGS are happy with conflicting information from non-RS to be used. Seems a little odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I didn't say remove the caption altogether.(DONE)
  • Rated R leads to a disambiguation page. (DONE)
  • "who is best known as the vocalist" - best-known.(DONE)
  • The following "claims" need citation.(DONE)
    • "who is best known as the vocalist"(DONE)
    • ", the band broke up due to internal strife over its creative direction. "(DONE)
    • "which became a commercial success."(DONE)
  • Who is "Isabel"? Do you mean Isobel? In which case you should refer to her as Campbell. This is an encyclopaedia.(DONE)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support:
  • I am concerned about the way you are including Mark Lanegan's work with other bands. These FA rated lists feature artists who have contributed to another album, and album data has not been ripped wholesale from respective discographies: 50 Cent discography and Róisín Murphy discography (from Moloko).

Are whole albums appropriate for listing when Lanegan has contributed to only one or two songs.

If your talking about the Quenns of The Stone Age section he was a member of the band it wasn't a collaboration. So yes it needs to stay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

But then that would be exclusively QOTSA discography. Is this Mark Lanegan as a solo artist, or all Mark Lanagen's "contributions" to other artists. Does this come under his discography. I think this list is very good, but I reiterate, does this other work come under the remit of this list? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well QOTSA aside (That could redirect to their discography), surely Lanegan's work with other bands means he's a special case? He's a fellow who essentially is famous for his collaborations and his recent works have been full albums with acts like Soulsavers or people like Greg Dulli and Isobel Campbell. Just as important have these there as it is his proper solo work. Red157(talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That is to say, why aren't individual songs listed? Is this within the remit of the discography?

• • "Rolling Stone Magazinw"(DONE)
  • "He released his first solo album" Should be a proper para before this.(DONE)
  • Your para summarising releases is not long enough considering the number of albums released
  • Music videos needs cites(DONE)
  • Who directed""Hit the City"?(DONE)

That's all. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments part III
  • "...six solo albums and one EP as a solo artist..." - solo repeated. Suggest "six albums and one EP as a solo artist". (DONE)
  • Remove the full stop in the image caption - the caption is a sentence fragment so doesn't need full stop. (DONE)
  • " first album to Chart" - why capitalise chart? (DONE)
  • "which he'd become " - he had. Avoid contractions. (DONE)
  • "They would release", "which would peak"... why not just "they released" and "which peaked" etc? (DONE)
  • "which became a commercial success" - no reference for this and it's POV - who said it was a success? (DONE)
  • What makes "With Isobel Campbell" not a "Collaboration" per your sections?(Because its a sideproject and sometime its even called a band)
  • Other appearances table, year column, not all years are aligned correctly.
  • Appearances has citations against the Album, Collaborations is against the With. Why? (DONE)
  • "Lanegan sang 8 of 10 tracks on this LP" is not a song, as far as I can tell.(DONE)
  • And it probably means that Song (in the col heading) should be Song(s).(DONE)
  • What makes zobbel.de reliable?(Has just the same chart positions as Charts Stats and Everyhit which is considered reliable)
  • Your references using {{cite web}} seem to need overhauling, for example the "Charles Mehling videography" has the same link title as actual title and doesn't mention www.clipland.com - and what makes that a reliable source? (DONE)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • "Other appearances" year column is still buggered. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Still not working in my browser - some of the years aren't aligned. And now the collaborations table extends too far across the page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Why all references for the other appearances were missing?

Cannibaloki 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments part IV
  • "which peaked at 191 on the UK Albums Chart and became Lanegan's first album to chart." I'd reverse this, say it was the first album to chart and then say where and at what number.(DONE)
  • The infobox says 6 singles, the list contains 10.(DONE)
  • The infobox says 5 videos, the list contains 6.(DONE)
  • Why is "Soulsavers" in italics?(DONE)
  • "Song (s)" why the space?(DONE)
  • Why use Zobbel if, as you say, other reliable sources exist?(DONE)
  • Same for clipland?(Why not use these ones when they are reliable)
  • You use the Rolling Stone link for referencing the collaborations - the collaborations are not referenced in that link.(DONE)
  • Only The Grunge Years is referenced by ref [22]. None of the other "other appearances" are referenced at all.(DONE)
  • You individually reference "Creature with the Atom Brain" but none of the other "other appearances". Why not?(DONE)
  • Two references discuss the "Mark Lanegan Band" but this is not mentioned in this list at all.(DONE)
  • One ref says "Hit the City" was featured PJ Harvey, this isn't mentioned in this list.(DONE)
  • Ref [13] does not say anything about Lanegan - it's a general link to chartstats homepage. Not good enough. In fact, most of your specific references are not specific at all, they link to generic chart/award homepages. You ought to be much more specific for these to remain as "specific (DONE)(DONE)references". For example, instead of linking http://finnishcharts.com/, why not link http://finnishcharts.com/search.asp?search=mark+lanegan&cat=s (for singles) or (DONE)http://finnishcharts.com/search.asp?cat=a&search=mark+lanegan (for albums)? (DONE)
  • Ramblin' Man and Honey Child... are not mentioned at all in reference [14]. (DONE)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments V
  • Typo in second general ref.(DONE)
  • Ref [1] is not called "All music" it's "Mark Lanegan Biography".(DONE)
  • Ref [9] is non-specific.(DONE)
  • Refs [14] and [15] need more explicit titles as they current look identical.(DONE)
  • Refs [31] to [33] don't need Allmusic as the author.(DONE)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments VI
  • Any reason why "other appearances" isn't in the infobox like it is for the Screaming Trees?(DONE)
  • "This is a discography of"... dull, try something more interesting, like "The discography of Mark Lanegan consists of..."(DONE)
  • EP should say "Extended Play (EP)" on the first occasion so we all know what an EP is.(DONE)
  • Second General reference still has a typo.""Mark Lanegan – Full Lenghts" Lengths I presume.(DONE)
    • Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 9 is still non-specific - it doesn't reference what you're telling me it references.(DONE)
    • Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • If you can't fix it then you need another reference - I have no idea how to get the information you're referencing from that link. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 15 is called "Chart Log UK - 1994–2006, Chris C. – CZR"(DONE)
  • Ref 14 is called "Chart Log UK - 1994–2006, DJ Steve L. – LZ Love"(DONE)
    • Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 4 still points to a non-specific page.(DONE)
    • You use ref 4 for EU chart placings in 2006 and 2008 - they're not in that reference at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, your use of ref 4 in the lead is incorrect, the 2008 album release is not mentioned in the reference either.(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref 5 is non-specific - you need a reference which states clearly that Lanegan was nominated for a Mercury music award, not just link to the Mercury's homepage.(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • In two seconds, I found this which would fit the bill perfectly.(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Summary of comments
  • Typo in second General ref is 'still there despite you telling me it was fixed twice.(DONE)
  • Ref 5 is called "Arctic Monkeys win Mercury prize ", it has a date as well, so update the {{cite web}} template accordingly.(DONE)
    • Please add the date the BBC article was written into the reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 14 still not correctly named.(DONE)
  • Ref 9 is inadequate - it doesn't point to the right info and it's in German which makes it very hard to find the info. You must provide a good URL or replace it with another reference.(DONE)
  • Ref 4 in the lead doesn't reference the 2008 release.(DONE)
  • Refs 21 and 22 don't explicitly say it was the highest chart position, it says what position it was on the first week of release.(SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE BILLBOARD, IT HAS MANY OF THESE MISTAKES)
    • So find another reference please.(THATS THE ONLY)
  • Ref 4 has Billboard as a wikilinked work while Refs 21 & 22 have it as an unlinked publisher - be consistent.(DONE)
    • Ref 6 now links Billboard but as a publisher rather than a work.(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some Allmusic's are linked in the references, some aren't - be consistent.(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Summary II
  • Ref 5 needs to have the date of publication of the BBC article added. (DONE)
    • Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're still linking [22] and [23] to Billboard references which don't explicitly state these are the top chart positions. Not good enough. (ITS NOT THEIR I DELETED IT)
  • Saturnalia (Gutter Twins album) is now referenced but doesn't appear in this list? (NOT A MARK LANEGAN SOLO ALBUM)
    • What? Nor is Ballad of the Broken Seas or Sunday at Devil Dirt but they're in this list...(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • ref 10 is German so use a language=german in the ref. And the title is "Chartverfolgung / LANEGAN,MARK & BAND / Longplay ", not the one you currently have. (DONE)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Any reason why "other appearances" isn't in the infobox like it is for the Screaming Trees? (SE YOUR TALK PAGE) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Repeat, why isn't it in the infobox? Like you've got Albums, EPs, Singles, etc, why not Other appearances? (DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Refs 24 and 14 do not mention Gutter Twins at all. (DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 5 needs the date to be added from the BBC article (for the third time of asking). (DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 22 should really be http://acharts.us/album/34319 (DONE)The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And that new ref says it peaked at 7 in Belgium, not Ireland. (DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 22 July 2008 [26].

---

NBA Sixth Man of the Year Award

I am nominating this article with Chrishomingtang because we think this article deserves to be promoted to a featured list status. Annoyomous24 23:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Looks good, though, the process in which the players are chosen needs to be verified with a RS.

It had a ref already.—Chris! _ct 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm a little sketchy on the colors and special characters, I think only one should be used, either just a color or a special character to represent the key.

See the next comment. It is ok to use both color and character at the same time.—Chris! _ct 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 14:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "The Phoenix Suns and the Boston Celtics are the only franchises to have had a winner on three or more occasions. Eddie Johnson (1988–89), Danny Manning (1997–98), Rodney Rogers (1999–00) and Leandro Barbosa (2006–07) are the four Suns players to win the award in four seperate occasions, while Kevin McHale (1983–84 and 1984–85) and Bill Walton (1985–86) are the two Celtics players to win in three seperate occasions.[2]" - not that interesting - perhaps just say the Suns had four winners while the Celtics had three.

Done—Chris! _ct 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Also, mention players who have won more than once.

We already did.—Chris! _ct 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Re:Colors/characters, it's fine as you have it now.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, after making a few edits to the lead. I'll also point out that (commonly refer to as NBA Championship) (in the box) is poor form - at least make it "commonly referred to as the NBA Championship", but my preference would be for Larry O'Brien (NBA) Championship Trophy (or just remove the parentheses entirely, as it is done at the title article's first sentence). Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the request change to Template:NBA Awards, which is where the navbox located.—Chris! _ct 00:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 22 July 2008 [27].

---

NBA Rookie of the Year Award

I am nominating with Chrishomingtang because I think this list does meet featured list criteria. Annoyomous24 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If they're all Americans (except Pau Gasol), why even have that category? Wouldn't the space be better spent to display some information that could be more beneficial to a reader? JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand whar you are saying. Are you saying that the sentence concerning Pau Gasol and Tim Duncan should be remove?—Chris! _ct 23:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think JKBrooks85 is asking why the "Nationality" column is required if all fields, except 2, are the same. I'll go even further and question its relevancy. How does nationality of an individual factor into awarding the NBA Rookie of the Year Award, or why is it important to individually note everyone's nationality to understand the award over time? --maclean 02:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Nationality" column is relevant because it reflects the diversity of the NBA over time. Remember that the NBA is an American basketball league and there weren't as much foreign players back then as today. So, in order to inform readers about that difference, it is good to have the "Nationality" column in the table.—Chris! _ct 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems kind of random, though. Why not include other peripheral stats, like age? --maclean 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In sports, there are national teams, so it's important to know what national team a certain player can play for/is a member of. Since they're rookies, age is irrelevant because most of them have roughly same age.--Crzycheetah 04:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In sports, yes, but the NBA doesn't use national teams. Since there is more variation in their age than their nationality (quantitatively, at least), you could use the same logic to dismiss either. --maclean 04:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(→)All NBA players can play for their national teams. The "nationality" column shows what national team a player can play for. So when I watch the Olympic games or any international tournament, I can wait for Spain to see Gasol because I saw in this page that Gasol is from Spain. Why is it important to know the age of a player? What will change if a player is 20 or 25 or 30 years of age? --Crzycheetah 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Age isn't important. It's a random statistic unique to every player that could be listed. I could have used height, shoe size, college/highschool, or All-NBA Team appearance to the same effect. My point is that age is as irrelevant to awarding the Rookie of the Year as nationality is. Chris says above that it is reflective of the diversity (or lack diversity) of the NBA over time. That is one argument, but I don't think its worth consuming a quarter of the list to point that out. --maclean 05:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In sports-related pages, whenever we mention athletes, we should mention their nationality for the reason I mentioned above. We could just put the flags next to the names to save some space, but per WP:FLAG, flags only should not be used.--Crzycheetah 06:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Two seasons had joint winners - this isn't explained anywhere. And presumably the row span you use for these occasions is why the list isn't sortable, unlike the other NBA lists?

Yes, that is exactly why this list is not sortable. I will add a sentence about that.—Chris! _ct 18:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 20:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "He represented the United States at the 1984 Summer Olympics." needs citation.

I added one—Chris! _ct 18:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • " Because of this citizenship arrangement, Duncan has played for the U.S. internationally." that logic isn't correct. He played for the US because he was good at basketball! I know what you're trying to say but it needs a little tweak...

Reworded—Chris! _ct 18:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Confused by the draft being linked in the DP col. Perhaps another col?

I will add a column.—Chris!_ct 18:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 20:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • And what happened to the rookie from the1963 draft? Is a rookie playing in his first season? Perhaps we need to define what a "rookie" is?

Ok, I will see what I can do.—Chris! _ct 18:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Done —Chris! _ct 20:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This list is a prime example why only the names should be colored. Take a look at 1970-71 row, it is confusing because this list implies that Geoff Petrie was a HoFer.--Crzycheetah 19:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I need to talk with Chris about that. Annoyomous24 21:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is ok if we just add a note to clarify that? Because if we only color the name here, we will have to modify all the award pages as well.—Chris! _ct 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd help out on modifying all the awards pages. As is, there's too much color in these awards pages anyway.--Crzycheetah 21:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 20:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I helped a bit on this list, and Chris and A24 finished it off. Looks good. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 16:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The first time someone called me A24. Nice! Annoyomous24 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:17, 21 July 2008 [28].

---

Lost (season 4)

If this passes, it will maintain the Lost seasons FT and complete a potential Lost season 4 FT. Thanks to Cornucopia and Jackieboy87 for their contributions. Enjoy, –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Link third season in the lead.
  • "however, the season " - capitalise that H!
  • The cast image should be just a thumb really, according to WP:MOS#Images
  • "commuciations" typo.
  • Featured characters are overlinked.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of your concerns have been addressed. The featured characters are linked because the table is trancluded in List of Lost episodes. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've been naughty and reduced that cast image to comply with WP:MOS#Images. Plus, on my browser it was leaking over and wiping out text and now it looks nice and neat..! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Really good, but I'm holding back on supporting because while I don't see anything wrong, someone else might. Good luck. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Reference number 7 lists Jeff Pinkner as an executive producer, yet the crew section does not. Does he need to be added or is the source unreliable?
  • The cast section doesn't seem to be consistently wikilinked: e.g. Frank Lapidus, isn't, yet Karl is.
  • Do the DVD dates need to be referenced - I notice there is one for region 4 in the lead, but none for region 2.
  • Not so sure about this one: Is it worth including a general reference for recaps of the episodes e.g. [29]

Good work generally, but i'll wait for a few more comments before supporting. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• More comments - nit picking
  • Reference number 16 lists the credits for Lost:Missing Pieces. Why is this necessarily the same as the crew for season four.
  • Remove bold per WP:BOLDTITLE
  • Move "and was aired on the American Broadcasting Company Network in the United States" to the lead, as the channel it airs on isn't really related to the crew.
  • Reference 14 says how he was co-producer for season 2 (not season 4), possibly remove? Also cite after punctuation.
  • In the crew section "co-executive producers Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz, co-executive producer Drew Goddard,". Why repeat co-executive producer twice, just expand the plural to all three.
  • In the lead, "but the DVD set will first be released in Region 2 on October 27, 2008", reads a bit funny. What is the "first" for, if you are trying to say that it is released before Region 1 I think it needs rewording.
  • "The show always features numerous guest stars". Remove "always" as it seems a little peacock like

This is really picky stuff, and overall you've done some great work here. After these are fixed or reasonably opposed I will be ready to support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Diff. Some of those references were not the strongest so they have been removed and it is now assumed that the show is the source of the information. I am not sure what is wrong with the boldface, but feel free to fix it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support yet another great work by WP:Lost (which also makes an extra Lost FT possible). igordebraga ≠ 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Wow, I've been gone a month and there's a lot that's been going on around WP:LOST. Sorry I couldn't be there to nitpick through an FAC or two! ;)
  • Should the "fourth season" in the opening line be in bold? Seems to be done in other season articles.
    • I was thinking this too. If it's only to avoid linking the bold part, then link Lost on its second occurrence. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Does Lost air on the ABC in Canada? I thought it didn't, but first sentence reads as if it does - I think the confusion may be because it aired in both places on the same date. Ignore me if it's the same channel.
  • Full-stop (period) after Edward Kitsis in "Crew" should be a comma.
  • It'd be in non-sequential order by regions, but wouldn't it make more sense to put the earlier DVD release date (i.e. Region 2) before the later in the infobox?
  • "Walt Lloyd, Michael's son in both flashbacks" should have another comma after son.
  • "Dominic Monaghan and Cynthia Watros appear in hallucinations" - "Hurley's hallucinations" maybe?
  • Sentence beginning with "Metacritic gave the episode" doesn't make sense because two episodes have just been referred to.
  • "...flashforwards were received favourably by critics" - unfortunately Americans rule the universe (the Lost one, at least) and American spelling should be used.
  • We're talking Television Critics Association Awards but not the Emmys? Outstanding Drama Series?
  • According to given date of July 19, TCA Award winners were announced two days ago; should be updated accordingly.
  • "...who is centred on in the episode's flashbacks" - US spelling :(
  • Not sure about the grammar with "Hurley hallucinates Charlie" - I could be wrong but to hallucinate about something sounds more correct, grammatically, but it still doesn't really sound right. Your thoughts on that one?
  • "Charlie, who tells him that 'they need [him]' and checks into a mental institute" makes it sound as if Charlie is the one in the institution.

• I was thinking, should we just removed this section: "Hurley hallucinates Charlie, who tells him that "they need [him]" and checks into a mental institute, where he is visited by Jack, who tells Hurley that they are never going back to the island, and Abaddon, who inquires "Are they still alive?"."? Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 10:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "Abaddon, who inquires 'Are they still alive?'." I personally wouldn't stick an extra full-stop at the end there but people do different things with quotations used in sentences.
  • "Sayid works as an assasin for Ben" - spelt "assassin".
  • There seems to be varying detail in the plot summaries; the lengths should be vaguely similar. Episodes 1 and 2 have four lines of plot, while others only have one. To me, "Kate goes on a quest to get information from Miles" as the on-island summary for episode 4 is cutting it a little short, while episode 1 even has specific quotes. Should be some vague consistency.
  • "In 1996, he locates Penny; in 2004, he calls Penny" - "he calls her"?
• That should be about it. Hope the comments help, and keep up the awesome work :) —97198 talk 01:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

  As a shameless torrenter, I can say that CTV air Lost in Canada, not ABC. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:17, 21 July 2008 [30].

---

The Mars Volta discography

A one week I created this list, and am working to elevate their standard that quality. Then I decided that this discography already ready to receive views on the quality of the layout, text, etc. Since now, I thank anyone who devotes a little time to give me suggestions on this discography. Cannibaloki 05:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Conditional Support Looks really really good. I made a few minor changes myself, including a quick copy edit of the language in the lead. Let me know if you disagree with any of my edits. They were just easier to do than explain. The only things I still have a problem with are:

• The B-sides should go, since they are basically tracklistings
• The sentence that describes the members is way-over wikilinked. I'd recommend taking out the instruments, which would make things much similar and cleaner.

If you can take care of these two things, I'd be happy to support. Drewcifer (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done Thank you very much!, I agree with you but my only problem so far is that I do not know, what is the real function of B-sides on an article or list? Cannibaloki 15:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "The Mars Volta is a American progressive rock group founded by Cedric Bixler-Zavala and Omar Rodríguez-López in 2001.[1] Currently the band consists of Omar Rodriguez-Lopez, Cedric Bixler-Zavala, Isaiah Ikey Owens, Juan Alderete, Thomas Pridgen, and Marcel Rodriguez-Lopez" - don't like the repetition of the founders. Perhaps something like "The Mars Volta is a American progressive rock group founded in 2001.[1] Currently the band consists of the two founder members Omar Rodriguez-Lopez and Cedric Bixler-Zavala along with Isaiah Ikey Owens, Juan Alderete, Thomas Pridgen, and Marcel Rodriguez-Lopez"
  • "pr Sparta." typo!
  • Remove the period in the caption.

•  Done

• • We have nice looking templates for (in German) etc - (in German)...

• It is not my mistake, someone changed the template!

• • Both allmusic links don't take you to anything related to TMV.
    • FYI, Allmusic urls are tricky. You have to click on "Send to a Friend" to get a URL that will work. Drewcifer (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for advice...

• • [12] just goes to a search page - not a good reference I'm afraid.

•  Doing...

•  Done Cannibaloki 06:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cannibaloki 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I like to support. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, Thanks! Cannibaloki 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • What does "besides John Frusciante only in studio". Can you restructure this to make the sentence easier to understand. Please cite this sentence.
  • Insufficient discussion on album chart performance.
  • No discussion on singles in opening para.
  • Billboard 200 not Billboard 200
  • Cite music videos directors.
  • What does "Universal (???)" mean?
    •  Done Cannibaloki 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's all. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:52, 21 July 2008 [31].

---

List of numbered highways in Maryland

This list covers Interstate highways and U.S. highways in Maryland. It lists each of the highways, with a description of each, and various data on each. - Algorerhythms (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could the borders in the lead image be darker? Because it's hard to see as a thumbnail. Gary King (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a different, hopefully better, image. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Not keen on using two decimal places - one would be fine.

• Most Maryland state highway articles use two decimal places, so I've followed that pattern.

• • " U.S. highway system" or U.S. Highway System"?

• "U.S. highway system" is not the official name of the system, and is thus not a proper noun. I've changed it to read "U.S. Numbered Highways" as that is the official name of the system.

• • Same for "Maryland state highway system. "

• In this case, "state highway system" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized.

• • "were not assigned ... and were assigned" -reads odd.

• Changed.

• • Do Number and Terminus have to be capitalised in table headings?

• Changed.

• • Ref 6 takes me to a generic page - how do I know I-97 is the "shortest primary Interstate highway in the United States." from this, for example?

• Changed so that the references point directly to the PDFs rather than to the page that leads to the PDFs. As for the note about I-97 being the shortest primary Interstate highway in the U.S., I've removed it. I did a little digging and found this article about the Interstate Highway System, and apparently with the opening of I-73 in North Carolina, the note about I-97 isn't even true anymore!

• • Last para of lead needs citation.

• Citations added.

• • Why is "Baltimore City" a county?

• The city of Baltimore is a county-equivalent independent city, and is often included with the counties in Maryland - in fact, it's on the List of counties in Maryland, which is a featured list.

• • Gallery captions are all fragments so lose the periods.

• Changed.

• • Former Route - just Former route is fine. Is that why the number is in italics? Not too clear.

• Changed. I've removed the italics, since with "Former route", the italics are now redundant.

• • "the DC border" - a little over-familiar.

• Not sure what you mean here.
  • Just reads a little too easy for an encyclopaedia - perhaps I'm looking for "the Washington D.C. border"... but it's no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Changed. It now reads "District of Columbia border" - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Beautiful. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • US route 1 suddenly has no decimal places for length - consistency needed throughout, however many you choose.

• Changed.

• • State Highways section is empty except for a link to a main article - write something here to summarise the other article or move the see also to somewhere else.

• I've tentatively moved the link to a "See also" section.

• • Why link to the image of the sign when you can use it?

• Changed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Lede is nicely written
• The columns need resizing. There's too much white space, and the description column, which is full of text should be at least as wide as the terminus columns, and then make the terminus columns shorter.
  • Changed.
• "Former route" shouldn't be in the length column. Move it to the description column instead
  • In that case, should I just put zero for their length, as they currently have no length? -
    • Is it possible to find out what the length was when the road was closed? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Algorerhythms (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Done. I added notes for each of them to point out that the lengths are of the last signed portion. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Support Do not put fixed width, especially in pixels. Let our browsers fix the width that's optimal for us.--Crzycheetah 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Interesting. But if a list is made up of many tables, all of which contain the same columns, would you not prefer to see the tables look the same rather than all different depending on which table has the longest entry in each column being the overriding factor? Would you compromise to % rather than absolute px? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, %'s are fine. Pixels are not fine because many people use different screen resolutions and fixed in pixels give large tables to some and small tables to others.--Crzycheetah 20:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Awesome, so in future I'll also incorporate that concept into my advice. So, Algorerhythms, go for % rather than px and you may overturn this oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure. Also, I'd like to see fixed width to all columns rather than 5 out of 7.--Crzycheetah 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've changed the table so that columns are specified by percent rather than by pixels (that's what I get for not reading WP:TABLE the whole way through to find out how to specify by percent...). The widths may need to be adjusted, though. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Your <gallery>'s have width in pixels as well.--Crzycheetah 21:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how to fix those. Looking through existing featured lists, I mainly find galleries that are either specified by pixels (such as in List of Interstate Highways in Texas) or not specified by pixels, but with images that appear very small except on low screen resolution (such as in List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. If you can find an example of a gallery that doesn't specify pixel size, but does work well, please point it out. - Algorerhythms (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I am actually surprised that TRM above did not mention this section in MoS; he usually mentions it. I striked my oppose and as soon as you change 225px → 224px, I'll support because it will be satisfactory in my browser at 224px. I know I am being a little selfish here.--Crzycheetah 00:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
          • It's now 224. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Thanks! There are two more nitpicks: no need for the See also section because that link is listed in the template below AND the second footnote should have a period in the end and a source.--Crzycheetah 03:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as it meets all criteria. I've copyedited the lead a bit. (One comment: State highways received numerical names around 1927 - if this means "beginning in 1927", use that. If not, can you clarify?) I would also suggest de-linking some of the place names that are very commonly used. There's no need to link Pennsylvania so often, for example. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've de-linked some commonly-occuring place-names such as Baltimore and Pennsylvania. Good catch on the passive voice. I tend to write in passive voice without thinking about it. - Algorerhythms (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 19:16, 20 July 2008 [32].

---

List of Ottawa Senators players

I modeled this list after other featured NHL players lists. All concerns/comments will be addressed. Maxim_(talk) 15:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Can you expand the lead? It's currently two sentences long. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 15:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Before submitting the FLC, I was thinking myself about the short lead. See, I can't think of anything else to put in there. --Maxim_(talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You can explain what "Ottawa Senators" is and mention some awards players received while playing for the Senators.--Crzycheetah 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• In the lead, since the tables are not sortable, you could mention who the all-time goal or point leaders are for the team. maclean 00:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed the lead. Thanks for the ideas. :D Maxim_(talk) 13:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The lead is still weak. Can't you talk about players who have made most appearances, for example, or scored most goals, made most shutouts, whatever? Use your imagination but I'd expect to see the lead at least twice the current size.
  • "regular-season" doesn't need a hyphen, and in the table, it should just be Regular season, not Regular Season.
  • Image captions which are fragments (i.e. not complete sentences) don't need a period.
  • Put (NHL) after National Hockey League so it's clear what the abbreviation means for non-experts.
  • Don't like the way the lead is sandwiched by the two templates (the main and see also).
  • "one game in the 2000–01 NHL season would be listed as playing with the team from 2000–2001" - why 2000–01 and then 2000–2001? Be consistent. In fact, write the second out in English, so "from 2000 to 2001".
  • Is Wing a proper noun? I'd uncapitalise it in the key. And Played as well. And Loss.
  • Make sure you're using en-dash everywhere (e.g. "Statistics are complete through the 2007-08 season" needs to be fixed)
  • "Ray Emery's contract was bought out by the Senators and now he is a former member of the Senators." - reads awkwardly.
  • "UFA" in the caption - expand it for non-experts.
  • Some of the lead needs specific referencing, e.g. "The Senators were founded in 1992"...

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • You should put the see also and main article in a See also section.
  • Lead is way too small. Write more about the article the Ottawa Senators team.
  • "Alfredsson is also currently captain of the Senators" should be "Alfredsson is also the current captain of the Senators"
  • You don't have to have the first paragraph in the key for seasons.
    • What's wrong with the current placement?
  • Link all the years to the NHL season.
    • That'd make a sea of blue, with random dashes of grey in the row as you shouldn't repeat links to the same article.
  • Year format should be "####–##", not "####-##".
    • It already uses the ndash.
  • some of the players redirect to another article. please write the accurate name for the article of the player.
  • Link the positions of the skaters to the exact article.
    • That's massive overlinking, the read can refer to the key.

Annoyomous24 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—I'm rather busy right now in RL, so addressing these concerns will take a bit longer. Thank you for your patience, Maxim_(talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment—I've addressed all the concerns except the one's I've separately replied. Maxim_(talk) 00:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This looks good. I cannot see any inconsistencies. It has everything that other similar FLs do except for noting the captains. Add that and I'll support. Add Alternate Captains (essentially the same as Captains) and I'll super support. -maclean 07:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Added the captains, I can't find lists of previous assistants, and I'm not really surprised at that, as the I don't think teams even track their assistant captains. Maxim_(talk) 13:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Support maclean 19:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Although I'd never have thought I'd support anything regarding the Ottawa Senators, I think the users involved did a great job with this one. Seeing as Maxim already addressed any concerns that I could have possibly had, I think it is a great list to read. Lots of great content, and well organized. I definitely enjoyed reading it, and see no reason not to give it FL status. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Consistent with other player FL's. Resolute 15:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 14:25, 20 July 2008 [33].

---

List of tallest buildings in Indianapolis

Self-nomination, co-nom with HoosierState^Talk. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Baltimore and List of tallest buildings in Columbus. I have been working with TheHoosierState89 to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is finally there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 20:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as a major contributor. Raime did excellent work in helping me finish this list and I think it has turned out great, definitely worthy of FL status. HoosierState^Talk 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, looks just like many other FL's. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, the first and last lines of the last paragraph of the lead seem contradictory. "Indianapolis has been the site of very little high-rise construction since the construction boom ended in 1990" but 16 are currently under construction which seems more than a little. 18:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmhermen (talk • contribs)
  • Done, I have reworded the first sentence to state that the city has entered into a third high-rise construction boom. Considering that the city has only about 90 high-rises at present, 16 buildings proposed, approved or under construction is fairly substantial. Cheers, Rai•me 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Good work, comparable to lists of other cities. But where do the Pyramids figure in on the list? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • They would be well down the list. They're in the 150 feet range and this list only includes buildings at 200+ feet. HoosierState^Talk 20:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Roger that. Wasn't sure how tall they were. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In the main table, the rank numbers are out of whack because the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument isn't given a ranking. Shouldn't it be 15=? Or is it not ranked because it's not a building? If that's the case, perhaps Note B should say that's why it hasn't been ranked.
  • It isn't ranked because it is not a building; I expanded Note B to clarify this.
• Make sure not to over-link feet and meters in the Lead section.
  • Done - removed the second instance of linking in the lead.
• Sorting on Floors doesn't work after 3 clicks
  • This has been fixed with the addition of a floor count for the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Rai•me 03:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think you should link city names in note A. --Dem393 (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, HoosierState^Talk 05:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Support Nice work! --Dem393 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 14:25, 20 July 2008 [34].

---

NBA Most Improved Player Award

I am nominating this list with Chrishomingtang because I think this list does meet featured list criteria. Annoyomous24 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Move the source to below the table and unbold it.
  • Use en-dash for year separator (e.g. in the first image caption).
  • "first-place" or "second place" - to hyphen or not - choose but be consistent.
  • Only three from outside the US - worth a mention in the lead I reckon. And maybe you could say the most recent winner was "Turkish player..."?
  • No external links applicable here?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed all of them except the last bullet point. Yes, there are no external links applicable.—Chris! _ct 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, but of course can be improved with an image of the award trophy. --maclean 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 14:25, 20 July 2008 [35].

---

List of songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith

Another Guitar Hero list (going to hold out on GH3 right now, the DLC makes that a trickier beast) but this one follows the previous FL's for List of songs in Guitar Hero , List of songs in Guitar Hero II, and List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s; there's only one new "trick" that being that credit is specifically given for the cover artists (which has been added) though this may make the "Master recording" column redundant. --MASEM 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• I think "the Boston band Aerosmith. The game's set list has "about 60 percent Aerosmith and 40 percent artists that either inspired Aerosmith, played with Aerosmith, or whom Aerosmith admires"," constitutes overlinking.
• The lead sentence is one of the longest I've ever seen and doesn't address the general reader who doesn't know what Guitar Hero.
• I recommend that you locate an independent copy-editor; the prose needs sprucing up.
• What is the Year column supposed to indicate? Its not immediately evident. What do those little checks in the Master recording column mean; I think you need a key or make it state "Yes" instead.
• What makes Play.tm a reliable source per WP:RS? indopug (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Except for the copyedit, I've addressed these points: I've replaced the play.tm with a better referring source (the actual source is a locked article and thus not usable), and I've indicated what years and master tracks are in the leading prose. --MASEM 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Weak Oppose A few sloppy errors, most of which are probably easy to fix. Looking much better, but I'm not quite ready to support. Drewcifer (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• The table should be in its own section.
• Don't force the bolded/linked title in the lead.
• The lead is HUGE. Trim it down by at least half, I'd say.
• Footnote B seems very trivial, ie fancruft. Same with "(Unlocked after completion in Career mode)"
• Try and mimic the style of the previous FL GH lists. IE. Narrower Year column, "Master recording" not "Master Recording", Bonus songs listed separately, etc.
• "or the upcoming Guitar Hero World Tour" will be an obsolete sentence in a few months, might as well future-proof it now. Drewcifer (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've done the above: specifically, with the table(s) getting their own section, half the lead is now intro into the first table. --MASEM 13:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks better. One extra thing I just realized (that also applies to the past GH lists), per WP:ACCESS an image alone shouldn't be used to denote something, as in the checkmark in the Master recording column. I'd recommend using the {{yes}} template, but getting it to center is kind of an interesting ordeal. Take a look at what I did at Woody Allen filmography to figure that one out. Basically align="center" needs to be applied to the whole row. Drewcifer (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Would you recommended replacing the empty spaces with "no"s as Rambling Man suggests below? --MASEM 23:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, that's probably a good idea. Thought I'd say use {{no}} rather than just "no". Drewcifer (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • " one specific band, the Boston band Aerosmith." repetition of band makes this read awkwardly.
  • " there are 4 songs that come from lead guitarist " - four, not 4, and "that come" is redundant.
  • "Career mode" or "Career Mode"?
  • I'd prefer to see a {{no}} rather than a blank for those which aren't master recordings. Blank cells in tables worry me!
  • 2x "The Vault", 1x The Vault. Quotation marks or no quotation marks?
  • ref 7 seems to have a rogue closing parenthesis pair?
  • 1UP in ref 7 - two queries - what makes this website reliable and why is it directed at the 1 up article, not the actual publisher?
  • Bonus songs master recording column doesn't really need to be sortable, does it?!

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • All other items listed have been fixed. TWo specifics:
    • On ref 7, 1up is a Ziff-Davis-operated website and thus gets its reliability from there. The 1up article is the source for the DLC information (eg: "1UP has been told that tracks..."), and though while the article points to another site, this is their first-hand information.
      • If you haven't already, I'd unlink the 1UP in the ref because it's misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • On the tables and empty spaces, the rest of the GH song lists have used this approach (checkmark for master, otherwise nothing). It's not that it's a problem to go back and change the others, but, for example, when you go back to List of songs in Guitar Hero, they'll be a lot more "no" than "yes" in that space. If this absolutely needs to be done it can be but I'd rather not only to make it easier to understand the intent. --MASEM 16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not going to stop me promoting it as long as the community don't mind! I just think blank cells are ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • And maybe it's just me but none of my comments have been implemented. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Ooops, the "Save page" button click didn't register. Now they should be. --MASEM 16:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've done some copyediting [36]. I don't want to say support as I'm an irregular here and haven't looked at in full, but I certainly have no objections. —Giggy 04:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The sentence "The majority of the game's set list are works by Aerosmith, but there are also works by artists that have acted as inspirations or touring partners for the band,[1] such as Run D.M.C., The Kinks, and Joan Jett." would read better without the comma and shifting the reference to the end of the sentence.
• The checkmarks are a problem for users with graphics turned off, or those using a printed version without graphics. I haven't commented on this at previous Guitar Hero lists because I didn't know of any good alternative, other than "Yes", but now I know of {{yes}}. I think this should be used instead. {{no}} or an mdash would be good for the blank cells, too, otherwise it looks like missing information. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • (Hopefully grabbing Drewcifer's attention too) - Fixed the first point, and the entries now use "yes/no" templates. --MASEM 23:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support All comments seem to be resolved, nicely written, criteria met. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 14:25, 20 July 2008 [37].

---

List of submissions for the 77th Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

Submitting another submission list for FL status. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• "Every year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences..." every single year ever? I think this needs a qualifier such as "Since <YEAR>,"
• "The Academy Awards have included the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film since 1956." I think this would sound better as "Since 1956, the award for Best Foreign Language Film has been included in the Academy Awards" or something like that.
• "50 countries submitted films for review by the Academy" no need for "by the Academy." It is already stated in the previous sentence that the Academy is going to review the film.
• "...which were rejected before the formal review process." "were" should be "was."
• Nice job, it looks good. --The Original Editor (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixes made. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work.--The Original Editor (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If Ukraine's submission is not counted as an official submission, then why is A Driver for Vera listed as such?--Crzycheetah 05:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's still technically a submission since that country's film board decided to send the film. The Academy disqualifying it just means that it isn't reviewed by the Foreign Films Committee, which determines the nominees. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a slight contradiction here. The lead states that 50 countries submitted, but the tables lists 51 submissions. It would be better if you changed the lead to indicate that 51 countries submitted films, but only 50 were reviewed. Also, either spell out 50 or rephrase, so that a figure does not begin the sentence per WP:NUMBERS.--Crzycheetah 03:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good enough for me.--Crzycheetah 00:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Dem393 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is just a question and not a requirement to get my support, but why is green used for "nominated", and amber for "won"? It makes more sense in my mind to follow the traffic light system red →yellow → green for not nominated → nominated → won.

• The color for the "won" is similar to that of the actual Academy Award, so I thought it was a bit quaint :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 14:25, 20 July 2008 [38].

---

NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award

I think this list is ready as it pretty much fulfills all criteria.—Chris! _ct 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The nationality column might be more helpful if instead of the flag and the abbreviation of the country name, it simply had the country name. The manual of style policy on flags discourages the use of flags in cases like this. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will use country names instead.—Chris! _ct 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Is there a reason the Nationality column isn't sortable, or is that just a holdover from when it contained flag icons? MeegsC | Talk 10:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will make the column sortable. —Chris! _ct 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Kevin Garnett are the only Defensive Player of the Year winners to have won NBA Most Valuable Player Award (MVP) during their careers; Jordan and Olajuwon both accomplished the feat in the same season. These facts should be referenced, and the second half of the sentence made clearer. The way it's worded now, it sounds like Jordan and Olajuwon won the two awards the same year (i.e. they shared them).

Done.—Chris! _ct 22:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• You might need to cite the statement that 9 of the 14 teams with award winners have gone on to win championships too; I'll leave that to the FL specialists to decide!

Not sure if this really needs a citation because the table below clearly show this.—Chris! _ct 22:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but there's no indication of where you got that information either! Your "general references" don't show that the award-winner's team won the championship. MeegsC | Talk 21:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I guess I will have to remove that sentence until I find a reference.—Chris! _ct 01:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be too bad to remove the sentence, because it's an interesting stat—which presumably shows how much the DPOY contributes to the team's success. Is there a Wikiproject that might be able to help or might there be references in the various team articles? MeegsC | Talk 08:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I will ask at the NBA Wikiproject to see if anyone will be able to help.—Chris! _ct 20:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

From what people are telling me, that statement is incorrect. So, I guess it should not be in the lead.—Chris! _ct 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• It would be interesting to know a bit more about the awarding of this prize. Who chooses which sportswriters get to vote? (The panel is only made up of 130 sportswriters, so that probably isn't everybody.) Do any radio/TV sportswriters vote, or only print writers? How do they vote? Is the award given in a ceremony, or is the player just named? Do they get a trophy or plaque or something? What does it look like? Is the award coveted by the players? Does it lead to bonuses or anything, like winning a Golden Glove does for some baseball players? Since this is the only article relating to this award, it would be good to get a bit more information... MeegsC | Talk 08:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. But sources are hard to found.—Chris! _ct 22:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice job, Chris. Annoyomous24 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Use en-dash for the season year separator per WP:DASH.
  • "first-place " or "second place"? hyphen consistency required.
  • I think I'd prefer to see the Source (a) not in bold and (b) below the table.
  • Ref 10 says NBA is the work, all other refs using NBA.com say that NBA.com is the publisher. Consistent (a) name and (b) parameter use is needed.
  • Ref 9 title is actually just "Defensive Player of the Year"

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed everything except the last point. Ref 9 title is "Defensive Player of the Year Award Winners" according to here.—Chris! _ct 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't look too bad, but I agree with Meegs when (s)he said to include some information about the awarding of the prize. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead has some of that info, but it doesn't cover every details. Besides, it is extremely hard to find a reliable source that can tell me these things. I will keep trying, but don't expect me to be able to address every points Meegs raised.—Chris! _ct 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:30, 17 July 2008 [39].

---

Garbage discography

Been working on this one for some time now. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sweet title. Hopefully it's not as bad as it sounds, though :|
  • Well I guess you'll be the judge of that huh? =)
• "high #4 on" → "high number 4 on"?
  • I'm inclined to go with #4, since it's a chart. But I could be wrong. Does MOS mention this? Drewcifer (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Looks pretty good otherwise.

Gary King (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the US modern/mainstream rock charts? indopug (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Garbage's singles have charted in 14 countries, their albums in 17 countries, so I figured it was unnecessary to devote 3 columns to the US and it's component charts in a table that already stretches the entire width (and then some) of a 1024x768 monitor. Besides, the other countries have component charts too, dontchayaknow, so I guess I had to draw the line somewhere. Drewcifer (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If number of charts are the problem, then I think the charts with only one or two entries can go (Austria and Norway, I'm looking at you). I realise these may imply "bias" or "weight" issues, but the Mod and Main rock charts are an important indicator of the band's success and popularity; how they charted in Israel isn't. Besides, I remember once pointing out on the DISCOG talkpage that the HitParade brand of charts aren't entirely reliable, as opposed to Allmusic/Billboard for the US charts. indopug (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I guess we never did completely figure this out. Take a look at MOS:DISCOG, I've attempted to add a note relating to this problem. Let me know what you think on the guideline's talk page. Assuming you like it, I'll implement it here right away. Drewcifer (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a good start but I'm a bit iffy on two things. 10 seems an arbitrary number; the fact that you've added it in bold makes it seems oddly uncompromising; I think discretion on the editor's part should be allowed. Second thing is "go by the relative success of the artist on that chart" makes it seem a little POVish. Instead, indicate that charts should be included per what is important/relevant for that artist. For example: American alternative rock groups are mainly gauged by the Mod Rock chart; British groups by the UK charts and so forth.

So, for anybody in the world (even an Austrian) the Mod/Main rock charts is a better indicator opposed to any other chart (even the Austrian chart). indopug (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to MOS:DISCOG talk page, since this is more of a meta-issue that I'd like to get some more opinions on. Drewcifer (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew, finally redid the charts. Narrowed everything down to 10 and added Modern Rock and Dance/Club Play charts. Turns out that Garbage only charted once on the Mainstream Rock charts, so I didn't include that one. Cool beans? Drewcifer (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Looks great. Another note, I agree with your rationale with linking to B-sides however I have decided to nominate them for deletion.

Resolved comments from Tenacious D Fan

I have some queries:

• "Only Happy When It Rains", and "Stupid Girl" - Should the comma not be removed or is this a UK english rule?

• I'm American, for the record! =) The serial comma is actually an American convention anyways. But regardless of such slight differences in language, I prefer it and so I use it. MOS does not specify a preference either way, as far as I know. Drewcifer (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The band cut short their concert tour in support of Bleed Like Me announcing an "indefinite hiatus"," - Should the comma be a full-stop? This doesn't read like a comma is appropriate. FIXED
• "Garbage ended their hiatus in 2007,[7] and released a greatest hits compilation Absolute Garbage." - Comma should be removed. If you read the sentence out loud to yourself you will see what I mean. FIXED
• In the infobox, Video albums and Compilation albums both point to the same thing. Is this intended?

• Yes. Since the only video album is the video form of Absolute Garbage, which also happens to be a compilation album. Since the two types of releases aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, I figured it would be alright to link them both to the same place. Drewcifer (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• You specify the formats Absolute Garbage was released on. What about the other compilations?

• I specified the formats for Absolute Garbage because it was released as both a music and video release. In other words, released in two very different formats, hence I found it worthy of mentioning. The others were just released in the standard music-format (CD, vinyl, etc), which isn't all that notable. Drewcifer (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Should Garbage B-sides be wikilinked? I recently successfully nominated a Radiohead B-sides page for deletion.

• I agree that the page probably shouldn't exist, but since it does (at the moment at least), I think it's appropriate to link to it. Drewcifer (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's all. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool man, thanks for the support. Already commented at the AfD. Drewcifer (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image caption is a fragment so remove the full stop. DONE
  • "twenty-three" etc for numbers over 10, why not go with the MOS and use 23? DONE
  • "Murphy, Peter S. [2008]. Absolute Garbage biography." - does this have ISBN, page number info etc? SWAPPED OUT WITH ALLMUSIC SOURCE.
  • "an "indefinite hiatus".[6] Garbage ended their hiatus" reads a little awkwardly with hiatus used twice in quick succession. REWORDED.

Otherwise good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work, But has a link on Garbage Video^[I] that is not working. Cannibaloki 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The one in the compilations table seems to work okay for me. Is that the one? Drewcifer (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See this NOW click on the link next to Garbage Video (The first that I wrote on top). Cannibaloki 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

^ I Garbage Video is a music-video compilation, therefore it charted on the "Top Music Video" chart.

AAAAhh, gotcha. Guess I accidentally deleted that. Fixed it. Good eye! Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Nice. I like to support. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: All of mine are addressed. indopug (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Late to join the party, but everything's been covered. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:30, 17 July 2008 [40].

---

List of Seattle Mariners managers

I have created and expanded the article, and I believe the page matches criteria. Thanks for the comments in advance. --LAAFan 23:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't looked at the other coaches, but I'm more than positive Lou Pinella has an award. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Added award. I looked and he was the only Mariners manager to win an award--LAAFan 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't strike others comments. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I undid it.--LAAFan 00:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Dick Williams" is missing a star (but it has the background color). Gary King (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Added star.--LAAFan 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article needs to state why a manager was fired and what credentials his replacement had (e.g. third base coach). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean Johnson being replaced by Wills. I added that, and also added about the last two managers. (McLaren, Hargrove). --LAAFan 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorta fixed. For example, Lachemann and Crandall's firings are still not explained. Furthermore, you need references to back up all these coaching changes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• Comment
  • No more than 3 paragraphs.

 Done

• • "American League West" should be linked to just "American League West".

 Done

• • Link all the years.

 Done

• • "in franchise history" should be "in their franchise history".

 Done

• • you don't have to quote mark "interim".

 Done

• • "First, in 1980" should be just "In 1980".

 Done

• • "for poor" should be "for a poor".

 Done

• • "One year later" should be " A year later".

 Done

• • Delete "The current manager of the Seattle Mariners is Jim Riggleman, who has led the team since 2008." since that's just repeated the last sentence in the third paragraph.

 Done

• • All the term years should be linked to the MLB season.

 Done

• • All the terms that have been less than one season should be just linked to one season. e.g "1972-1972" should be just "1972"

 Done

• • At the end of the table, put {{Seattle Mariners}} and the link to "Category:Seattle Mariners".

 Done

Annoyomous24 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Annoyomous24 23:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Use en-dash to separate years (e.g. in the caption)

{{working

• • "didn't last a full " avoid contractions = did not.

 Done

• • Major League Baseball is linked twice in quick succession in the lead.

 Done

• • "116 win" needs a hyphen.

 Done

• • "predecessors had made it to the playoffs before." before is redundant - "predecessor" ensures it happened before.

 Done

• • "In 1983, Lachemann was relieved by Del Crandall" + "In 1986, Cottier was relieved by Marty Martinez." - dull, repetitive prose.

 Done

• • "In 2007, manager Mike Hargrove resigned and was replaced with bench coach John McLaren midseason.[4] A year later, in 2008, McLaren was fired for a poor performance and replaced with bench coach Jim Riggleman.[5]" boring to read - basically the same sentence with different names - can we brighten this prose up a little?

 Done

• • "Cottier was relieved by Marty Martinez. After one game,..." one game! That's pretty interesting, why did it happen?

 Done

• • John McLaren points to a disambig page.

 Done

• • Ref 3 needs its author.

 Done see below

• • And USA Today isn't the publisher, it's the work. Check the other references.

 Done Actually removed reference, as it really does not support the statement.

• • Manager of the Year awards need citation.

 Done

• • Pinella's link is dead.

 Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • Lead says 14, table lists 15. Any reason why? Done Mistake on my part.
  • For the awards column, write "Manager of the Year Award (1995, 2001)" Don't repeat. Done
  • basketballreference or basketball-reference? Done baseball-reference.com
  • Note "A": coach→ manager. Done

--Crzycheetah 06:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Object, looks good just a couple of fixes are required:
  • John McLaren & Jim Riggleman inconsistencies:
    • Citations are switched Done
    • Jim Riggleman's stats don't match the reference Done
    • Riggleman's stats are not consistent with the statement "Statistics are accurate through June 30th of the 2007 MLB season." in the "Key" section. Done Not done (see 2008 Seattle Mariners season & McLaren) Done
  • The first paragraph of the lead contains 4 sentences that don't flow well. They are simple statements (only one of is not dominated by info on the Seattle Mariners, opposed to managers of...): The Mariners are based in Seattle, Washington. They are members of the American League West division of the American League. Please use transitions. The second third paragraphs are much better in terms of flow. Done
  • [Pinella] "led the team to the American League Division Series in 1995 and 2001". Yes, that's true. Pinella took the Mariners to the ALCS 3 times. Done Not done Done (see American League Division Series & American League Championship Series)
  • "...who never managed again because of his poor performance'.[5]" - the reference does not assign a reason to why he never managed again. Done
  • "Darrell Johnson was fired for a poor performance and was replaced by Maury Wills.[4]" - the reference is just a stats page and doesn't say that Johnson was fired or assign a reason why he was replaced. Done Not done Done (Johnson was fired for a poor performance -is there a reference that can specify why Johnson was replaced, poor performance vs. personality conflict, incompatible managerial style with player/coaches/frontoffice?)
  • Like the previous 2 examples above, there are instances in that third paragraph that are not supported by any of the listed references. maclean 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Done
• Question, which reference does Pinella's playoff record come from? maclean 23:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks good here. --maclean 06:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Don't see any problems here. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:49, 16 July 2008 [41].

---

List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim managers

This is a co-nomination with LAAFan (talk · contribs) After he created the list, I "renovated" the table to make it look like other head coaches lists and copyedited the lead. We now think it meets all criteria. Thanks for the comments in advance. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove the period in "Mike Scioscia, the current manager of the Angels." – it's a sentence fragment
  • Removed. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Most of the references are missing publishers.
  • Added publishers. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You should have the publishers thing locked down by now, methinks :| Gary King (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, true. I actually didn't add the references this time. I saw that it was missing the publishers, but forgot to add them later. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me who forgot that, not MFC. --LAAFan 22:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Lead is too long. make it into 3 paragraphs

 Done

• • In the sentence, "The Angels are based in the Anaheim, California.", it should be "in Anaheim, California."

 Done

• • link all the years to the year of the MLB season.

 Done

• • You don't have to quote mark "interim".

 Done

• • "First, in 1969," should be "In 1969".

 Done

• • "One year later" should be "A year later".

 Done

• • "he was Jim Fregosi" should be just "Jim Fregosi".

 Done

• • "substituted" should be "was replaced".

 Done

• • "One season later" should be "A season later".

 Done

• • "as manager mid-season" should be "as manager in the mid-season".

 Done

• • "multiple" should be "two or more".

 Done

• • delete "Scioscia led the team into a World Series championship in 2002." since your repeating the sentence from the second paragraph.

 Done

• • All the years in the table should be linked to the year of the MLB season. e.g "1961" to "1961 MLB season" or if there is, "1961 Anaheim Angels season".

 Done

• • "John McNamara" should be linked to "John McNamara (baseball)" in the third paragraph.

 Done

• • In the first paragraph, it says "There have been 20 managers in the history of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Major League Baseball franchise." but on the table, there is 25 managers in the history of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

 Done

• • You should mention that the franchise used to be called just "Anaheim Angels".

 Done

• • On the table, there shouldn't be a 21 beside John McNamara.

 Done

• • All the terms that have been less than one season should be just linked to one season. e.g "1972-1972" should be just "1972"

 Done

• • At the end of the table, put {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim}} and the link to "Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim".

 Done

• • On the picture, "Mike Scioscia, the current manager of the Angels", should be "Mike Scioscia (left), the current manager of the Angels".

 Done

Annoyomous24 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

-That's a tall order, but I fixed them all except for a few.--LAAFan 00:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why'd you put done on some of the ones that weren't? Annoyomous24 (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the "stop lying please" to working. The computer I was working on somehow erased some of my copyedits. However, I do not appreciate "stop lying please". I have found one instance, (Jim Fregosi) where I fixed, it but you didn't see it. Review your edits twice, please. Don't be uncivil.--LAAFan 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please relink the years that aren't linked in the table, please. Annoyomous24 23:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If I did that, I would be linking twice in the same table, as I lniked those years already in the table. If you find one where I just missed a year, please let me know.--LAAFan 18:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Annoyomous24 20:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Comment One more thing, put the term in a ####–## form, not ####–#### form.

• Hockey may be like that, but baseball seasons are not put that way. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you oppose? I fixed all of your requests. If you have any more, please drop me a line.--LAAFan 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support I guess I'll support then if baseball seasons are like that. Good job!Annoyomous24 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Ref 2 needs an author.

 Done Instead, I just removed the reference altogether. I looked at it, and the reference only supports that Dick Williams entered the hall, not that he's the first Angels manager to enter.

• • The "Manager of the Year"s need references.

 Done I don't know how it was messed up, but I made a mistake by placing Bill Rigney as an award winner, when the award wasn't given until 1983, so I removed that. As for Scioscia, I added the award info in the intro with a reference to support.

• • Major League Baseball is linked twice in quick succession.

 Done

• • "2007,), " spare comma.

 Done by Annoyomous24

• • "61-63 start" not clear to a non-expert what this is, and needs an en-dash anyway.

 Done Re-worded

• • "have had two or more stints as manager." as far as I can see, none of them have had more than two stints.

 Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Just fix the Note (coach→manager).--Crzycheetah 05:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:49, 16 July 2008 [42].

---

List of Blue Peter presenters

My first nomination in a while. I've worked on this in my userspace for a couple of days, and then moved it into namespace. I think everything is in check. I'll make an attempt to address all comments. Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good at first sight; ref 4 needs a "title=" parameter. Will go over in more detail if/when time permits. Bencherlite^Talk 08:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Good catch, thank you. I'll be waiting! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, here's some thoughts:
  • I've made some copyedit changes (minor typos, grammar points, broken references etc) but do check you're happy with them
    • Yes, they're excellent, thank you!
  • Reference 1: the link doesn't point to anything useful (did you meant this instead?).
    • Well, that link has the episode online, but I've always assumed that the url= field in {{cite episode}} is for the series, not an episode. I've changed it, anyway. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If you need a written source for the start date, the British Film Institute website would do. If you need a reference that it's coming back in the autumn, then perhaps a story about Gethin's replacement starting in Sept 2008 would fit the bill – that source might also be useful for the last sentence/paragraph in the lead.
    •  Done, thanks for those! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If you want a BBC source for it being the longest-running children's show, rather than The ever-reliable Super Soaraway Sun, see this.
    •  Done -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The last sentence/paragraph can surely be worked into one of the other paragraphs, rather than finish on a one-sentence paragraph.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know. It seems awkward in any of the others.
  • I know that the last sentence of the first paragraph is correct, but is there a reference for it for posterity?
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The BBC Archives is a dab page, with no obvious replacement. The concept of a BBC archive is clear enough, and you can probably survive without a blue link if there's no article about it already.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 8 says that Fielding was 18 1/2, not 17.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there a source for Noakes being the oldest presenter, or is it mathematics from various DOBs?
    • Mathematics from various DOBs. (The BBC's I love Blue Peter site has the birthdates of each presenter) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "He was terminated immediately" - much as I love the image of Lorraine Heggesey as Mafia boss, perhaps this could be reworded?
    •  Done "Released from his contract" Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The Curse of Blue Peter would fit either as the second sentence in that paragraph, or after all the "career disaster stories"; it's a little awkward in its current placing.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure about the fair-use rationale for the logo (what plot?), but that's not my field.
    •  Done. I used {{logo fur}} which I think will have fixed it
  • Did you use this calculator, rather than this one? Not sure how the one mentioned in the article would give you the number of days, or why you need to credit the tool anyway (it's just a matter of maths). In any case, please recheck the days for Stuart Miles and Tina Heath, I get different numbers (using MS Excel).
    •  Done Fixed the dates, and I credited it because it was used, and if anyone wants to check, it can be verified. I changed it from a footnote to a proper reference though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• That's all for the moment. Bencherlite^Talk 13:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have carried out all your suggestions. Thankyou for your review. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well done, have a Blue Peter badge (=support for any non-UK viewers). Bencherlite^Talk 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Heh, is it a gold one? Or just a regular blue one? :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It's invisible, so I can't see the colour. Bencherlite^Talk 08:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
          • But how do I get into Alton Towers for free? The gate guy won't be able to see it! (Heh, better stop this nonsense now, before it takes over the nomination!) Thanks again. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I renamed the Further Reading section to External Links, and added a URL for the news article that didn't have one. I hope you don't mind :| Gary King (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, that's okay. Thanks. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I've done a bit of copyediting, and corrected a minor error, but otherwise seems to meet the criteria for featured lists. Good luck! —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Be aware, Tony's going to get you for overlinking of dates...!
    • I thought he'd unlinked the dates.. I'll redo them. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You need 2 cites for the start date?
    • I moved the radio show to another place to reference something else. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should constrain the "still airs" to the UK? Or does it air somewhere else? I dunno....
    •  Done. As far as I know, it's only on in the UK. I checked out the websites of all the foreign BBC channels at {{BBC Television}}, and none have it listed in their programming.
  • Is Wimbledon the only time it gets moved from BBC1?
    • I'm trying to recall whether it was moved during World Cups, Euro 96, 2000, 2004, and Olympics, but it's too far in the past. Since they're summer competitions, and Blue Peter doesn't air in the summer, I doubt it. It might get shifted to BBC2 when News 24 interrupts normal programming with breaking news, but again, I don't remember. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "There have been thirty-two presenters of Blue Peter;[7] that figure is expected" - semi colon separating these sentences?
    •  Done. Replaced with full stop. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "They presented for eight years, nine months and eight days, and three years, two months and twenty-three days respectively." - this reads too pedestrian for me. Plus it's trivia. Can you synopsise it better?
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "BBC Archives" - the archives are capitalised. So, is it a proper noun? Is it worth an article of its own?
    • It is a proper noun, and a link does exist at The BBC Archives, but it a dab to a page that doesn't exist. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "aired on Five on 1 " - maybe worth explaining that Five is a channel?
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "was fired in 1985 after being exposed as a homosexual," - be careful here - BLP issues, you need to ensure this is 100% correct and citeable... "and video emerged of him dancing with male strippers." - I've danced with all sorts but not sure the logical conclusion works for me. You know what I'm saying?
    • Sundin died in 1989, so perhaps the BLP concerns are not as strong as they might be... Bencherlite^Talk 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah. BLP doesn't apply to dead people. And the statements are referenced to a newspaper article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "...was arrested in 2002 and 2008 following numerous allegations relating to rape and assault." -again, be careful. I think you're ok with what you've said but BLP may suggest you've presented one sordid side of a story without due attention to the (potentially/probably) innocent side.
    • I dunno. I said "allegations", not that he actually did rape or assault anyone. Again, the statements are referenced from newspapers -- the Grauniad and the Times. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I fancy that ref's should be centrally aligned.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keating's caption = fragment -> lose the full stop.
    • Fixed. Bencherlite^Talk 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Trace vs Turner -> 1958–1967 vs 1992–94. Be consistent with year representation.
    • Fixed. Bencherlite^Talk 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorting the table by # doesn't work.
    • Duplicated sorting by start date, really, so I've made that column unsortable. Bencherlite^Talk 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 26 - what does Time and Date Aksjeselskap mean?
    • Aksjeselskap is the Dutch equivalent of Ltd, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • One external link uses the {{cite web}} template but none of the others do. Pourquoi?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• • •  Done It was carried over from when the ELs were titled Further reading, and the newspaper article was not linked. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

***Thanks for your review, I will finally get around to addressing your comments tomorrow night (so Sunday morning for you). Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 12:01, 15 July 2008 [43].

---

List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto series

Self-nom. This list contains every actor credited to specific characters in the games' instruction manuals. I think it satisfies all the FL criteria. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)*

• Comments

List really looks good and definetive, but I feel there are several issues.

• The opening sentence, "This is a" is now discouraged after this disscussion.
  •  Done Replaced with brief description of the series, borrowed in part from Grand Theft Auto (series). Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• This may not be possible because of the contents table, but would it not be better to have the actors split up into the series'.
  • This was something I thought about quite a bit, when I first began working on this list but in the end, I decided to stick with one big list. Basically, I wanted the reader to be able to see every character voiced by any given actor in one place; splitting it into seperate games or canons would result in duplicate entries spread throughout the page, which I don't think would be as useful. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well after your reply, I see what you mean, it would be a bit pointless.Sunderland06 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• What about the earlier Grand Theft Auto games; Grand Theft Auto (video game), Grand Theft Auto: Mission packs, Grand Theft Auto 2, but as I recall the voices were only from phone calls, so I'm unsure on this one.
  • As mentioned in the lead, there are no actors in GTAs 1 or 2 credited to specific roles; in fact, there are no voice credits whatsoever in the GTA1 manual (at least the version I have). Voicing a specific character is pretty much the primary criteria for this list; this is why there are no pedestrian, imaging voices, etc.—those roles aren't notable enough to be included. I've never seen the manuals for the mission packs, but IMDb credits all the actors in London 1969 as "voice", which suggests a similar situation to GTA2 (ie. a plain list of actors with no specific roles).
    • Fine with this. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel I can surely support once these issues have been cleared up. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As this FLC progresses I will feel more confident to support. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good! The relative lack of 3rd-party sources is a little troubling, and if possible I'd recommend swapping the current 1st party sources out, but I don't think there's a reliability issue here, so I can support nonetheless. Drewcifer (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks good, but I have a couple of issues:

• Per WP:COLOR, a color shouldn't be used as the only designation of something (the column distinguishing what type of character it is).
  •  Done Added lettering. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Also color-related, why are blank cells gray? This is unneccessary.
  •  Done I've removed the Notes column, and shifted the notes to their own section at the bottom. I shaded the blank cells grey because I thought it would make the table look more complete, rather than have row upon row of empty cells. Probably a daft idea, though. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• What about the earlier games?
  • See reply to Sunderland06's third comment. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• It has a designated color (white I suppose) for "uncredited", but I can't find any white boxes.
  • The pale yellow colour used for "uncredited" appears twice: for Pat Floyd and Lazlow's GTA IV appearance. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• The lead is a little too long. The quote in particular could be trimmed down quite a bit.
  •  Done I've taken a little bit out, mainly in the quote. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• The first sentence reads very poorly, mainly because of the forced "This is" intro and bolded words scattered throughout. Don't force it the bold stuff or the repetition of the title. We already know what it's a list of (that's what the title is for), so avoid repeating yourself.
  •  Done Replaced with brief description of the series, borrowed in part from Grand Theft Auto (series). Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• IMDB is not a reliable source.
  •  Done Replaced with Gamespot. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• An External links section is needed.
  • I'm not sure there are any particular external links that would be relevant or useful to this article; do you have any in mind? I could have added the various official sites, but WP:EL seems to discourage adding ext links just for the sake of it. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Add a section for the table, perhaps named "Voice actors"
  •  Done Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Remove the bold formatting from the links per WP:BOLDTITLE.
  •  Done Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Support This looks good now. Gary King (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the comments. Some of the comments above have made me think that a bit of restructuring will be needed, both in the lead and the table itself. There's a few things i'm not sure about, but i'm a bit pushed for time right now, so i'll address them later today. Again, thanks. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as the list is mostly based on primary sources (instruction manuals). See WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Kariteh (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is an issue here. The list is made up of raw information taken from the various manuals; any secondary sources will be exactly the same—copies of what can be found in the manuals—and, in my experience, they are usually inaccurate and/or incomplete. Also, the two links provided appear to relate to personal websites, blogs, etc. rather than primary sources. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I've added some general secondary sources. They aren't entirely comprehensive, but do appear to cover most, if not all, of the main cast lists. Only two of them cover radio characters, and I have been ubable to find any reliable sources for the radio casts of the other games. But I think what's there helps take the weight off the primary sources a lot, which I hope will be satisfactory. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, MobyGames is not a reliable source as its database is generated and maintained by user contributions. Kariteh (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I thought I'd seen it in this list, but obviously I was mistaken. Anyway, I've replaced them with GameSpot refs. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• The ref formatting needs work; website URLs shouldn't be used as publishers and they really shouldn't be in italics. Use publisher= on {{cite web}} for non-italics. —Giggy 04:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak support; I'd like to see some copyediting of the lead and I'd prefer to not have that massive quote thrown in, but that's it for now. —Giggy 08:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but with a question. How do we know that Barbara Rosenblatt is the Barbara Rosenblat in the GTA:VCS manual? She doesn't appear to have a WP article, so who is she? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewedwards (talk • contribs)

• Comment Any reason why the information in the alphabetical notes isn't put directly in the table? I think there is well enough space for it, and they could still be formatted with <br /> and <small></small> if it's a question of style. Kariteh (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 15 July 2008 [44].

---

List of St. Louis Rams first-round draft picks

Nominating this list for FLC. I think this list does meet featured list criteria. If you guys have any questions or comments, I would try to answer them. --Gman124 ^talk 16:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 02:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a little premature nomination.
  • Your notes should be in complete sentences and cited.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 20:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • No, it's not done. Notes n through v are not fully sourced.--Crzycheetah 21:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There are too many "general" references, leave those that are sources for the list only.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 20:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There are still too many references. Some of them don't have the list, so they are useless.--Crzycheetah 21:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Now there are four, first two link directly to list, for last two click on year names for yearly one.--Gman124 ^talk 14:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
          •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Where's the Key for positions? I rather see the positions written in full because there is a white space on the right side of the table.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support--Crzycheetah 02:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "St. Louis Rams History: Chronology. Retrieved on September 13, 2006." – missing a publisher? Gary King (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 18:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The sentence that reads The Rams first participated in the 1937 NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting, more commonly known as the NFL Draft isn't really correct. The 1937 Draft took place in December 1936 and the Rams became part of the NFL on February 1937. The Rams as a franchise did not make the '37 picks, but rather the NFL did for the future expansion team, i.e. the Rams. Also, this opening sentence doesn't go very well with the rest of the paragraph since the rest of the paragraph is talking about the NFL Draft within the modern era. I would suggest putting this sentence in the first paragraph since it talks about the history of the Rams. Other wise I think it looks good and I approve, but I should mention that I originally created this list. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Fixed the sentence. --Gman124 ^talk 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Use en-dash, not hyphen in year ranges.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Enshrined? Bit over the top - perhaps "admitted to.."
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is Rams' in italics in Bettis' caption?
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Some red linked players, one not linked at all - this really ought to be sorted out for a complete list.
    • comment - I thought I did go through this list at one point and took out the red link players. Some of these red linked players never went on to play professional football and I could not find information on them, so I took out a link to an article for them since they appeared to me to be not notable. I don't know why there are red linked ones now because I thought I made them all not linked. The only one I did make an article for was Tony Butkovich since it appeared he had a notable college career and was one of the handful of NFL players to be killed in WWII. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 15 July 2008 [45].

---

List of The Killers awards

After having significantly expanded this, I believe it is a worthy featured list candidate. WilliamH (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "from sixty-two nominations." → "from 62 nominations." -  Done WilliamH (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• "by The Killers, " – remove the bold or the link per WP:BOLDTITLE -  Done WilliamH (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Put the article in some categories -  Done - no longer uncategorized. WilliamH (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• "This is a comprehensive list of awards and nominations won by The Killers," Don't say "comprehensive". This is implied by FL status. Please also come up with something that engages the reader. Articles don't begin with "This is an article about <subject>" and neither should lists.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Doing... the lead section. WilliamH (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done. WilliamH (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sections with 1-2 awards/nom should probably be merged (both in structure and summary table). As is, it gives the same "weight" to a TEC nomination as to a dozen NME noms and awards. Circeus (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment, but I'm not sure. "Weight" strikes me as a little subjectively tacit. All awards are just dispassionately listed in alphabetical order - I can't think of anything less impartial. WilliamH (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments The widths of corresponding columns different sections should be set to the same (for aesthetic reasons). For example, the widths of "Nominated work" columns in all the tables should be set to the same width. Same goes for the other columns (except the Year column which is always the same since the width of the different years are also the same).

Per our accessibility guidelines, colour should not be used unless absolutely unnecessary as it proves disadvantageous to colour-blind users. So I think the reds and greens are unnecessary here. indopug (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Do you "win" nominations per the opening sentence of the lead? Not really, I think you earn them... -  Done WilliamH (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "They were signed, and the band..." - "The band were signed and went to...?" perhaps not. it just reads odd at the moment for me. -  Done. I saw what you mean - made it more fluid. WilliamH (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "...was released in 2006 to mixed reviews" - needs reference.  Done WilliamH (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Since all tables contain the same columns, I'd prefer to see them all forced to the same widths.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC) -  Done WilliamH (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I like to support don't you. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 15 July 2008 [46].

---

List of Atlanta Falcons first-round draft picks

previous FLC (04:20, 5 January 2008) I am re-nominating this list after changing the questionable sources with more reliable ones. Also, I changed the layout of the list to make it similar to the recently promoted FLs (Saints and Eagles). I will appreciate if you give suggestions/comments/questions that will make this list even better. Thanks!--Crzycheetah 07:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "in inverse order" → "in reverse order"
• "with the worst record picking first, and the second-worst picking second and so on." → "with the worst record picking first, the second-worst picking second, and so on."

Gary King (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Could you explain to me why not "inverse"? Thanks.--Crzycheetah 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Inverse is more like "inside out". Reverse is backwards, and is it way more straightforward when describing this. Gary King (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I know you wikilink them, but it's best to expand BC and USC before using them.
  • Falcons had two picks in 1966 but this isn't noted anywhere.
  • Ref 12 seems to be missing its author but has page D01 - not really needed, is it?
  • Do you have a page number for ref 1?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I made the necessary changes. --Crzycheetah 02:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support So long as the above are addressed or explained. Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 14 July 2008 [47].

---

List of NASA Administrators

Meets all of the criteria. Tables are sortable, and illustrated with freely available images (all public domain). Duplicated images were necessary due to the limitations of sortable tables. There are no red links. There is a single, reliable reference that lists all of the information in this table, so I don't think that more references are needed. Note that the list is very newly formed from the merger of two articles, but I don't think that is a problem as it wasn't a controversial merger. Mike Peel (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why doesn't this list explain the reasons for an administrator's termination? Why doesn't it list some basic background info about each administrator, as well? I believe these bits of information are vital to help the reader's understanding of the subject. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I felt that the list should be fairly short and snappy, rather than containing prose (it's worked well for other lists I've worked on). Further information about the administrators, including their reasons for termination if they are known/notable, should then be in the articles (although I haven't checked this). Another reason for not putting in text is that having multiple rows for each item breaks the sortability. Mike Peel (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Remove the bold formatting if the link is going to be there, per WP:BOLDTITLE. Gary King (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Add a period at the end of note four.
  • Why are there gaps between some terms?
  • When you mention various offices at the end of the lead, would it be possible to link to articles if they exist?--Dem393 (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Period is fixed. I would assume that the gaps between the terms were when there was no Administrator and/or Deputy Administrator as the successor to the previous one was being decided upon. I can't find any articles for the various offices, hence why they aren't linked. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Support --Dem393 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Get rid of "This is a list of Administrators of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration." A FL should be engaging, and this doesn't engage the reader. Articles don't begin with "This is an article about <subject>", and neither should lists
• WP:LS. Only use bold text in the opening sentence, not the second and third paragraphs
• As well as saying who the current administrator and deputy are in the lead, you should provide an overview of the rest of the list. Who had the shortest term? Why? Who had the longest term? Who made/oversaw the biggest or major changes to NASA, and what were they? Etc

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How's that? Mike Peel (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised that "How's that?" is a bit cryptic. I should probably have said: I've rewritten the introduction, is that better? Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Support, given that my colleagues' issues are being addressed. It's a good page. TONY (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, much better. Otherwise it's pretty stale at the opening for our readers. Now, the autoformatting: MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting and now prescribes rules for the raw formatting); please also see MOSLINK and CONTEXT. I note your comment that you can't cope with US formatting—but that's what almost all of your readers cope with, all over the world, no matter what the most common date formatting in their variety. Conservatively, that's 99.9% of readers, since the misconceived autoformatting program works only in-house, for logged-in, preferenced Wikipedians. Removing the bright-blue splashes show us what our readers see, and allows your high-value links to breathe. It's not hard to get used to at all. Try it. Americans seem to have no problem with the British/Australian format, which appears in their country-related articles and, BTW, after everyone's signature. TONY (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That very same page has a nice section on date autoformatting, which (guess what) encourages date autoformatting. I also note that the section you link to states that dates in the format DD Month YYYY are in the "International format", whilst Month DD, YYYY are the "American format". Personally, I'd advocate setting autoformatting preferences to the International Format for all IP addresses that are based outside America (or alternatively, for all IP addresses in countries that use the International Format), in which case having the autoformatting enabled would be of use to a large chunk of the planet. But I acknowledge that we don't do that at present.

I agree that having them as bright blue links is mostly unnecessary, but there is currently no alternative if they are to be autoformatted. Not autoformatting them is an unnecessary step backwards. Instead of arguing for the links to be removed, why aren't you arguing for the autoformatting to be improved? Mike Peel (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Been down that pathway, I can assure you. And no, MOSNUM says: "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text." Doesn't sound very encouraging to me. Further discussion on Mike Peel's talk page. TONY (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've suggested to Tony1 that he takes the issue of date formatting to the community for general discussion. In the face of general developer apathy, I'll live with the funny US date formatting in this article for now... Mike Peel (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Consider {{double image}} for your lead images which, in my world, leak into the next section.
  • "Acting Administrator in between,[10]" - presumably should be a period?
  • I guess being uber-picky, I'd prefer Photograph rather than Photo in the table.
  • Should numbers like 2792 be 2,792?
  • I'm not sure there's any point in a column called Ref(s) which exclusively refers to one general reference.
  • Can you format both tables so the same cols are the same width?
  • Deputy Admins template doesn't Mulville was acting, the table does...

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Do you have a suggestion for an alternative way of doing the Ref(s) column? I've always found that to be the neatest way, even if there's only one ref (bear in mind that more might be added in the future). I'm also not sure how to have the columns in the two tables the same size, without either switching to a fixed width (bad) or using a percentage of the width, which might be too small on some people's screens (also bad); any suggestions? The rest of your points should be sorted. Mike Peel (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Further to this, I've added fixed widths to the tables. They won't work well if the text is enlarged by the user, though... Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Could you make the column widths of the corresponding columns of the two tables the same so that it becomes neater? (Eg: Width of the "Term end" columns of the two tables should be the same)
• Is the Ref column necessary? Couldn't the refs just be moved next to the Admin's name?
• You should crop Seaman's pic from that photograph to make him more visible.
• "senior space science" needs hyphenation to avoid ambiguity.
• I believe titles like Dr. are discouraged per MOS (I'm not sure though, please double-check) indopug (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• See above for the first two. I've put a new image of Seaman on the page. I'm not sure I see the ambiguity in "senior space science adviser", unless you mean that it should be "senior space-science adviser". Please provide me with a link to the appropriate part of the MOS for the last point. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I meant "senior space-science adviser" and here. Why not move that ref to the table header itself? (like say, alongside Name; thereby having the need to include it only once) indopug (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the comments made above regarding the reference column. Under ==Notes and references== (which could be titled simply "References" as there are no notes), do ";Specific" and put reference 11 there, then under ";General", put "<references/>" which will list the other references the same way {{reflist}} does, but as normal sized text. There's no need for them to be small with so few. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm wary of doing this because this might not be the only reference in the future, plus it makes the table look a lot less referenced/reliable. "Notes and references" has been renamed to "References" (it was named like that due to a note which I've since removed), and it now uses <references/>. Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 14 July 2008 [48].

---

National Basketball Association Most Valuable Player Award

I think it meets all criteria and is ready to become featured. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• En dash for "1955-56 NBA season" and the other year ranges
  • Yeah done. The first time while attempting this: I did "[[1955–56 NBA season|1955-1956]]" to all of them. Smart, I know. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Fit "National Basketball Association (NBA)" somewhere in there
  • Added. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Most Valuable Player + (MVP)
    • Added. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • MVP voting takes place... and Most Valuable Player was originally selected... - be consistent: abbr. or full name?
    • Abbreviation. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 5 times → five times
    • Changed. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is the table placed under Key subsection? I suggest removing that subsection.
    • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Place the first image among the others because right now it creates a lot of unneeded white space.
    • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Explain what the numbers in parentheses mean.
    • Explained. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 18:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Even though Gary King striked his comment about dashes, I still see hyphens in the season links in the lead.
    • Russell is a redirect
      • True, but per Wikipedia:R#NOTBROKEN.... (I did change it however) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 16:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • As Chris said below, add a new column for nationality, then make the table sortable.
      • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 16:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 08:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I don't get what you mean by "to the top player of the regular season."
    • I just removed it as its explained later on. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You should link all the years
    • Linked. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Link "Hall of Famer".
    • Linked. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The picture on the intro is the MVP award for the Playoffs, not the regular season. The regular season one is the one where a basketball player is doing a lay-up.
    • Removed image, didn't see that. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If all is done, I'll support.

Annoyomous24 (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You linked Hall of Famer to Hall of Famer. I meant linking it to Basketball Hall of Famer. Annoyomous24 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Annoyomous24 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The list looks great. However, the flags make the players column very messy. Could a nationality column be added, similar to NBA Sportsmanship Award?—Chris! _ct 04:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 16:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support —Chris! _ct 18:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Lead is "National Basketball Association's Most Valuable Player (MVP)" title is "National Basketball Association Most Valuable Player Award" - is the official title "Association's ... Player" or "Association .... Award"? The lead suggests that the "Player" is an award...

Fixed. I see how the "'s" makes the sentence sounds awkward. And yes the MVP is an award.—Chris! _ct 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Maurice Podoloff was the President of the NBA, not the Commissioner.

Well, NBA President is equaled to NBA Commissioner. I think it is just a different name for the same position. Even the official site calls him the first Commissioner.—Chris! _ct 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I add a note to clearly explain that.—Chris! _ct 22:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Voting is done by" yuck.

How about "Voting is conducted by ..."—Chris! _ct 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• "three from each of the 30 NBA cities" perhaps explanation or reword to ensure non-NBA experts know what an NBA city is.

reword the sentence.—Chris! _ct 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is "regular-season" really hyphenated?

They aren't hyphenated. And from my understanding, they don't need to be hyphenated.—Chris! _ct 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Consistent use of periods in the Key.

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why comma after Chamberlain in his caption?

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why can't I search on nationality?

What do you mean?—Chris! _ct 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Should nationality be Citizenship if you have VIR in there? According to your second note, VIR players are USA by nationality...

OK, I will add back the US flag if it helps clarify the nationality/citizenship issue.—Chris! _ct 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there an NBA lists category you can add this to?

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 14 July 2008 [49].

---

List of Pittsburgh Steelers first-round draft picks

Nominating this list for FLC. I think this list does meet featured list criteria. If you guys have any questions or comments, I would try to answer them. --Gman124 ^talk 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support as nominator. --Gman124 ^talk 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Might as well remove the bold from "The Pittsburgh Steelers" as this isn't an article about the Pittsburgh Steelers, but their first-round draft picks. Gary King (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A few potential corrections:
  • Photo captions should have punctuation at the end, since they're complete sentences.
    •  Done Those were my fault. Blackngold29 18:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The first two references under "Specific" are identical; use the <ref name=> trick to avoid this.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't there be a reference for each draft pick? Currently, only the years without draft picks are referenced.
    • That's already under general references for why put the same reference for all those picks. As Crzycheetah said at bottom "it's redundant to cite the same ref over and over and over again". --Gman124 ^talk 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

MeegsC | Talk 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 02:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting, more commonly known as the NFL Draft. part is repeated twice and that's why the first two refs are identical.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 02:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't use the group refs just yet because you can't combine the notes and refs. Thus, your footnotes remain unsourced.

 Done --Gman124 ^talk 03:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Explain why they changed their name from Pirates to Steelers.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 03:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Double-check your trade notes because I see that you did not mention that the Steelers traded their 2006 pick to the Giants.
    • Where does it say that? --Gman124 ^talk 19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Link--Crzycheetah 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 03:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 19:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Link college pages to more specific ones, football pages. See 2007 NFL Draft.
    •  Done Linked all colleges to go to their sports club where applicable. --Gman124 ^talk 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Trade notes are missing "the"'s, The Steelers...to the [full team name].
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 18:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • They're missing periods, as well. Also link the team names.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 18:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Whenever they traded their picks away, mention what overall pick it was. Not all notes mention them.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 18:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the "k" note, could you reword it?
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 18:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 02:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support In the footnotes, obtained or acquired? Choose one. Also, most of the comments I made here apply to the Rams page, as well.--Crzycheetah 00:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Object. Tables need references, too. Once those are added, consider this objection withdrawn.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's what general references are for.--Crzycheetah 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • We have moved to inline references over a year ago. General references fail below even the GA standards today.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It's redundant to cite the same ref over and over and over again.--Crzycheetah 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed, I do not see how citing this source on every line improves the article in anyway. I cannot find any other FLs that cite every draft. Blackngold29 22:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Is "Halfback" a proper noun? I don't think it needs to be capitalised in the lead.
    •  Done Gman124 ^talk 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "first round selection" - shouldn't that first round be first-round?
    •  Done Gman124 ^talk 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Enshrined in the..." - sounds very final - why not "admitted to the..."?
    •  Done Gman124 ^talk 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The red links should be sorted out.
    •  Done Blackngold29 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " the youngest quarterback to win a Super Bowl in 2005 at the age of 23." - is there a reference for this?
    •  Done Blackngold29 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 14 July 2008 [50].

---

List of tallest buildings in Tampa

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of tallest buildings in Houston. I have been working with User:Raime, and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Alaskan assassin (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "he U.S. city" → "he United States city"
  • This has been mentioned multiple times. The abbreviation "U.S." is an adjective and that is how it is being used here. This is similar to the use in U.S. state, Georgia (U.S. state) or U.S. Route 2. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• "42-story" → "42-storey"
  • Since this list deals with Tampa, a city in the United States, it should use American spelling. "Storey" is used in the British Isles while "story" is used in the United States. See Note 1 at Storey and American and British English spelling differences#Miscellaneous spelling differences. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please let me know regarding image mapping, if you want it
• Entries 6 and 7 are the same height, so shouldn't they both be "6="?
  • I have fixed them and another set of entries that were the same height. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise it's yet another great piece. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • None of your in-line links in Note [A] seem to work. I would recommend that all other FLs and FLCs which use these links are checked.
  • Also, Note [A] should use text for numbers below 10.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Both Done. The problem of the dead links in the Notes section was solved awhile ago by using city lists in place of diagrams, which alternate between URLs and thus are unreliable. I guess that was just overlooked for this list; all other tallest buildings lists already use the city lists. Cheers, Rai•me 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Another great skyscraper list that meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 14 July 2008 [51].

---

List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks

previous FLC
before previous FLC

I am renominating this article for the second time because the last one had barely any Supports and Opposes and I'm hoping for this one to have more reviews. Annoyomous24 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support as nominator Annoyomous24 (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Shouldn't this article be retitled "Los Angeles Lakers draft history"? I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't the NBA just have 2 rounds, and if the Lakers' 1948 pick (the first draft) is listed through 2008, isn't this just a full list of their picks? Sorry, just a comment. Other than that, this article looks pretty good to me. conman33 (. . .talk) 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier draft had 3 or more rounds. See, 1966 NBA Draft that had 19 rounds, for example. Annoyomous, I suggest you add this information to the list because, as you can see, this situation really confuses readers. DONE! --Crzycheetah 07:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Good start, but I do have some minor suggestions:

• Not a fan of the colored table column header. DONE!
• The draft column should be center-aligned. DONE!
• An external links section would definately be good. Drewcifer (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Based mainly on the colorful table header. Not a big deal, but it serves no purpose and, per WP:COLOR, adding color arbitrarily should be avoided. DONE! Drewcifer (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Support My main concern has been addressed. Good work! Drewcifer (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment For the 1948 and 1960 links, link to something more relevant, like 1948–49 BAA season. DONE! Gary King (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• ConditionalWeak support The "Picks" and "round" columns are not sorted correctly. As soon as it's fixed, I'll support. DONE! --Crzycheetah 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's not done. They are still not sorted properly. Click on the sort arrow several times, and you'll see that every time they are sorted differently. --Crzycheetah 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's done now...Annoyomous24 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

...by removing the sorting altogether? That's not the solution I was looking for. Add sorting back and then take a look at {{nts}} to see how you can fix the sorting problem.--Crzycheetah 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you put it...Annoyomous24 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, the table is sortable now and I fixed the "round" column. In order to fix the "Pick" column, just put the pick # inside the {{nts}} template: {{nts|#}}.--Crzycheetah 03:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Annoyomous24 (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to fix it or not?--Crzycheetah 02:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm done....Annoyomous24 (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You added the template to rounds, which were fine anyway. Picks are the ones that need that template.--Crzycheetah 03:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm done now...Annoyomous24 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(→)Yes, it works! There are a couple of minor issues I notice, though. Footnotes for 1980 and 1981 are too small. The trade note at 1998 row is unsourced, the one about new jersey. Lastly, the key section can be devided into more columnsbecause it's too long as is now. Overall, though, you have done a great job, Annoyomous24! --Crzycheetah 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks really good —Chris! _ct 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think the footnotes should be <small>, as there is 21 of them, and the general rule for references is to use <references/> when there are 10 or less, and {{Reflist}} when there is more than 10, which will produce small text references. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

but they aren't references, they're footnotes. Annoyomous24 20:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they fall under the same bracket though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than making the footnotes small, I'd suggest puting them in two columns; see this example.--Crzycheetah 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That would work for me. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

DONE! Annoyomous24 22:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 13:42, 13 July 2008 [52].

---

NBA Sportsmanship Award

It looks pretty good and seems to fulfill all criteria. So.—Chris! _ct 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could a symbol also be used, in addition to the blue background color, per WP:ACCESS? Gary King (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can add a symbol.—Chris! _ct 00:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Annoyomous24 (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Excellent job Chris. Would you mind adding something that shows the players who have been elected in the Hall of Fame? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 17:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I will see what I can do.—Chris! _ct 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Only one award recipient is a Hall of Famer. So that is easy to do.—Chris! _ct 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Nice work. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Worth noting in the lead all winners have been US except for the one Brit.

I will add a sentence about that.—Chris! _ct 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Not sure you need the "mission statement" (for want of a better phrase) in italics.

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • em-dash doesn't need a space before or after it (see WP:DASH for clarification).

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "30 players from across the league compete for this award (each team nominates one of its own player)" I'd reverse this sentence so we logically see that each team picks one player so 30 are nominated in total.
  • "From a pool of 30" must be "the pool" now, not just a non-specific pool.

I reword the both sentences.—Chris! _ct 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Preferably put references in numerical order unless there's a good reason to have [2] in front of [1].

Since some refs I used in the table came from the lead, they are not in numerical order.—Chris! _ct 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You can fix that by reordering the order you use the ref name. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.—Chris! _ct 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "NBA players voted on this award" just "vote" is grammatically right.

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "The last four awards have gone to alumni of Duke University, with all three recipients (one being two-time winner Hill)..." I get it, but it's confusing.

I remove the sentence all together. It is trivial fact anyway.—Chris! _ct 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Is there an NBA lists category for this list?

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • Avoid parentheses in the lead. - 'one for each NBA team" and "three Spurs..."
  • Be consistent with other award pages; for example, colors and nationalities.
  • I think it's time we start linking to the right seasonal pages, the ones with endashes.

--Crzycheetah 23:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As soon as I see that the second column is nationality, just as in other award pages, I'll support.--Crzycheetah 04:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Done —Chris! _ct 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 13:42, 13 July 2008 [53].

---

List of Kansas City Chiefs head coaches

I believe this list is fully capable of being promoted to FL status. conman33 (. . .talk) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Dallas Texans" does not need to be bold. Gary King (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. conman33 (. . .talk) 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Blackngold29 06:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Eliminate the first sentence per Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence|this discussion]]. "located in Dallas, Texas.[1]The.." Space needed after the citation. "Tom Bettis is the only head coach to serve on an interim basis following the departure of Paul Wiggin in 1977" Do you mean only head coach to serve as an interim overall, or just after Wiggin was fired? "[CFL's] Montreal Alouettes was hired in..." need comma after Alouettes. "...which borrowed elements of his Super Bowl championship team with the St. Louis Rams." Needs citation (removed) The list itself looks fine. Blackngold29 22:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Done. conman33 (. . .talk) 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC) You didn't eliminate the first sentece, see List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches. Blackngold29 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Got it. I was looking at List of Green Bay Packers head coaches and tried to look off their intro, but it was the same so I misunderstood. It's gone now. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Crzycheetah has presented some good comments below, they'll need taken care of before I support. I don't know why the intro had a massive expansion, it looked fine a few days ago. Blackngold29 06:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - looks much better now. Good work. Blackngold29 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Support for now
  • A five-paragraph lead for 10 coaches? That's too many, need to trim to 3 at most.
    • I was told to write an expansive lead, and I gave every detail possible. Now it's down to three and if it's now too short, somebody else can write one. conman33 (. . .talk) 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No need to bold "head coaches"
  • Herman Edwards is the team's current coach... should appear at the end of the lead.
  • ...competed for three years known as... - Confusing a little, try to reword.
  • The lead tells the reader that the franchise was known as Dallas Texans until 1969 at least while the table says until 1962. Which one is right?
  • Lead does not mention when and why the franchise was renamed to Chiefs and relocated to Kansas.
    • The Texans moved to Kansas City, MISSOURI and were renamed the Chiefs in 1963. conman33 (. . .talk) 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • See MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • Unbold the word "present"
  • The caption of the Hank's bust is too long; try to shorten it by removing info you already mentioned in either the lead or the table.
  • Same with Cunningham's image. We already know that he was the head coach, so you can just leave the second sentence.
  • What makes "Sports Encyclopedia" and "Hickok Sports" reliable sources?
    • Maybe you should ask that to whoever promoted List of Green Bay Packers head coaches, and List of Indianapolis Colts head coaches and see what's "reliable." conman33 (. . .talk) 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The HallofFame website should be cited. It is not a general reference for this list.

--Crzycheetah 02:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Don't strike comments Next time, please don't strike my comments. Let me decide whether you fixed the problems listed.--Crzycheetah 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Y conman33 (. . .talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Five paras in the lead is a little excessive.
  • Put (NFL) after first National Football League and then just use the abbreviation from then on.
  • Put (AFL) after American Football League so it makes NFL-AFL understandable to non experts.
  • inbetween is not one word.
  • "was later hired as the team's coach after the Chiefs traded their fourth-round draft selection in 2006 to the New York Jets." - can you explain the relevance of the fourth round draft trade to his appointment?
  • Regular Season in the table could just be Regular season.
  • "after 7 games" seven.
  • The en-dashes look left aligned while the numbers are right aligned in the playoffs column. Looks odd.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Y conman33 (. . .talk) 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 13:42, 13 July 2008 [54].

---

List of Judy Garland awards and honors

I believe this list now satisfies Featured List criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

• Can you make the columns for each table the same widths please?

• I don't know how to do that, but if you can point me toward some instructions I'll do it.
• A good Samaritan has made the table sizes uniform. Otto4711 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Other honors is basically a bullet pointed (nearly) trivia section. Prose is the way forward.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Huh. I put it in that format because another editor said that the article wasn't listy enough. Otto4711 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I've prosed up the other honors section and pulled the bullet points. I acknowledge that some of these are a bit on the trivial side but since they are reliably sourced I saw no harm in including them. If there are any that would prevent the list from being promoted I can see my way clear to having them removed. Otto4711 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Album Cover - Non" requires an em dash per WP:DASH.
• Remove the bold formatting from the "Other honors" section.

Gary King (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Both done. Otto4711 (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Please write a more engaging first sentence instead of "This is a list of awards and honors bestowed upon Judy Garland." Articles don't begin with "This is an article about <subject>", and neither should lists.

• I modeled it on the Featured List of 50 Cent awards which starts "This is a comprehensive list of awards and nominations won by 50 Cent, an American rapper."

• You have to remember that things move forward over time. The 50 Cent awards list was promoted some time ago. The criteria has since changed, and there has been some discussions at WT:FLC about introducing lists in this manner (though you might have to go into "Archive 3" to find it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opening sentence now reads Judy Garland received numerous awards and honors in the course of a career that spanned over 40 years. Otto4711 (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Bestowed" sounds like they were forced upon her whether she wanted them or not!
• "twice nominated" or "nominated twice"?

• Means the same thing either way.

• Instead of the "Award" column being "Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress", it should just be called "category", and then remove the "Academy Award for" part, because that's mentioned already in the section heading. Same for all other award-giving bodies

• Done. Otto4711 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I made an edit regarding heading sizes as it was easier to do than explain!

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ideally, all columns should be the same width, so in each table, "Nominated work" would be the same width, "Award" should be the same width, etc

• I don't know how to set column widths.

Comments

• "Garland won or was nominated for awards for her work in motion pictures, television, recording and on stage." Isn't anything on TV or film recorded anyway? Why mention this?

• "Recording" refers to music recording.

• Make it clear. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Added the word "music."

• You said you modelled this on List of 50 Cent awards, the infobox should be similar. Other award lists do this, too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Added infobox. It's fugly but it's there. Otto4711 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

This is the first list I've tried to promote. Does the fixing of the various concerns that y'all have raised mean that you support promotion or is there something else I need to be doing? Otto4711 (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Every WP:FLC will stand for at least ten-days. User:The Rambling Man is a director of FLC, and it is rare that he will add a "Support" or "oppose" !vote due to WP:COI reasons. Unless I think it is clear-cut, I usually wait until the end of the ten-day period before !voting. Even though my issues may have been resolved someone else may come along and post things that need to be resolved. I'd hate to see something promoted if I have already supported and the issues stand unresolved at closing. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems very nice. I'll Support. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:53, 12 July 2008 [55].

---

Soundgarden discography

I am nominating the discography because I believe it meets the criteria to be a Featured List. A lot of work has gone in to the article and I believe it to be complete and well-referenced. If there are any issues I'll will make sure to address them.-5- (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the references are missing publishers. Please add them. Gary King (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Use em dashes (—) for empty cells in the table, not a hyphen (-). --Gman124 ^talk 20:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Please try to avoid nominating at FLC then applying a maintenance template - we'd like to see a stable list.
  • Caption for the image will be good.
  • Think about WP:MOS for numbers below 10 - usually spelt out in text.
  • You should modify your references to include foreign languages if not in English.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'm sorry The Rambling Man, someone went and edited the article to a version that I would not put up for review. The current version of the article is what I am putting up for review.-5- (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure what's going on in ref 25 (Soundgarden Rail Against the...); what is the publication and author name? Refs that don't include an external link should not have "Retrieved on...". An image would be nice; even if just of Cornell. Unrelated note: If this gets through, all of the "BigFourOfGrunge" discographies would be featured. indopug (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Ref 25 is a press release that can be found here. I didn't know whether it was appropriate to put a link since it comes from the unofficial Soundgarden website. I don't really support the idea of putting up an image of Cornell if its not representative of his time in Soundgarden. To me, that would be like putting up an image of Paul McCartney circa 2008 on The Beatles discography. I'll look through Flickr to see if there are any images that could be used, but the last time I tried I didn't have any luck.-5- (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Support: Good discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The order of the sections should follow the order of the infobox. Or vica-versa.
• Peak chart positions in all tables should be in one of two orders:
  • US charts → All other charts (alphabetically). Or
  • US charts → English lang charts (alphabetically) → Foreign lang charts (alphabetically)
• Directors for the three remaining music videos, please
• ==Miscellaneous== should be ==Compilation appearances== or ==Soundtrack appearances==. Or if both, ==Other appearances==
• I don't understand ""Rhinosaur" was never released as a single, but charted when released as a B-side on the "Ty Cobb" single". If a B-side charted, then so did the A-side, yet Ty Cobb didn't. Apparently. And how does a B-side chart anyway, when the actual release was Ty Cobb?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sources can not be found for the directors of those music videos. Just because a song was released as a single it does not mean it will get radio airplay, and just because a song wasn't released as a single it does not mean it can't get airplay. In this instance, radio programmers opted to play the B-side of the "Ty Cobb" single ("Rhinosaur") instead of the A-side.-5- (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Check the Billboard charts placings at Allmusic as well. Some of the chart placings have a tendency to disappear from the Billboard site (for example, huge chunks of R.E.M.'s singles chart placings from the 90s are missing for no good reason) and I recall seeing that "Outshined" charted on one of the rock charts. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I just checked it here. There's no listings for any singles released before 1994.-5- (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Very good work. indopug (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't trust the chart on allmusic i sais that Nothing To Say peaked at 11 on the Mainstream Rock Tracks in 1994. It was released in 1988 and has never been a single. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It charted on an airplay chart, which means it doesn't need to be physically released when it charts. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Took me a while to get to this one, so it looks like everything has already been taken care of. So I support! Good job! Drewcifer (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Good work, but why not have an image in infobox? You could use a of Chris Cornell same, simply write a caption talking about something... “Chris Cornell playing live in Amsterdam, on his current solo career post-Soundgarden.” Cannibaloki 18:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:51, 10 July 2008 [56].

---

List of Final Fantasy compilation albums

I am nominating this list for FLC because, well, obviously I think it meets the criteria. A few things first, however.

• First, there is a lot of text. Despite this, I believe that it is clearly set up as a list, and not as an article, and should go to FLC and not FAC.

• Second, there are quite a few images, which is becoming rather unpopular. They are, however, in infoboxes. In an article about one album, a fair-use image is allowed in the infobox- in fact, there's a whole separate section for them when you upload a file. By extenuation, in an article about several albums, each album-section should be able to have it's own, given (and this is important) that there is no sub-article about that album that also has the image. This is not a discography article- the albums which have images do not have their own articles. The ones that do, down at the bottom, do not have images in the infobox for just that reason.

This is my first time at FLC, so don't kill me if I've overlooked anything, please. --PresN (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• There are a number of MOS issues which I will run down.
• Remove the bold formatting because of the linked text, per WP:BOLDTITLE.
• Numerical ranges use en dashes per WP:DASH; example: "Fantasy 1987-1994, an" → "Fantasy 1987–1994, an"

Gary King (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bolding removed.
• I'm not sure what you mean by the en dashes, I copied the dash from WP:DASH, but it looks identical to the dash I make with the keyboard, ie keyboard(-) looks the same as (–). At any rate, isn't there a script that will fix those? I thought I saw it once at FAC, and that would be quicker than doing it by hand. Thank you for commenting! --PresN (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but only in the editing box, not the actual page. Right, I'll get to work then. --PresN (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That was faster than I'd though it would be, done. At least, I think so... --PresN (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - A long time in the making, it combines about a million stub articles and put them into this extremely well crafted list. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The first sentence may be slightly confusing for general readers. It says "Since the series' inception" but a person that don't know anything about the subject might wonder what series that actually refers to. Also, see if the repetition "produced"/"producer" can be avoided.

• Done. --PresN (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the lead currently amounts to 20% of the whole article (not counting infoboxes and tracklists); it's very long. I believe lead sections of lists are meant to summarize general and important facts about the entries rather than literally introducing every one of them individually.

• The lead has now been completely reworked, and is much smaller. Please look over it to see if it's more to what you were thinking. --PresN (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Album titles should be italicized per MOS:TITLE, even in headings.

• Done. --PresN (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the images, but what's up with Image:Final Fantasy Anthology Album CD.jpg? It's not an album cover at all, despite what its fair-use rationale states.

• The CD doesn't have an album cover, it was just a cd which came with the game. I suppose that the fair-use rationale is incorrect in that case, as you state. Is there a better one that you know of? --PresN (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Final Fantasy Finest Box is missing a tracklist. 183 is a lot, but the FFIV tracks that were not in the original OST should be listed, at least.

• "New tracks" tracklist added. --PresN (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see it? Kariteh (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's bizzare, I did it, not sure when it got reverted. Put in again. --PresN (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• What is the difference between the "Outside groups" and the first section? Why is Distant Worlds not considered an outside group for instance? I think this should be explained more clearly.

• The list makes a distinction between Square Enix the producer and Square Enix the owner of the music. The first section is albums that Square Enix paid someone to take the music that they owned the rights to and create an album of either it or arrangements of it. Sometimes this person was Nobuo Uematsu, sometimes it was an orchestra group. The second section is composed of outside independant groups which produced their own albums, either with an official license, such as The Black Mages or Project Majestic Mix, or without an official license, such as Voices of the Lifestream. The "concert" disks are fuzzier, and I'm going to go now and look closer at the relationship between the performers and Square Enix as to which section they should be in. --PresN (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Difficult one but: could any Japanese reviews be included for comprehensiveness and per WP:BIAS? Perhaps Japanese reviewers didn't have any problem with the cheesy lyrics of Final Fantasy: Pray, unlike Patrick Gann of RPGFan.

• I'll ask at the FF wikiproject, but I don't read or speak japanese, so I wouldn't be able to find anything. --PresN (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• These sources do not comply with WP:RS: Square Haven (fansite), all the ffmusic.info pages (personal), VGMdb here and here (user-submitted), and Destructoid (blog).

• Square Haven, VGMdb, and Destructoid sources removed, and since they were superfluous to begin with (thankfully), not replaced. As to the ffmusic ones... I'm using them mainly as a translation for the japanese titles...though I suppose that means I should remove them for the other sources. I'm going to go ahead and remove them all, on the assumption that direct translations don't really need cites, as words mean what they mean, but I just had them because I thought it was a nice thing for people (like me) who don't know Japanese. --PresN (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The last two references are not exactly reliable either (FFWorld and Kotaku). Yeah, I was the one to add these two refs, but I didn't know the list was going to go to FLC before the release of the lattest album. It's still unreleased, but if reliable sources can be found I think it would definitely be okay. Kariteh (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Replaced refs with the Japanese sources they were based on, Square Enix and Famitsu (A reliable japanese gaming off/online publication). --PresN (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• First, this one is a good example of how the sea of bright blue in the text damages the readability and appearance of the prose, and dilutes the high-value links. I boldly implemented a removal of the most trivial form of linking: the autoformatting of full dates, since there were more than a hundred scattered throughout. Autoformatting is no longer mandatory and is the subject of a head of steam building up at MOSNUM, with calls to even disable it. I wouldn't go that far, but I strongly suggest that the appearance is now considerably improved and the real links more visible to the reader. No one minds reading US formatting, I can assure you, and 99% of readers don't see a preferred format anyway, because they're just visitors: they still put up with the bright blue, though.
• Is there a special dispensation for the NFC rules when it comes to album covers? If not, I wonder whether there are too many (NFCC#3, miminal usage). Pity: they're pretty, but I don't think they significantly add to readers' understanding of the text. I'll ask Black Kite to drop in.
• There are eight audio clips, all with fair-use justification. Minimal use and significant improvement in readers' understanding doesn't appear to justify so many. I don't see much attempt to explain exactly what each clip is demonstrating in terms of musical style, texture, instrumentation, lyrics, etc, preferably features that show how the series evolved or is distinctive for (or even characteristic, in some cases, of) its period. This should appear in the main text. On the info pages, your justification says "A more detailed fair use rationale may be provided by the user who uploaded this recording." "May"? It has always been "must" or "is". The justification must be specific to each location its used on. Again, I'll seek Black Kite's advice on this. TONY (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• PS en dashes required for timing ranges on info pages. TONY (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, can't say I'm sad to see the sea of blue leave. It's much easier to read now, thank you. I will wait on Black Kite's answer as to the images, as I've given my justification above. As to the sound files, they are left-overs from the individual pages that I originally took to make this article. I'll go through and reduce the number, and mess with the Fair Use justifications to them, I didn't write those. --PresN (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• There are now 3 audio samples- one of the first album, one of the first vocal album, and one of an orchestral album. Hopefully that's a bit more reasonable. Also- if you have a problem with the "may" in the info pages, I suggest you take it up with whoever made the template, as it's the wording that comes with {{Non-free audio sample}}. You're right, it probably shouldn't say that, given that a FUR is mandatory. --PresN (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have to agree that there is still too much non-free use on this page. Basically, this is a discography, supporting the existing Music of Final Fantasy article. This parent article (and the various Music of (specific FF game) articles) is where a more critical discussion of the works is present, and valid justification for the sound clips can be made, but not here. The images for the albums, given that this is a discography, should be removed per the previous decisions that such lists do not merit images (they are only being used as decoration here, and thus not needed). --MASEM 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• "F.F. Mix is an arranged, remixed and previously unreleased tracks album of music from the first Final Fantasy IV, V, and VI, remixed and performed primarily by Nobuo Uematsu." what is that supposed to mean??

• That and other similar statements fixed. --PresN (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why the heck are all the catalogue numbers italicized?

• For some reason, I thought they were supposed to be- checking the MOS now. --PresN (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure why I thought that, removed. --PresN (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think Masem makes a relevant point regarding music clips.

Circeus (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome, Pres. Glad you like it. Sadly, Black Kite, one of our most talented copyright people, has walked out in a storm after a nasty ANI yesterday. This is terrible. I'll try to find advice elsewhere. Thanks for your advice re template. And three audio clips sounds much more acceptable to Cr 3. Great! TONY (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC) PS Didn't see Masem's comments: excellent that s/he's dropped in. TONY (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tony, I believe User:Elcobbola comments consistently on non-free content at WP:FAC, and would be a person to go to on the issue. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Sephiroth. Sandy's jealous of her reviewers, but I'll see if we can sneak her over for an opinion about the album covers; I'm inclined to think that Masem's right, but it's a great pity. I wonder whether one album cover would get through WP:NFCC#8. TONY (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• One is probably fine, but outside the context of an infobox - as a top, right-aligned image, with a good descriptive caption to show an example of a compilation album (the most visually interesting one). But I stand by that this is a discography, and while free/commons images can be used to help out, non-free covers on a per-entry are definitely not allowed. --MASEM 12:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's not just a normal list-style article. It's of the "merged articles" variety, and as such gets a bit more leeway in using non-free content in each individual section (as opposed to treated the whole as a list) because each section is an article of its own that could not survive independently, yet it has/requires enough details that the usual list format just won't do. (a normal discography would no even have the room for the images) Circeus (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I encourage you to read [57] and [58] where similar arguments were used, but not successfully. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I've removed the album covers from the article. This is blatant case. Whether it is called a "discography" or "list of" is irrelevant. See Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2. There was a similar case at Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night. See [59]. and [60]. Similar usage at Music of Final Fantasy III, Music of Final Fantasy IV, etc. needs to be removed as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I can't say that I agree with the consensus on album covers- I don't understand how they're tacitly allowed if the article is only about one album, but as soon as you merge multiple albums/articles together, it's a violation of fair use with no increase in the number of images. However, clearly I would be one man against the tide, so to speak, so I'll be removing the images from this article. --PresN (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• If an album is significant enough to have its own article, then we have an album cover for it on the article. If it isn't significant enough, and is listed only on a discography, we don't. Go through Category:Discographies. There's not a single article there with album covers on them, and if there were they'd have their covers removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• These FF albums are all notable enough to have their own articles technically. They weren't merged per a lack of notability but because it might be the only way to make them go above the Start- or B-classes. Kariteh (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• This article will not have album covers on it. If you want to change that, you're going to have to get a new consensus to allow album covers on discographies. This is unlikely to happen, but you're welcome to try. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• It was just a clarification. I don't "want to change that", and there's no need to act exactly like Black Kite you know. Kariteh (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: With the covers removed, I don't have much upon which to comment. I do agree, for what it's worth, that the hitherto cover usage was superfluous and not in compliance with NFCC#3A and/or NFCC#8. I would note, however, that Image:Final Fantasy 1987-1994 Cover.jpg and Image:Final_Fantasy_Pray.jpg are actually not likely to be eligible for copyright protection ("mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright protection in the United States). See, for example, a similar Beatles album cover and a similar Nirvana album cover. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What's the difference between covers and audio samples? Shouldn't the Wikipedia:NFC guideline mentioned above pertain to both images and audio samples? Kariteh (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• They do. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• :( Well, down they go. Poor article, all ripped apart. --PresN (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I edited the guideline page to make it clear that the paragraph about images in discographies also pertains to audio (and video) clips. Kariteh (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• I will say that you can likely justify a few of those samples over at Music of Final Fantasy (the general series); however, as this article does not have discussion of the music style and just basically presents a list of compilation albums, there's no support for NFC#8 in here. --MASEM 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Let's look on the bright side: It got rid of ugly white space. The Prince (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - all points raised by above reviewers have been addressed. I would ask that the editors involved (Gary King, Kariteh, Masem, Circeus, Tony, and Hammersoft) please return for another pass or !vote. --PresN (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Final Fantasy Finest Box is still missing a tracklist for its extra tracks and the outside/not outside group distinction is still not clearly established. Japanese reviews are also still absent, though I agree it may not be an issue if there really isn't any to begin with (they don't seem to have major sites like RPGFan, etc.). Kariteh (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also the headings should refer to a similar aspect in terms of organization per Wikipedia:List#Organization. "Albums" and "Outside groups" are not similar concepts. "Albums by..." and "Albums by outside groups" would be, for instance, but these aren't the best headings. Kariteh (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• You know what? Screw it. Those divisions were a bad idea and have caused nothing but headaches. All albums are now in one section, sorted by release date. This only leaves your point about Japanese reviews, which I'll try for, but am not holding my breath. --PresN (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support—Admirable responses by nominator. Good page. Can you make the units clear for durations? "duration of 14:22" --> "14.22 s"? Oops, no, its 14 minutes 22 seconds, is it? TONY (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dates not linked for autoformating. Rmhermen (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please read above, links were removed by tony as excessive, and no longer mandatory. --PresN (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with PresN. I'd like Rmhermen to explain his vote; it's kind of curious considering Tony1's comments above. Kariteh (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - looks pretty good. One image in the lead though to demonstrate the appearance of a compilation album is in line with fair use concerns though. Up to you whether you want to add one in. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I went in and did just that. I'm not sure about the result, if anybody want wants to modify it, or even remove it, that's fine by me. If it stays, will someone please remove the orphaned fair use tag on the image? happypal (Talk | contribs) 06:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Imho, the whole page should be deleted and the albums mentioned/listed in Music of the Final Fantasy series. Then again, I'm a mere wiki-n00b (outside simple use of Wikipedia) and my opinion hardly counts. Maelkoch (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you're going to plagiarize [61] (at the bottom), then at least source it, 'cause it's funny. The article's also shorter then when that article was written. --PresN (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not plagiarizing anyone or anything - I am quite capable to form my own thoughts and have my own opinions, after all. I've read the article (and found it quite amusing, too), but I really couldn't care less which article is longer than which, but rather if an invidual article is as long as it should be (or not) to my mind, or if a page should be created (or should not exist at all, as in this case). Meh. Good that you linked to the article, though. Maelkoch (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, sorry for accusing you of plagiarism, but if your only concern about the article is that you don't think it should exist in the first place, then that's not really an actionable oppose, since it doesn't look like anyone else here agrees with you. --PresN (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Also, that website article uses flawed logic, compiles incorrect data, and just overall reeks of bias and illogical reasoning. Ongoing projects require a different and much higher level of analysis. I'd go on, but this is not the place for that. — Deckiller 23:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Article is now up to FA standards. Kariteh (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support—the Final Fantasy WikiProject continues to be the vanguard of proper video game coverage on Wikipedia. — Deckiller 23:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment "Many of the Final Fantasy compilation albums feature minimalist covers, as opposed to the more varied covers of the individual games' soundtracks." -> Source? Kariteh (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Eh, removed. --PresN (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I still think that one non-free image is appropriate, but it is not needed; everything else is fine about this, though I recommended adding the same navbox template at the bottom of the main Music of FF page to here. --MASEM 20:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:51, 10 July 2008 [62].

---

List of Sunderland A.F.C. managers

This is a list I have based of several other manager lists, such as; List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers and List of York City F.C. managers. All managers have been listed, including caretakers, and I believe it satisfies the FL criteria. I will be willing to address the comments post haste, although I will be away for the next week. Thanks a bunch. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks pretty good. Perhaps "None" can be lowercased, though, so it is not confused as a name; it can also even be replaced with an en dash (–). Gary King (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers mate, I'll lower case it.

• Just two comments
  • Those dates without days should be unwikilinked and rmv the commas, e.g. August 1888 not August, 1888. See WP:DATE Done
    • Restored dts2 template to the incomplete dates so that they sort properly; the template displays them wikilinked. Struway2 (talk)
  • The winning percentages should all have the same accuracy. Even those 50per cent should be 50.0 not 50. Done Peanut4 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Also done for 0.0. Struway2 (talk)

• Comment The first row of the table gives the date of the club's formation as 1979! - ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Done :-) Struway2 (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The only thing I'd like to see is maybe changing the "none"s to en dashes. Otherwise it looks good! Malinaccier (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers for the support, and I've changed it to endashes.

• Comment You might consider abbreviating Matches/Won/Drawn/Lost to M/W/D/L and adding a key line above (as here). At the moment, for me on a 1024-width screen, several of the names and a couple of the flag/country entries are wrapping to two lines; reducing the width of the M/W/D/L columns would cure that without making the figures unclear to read. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Done - Changed columns and added key, thanks a bunch mate.

• Support Meets the FL criteria, though if the prose isn't quite "professional", blame my copyediting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers for the support, you've been a big help. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "Sunderland Association Football Club was founded in 1879. After turning professional in 1886, the club appointed Tom Watson as their first manager..." discretionary plural old chestnut warning. Just starts off badly for me, "...was founded... " vs. "their manager..." - I'd be sorely tempted to say the club "were" founded, although that upsets some of our US readers and the old grammar-warrior. Right now it feels clunky.
    • That bit of wording's mine, so it's only fair I reply. English plural#Discretionary plural says that A number of words like army, company, ... may refer either to a single entity or the members of the set that compose it. Thus, as H. W. Fowler describes, in British English they are "treated as singular or plural at discretion" As I see it, SAFC the "single entity" was founded, but the members of that entity combine to appoint their manager. Struway2 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, fine, still reads clunkily to a "traditional" reader like me, but no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Matter of taste, I think. I can't get my head round "Template Football Club are an English football club", but I've seen that used. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And I guess it's only fair to ask why Stat Cat is a WP:RS?
    • The nominator Sunderland06 is having computer trouble at the moment and has asked me to keep an eye on the FLC and answer any outstanding questions, so I'll do my best. Having little interest in Sunderland AFC, I'm not well acquainted with StatCat, but it contains match results and team sheets for all competitions going back to the club's foundation, and appears at least as reliable as any other relevant source, including the club official site. I happened to check one of the caretaker managers, George Hardwick. Sunderland AFC official site has him "manager for one season" while StatCat has him appointed in November 1968 (three months into the season) with his first game in charge on Saturday 14 November. The Times (via The Times Digital Archive, most UK residents can access via their local library) confirms his appointment in their edition of Monday 16 November. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, it looks A1. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:51, 10 July 2008 [63].

---

List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico

previous FLC

Giving this a second run, since most of the reviews presented previously were attended or discussed this should be closer to the goal now than when it was nominated. Like last time I will keep this page in my watchlist and will work with the comments presented when active, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just remove the bold from "Puerto Rico currently has the second-most active players" because it is not very similar to the article's title. Gary King (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Then what would you suggest for the bold part of the lead?... because it does need to have one. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't. Bold in the lead is not mandatory - see WP:LEAD#BOLD. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Conceded. My fault. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. I actually considered doing this when rewritting the lead, but decided against so because it seemed unusual. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support This looks good now. Gary King (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As per concerns from the previous FLC, a copyedit is still needed. I volunteer to undertake it, but it may take me a day or two. I will make some fixes and get back to things. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be very welcomed, I can deal with specific concerns but copyedits aren't really my forte. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to get to this; the holiday became very busy very unexpectedly. I will try to get this done by Friday. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I did some link cleanup yesterday, there had been some page-moves since it was created, right now there shouldn't be any redirect being linked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:51, 10 July 2008 [64].

---

List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame

This is the 5th Green Bay Packers-related list I bring before the community. User:Milk's Favorite Cookie and I, in conjunction with the Tzatziki Squad, would appreciate any comments or suggestions to help improve a list we feel already meets the featured criteria. Thank you for your time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Publishers don't need to be italicized if they aren't publications.
• "[b] [18]" – has a space but – "[d][21]" – does not. I suggest going the route of having no space.
• Other than that, this list looks good. Great job!

Gary King (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the second one, but could you explain the first. I assume you are talking about the text that goes into the "work=" parameter in {{Cite web}}. If this is what you are talking about, how can I change it from not being italicized? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Fixed. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Change "work" to "publisher". Gary King (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MFC, and thanks for reviewing Gary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good now. Gary King (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Get rid of the period in the caption of the lead image.
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:MOS#Images recommends lead images of at least 300px.
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Lambeau's caption should have a period.
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "second most regular season (630) and overall victories (654) " this is going to need to be updated on a game-by-game basis which would make the list a little bit unstable.
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we widen the cols - the name col and the position col just wrap over occasionally for me and you should have plenty of space to avoid that.
    • Fixed, hopefully. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • [5] has Pro Football Hall of Fame in italics as source, [6] has profootballhof in italics while [7] etc has ProFootballHoF.com not in italics. All are referring to the same source.
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there an NFL list category you could add this to?
    • None that I am aware of. To the best of my knowledge this is the first list of its kind. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review TRM. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 06:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • George Calhoun also founded the franchise according to your source. Should be mentioned.
    • Mentioned. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • eighteen NFL divisional titles and 17 individuals inducted - Be consistent and use either digits or letters.
    • Fixed, I made it so it complies to WP:NUMBERS. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Curly Lambeau is linked twice in the lead.
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Usually, numbers are centered and words are left-aligned in tables.
    • Is this a must or an MoS compliance issue, because personally I like when a whole table conforms to one alignment, unless there is a direct reason for changing it? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't find anything at MoS, it's just that centered text looks weird to me. If no one else notices this, then it's fine.--Crzycheetah 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Go through the names and fix disamg. links/redirect.
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Taylor, Adderly, and Wood still remain.--Crzycheetah 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you can add two more pictures.
    • I have added Image:JanStenerud.jpg, but if the other picture you are talking about is Image:Reggie white packers.jpg, well that photo is not free, so it cant be used. If there is another photo that I am missing, please let me know. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I was actually thinking of Don Hutson, but I see that his picture is fair-use, as well.--Crzycheetah 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 22:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review Crzycheetah. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak support Everything looks great, except the centered text. Maybe it's just a personal preference.--Crzycheetah 06:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The first two decades of the Hall of Fame's existence saw 17 separate Packers enshrined," I didn't expect them to be conjoined.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• "including the only inductee to not play for the Packers, Vince Lombardi." What does this mean, that in the first two decades, only one non-Packer was inducted?
  • It means he never played for them, he was a coach. The next sentence explains that, but I have reworded it to make it a little clearer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review Matthew. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. I've only got one more thing -- I'm pretty sure sacks is the wrong link. If not, what does it mean? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good catch, relinked to Quarterback sack. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In the {{cite web}}s, you need to properly distinguish between 'work' and 'publisher', they're not interchangeable depending on what typeface you want them to appear in. For example, in your ref #1, you correctly have Packers.com as a work (the publisher would be Green Bay Packers). However in ref #2, you have NFL as a work, which it isn't; the work, for that item, would be NFL.com or NFL official site, and NFL is its publisher. ProFootballHof.com is a work whose publisher is Pro Football Hall of Fame; if you don't want it to appear in italics, change it to Pro Football Hall of Fame, the name of the publisher. Sorry if this comes across as petty, but for featured content it needs doing right.
  • Fixed, all consistently "publisher=". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Super Bowl and NFL Championships only need wikilinking once each in the lead.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Bearing in mind this is also supposed to make sense to non-Americans who don't follow American football, what does all-time mean in "the NFL's all-time offensive tackle Cal Hubbard"? Or could it be linked to something that would explain it to the ignorant foreigner? Likewise Most Valuable Player (the NFL's? the Super Bowl's?) and "1931 All-NFL player".
  • I linked MVP to National Football League Most Valuable Player Award. The other two, including the MVP one, are referenced to the ref link found after each statement. The "1931 All-NFL player" was just a title that given out before All-Pro I believe, and I imagine "the NFL's all-time offensive tackle" is in reference to a team that the NFL chose as it's best players. Both statements are referenced, but I can't seem to find anything on the 'pedia to explain them. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Those footnotes which say "minor portion of their career" should read "of his career".
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'd prefer the name column to be left-aligned; it's tidier and (IMO) more readable that way.
  • Left-justified. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:23, 9 July 2008 [65].

---

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

And here's another one. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This looks good, but unlink the years (MOS:UNLINKYEARS). Gary King (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is a really good list. Just add a period at the end of the image caption.--Dem393 (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's no need since it's still a fragment and doesn't require a full stop. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Professional work. - Darwinek (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Support Two things I don't like,
  • The lead should not start with the word "since", but with the subject instead.
  • The first paragraph is just a one long sentence.

--Crzycheetah 08:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed, although I think the former wording was fine. A reader isn't going to think that "Since 1994" is the subject by any means, and it doesn't have to be the absolute first thing the reader sees. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the changes. I know that my comments appeared as if the subject must be the first thing, but I didn't mean it that way. I just didn't like it when a whole new article began with the conjunction. Starting with the subject is the safest way to go, I think. --Crzycheetah 08:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying your intent. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good list, shouldn't be any problem having this featured. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well written, meets criteria. I have no other comments and can't even find a typo! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Being a bit picky, you may need to explain the (67th) etc in the table as the heading just says Year.
  • Just two red links left, it'd be perfect if you could create, as a minimum, stubs for those guys?
• Nothing serious though. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Added a clarification for the Academy Award ceremonies. As for the directors, I can understand creating stubs for the submissions, as they're the central part of the list, but creating stubs for the directors is a little bit of a stretch :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:11, 8 July 2008 [66].

---

List of tallest buildings in Baltimore

Another tallest buildings list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Denver and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia. I have been working in collaboration with User:SRX to bring this list up to FL standards, and we think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 17:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment At the end of paragraph 2, you have 2 "with"'s. Also remove the comma in note b.--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed--SRX^--LatinoHeat 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In addition, please remove the comma in the first sentence of note c. --Dem393 (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed--SRX^--LatinoHeat 00:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Support--Dem393 (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support VerruckteDan (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - another great list. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't understand what "tallest building between Philadelphia and Charlotte." means? Is it as in "on the map"?
• Entries 10 and 11 are the same height yet ranked differently

Otherwise another great list. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes on the map, and i fixed those entries.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 13:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It reads awkwardly. Try to add something so that it is made clearer. Otherwise, nice work. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• By the way, if you want me to do map the lead photo to identify the buildings, drop me a line on my talk page to identify each one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:11, 8 July 2008 [67].

---

List of IIHF World Under-20 Championship medalists

I had intended to nominate this one more than a week ago, but then completely forgot about it. I'm going away on the 28th, so Maxim will address all concerns after that date. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "pools - divisions I, II and III - that" should use em dashes per WP:DASH
• "the 'Top Division', from" → "the "Top Division", from"

Gary King (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Done and done, thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Does "Top Division" need any quote marks?
  • It's an unofficial name yet commonly used name, so it need the quotation marks. --Maxim.
• space between period and Ref 1
  • Done. --Maxim.
• "voting 7-1", "leading 4-2" Ndash
  • Done. --Maxim.
• Gold, silver and bronze images are, IMHO, unnecessary clutter. What do they add that the words "gold", "silver" and "bronze" and the coloured cells don't?
  • They add instant visual identification. I don't see it as clutter, and I tried removing the gold/silver/bronze and coloured stuff and looked awkward, and monotonous with the other cells. --Maxim.
    • Then be consistent throughout the article and add them to the Medal table Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. --Maxim

Nice otherwise. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• References 6 and 7 should be formatted as footnotes so the statements can be referenced correctly. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you please rephrase that? I have no clue of what you want to be done. Maxim_(talk) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In the three spots where you currently have ref 6 placed, you would put

    {{ref label|CanadaSoviet|α|α}}

    then in the references or a Footnotes section, you would put

    {{note label|CanadaSoviet|α|α}}During the final game of the tournament, Canada and the Soviet Union became engaged in a bench-clearing brawl while Canada was leading 4–2. Consequentially, the game was cancelled and both teams were disqualified. While the Soviets were out of medal contention, Canada was playing for the gold medal and was guaranteed at least a bronze.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/backgrounder-world-juniors.html |title=Backgrounder–2008 World Junior Hockey Championship|publisher=[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC Sports]]|accessdate=2008-06-11|author=Doug Harrison}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title = Team Canada > National Junior Team > History | publisher = [[Hockey Canada]]| url = http://www.hockeycanada.ca/3/5/6/7/index1.shtml |accessdate=2008-06-12}}</ref>

    This will put the statement in a footnote, and the references will appear correctly like^[6]. I've actually done this one, so you need to do the same for reference 7. Put

    {{ref label|Host|β|β}}

    where ref 7 is currently placed, and then in a footnotes section, put

    {{note label|Host|α|α}}Canada will host the tournament every 3 or 4 years. In 1990 Canada decided to switch years with Finland.

    This can then be referenced as usual. The Greek letters can be changed to Latin letters, just don't make them numbers because it'll get confused with real references. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Hopefully  Fixed. Maxim_(talk) 18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Should the title be Under-20 per WP:DASH?
• " It is traditionally held in late December, ending in the beginning of January. " - "...held from late December to the beginning of January." may sound better?
  • Done.
• You have citations in the lead. But nothing for the first paragraph at all.
  • I added a reference.
• I think we're currently not linking individual years - can you check that at WP:DATE?
• "bench clearing" needs a hyphen but is a bit jargony all the same.
  • I reworded that part
• Shouldn't Canada and Soviet Union link to their hockey teams?
• "two handed" - hyphenation?
  • Done.
• Fin, Cze and Swe aren't linked. Be consistent.
  • I removed the wikilinks above, so it is more consistant.
• Can you move [3] somewhere nice per WP:CITE?
  • Done.
• "three to four years." 3 or 4?
  • I actually decided to remove the sentence.
• "a total of 11" - a total of is redundant.
  • Done.
• Can both tables have the same col widths?
  • Okay.
• When sorting by country, say, Canada goes (1), (10), (11), ..., (2), (3)... etc. I'd expect to see (1), (2), (3).. etc
  • It has been fixed.
• TSN.ca vs (linked) TSN.
• Same point with IIHF.com.
  • I have made everything consistant.
• Why are title's in quotations?
  • Where?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• No, please move the title so there's a hyphen: "Under-20 ...".
  • Fixed.
• Great pic, but I don't get the info-page justification: if this copyrighted image "has been released by a company or organization to promote ...", why does it have to be "of low resolution", etc? Something's fishy here. Where's the proof of release?
  • Can you please rephrase this? I don't understand what you mean.
    • I'm second guessing Tony's comment here but I suspect in a roundabout kind of a way he's querying the fair use rationale of the image. The template says it's an image "...that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit..." but the source doesn't point to Team Canada's website, it goes to a Canadian TV channel where the image has "Photo: SAMUEL KUBANI/AFP/Getty Images" underneath. I'm guessing the use of this kind of image would require permission through OTRS and fair use wouldn't cut it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • OTRS would make it a "free" image; instead, this image is being claimed as fair use. I think Scorpion picked a misleading template, which I fixed. Hope it's better now. Maxim_(talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Don't link individual years: MOS breach.
  • Fixed.
• "Soviet Union/Russia and Canada"—no links in the main text, please. See WP:CONTEXT.
  • Fixed.
• Why not spell out "TBD" instead of linking it first time? I'd de-blue the second and third columns in "Future tournaments".
  • I left Ottawa in as a link, it hasn't appeared before. All others fixed.

TONY (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:42, 7 July 2008 [68].

---

Sepultura discography

Now is the time! Cannibaloki 17:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the references are missing an accessdate. Gary King (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done. Cannibaloki 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support good work. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for my forgetfulness, thank you very much! Cannibaloki 23:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Some music videos do not have directors listed. Find an alternate source to MVDBase, its not reliable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Again? Cannibaloki 22:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. How is this meant to be comprehensive with a directors missing. Also, what order are the singles charts in? Not by alphabet anyway. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll put all so charts in alphabetical order, I will NOT change more. Cannibaloki 20:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Who directed "Choke"? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done This video was directed by Raul Machado. Cannibaloki 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Still some problems. The album chart countrys are in a irregular order. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that someone this confused here! Tenacious D Fan, you changed the opinion of the user Be Black Hole Sun. Cannibaloki 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah. My mistake. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks really good! My only complaint was a sloppy lead and accompanying cleanup tag, so I went ahead and copyedited myself. Voila! Drewcifer (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Good start. A few suggestions:

• The lead is a little too long. Try and condense it down by a paragraph or two.
• The first sentence reads very awkwardly. See Linkin Park discography for another current FLC that starts off much more smoothly.
• The chart columns are in the wrong order. They should be alphabetized by English name, not English abbreviation.
• I recommend dispersing the certification citations into the cells, rather then keeping them in the header where it's too vague.
• Sepultura is a Brazilian band, therefore international date-format should be used (DD Month YYYY). Drewcifer (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done It was NOT me that changed the date format! link Cannibaloki 23:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The sections in the page should be the same order as in the infobox. (Video albums and music videos are flipped)
• "the band stayed their friends Paulo Jr. and Jairo Guedz for record Morbid Visions" I don't understand this
• And that is a very long sentence. Could it be broken into two?
• "With the new formation, Sepultura recorded, in 1987, Schizophrenia." Yoda speak. It should be "With the new formation, Sepultura recorded Schizophrenia in 1987."

"The Force is with you..."

• "Max Cavalera left the band, and subsequently formed a new one, Soulfly. The others announced that they would continue under the Sepultura name and were searching for a replacement." When? What "others"?
• "Derrick Green from Cleveland wound up filling the frontman spot,": "Wound up" is not encyclopedic tone
• Why isn't there a Brazilian peak chart position for either albums or singles? If they didn't chart there, this should be stated in the lead section.

Best leave this issue to one side.

Why? Either some did chart, and the information is missing, therefore not ready for FL status, or they didn't chart, in which case it should be mentioned that they haven't had any releases chart in their home country. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• No need to list every album release in the lead. Some cherry picking here is allowed.
• "Appeared on the charts for the Billboard 200 at #162." → "Appeared on the Billboard 200 charts at #162."

• Y Done Cannibaloki 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Entire lead section needs a good copy-edit.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Currently has a {{cleanup}} tag attatched which, since that qualifies for a Quick Fail at WP:GA, it certainly should at WP:FL Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The cleanup tag has been admirably dealt with by Drewcifer. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:42, 7 July 2008 [69].

---

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)

Nominator(s): Miguel.mateo (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it passes all of the FA criteria and the information it provides is not easy to find on catalogs or in the internet (it is staggered in several sites, incomplete and in different languages). I believe it is well written, well-sourced, properly formatted and the information it contains is complete (all Belgian Euro commemorative coins from 2002 until today).

As a background, the Euro is currently being used in 15 countries of the European Union. Each country can mint circulating coins and 2 Euro commemorative coins that are legal tender in the entire Euro zone. But as a legacy of the practice of minting silver and gold coins, very high value in precious metals like silver, gold, titanium, niobium, etc are still minted. These coins only have a legal tender in the issuing country. Collecting these coins and seeing how difficult is to find information about them was the main reason why a set of Wikipedians decided to start a Euro gold and silver commemorative coins set of articles, one for each of the countries. Belgium is the first one of these articles being completely finished, extensively sourced and extensively wiki-linked. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• This seems more (to me) like a list, which goes to Featured lists. A quick note - references need formatting... all internet sources need publishers and accessdates (see WP:FN). {{cite web}} is optional but useful. giggy _(:O) 11:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done, all references are live so I hope it is OK to put access date as today (based on WP:FN publisher is not mandatory, am I wrong?). About the list, I myself have a debate and I am looking for some quidance, I proposed FA because €2 commemorative coins (a very similar article) is an FA. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• According to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/€2 commemorative coins, consensus was reached less than a year ago that these types of articles are indeed more appropriate for FAC than FLC. I would personally disagree, but the discussion has already been made fairly recently.

• I do not mind to put it as an FLC, so shall I drop this conversation here and create it there? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• You are missing publishers for most of the references; please add them.

• Will do later today, I have mentioned them in the name so the information is there. But again, based on WP:FN publisher is not mandatory, am I wrong or publisher should be in all references of a FA or FL? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:CITE/ES. Gary King (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done, all internet references have a publisher now, I was putting it in the title instead, thanks for the lesson ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.muntslag.nunaar.be/index.htm reliable, especially when it is used about 25 times in the article?

• This source is the web site of a Belgian euro collector and seller. He also happens to contribute very active in euro related forums which I can not source due to Wikipedia standards. All the information has been confirmed with catalogs which I have not referenced because they are in other languages. Also this particular site is one of the best indicators of market price for the coins, since they sell (whatever they have in stock). Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to FLC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is not listed at WP:FAC. If it is listd, will the nominators please re-sign their declaration with an updated timestamp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I also recommend moving this page to FLC; there have been many discussions about moving €2 commemorative coins to a featured list, and no one has gotten around to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind to put it as an FLC, so shall I drop this conversation here and create it there? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You've submitted it to FAC; do you want it moved to FLC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

since there seems to be some consensus about it, sure why not. Do I have to do anything? Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• You need to put "Belgium" in the Lead section

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "They are a legacy of old national practice of minting silver and gold commemorative coins." Fragmented

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• What does "unlike normal issues" mean, and refer to? "euro coins minted and issued by member states of the eurozone since 2002 as legal tender" or "only in the country where the coin was issued"

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't start a paragraph with "They"

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "not really intended" too vague

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "bullion value" can this be wikilinked to anything?

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilink Belgium

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Lead needs expanding. When did Belgium start using the Euro? What's the minting company called?

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Map is a bit big, considering Belgium is so small. We don't really need to see the Middle East and Eastern Bloc. Can a "zoomed-in" map be found?

We are using the same standard maps that are recognized in almost all articles that refer to the Euro zone. A reader that goes to Belgium will see the same map ... is this really needed? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Obviously it can be done, but I am more concerned on consistency.

• "minted — two" Per WP:DASH, mdashes should be used unspaced. An ndash can be used with spaces to achieve the same meaning. Be consistent with the rest of the article though

• Done, replaced it with a colon. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think I know what the numbers 1 and 2 mean in the box in the Summary section, but it's not explicit

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:HEAD, "Market Value" should be "Market value"

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• "so this coin was the first Belgian euro commemorative coin ever released." Needs to be in a more encyclopaedic tone

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP:MOS#Foreign terms says foreign terms not in common English usage should be itallicised.

Can you give me a sample of what you are referring to? Like Bois du Cazier for example?

That's exactly what I'm referring to. And stuff like "Noord-Zuidverbinding Jonction Nord-Midi". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what "Ag 925 (Silver)" means in Alloy. Perhaps wikilink the header to Alloy, and/or use {{ref label}} and {{note label}} to describe what you mean

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Issued: 16.10.2002" violates MOS:NUM#Dates

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilink effigy

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• "'Belgium' in the three official languages" should be double-quote marks instead of single WP:PUNC

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Link to Obverse and reverse

• Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a sales catlogue, so the market value has to be removed

We have a catch22 here, and I do need your guidance. Attached to collectors' coins there are three values: face value (the value written in the coin, which is meaningless, just used to identify the coin), the issue value (this is the value given by the mint or the bank when the coin is released, very difficult to obtain for some old coins) and the market value (the value that the current coin has today). This last value is maybe one of the most important attributes of a coin in the area of numismatics. We have discussed about this in the past, and we have agreed that this particular value is very important and should be kept. So in this case it not to be used as a sales catalogue, but as an attribute of the coin. Does that make sense? Do you have any other suggestion in this particular topic? Maybe explaining the terms would help... Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You've made a convincing point here, but who is the "we" that decided this? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, the last discussions about this topic are here and here. We are mainly three editors building the set of articles, one article per country (I was the one building Belgium, but you can see in Euro gold and silver commemorative coins the list of other articles being built). We have in very good shape Belgium, Austria, Ireland and Finland - the last three need to be polished to meet the FL criteria. We have also get a lot of information for France, Spain, Luxembourg, San Marino, Vatican City, Malta and Slovenia (as you see we still have countries to cover). The other two editors are Kevin hipwell and Melitikus.

• What is "Proof"?

Point taken. Maybe a section on top of all the tables explaining the terms and the values that can found on them (the same for Alloy) would help. What do you think? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That or wikilinks.

Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Exact date of release for the first coin, but a vague year-only for the rest

This is difficult. Not all coins have an exact date, the ones that have them is because the sources give us the exact date. Do you have any suggestion to tackle this point? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia is about verifiability rather than truth. If other sources can be found, that's great, if not, oh well. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about the number of fair-use images used here. 52 unless I counted wrong. WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles for more

As you might know, these are images of currency coins. The images 'might' be copyrighted (it really depends on the country), but as the copyright for currency images, they can be used as long as the design is either described or criticized in the article. I hope you understand that without the images this article makes not too much sense (as other list of coins out there). For this particular case, do we have a choice? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I see the €2 commemorative coins is Featured and has a large number of coin images. I've stricken this one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So it's an oppose at the moment. Too many Wiki-guidelines that need to be followed. Additionally, the descriptions for each coin are in need of a good copy edit. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope I can make you change your opinion, since I do have a lot of work to do;) I am very thankful for your review and I will be replying to each of the points separately, one by one, little by little. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, well feel free to ping me on my talk page. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Why the green and red? What do they add to the article?

Absolutely nothing is added to the article, just a representation of when that particular coin was minted or not. We were following the same standards as the table in €2 commemorative coins. It definitely looks good. Maybe what we are missing is an explanation of the numbers and the colors? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

An explanation of the numbers, but I really don't see the need for the colours. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How about now? Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I still feel they do nothing but art-sy up the article. And it would be a nightmare for someone reading a black-and-white printout of the page. BTW a dash (doesn't matter if it's n or mdash), should be used in the "empty" cells, otherwise it looks like it has information missing.

Done (the dashes for the empty cells) Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For the colors I will comment with the other editors, it should respect their decision too. I tried printing in B/W and it looks perfect (like no colors). I also tried removing the colors, and IMHO I did not like it. But will revert as soon as I hear consensus from the others. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Don't over wikilink terms such as Obverse and reverse and effigy. Only use them on the first entry.

• Done, only wikilinked the first entry of every subsection (there are articles having wikilinks to sections in this article, that is why). Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The reverse side shows the [[effigy]]" Too many wikilinking brackets

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Done Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment – The list looks great, from a quick look at it, but Devil's in the details, as they say (the Purple Oyster of Doom, in my case). I have located this sentence in the last section: "The unusual aspect of this coin being that the bird itself is actually colored blue!" Exclamation marks are to be used nowhere but in quotations; please ensure that this is rectified (you might wish to rephrase if you consider the sentence less satisfying without the exclamation) and that there are no other breaches of encyclopaedic tone. Waltham, The Duke of 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the review. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't thank me just yet. :-) Do you agree that the dates should be in the day month year format instead of the month day, year one mainly used in the United States? Waltham, The Duke of 08:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your compliment and because you did take the time to read it, at the point you found the only exclamation in the whole article! :) About the dates, I read in MOS:NUM#Dates that as long as it is coherent in the whole article, there is no need to change it. I have using month day, year all of my life. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it also says right afterwards that an article with a strong national tie to a country should use the format commonly used by that country. Anyway, I've left the date in the intro intact for the moment. I hope I have not been too drastic with the rest of it; I really thought the language was in great need of a good copy-edit. More improvements could be made, of course, by someone with a better command of the language than myself. Waltham, The Duke of 08:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed, I am sure that Matthewedwards will like it more the way it is now. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing all the points you mentioned in the leading section, after I added all the info Waltham did a great copy-edit, that is what I refer too. I am sure you would not like what the leading section was before his changes :) Miguel.mateo (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I haven't checked the diffs to be honest. I agree with his date formatting concern though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, all dates have been changed. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "...coins in average ..." - on average?
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "twenty-seven" - MOS suggests 27.
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably worth noting in the lead the usual symbol for a euro since you use it in the second section without specific linking to euro.
    • This one I do not understand, euro is linked in the first paragraph of the lead section, do you mean that it should show the symbol as well?
      • Yes, I'm saying that people not familiar with the symbol may not understand that it's the same thing, so I'd link it in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • legal-tender or legal tender. Be consistent.
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove spaces between references and text.
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why two market values 10 cents apart? There must be a better way of showing the typical variations in value? And did I miss the bit where you said when the market value was established because presumably the market value fluctuates...?
    • Done. We (the editors of this set of articles) have discussed this topic extensively. The decision was to give one or two references as long as they are trusted. Then the date in the reference will show how recent this market value is. These coins are fairly new, and their market prices had varied little, some of them as soon as they were sold out in the mint shops changed their price but that is all. I have changed a couple of prices not to show such a small difference. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Noord-Zuidverbinding Jonction Nord-Midi” (North-South connection, interjection Nord-Midi)" - no comma on the coin..
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If Nord-Midi is one of the most famous intersections in Belgium why doesn't it have an article?
    • Done. Althought I can not answer your question (it was my opinion that it should), I have changed the texts to avoid it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You should consider the {{convert}} template for us imperial measurement fans, for both diameter and mass.
    • Done. Thanks for the trick, I have been looking for it for a while. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why isn't Tintin linked on its first use?
    • It is, in the topic name, regardless I have wikilinked in the text as well so it is easier to be found, hence Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "As a result, Europa has been used frequently as a symbol of Europe. Statues of her and the bull, are placed outside several European Union institutions, the €2 Greek euro coin also pictures them. Europa's name appeared on postage stamps commemorating the Council of Europe, which were first issued in 1956." need citation.
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Link, expand or explain GDP which you use only once.
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't low countries be Low Countries? And it could be linked.
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The stadium hosted 70,000 at the time." 70,000 what?
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " "Belgium" in the three official languages is displayed ..." does this really need to be repeated for every single coin?
    • For this I do need advice, it is the description of the coin and can (but should not) be omitted. I do recognize that reading the article from the beginning it sounds repetitive, but there are links in several articles in Wikipedia to sections in this article, referencing one particular coin. People that follow these links may be interested in seeing the details of just that specific coin. The same applies to those that search for coin details and get forwarded to this article by the search engine. IMHO, I do not think that people normally will read the article from the beginning to the end, but instead they will look at what they are interested into, and read that portion. What do you think?
      • Yeah, it's not a deal breaker for me - I did read the whole article from beginning to end and thought you could just have a note in the lead or just before the table saying that all coins show Belgium in the three official languages. But I'm not fussed either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "1547 - 1606." should use en-dash to separate years.
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Formatting issues with [[Bois du Cazier]] at Marcinelle.
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "'ergé " red links. Why?
    • Done. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the plural of euro euro or euros? Seem to be interchangeable in this list.
    • Please see Linguistic issues concerning the euro, both are accepted. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• These need to be resolved quickly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. Improved greatly since the FLC began. Could also make for an interesting WP:FT in the future. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Matthew, bringing all the articles to FL standard is our current goal, definitely the Behag goal is to reach FT. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • There seem to be a few small inconsistencys, the coin with topic "Justus Lipsius" the gold and silver coins have one description, this don't seem to have been done for topic "Maurice Maeterlinck" instead it has 2 descriptions with the second stating "This coin design is similar to the 10 euro Maurice Maeterlinck coin" I don't see why there is a need for 2 descriptions and then not give 2 descriptions, this is repeated for the topic "Olympic Games 2008" this time the gold coin has a bit more info (although not really a description), Finally the topic "Olympic Games 2008" & "2008 Olympic Games" should they not both be either or.Kevin hipwell (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. Kevin, good catch! Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Look, it's pretty good, but was overlinked. Still is. Autoformatting of dates is no longer encouraged, and here, the high-value links need to breathe. Please see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT on this issue, plus the trivial linking of the names of well-known countries and cities. Why is "proof linked 100,000 times? Just once is enough. TONY (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that overlinking is the case for this article, was gonna mention that yesterday because of the "euro coins minted" double link on the first sentence, also why is Alloy linked more than once?. TONY I don't see in the WP:MOSLINK or WP:CONTEXT that "autoformatting of dates is no longer encouraged" can you please point out to me where this is stated.Kevin hipwell (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you all for the so many contributions: so many edits in such a small time frame for me to digest! As I explained before, there are wikilinks in several other articles pointing to sections in the article (links to "...#2006 coinage" for example), this is the main reason why on purpose I over wikilinked the same terms. As of now, a reader that wants to read about the coin by following the previous sample link for a coin of 2006 will not see the links to "proof" for example. This was my only concern, but if people fill different is OK with me.
• Satisfied now! TONY (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support The article has met all criteria. -Kevin hipwell (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 7 July 2008 [70].

---

List of tallest buildings in Columbus

Another tallest buildings list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Atlanta and List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis. I have been working in collaboration with Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 02:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment the fourth column in the Timeline of tallest buildings section reverses feet and meters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Cheers, Rai•me 14:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment
  • In the lead, link to the appropriate article in "caisson"
    • Done.
  • "Although no Columbus skyscrapers rank among..." should be changed to "Although no Columbus skyscraper ranks among..." or "Although none of the Columbus skyscrapers ranks among..."
    • Changed to the former.
  • In the "Tallest proposed" section, the asterisk note and the note under the "Notes" column are both very redundant. Take out one of them, preferable the one that's under the "Notes" column.
    • I agree, I removed the one in the "Notes" column.
  • Also in the "Tallest proposed" section, why do you use plural nouns when there's only one building in the list? Try this (or another grammatically acceptable variation): "This lists the skyscraper that is proposed for construction in Columbus and is planned to rise at least 250 feet (76 m) in height, but is not yet completed structures. A floor count of 20 stories is used as the cutoff in place of a height of 250 feet (76 m) because the building's height has not yet been released by their developers."
    • Done - changed to singular wording.
• These are my only concerns.--Dem393 (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and cheers, Rai•me 01:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You're welcome! Good job on the list! Support--Dem393 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• No need for "both" in "However, there are two major high-rise reconstructions taking place in the city; both Eight on the Square and the Grange Mutual Companies Building are being renovated", as you say there are two
  • Done.
• "This structure rose 13 stories and 180 feet (55 m) in height." I prefer "This structure stands", but it's not a big deal
  • Done.
• Wikilink high-rise on its first use
  • It was wikilinked in the first sentence, but I removed the second instance of its wikilinking in the second paragraph of the lead.
• Sort order needs fixing on Name and Street address for "Timeline of tallest buildings"
  • Done.

Another well written piece, otherwise. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review and cheers, Rai•me 01:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Welcome Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Look very good to me. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, great list. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 15:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• "fifth-tallest", but "second tallest"?
  • I have added the hyphen. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• "are being renovated"—rather time-specific. Who's gonna repair it when they're no longer being renovated? As of?
  • I added "in mid-2008" in order to prevent repeating "as of ...". Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Slashes should be unspaced.
  • I am sorry, but can you explain what you mean. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• "21="?
  • What about it? The equal signs are there because they are equal in height so they share the same rank. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Gratuitous table in "Tallest proposed". This type of table should be firmly discouraged. TONY (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but I do not know what you mean by this either. Are you referring to the list only having one entry or that it does not include the height? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 7 July 2008 [71].

---

Meshuggah discography

So far I did the maximum we could with this list, but I think there details to improve. Cannibaloki 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Can the lead be expanded to be more than just one paragraph? Gary King (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done. Cannibaloki 23:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great, all of my concerns have been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks really good. A few suggestions. (PS, most of these suggestions apply to the Sepultura discography, so I'll avoid repeating myself at that FLC):

• "US Indie." is a little slangish ("indie"). Howabout "Ind."?
• ""—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart." is a little redundant. Can an album not be released and not chart?
• The "EPs" section should be "Extended plays",
• In the ep table, the chart doesn't need the double-header, since there's only one chart.
• The "Soundtracks" section worries me. Per MOS:DISCOG, we're only concerned with releases that feature original material. I have the suspicion that "Rational Gaze" and "Shed" have been featured on other albums. If that's true, you don't need to mention these soundtracks at all.
• MVDBase.com is not considered a reliable source. But the good thing is that music videos are usually considered to be self-referential (since they have credits), so you can just get rid of the citation and you're cool. Drewcifer (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Don't force the bolded title or the straight repetition of the title in the first sentence. I'd recommended getting right to the point and telling us who Meshuggah is.

  Take a look at Linkin Park discography, another current FLC that did a good job of making the first line more interesting. Basically my point is saying "This is a discography of Meshuggah" is unneccessary and poor writing. Drewcifer (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• The chart columns are a little out-of-order. See MOS:DISCOG for suggestions.

• Y Done, But I not understand your first suggestion! Still not sure about the order of the chart columns. Cannibaloki 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• According to MOS:DISCOG, homecountry (Sweden) should go first, then every other country in alphabetical order. Or you have the option of Sweden, then an alphabetical listing of English-speaking countries, then every other country. Though I prefer the latter. Drewcifer (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done. Cannibaloki 23:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Why do some music videos not have directors? Did any albums get gold/silver/bronze certifications anywhere? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, no. Cannibaloki 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done. Cannibaloki 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Album charts in wrong order. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done. Cannibaloki 23:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Drewcifer is right, there are two accepted options of ordering the peak chart positions. The first is home country, followed by everything else in alphabetical order, and the second is with the home country first, followed by English charts in alphabetical, then all other countries in alphabetical. I usually prefer the latter (and the way it now is in the list), but for this list I think that the US charts should be at the end, as for this band, the Finnish, French and Swiss charts are more relevant due to the proximity of those countries with Sweden compared to the US. It also looks odd with 3 US charts in the middle of the other 4.

• Y Done In this case, is a matter of sensitivity. Cannibaloki 14:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "full-lenght" → "full-length"
• "A collection of demos (from the Psykisk Testbild EP) and rare recordings was released" Should this be "were released"?
• The order of sections should be the same order as the infobox.
• It appears no singles have ever been released. Is this correct? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• So far, nothing in the singles format was released. Thanks for the tips! Cannibaloki 14:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:42, 6 July 2008 [72].

---

List of elements by stability of isotopes

I have worked on this list for some time and I think it should be close to completion now. It has also gone through a comprehensive review recently and thanks to Cryptic C62, lots of feedback was received. Nergaal (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (Now support): A solid list, but some issues.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So are your issues resolved? Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I got no issues on seeing that list with an FL star. Minor detail, your footnotes are a,b,c,d,e,f,h,h,i. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Elements with stable isotopes

• What are these stables isotopes? Tin has 10, which are they? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW}

• Listing these 10 isotopes in order of "commonness" would be a good idea. Using {{Nuclide}} here would keep things from getting stretched.

done Nergaal (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is allready at Stable isotope#List of stable isotopes. Do you think it would help copying it here? Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but using {{Nuclide}}, as full name would take way too much space. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done? Nergaal (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Elements without stable isotopes

• Table is not sortable Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW}

• It is extremely easy to switch, but then the sorting will ignore the a/d/h/min/s part. Anybody knows a way around this? Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I fixed that.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Half-life formatting is not consistent, nor is it WP:MOSNUM compliant. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW}

• I am not sure what you mean. Could you be more specific? Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I made some MOS compliant. This should give you a good enough start. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• So besides the no-break-space-thing for the numbers-units, is there anything else? Nergaal (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well don't use <math> for one. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• done? Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• A small legend for a, d, h, s, would be useful. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW}

• Again, not sure what you mean. There is allready a notes section. Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• My bad, I didn't see it. I changed m to min, as the symbol for minute is min, and wikilink the first instances. m stands for meter.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Awful lots of red links in there

• done Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• References

• Name formatting is confusing at first. Using Last, First, Last, First makes it very confusing if you don't know that. Try using A. Sonzogni, B. Dumé, P. de Marcillac, N. Coron, G. Dambier, J. LeBlanc (check if this isn't how he spells it), J.P. Molliac, or a variant. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW}

• This is the usual formatting in academia. The reference is a {{cite journal}} one and I think this is how it is set to work. Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• In some journals. I never liked this style, and since we have the freedom to choose, I say lets go with a non-confusing one. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• done Nergaal (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• What's your refs for the tables themselves? Place ref tags next to table title or something.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW}

• The reference is already in the intro (2nd and 3rd paragraph, check for ^[1]). Do I need to repeat the reference if I already show in the intro that it is the one I am using?Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. You can use the same source multiple times. (first time use <ref name=NAME> {{citation template}} </ref>, and the second time use <ref name=NAME/>.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove the bold formatting if you are going to keep the link there, per WP:BOLDTITLE.

done Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "See Also" section goes before "References" per WP:LAYOUT.

• What about the notes section?Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Something I should have mentioned. The correct order is "See also" → "Footnotes" → "References" (and → "External links"). Gary King (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

done Nergaal (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Institute of Physics Pubishing," → "Institute of Physics Publishing,"?

:) done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• For {{cite news}}, the date should be entered as 2001-01-01 per the template's documentation.

done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Footnote A is worded poorly, especially with the "See discussion here" part

• I agree but I am not sure how to rephrase it. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• DoneNergaal (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opening sentence could do with work for me, by removing "This is a list of", and don't wikilink bold text. Both per WP:LS

done? Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "There are 80 elements of the first 82 in the periodic table that do have isotopes considered to be stable." → "Of the first 82 elements in the periodic table, 80 have stable isotopes" Or something. There's too many unnecessary words at the moment.

done? Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Third sentence is too long with too many "and"s

done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sentence begins with "Also"

done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• MOS:NUM on digits and words for numbers below 10, and numbers which could be written using two words

done Nergaal (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think another paragraph is needed about the subject of the list, rather than (or as well as) two about the format of the list.

• Ha? What else is missing or not yet clear? Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Contents of "Most common isotope" column aren't wikilinked, yet those in "Longest-lived isotope" are. Do the former not have articles?

done Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The colours in the images are a nightmare for colorblind people. WP:ACCESS. See http://colorfilter.wickline.org/?a=1;r=;l=0;j=1;u=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_stability_of_isotopes;t=m

• Is this actually a requirement for a FA? I wouldn't mind changing (even though only ~1% of readers might have problems) but do you have a suggestion for another ser of colors that would make sense? Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• done Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• "half live of over 7000" I don't know much about this sort of stuff, so 7000 whats? Years? months? seconds?

done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP:LAYOUT See also should be above the references

done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Dem393 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment You have an active peer review, which isn't allowed. Anyway, here arts my comments.

Never got this, how do I close/archive a PR? Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done Nergaal (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the lead sentence say "In this list, the chemical elements..." since elements aren't always classified this way.

ok Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Explain what the numbers after the elements mean. For example, explain what the 1 is in hydrogen-1.

done Nergaal (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Having colored charts and colored text violates one of our policies, but I don't know which one.--Dem393 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Never heared this one. Say there is a policy, any suggestions for the legend? Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP:ACCESS. Anything in colour should also be identified in another way (text-based) for those with images turned off, colourblind people, and the like. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• so you think I should use something like "(blue) stable elements." instead for the legend? Nergaal (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really know what the best way to address this would be. If someone reads a printed copy, colored text might not be much good. Especially if used in a school where it's photocopied a bunch of times. Discuss it at WT:FLC, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• The legend that you just put up is fine. Anyone can still read the article without having to look at the picture anyway. Besides, the periodic table you made is just a different representation of the information from the tables.

I'm happy with this lost so I support--Dem393 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the list of stable elements, footnote (b) states that the most common isotope may not be the most stable one. In addition to or instead of placing this footnote in the table header, I suggest placing it at all isotopes that are most common yet unstable. --Eddi (Talk) 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• I went for a different approach. How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is an improvement, yes. I would be happy, though, to see the relevant unstable isotopes listed in their order among the stable ones, to illustrate that abundancy does not necessarily imply stability. E.g. for calcium: ⁴⁰
  Ca
  , ⁴⁴
  Ca
  , ⁴²
  Ca
  , [⁴⁸
  Ca
  ], ⁴³
  Ca
  . Could this be useful? --Eddi (Talk) 10:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But the article is not about the isotopes found on Earth, but about the ones that are stable. Nergaal (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but when I read that some unstable isotopes are more abundant than some stable ones, I'm curious to see which ones those are. Perhaps it is not very interesting if the abundancy is low (like with calcium), but don't you think it could be interesting if the unstable isotopes were among, say, the top 1-2(-3) in abundancy? --Eddi (Talk) 22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the article/list now?Nergaal (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The table of elements with stable isotopes looks very nice, I think. Good work – hope the level of this fits with the rest. Please note that I have not studied the whole article in detail, and I have not considered the FL criteria. By the way, remember units (i.e. years) of the half-lives mentioned in footnotes. --Eddi (Talk) 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In this list, the chemical elements are listed in terms of the nuclear stability of their most stable isotopes." Wow - that's a bit of an unengaging and in-yer-face opening statement for me. Can it begin by saying what a stable isotope is or something? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What about now? Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support—but can you space the equals signs on both sides, as per MOS? TONY (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:42, 6 July 2008 [73].

---

Woody Allen filmography

previous FLC (02:53, 5 March 2008)

2nd time's the charm? The last FLC failed mainly because I was unable to address comments made in a timely manner. The main sticking point being that the list of awards was not complete. So, in the interim, I've realized that a complete list of awards would be quite big, and therefore more appropriate in its own list: List of Woody Allen awards. So, now that that's taken care of, hopefully the filmography is up to snuff. As always, any comments and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looks good, but shouldn't the table also include text along with graphics? So shouldn't the checkmarks have something in there along with it? Gary King (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  Very good point! But what could I possibly put in there that wouldn't look silly? "Yes"? "Check"? Neither strike me as all that great. Drewcifer (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ answers part of it (colorblind people shouldn't have a problem seeing them), but not for people with images turned off. I have no suggestion to fix it though. :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I switched the checks to the {{yes}} template. Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • WP:MOS#Images allows for a lead image to at least 300px - you can expand Woody if you like. DONE
  • "...a three-time Academy Award-winning American film director, writer, actor,.." - could be confusing i.e. that he's won the Oscars for writer, actor etc... suggest a subtle reword. REWORDED
  • "Allen has worked on many..." - just "He has... " is better since you currently have "Allen" in three consecutive sentences... FIXED
  • "which he wrote and performed in" not keen. Get it, but not keen, ending with "performed in" just reads clumsily.
  • "completely new, comic dialog" new and comic? emphasising that the original dialog wasn't comic perhaps? REWORDED SLIGHTLY
  • Consider linking first $ to US $ just to be sure. DONE
  • Image caption doesn't need a period as it's a fragment. DONE
  • Again, several repetitions of "Allen" or "Allen's" when "he" or "his" would improve the flow a lot. FIXED
  • Why no articles about the documentaries?
    • I dunno, I guess because they weren't so popular. Drewcifer (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Hotel Terminus: Klaus Barbie, His Life and Times" with no ticks and a footnote saying he was producer is a little anomalous for me. Does this imply he didn't "produce" anything else ever? I'm not convinced it should be in the list since your lead talks about the combination of three (actor, director, writer) and doesn't mention he produced anything at all.
    • There's actually two films footnoted witht he producer thing: the hotel teminus, and what's up tiger lilly. I just didn't think that two films warranted an entirely seperate column. Drewcifer (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And if it stays, should Producer just be producer in the footnote? DONE
  • I've got a scientific background so in my mind the table of grosses should use a consistent number of decimal places.
    • I think .0 would be a little unnecessary don't you? The only reaons there's some decimals is to differentiate which made more money when two films are so close in gross.
  • " in which Allen has written, directed, or acted in," - last "in" is redundant. DONE
  • "he had a minor role" - what's the definition of "minor" here?
    • It's however Box Office Mojo defines "minor" I suppose. Reworded slightly to emphasize this. Drewcifer (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Everything you wanted to know... has a different title in each table. I would suggest consistency here. DONE
  • Television table - two non-italicised, one italicised title. Why? FIXED
  • "(listed above in Filmography)" - don't make that point here, make it in the Filmography section.
    • I actually relocated it into the Lead, which seems to make the most sense. Cool? Drewcifer (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Interestingly (for me more than anyone else I guess) your Broadway link points to "Broadway theatre", not "theater". I guess it has no impact here but how odd that the US premier theatre article doesn't spell it with US English.
    • I dunno, I presume it's just because Broadway takes itself so seriously. Drewcifer (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned some time ago, why aren't the venues of three of the four Broadway plays included? If they are notable plays then it should be possible to source this information.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Basically because for three of the four listed, he was the writer. So he had nothing to do with the physical performance of the play (who, when, where, etc). Additionally, the difference of an actor requiring a venue specified is that the actor performs as the character for just one run of the player. Therefore it's possible to pin down to a venue. As a writer, he's still the writer for every time the play is performed no matter where it is and who is doing it. Drewcifer (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • This seems to be a moot point now. See below. Drewcifer (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments TRM's got most of it it looks like, so only a few from me.

• Sections are "Filmography", "Television" and "Theatre" Perhaps "Filmography" should be simply "Films". DONE
• AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies Is this a film? I thought these things were TV documentary type things
  • Yea, pretty much one of those things. Though it was released as a "film" (straight-to-DVD kind of thing I believe).
• Further to TRM's producer comments, I'd like a producer column so we can see what he produced.
  • Please see my comments above.
• As the -- now removed awards -- are related, a link should be provided in a See also section. Or you could have an awards section with {{main}}, and give a paragraph or two of prose detailing "major" awards.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Not so sure about mentioning "major awards" because it becomes a slippery slope: "major" is difficult to define. But the "See also" section was definitely needed. Drewcifer (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm still unconvinced as to whether theatre roles should be included as part of a filmography. For me, because they're not recorded onto film or tape, or available as a physical entity such as a VCR cassette, DVD, etc, they shouldn't. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  Now that you mention it, I suppose you're right. Moved it to the main Woody Allen page. Drewcifer (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Everyone's comments appear resolved, everything checks out. Use of {{yes}} is good. Nice. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:42, 6 July 2008 [74].

---

List of Nine Inch Nails live-band members

Another NIN-related list I've whipped up recently. Though I've seen a few "list of X members" lists comes through these hollowed halls, I hope to raise the bar a little higher. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

comment use en dashes for years per WP:DASH for example make 1994–2000 to 1994–2000 --Gman124 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

They are en dashes already; converting them to unicode is not necessary. Gary King (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "though Reznor" → "although Reznor"
• "of Nin Inch Nails in-studio," → "of Nine Inch Nails in-studio,"
• I don't think "Nine Inch Nails live performances" needs to be in See Also when it's already linked in the lead.

Gary King (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments in 6 minutes! Impressive! Fixed the first two. And I'm not sure I agree with the last one (in related news I just did the same thing in List of Nine Inch Nails tours, at which FLC you said a similar thing. Just didn't want it to seem like I was doing it behind your back or anything.) I've found that those three articles are very closely related (sister-articles I suppose), and one link buried in the lead isn't sufficient enough to link them all together. For example while making this list, I wanted to refer back to the tours list once and a while. And I wanted to click my way there, rather than type it out. Numerous times I found myself unable to find the link in the lead, even though I had wrote it. I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I think it just adds a bit of much needed convenience to a series of closely-related articles. Phew, that was long-winded. Drewcifer (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, okay then :| I actually think the best place for the kind of thing you are describing is a footer template. Also, since I responded to quickly, perhaps you can review my recently submitted list? :) Gary King (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A-hah! There's always a catch. No problem, I'll take a look. And yea, the footer template is good for that, but I think these 3 articles in particular are so inseparable that it's best to emphasize it a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Gary King (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

37 minutes! You're awesome! Drewcifer (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Could you wikilink "Live: With Teeth" to the section on the recently promoted list (sorry, I can't remember it's name)

  Really? I mean, I'm not totally against it, but that would mean I'd have to link every tour (not just the With Teeth one). And they'd all lead back to the same exact article, just subsections of it. I'm not sure if that would really accomplish anything.

• You're probably right. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1994 Robin Finck replaced Richard Patrick, the live band's original guitarist, for the Self-Destruct tour" Passive voice here. "Robin Finck replaced Richard Patrick, the live band's original guitarist, for the Self-Destruct tour in 1994". Perhaps. I'm not excellent with these myself.

  Fixed.

• "In 2008, it was announced that Finck would rejoin Nine Inch Nails for the Lights in the Sky tour." is passive, too

  Fixed.

• Where they've played more than one instrument, remove the parentheses from "Instrument(s):"

  I feel like it should be consistent throughout the article, not based on how many instruments they played. That said, it's not consistent, I just realized. Which do you think is more appropriate? Drewcifer (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well as I said, I'd prefer to lose the parentheses so it's "Instrument:" for those who've played only one, and "Instruments:" for those who've played more than one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I took out all the parentheses. But now that you mention it, technically speaking, some members played multiple version of the same instrument. What I mean by that is that playing "keyboard" for NIN doesn't mean you've got one dinky little keyboard. It means you've got an array of Keyboards and samplers and other crap all around you. The same applies for drums, and (to a lesser extent) bass and guitar. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I think it's cool as it is personally. Drewcifer (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Very good and informative otherwise. I'm getting tired though, so I'll take a second look tomorrow. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Late (as is usual for me!) but here's a few more.

• I'd prefer the two galleries at the beginning of each section rather than the end, especially the current members. I don't think this violates WP:PIC#Photo gallery in any way, but it is just a personal preference.

I don't think it violates any policies either, but I don't think this would be an improvement. The images are really just there as an added bonus, the stuff in the text is the bulk of the list. Putting the pictures before would, I believe, give them undue weight in relation to the text.

• The second gallery is formatted funny, as there are 4 pics on one row, and 1 pic on a second row. Can they all be put onto the same row?

Other than that, it's almost ready I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just a stroke of luck that exactly five pictures are available. I'm working on getting more, which would beef things up a bit, but we'll see how that goes. As far as I know, it's not possible to squeeze 5 into a single row, so I don't see any solution. Drewcifer (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Whaddya know, it is actually possible. Now all 5 images are in the same row. Cool? Drewcifer (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why not have each pic beside the band member itself? If the infobox creates problems while adding Reznor's pic, I think the members list can be removed from the infobox (since the whole article is about it anyway). indopug (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I avoided putting the images within the text because most of the images are vertically larger than the space allotted to each member by the amount of text. So the images would end up stacking poorly against each other. That, and I'm doing my best to find some more free-images of the others, so assuming I'm eventually successful in doing that, the vertical-space thing would be exacerbated even further. So I wanted to give the list room to grow, basically. Drewcifer (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment—Bit under-reference in the lead. Quite good otherwise. TONY (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I added a couple, but I think that's as good as it's gonna get. Mainly because the lead summarizes the list, and so is therefore somewhat listy itself. No one source covers the entire live-band's history, so I can't really source some parts of the lead without giving a huge amount of sources. Besides, the sources are in the list proper, so I don't want to repeat myself either. Drewcifer (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:11, 5 July 2008 [75].

---

The Office (U.S. TV series) season 2

This list was previously nominated by another user for FL-status on April 17, 2008, and was deemed to fail the criteria on May 2, 2008. I have worked on the list significantly, and I believe that the list is now FL-quality. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 17:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment' - I wouldn't call this a list. There seems to be quite a bit of prose in there. D.M.N. (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Office (U.S. TV series) season 1 and The Office (U.S. TV series) season 3, both of which I created and are very similar to the nomination, are both FL. The majority of season lists, except in the case where there is an overwhelming amount of prose, are better for FL than GA/FA. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 17:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would consider those myself FA's. D.M.N. (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looks good, but a few dashes need to be changed to en dashes, like in "September 12, 2006-Region 1". Gary King (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Both of the dashes in the infobox have been changed. Were there any others that should've been changed? Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's it for now. Gary King (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "...four DVDs in Region 1..." do you mean "four Region 1 DVDs"?
  • Same for Region 2 - perhaps "released for Region 2..."?
  • In infobox, any reason why Anamorphic is capitalised?
  • Last para of the Production section is five choppy sentences - I think the flow can be considerably improved.
  • Cast image caption doesn't need a period and it should be sized per WP:MOS#Images, so just thumb - ie not having its size forced.
  • Carrell image needs the upright parameter instead of being forced (per the MOS) and currently overlaps the episode synopsis section. You could move the image up a section if required.
  • sixty-seventh -> 67th.
  • On that note, in general numbers above 10 are written numerically per WP:MOS.
  • In the synopses, no real need to repeatedly wikilink the same writers/directors etc. The table isn't sortable so linking the first instance is probably enough.
  • "The two are cold to each other throughout the day, until as a show of good faith.." - I think I'd move the comma to after the until...
  • "...talk business. But later,..." - merge.
  • "He takes suggestions from the suggestion box..." - maybe takes "ideas" so to avoid repetition?
  • What makes ref [3] a WP:RS?
  • Several refs (e.g. [8], [11], [12]) could have date and author fields added - check the others.
  • Amazon is linked in the refs - why not New York Times, USA Today etc?
  • Ref [28] looks a little malformed right now.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Requests have been completed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No need for the content of the See also section. All the links are in the Navbox
• I don't think it's necessary to use "National Broadcasting Company". NBC would do for me.
• You could explain what it is though, such as "national terrestrial television network
• "The second season was released in a set which contained four DVDs. The set was released in Region 1 on September 12, 2006.[3] It was also released in Region 2, on January 28, 2008." → "The second season was released in a four-disc DVD boxset on September 12, 2006 in Region 1,[3] and January 28, 2008 in Region 2."
• Some of the episode summaries need expanding. The first episode's is especially in dire need of help. Two sentences isn't really enough for a half hour show, and definitely not for a 40 minute show.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Requests have been completed. I expanded a few of the episode summaries, but in most cases I only have the main events, which I believe is sufficient. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, though I think "Airdate" in the table header would work just as well as "Original U.S. airdate". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Airdate does work much better, I went ahead and changed it. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:11, 5 July 2008 [76].

---

List of Chinese inventions

This list has seen huge improvement since I started expanding it last week, and just today added colored tables for each Chinese invention listed alphabetically. It has a sufficient lead section and picture, two small picture galleries, and a comprehensive list of items that are fully described with prose and heavily cited (154 184 inline citations as of now). Although there were various complaints in the past as seen on the talk page, this is due to the poor amount of references provided that I have remedied and drastically improved. I think it is ready for featured status.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments A few questions that pop up right away: why is all of this in table-format? Everything is only one column, so why not just do it with straight prose? And a related question (which may be irrelevant depending on your response to the first), why are the tables colored? That doesn't seem to serve any functional purpose to me. Last question is, why so few images? An image of each invention along the right side of the screen would be great. Drewcifer (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Drew regarding the table format. It gives the article a much neater look, but I think the information can be conveyed with by using headers or semi-colons. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - it would be preferable just to have level three headings under "Four Great Inventions" and "Other inventions". No real reason to have tables when there's only one column. And especially for an article like this, the more images the better, and it will be easier to place them if you have sections. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think buletted paragraphs is the best format myself (otherwise it feels like you just have disjointed paragraphs with randomly bolded words). Circeus (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Really guys? You don't like the tables? Ok, I'll get rid of them for sub-section headings instead, but I just want to say that by adding all of those tables, I wasted a good two hours of my life! Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the tables and I am now disbursing the gallery images throughout the article. I intend to add many more pictures as suggested.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that bullets are probably the best format, but is there any way of making them appear in the contents? - that is currently very short and I think it needs to include the 'other inventions'. Perhaps that section could be split into a few categories so you see more links in the TOC. Otherwise fantastic article with lots of pictures and <ref>s. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought about creating sub-sections under the "Other inventions" section, but I don't know how to classify everything under certain sub-sections. Perhaps ancient, medieval, and modern? Or, since it is in alphabetical order, I could create sub-sections by letters? Like "A, B, C, D," etc. etc.? Or would that be a bit too much? Along with the fact that not every letter in the alphabet will be represented. I would like to hear other suggestions--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmmm... I think that "A, B, C..." would be going too far. I don't know how well they would split into the different categories but that would probably be best, with the listed alphabetically in each section. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Just see above comment. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The introduction definitely needs to be expanded. There is so much content but so little summary or explanation in the lead to prepare the reader for the list? For instance, why did the Chinese invent these items, etc. Gary King (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You want to include information on why the Chinese invented these items? You mean like explaining every practical use of cast iron? Dear God, I hope not! Lol. I will, however, see what I can do about expanding the lead.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No; just talk about why they invented these items in general. For instance, perhaps the geographical location of China or their way of life caused them to invent these things? Gary King (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Great suggestions. That will entail more research, but I am up for the challenge, sir.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is nothing immediatley available on the web which tackles this rather profound question, but I will keep looking.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely you have something available in print, considering the entire article is referenced to print material? :) Gary King (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But I don't have Needham's Volume 7, Part 2, which would have covered this subject in detail! A shame I never considered buying that volume; my local library does not carry it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good now. Gary King (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think that simply naming every single invention in the lead is a cop-out to expanding the lead. Why not tell the reader what the first recorded invention is, and when for example? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A cop-out? Who said I was done expanding the lead? Why is listing what is found in the article a "cop-out"? I completely disagree. Sure, I would love to tell the reader what the very first recorded invention in China was, if I could find such a thing. However, that is not what is being listed in this article. What is being listed in this article are inventions that first appeared in China. The very first recorded invention of China could very well be an invention thought of and invented somewhere else in the world beforehand, you know, in civilizations like Sumeria, ancient Egypt, Indus Valley, Minoa, etc. etc.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To appease you somewhat, I have included information on Neolithic China in the introduction. Does that satisfy you?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that this is not a detailed "History of Technology in China" article, but a simple list of Chinese inventions with some brief explanations of each item. Big difference there.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but look at any other Featured list, and point out one that lists every entry in the LS. Most just pick a handful to discuss. The third paragraph improves the LS alot though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Cr 1. Here are a few examples of why the whole page needs copy-editing.
  • "The civilization of China"—unidiomatic: "Chinese civilization".
  • Second sentence: semicolon should be colon.
  • "The list below contains these above mentioned items and others which appeared in China first."—Below/above, ouch. Above-mentioned is hyphenated, but avoid it. The status of "first" is unclear.
  • "(202 BC–220 AD)"—Read MOS on en-dash spacing.
• The column width of the refs is very small and makes it hard to read.

Plus lots more. TONY (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Response:
  • It has been changed simply to "China" and nothing else.
  • Already changed to a colon.
  • That sentence has been changed.
  • I see on WP:MOS what you're talking about now; I'll fix every one of those now.
  • The column width of references is merely a preference issue, and I have many featured articles where the refs are that size and no one found fault with them. You're opposing the article for that?
  • "Plus lots more" - Ok, could you list them?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I can see a whole heap of work has gone in here so I'm not going to archive it yet, nor am I going to pass it - I have some comments and I'm prepared to keep the FLC open a while longer. I'll try to pick out some other specific examples of failures of Cr 1 and Cr 5 in particular.
  • Second para of lead is pure blue-link hell. Do you really need to list them all out in the lead when you're going to list them all out again in the list? Why not pick two or three specifics, expand on them and then leave the list to do the rest of the work?
  • Personal choice but the remains of the crossbow image in the lead is pretty uninspiring. Why not one of the "four great" ones?
  • It's not mandated but I prefer to see citations in numerical order unless there is a really good reason why they're not, e.g. [35][36][37][38][33][17][39] just looks odd to me.
  • The 1/600 th looks really odd in my browser. Maybe just consider text?
  • "(202 BC – 220 AD) craftsman and engineer Ding Huan (fl. 180)" - is it just me or could that 180 be BC or AD?
  • Seismometer caption - clarify if it's AD or BC you're talking about.
  • Bray, Carlson, Lewis MJT, Simmons all have dashes in their references between page numbers instead of en-dash.
  • Several references missing ISBN numbers.
  • I think Tony's point about the use of three columns for the reflist (on browsers which support it) is fair enough. There have been a number of discussion recently about assumptions on min screen resolution and I think piping it to two columns would be better. 80% of the world (Internet explorer users) won't know the difference anyway. Safari users (like Tony and I) will, and will appreciate it.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Response:
  • I scrapped that entire paragraph and wrote a new one on the significance of certain Chinese inventions, which I think reads and looks much better. There is now no excessive use of links and instead of listing everything to be found, I have converted that paragraph into readable prose.
  • Although it is entirely a preference issue of yours, I went ahead and changed the lead picture of the article to something a bit more enticing.
  • Citations which appear out of order (numerically) should not be an issue. Is this something that actually bothers you?
  • It looks odd? How so? It looks perfectly fine on my browser. I prefer fractions which show the numbers top-and-bottom, not side-to-side, but this is merely a preference issue and I wanted to show off my wiki skills a bit by making a fraction without resorting to the use of a simple slash.
  • I fixed Ding Huan's date to AD.
  • I fixed the seismometer's date to AD.
  • I added en dashes in those references as you suggested.
  • "Several references missing ISBN numbers" - Does this matter? Sure, it's good to include the ISBN number when you can, but having a few references which lack them is no grounds to oppose an article's candidacy for featured status (not saying you have, but you did admit your consideration of shutting this discussion down and archiving it).
  • I have fixed the references so that they appear larger. I hope that everyone is now happy (at least with this issue).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Lead section is much better now that list-paragraph is gone. Very informative. Meets criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 14:08, 4 July 2008 [77].

---

List of Twin Peaks episodes

A few days ago, I saw that this list of one of my favorite TV shows wasn't in very good shape. It wasn't terrible but it definitely needed some sprucing. So I got some sources and expanded the list and even included a cover and detailed synopses for each season. Looking at it now, it does seem a lot better, even if do say so myself! So review the list and tell me whether it seemed like "a damn fine cup of coffee" or not. Thanks! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• No bold links in the opening section of the lead please.
  •  Done fixed (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Place citations per WP:CITE, i.e. immediately after punctuation where possible.
  •  Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• " To date, both seasons of Twin Peaks have been released on..." why To date? Won't this always be the case from now on?
  •  Done fixed (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why are the number of episodes (in total and each series) in bold?
  •  Done rmv for individual seasons, but I thought it's supposed to be there in the lead, that's the case for lists like List of Seinfeld episodes and List of The Sopranos episodes. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• " spanning two seasons of 30 episodes, until its cancellation" - no, it still spans two seasons of 30 episodes. Subsequently it was cancelled.
  •  Done Sentence reworked. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Last sentence of lead not cited.
  •  Done Fortunately I had the book Lynch on Lynch (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• "1990–91" rather than "1990 – 1991", or at least axe the spaces.
  •  Done Spaces axed (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• What makes episode world a reliable source?
  •  Done rmv (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Second general reference and third external link are essentially identical, probably lose the ext. link.
  •  Done rmv to include just one in the general refs. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)  Done all suggestions by The Rambling Man have been addressed by (SUDUSER)₈₅. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments (edit conflicted with Rambling Man above)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Remove links from any bold text, or remove the bold, per WP:LEAD.
  •  Done See The Rambling Man's comments above. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Publishers in references only need to be italicized if they are publications and follow MOS:TITLE.
  •  Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• "released October 30, 2007[3]." – reference goes after all punctuation marks per WP:FOOTNOTE
  •  Done See The Rambling Man's comments above. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)  Done all suggestions by Gary King have been addressed by (SUDUSER)₈₅. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Remove the bold from "of 30 episodes. " (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Gary King (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gman124 ^talk

Comments

• Need references for the writers and directors.
  •  Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Done The episode numbering in season two don't match. --Gman124 ^talk 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done all suggestions by User:Gman124 have been addressed by (SUDUSER)₈₅. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment tv.com is not a reliable source since it is user edited. So find other reliable sources. Gman124 ^talk 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done I was able to refer the Production Documents that came with the Twin Peaks Gold Box. I don't thinks gets any more reliable than that. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

now Support --Gman124 ^talk 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

•  Done Don't split the bold text in the intro sentence. Even better though, think of a more artistic way to introduce the article, instead of a repetition of the article's title
  • I think it's okay now. Take a look if you want to. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Take a look at today's main page article, Tiridates I of Armenia. It doesn't begin with "This is a comprehensive article about Tiridates I." It jumps straight in and tells the reader that he was King of Armenia in AD 53. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs •email) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I though for lists like discographies and episode lists, you were supposed to introduce it like that? (SUDUSER)₈₅ 06:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Done "Subsequently it was cancelled on June 10, 1991." No need for "subsequently". Who cancelled it? The network, or the producers decided to end it?
  • ABC decided to cancel the series on June 10, 1991 due to declining ratings in the second season. - I think that qualifies. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done Reference it though Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Done Use the prodcode= field in {{episode list}}, and also AltTitle= for the Pilot's alternative title.
•  Done Extra space at "Washington ."
•  Done Are the episodes half-hour or an hour long? Either way some of the summaries are a bit too short. Five lines is good, but two lines isn't.
  • I have included the length in the lead, though I think that the summaries are quite okay, I mean look at other articles like List of The Unit episodes and List of Desperate Housewives episodes. What is your take on this? (SUDUSER)₈₅ 06:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer them to be longer. At least a sentence per "act" (by which I mean between each commercial break.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Ok I'll work on it later. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 07:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Done Is the link to watch full episodes on CBS a reference? It's not much help to anyone outside the US. Stick it in the External links and say US-based IPs only.
•  Done What is reference 4? A book? If so the title needs itallics
•  Done Rationale for the boxset is wrong. It says it's a logo, but there's one specifically for DVD covers. {{Non-free video cover}}.
  • That's the copyright tag sorted, but the rationale still mentions logo. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done All fixed. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 06:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Everything suggested by Matthewedwards has been fixed by (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC) on 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I did a quick review. I would like to support this because the list is appropriately structured and sourced, and the article has a good lead. However, I see a need for copy-editing of the season and episode descriptions. I have fixed one sentence whose wording really bothered me and a second sentence that was awkward, but I still see other opportunities for improvement. For example, I am bothered by trite verbosity such as "...expose Twin Peaks as the disturbed, unsettling town that it is" and the numerous sentences that are strung together by "and"s and commas. Skimming the article, I also detect a few misspellings. --Orlady (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Malachirality appears to be inactive at the moment. So I've approached Golbez instead. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 15:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done some of the needed copy-editing, but I continue to think that more is needed. I am not a particularly good candidate for this job because I think the writing style used in these and other episode descriptions is horrifying. Having said that, here are some examples of items that I think are particularly important to fix:

•  Done One piece of awkward wording that has me stymied is "Leo's battered housewife Shelly decides to get revenge." The noun "housewife" is not normally preceded by a possessive. Is Shelly the wife of Leo? In that case, perhaps she should be called "Leo's battered wife." Is it important to call her "housewife" instead of "wife"?
•  Done In the sentence fragment "Cooper has a vision of a mysterious giant, as he lies bleeding from a serious gunshot wound," am I correct in thinking that Cooper is the one who lies bleeding and not the mysterious giant (which is what the word order implies)?
• In the sentence fragment "Josie returns from Seattle, bearing her 'cousin' Jonathan from Hong Kong in tow," is there a literal meaning to the words "bearing" and "in tow" (that is, was she carrying and/or towing him?) or are these words merely being used as idiomatic expressions meaning "with"?

--Orlady (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done All fixed. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 06:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Glad to see the changes. However, I am still puzzled by the wording "bearing her 'cousin' Jonathan from Hong Kong." Why is the word "bearing" used here? Was she physically carrying him, or could this word be changed to "bringing" or "accompanied by"? --Orlady (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed it to "bringing." (SUDUSER)₈₅ 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can support this now (although I would prefer to see writing that is not so larded with clichéd expressions).--Orlady (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright then thanks! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:47, 4 July 2008 [78].

---

List of submissions for the 80th Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

I think I'm on a trend now. First episode lists, now this :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nice list! Here's a few suggestions:
  • "Due to a change in the rules made for the 79th Academy Awards,[10] the Academy published a shortlist of nine films prior to the selection of the final five nomineees." When was the shortlist published? The table says January; is that correct?
  • Please clarify how each country selected their submissions. Did the Academy ask the government of each country for a submission, or did they ask a certain film organization? Was the selection done by a committee or some other method?--Dem393 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but in the sentence before source 4 make "film" plural. That's my only concern now so I support. --Dem393 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think the Wikinews template goes in the External links section per WP:SISTER. Gary King (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP:SISTER says next to the event, which would mean in the lead. Is this the case? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No picture at all? Nothing? Shame...
    • I guess I could use Image:Stefan Ruzowitzky ROMY2008.jpg, an image of the director of the winning film. It's not a picture of him at the Academy Awards, but it's a picture of him I suppose. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Reorder [8][7] if there's no good reason to have [8] first.
    • Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably worth mentioning the winner in the lead.
    • Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Tom Collins links to a cocktail.
    • Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Director as a col heading probably should be Director(s) since some have more than one.
    • Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not directly related to this list but the two Academy Award templates at the bottom of the list have slightly different colouration - it's distracting. Any chance you might "fix" this discrepancy?
    • Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: You really need to go through and check every link for redirects or misdirects; Caucasia has no link to the film, for example. This should be redlinked, or an article created. But don't just check this one, check 'em all. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Went through them. The links should be fine. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:10, 4 July 2008 [79].

---

List of Boston Celtics head coaches

I think this list does meet featured list criteria. If you guys have any questions or comments, I would try to answer them.Gman124 ^talk 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I originally created this, and then improved it a little after Gman nominated it. I think it meets the criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 17:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. --Gman124 ^talk 18:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • No need to overlink NBA Finals in the lead.
    • Done by Milk's Favorite Cookie
  • "while the 1959-to-1966 domination of the NBA Championship" - not keep on the wikilinking here - perhaps "the domination of NBA championship from 1959 to 1966..."?
  • 1959–1966 - I think 1959–66 is better.
  • "The current coach ..." - "As of June 2008, the coach of the ...." - provides a milestone.
  • Games Coached - Games coached.
    • Done by Milk's Favorite Cookie
  • Year ranges in the Achievements col need to take en-dash.
  • No need for italics in present.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 17:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the terms per my third comment also - like the achievement year ranges - YYYY–YY.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Put a bullet point before the general ref.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "basketball-reference.com" vs "Basketball-Reference.com"
    • Done by Milk's Favorite Cookie

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments (more)
  • "while the domination of NBA championship from 1959–66, with eight straight titles" and "The franchise won eight consecutive NBA championships from 1959–1966" - a little repetitive.
  • Can you make the GC, W, L, W-L%, etc columns the same width? Would be aesthetically improved.
  • Auerbach's image caption should be Celtics, not celtics.
  • Heinsohn's image caption should take en-dash, not hyphen.
  • Fitch caption should link to Fitch, use an en-dash and have a period.
    • Did all comments --Gman124 ^talk 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments (more)
  • Although I haven't seen it on other head coach lists, is there a reason why Playoffs doesn't have a W–L% col?
    • Added W–L% col for Playoffs. --Gman124 ^talk 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Auerbach caption should have a comma after Celtics.Y
  • Fitch's caption needs a "the" between "won" and "1981" and needs to have "year" capitalised.Y
  • Auerbach's Coach of the Year years in the table need an en-dash, not a hyphen.Y
  • You have single and double daggers in the key but not in the table.Y

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks pretty good now after Rambling Man's issues were resolved. Gary King (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This page is orphaned. There are no links to any article in the mainspace. I think you should add a link in the main article at least.--Crzycheetah 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Added. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Is it possible to get a more interesting lead sentence? People can look at the title to see what page they're on. Also, if you keep it as is, remove the bold link per MoS.Y
• Bill Russell, Tom Heinsohn, Tom Sanders, Dave Cowens, K.C. Jones, Chris Ford and M. L. Carr have all played and head coached for the Celtics. Some redundancies.Y

Other than that, no problems, at least that I can see... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support All my issues have been addressed, nothing else wrong that I can see. Good work! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support The only thing I want in this list is that the years of term be linked. Done Annoyomous24 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also the years of championships/coach of the year to be linked. Annoyomous24 (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Gman124 ^talk 01:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:10, 4 July 2008 [80].

---

List of Los Angeles Lakers head coaches

I worked on this article in my sandbox then moved it. I think this list does meet featured list criteria. If you guys have any questions or comments, I would try to answer them. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps force a TOC with Help:TOC so people don't have to use a scroll bar to get to the bottom of the page.DONE! Gary King (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Are there any public domain pictures that can be added to the article? DONE!
• "1948 - 1960." Check out WP:DASH DONE!
• "The Lakers are generally regarded as one of the NBA's most successful franchises." Says who? Reference please DONE!
• The article contains some sentences that are lifted straight from List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks. For next time, you should attribute the revision and author in the edit summary, per WP:REUSE (or my interpretation of it -- and it doesn't hurt to do it just in case.) DONE!
• "The franchise got its official name from Minnesota's nickname, Land of 10,000 Lakes." Why? Explain why a team in the most south-western state of America takes its nickname from one of the most nothern. DONE!

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—The lead section is the bare minimum. Please read MOS on dashes, carefully. Not a single pic? It doesn't have to have one, but I'm surprised that there are none to be found. DONE! TONY (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the tables be sortable? Do we really need to colour code it (its quite unsightly)? Further, colour-coding on the basis of Hall of Fame seems to classify the coaches in a POV way: the guys in orange are better than the ones that aren't. Just the * and † should be enough. DONE! indopug (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • WP:DASH again - in the image caption - in fact, it'd probably be just as well to write "to" rather than use the en-dash here. DONE!
  • Put (NBA) after National Basketball Association. DONE!
  • "formally known" do you really mean formally or do you mean "formerly"? That's a question, not a criticism by the way! DONE!
  • First para of lead is too choppy for me, the prose needs work, in particular "The franchise got its official name from Minnesota's nickname, Land of 10,000 Lakes because at the time the name was revealed, the Lakers were in Minneapolis" DONE!
  • Also, why link franchise on the second instance? DONE!
  • Why is the Key in smaller text? DONE!
  • "Games Coached"->"Games coached" DONE!
  • Remove the spaces between the W and the hyphen and the L and replace the hyphen with an en dash. DONE!
• >No need to relink coaches in the table after their first linkage (e.g. Kundla). DONE!
  • Why are Awards in bold? DONE!
  • See WP:DASH for the records, e.g. "380 - 240" should be "380–240", also for the years, so "1948 - 1958" should be "1948–58" etc. DONE!
  • Be consistent with leading zeros on the percentages - either all or none. DONE!
  • Add a bullet point before the only general ref. DONE!
  • Ref 2 needs accessdate etc. DONE!
  • Ref 3 needs isbn if available. DONE!
  • Is there a "Category:Basketball lists" or similar to which this can be added? DONE!

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for commenting on this featured list candidate, The Rambling Man. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nominator: please don't strike out reviewers' comments; let them do that. The lead is a little better (not great), but two things:
  • Read MOS on unspaced en dashes; all of the en dashes I see should be unspaced. That might help the next issue a little, too. DONE!
  • Column-width management; seriously bad effect in some columns (W–L, etc), Can you take up more horizontal space (there aren't even side pics to stop you). Try "Ref." in the last column to save space there. Once these two things are done, I'm OK. DONE! TONY (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please DO NOT strike out reviewers' comments, as you have been asked/reverted a number of times. Put "done,  Done, or something similar to show you have addressed each comment, as requested by the instructions at WP:FLC. It is really hard to know whether what you have sticken is because they're done or because you've ignored them, and reviewers often read previous revewers' comments to avoid repetition. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all, I read somewhere to not put the  Done template do represent the request being done as it will slow down the loading of the page. Second of all, Crzycheetah striked out some of the requests that were finished so I thought striking out represents being done. Third of all, I was never asked to not strike out the request. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

{{done}} shouldn't be used at WP:FAC or WP:PR, and that is one of the rules of nomination at those two places. Here, though, it's not disallowed. I noticed Tony1 has also requested that comments not be stricken out, above. I don't believe CrzyCheetah has stricken anything here. The history doesn't have his name listed. Anyway, it's all good now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For the second and third sentence I wrote above your previous one, I meant the featured list candidate for List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks. Sorry for my confusion since I sometimes forget which one I'm on. Annoyomous24 (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I also dont see Tony1 asking me not to strike out. Annoyomous24 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't see Tony1's comments regarding striking out because you undid them. I have struck my comments that I thought were resolved. I will never strike your or someone else's comments.--Crzycheetah 06:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see it now. Crzycheetah, I never undid them, I just didn't see it since I was scanning the page. Annoyomous24 (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 06:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The lead is too short, especially the first paragraph. DONE!
  • Why do you pipe-link the "Dynasty" page as "franchise"? DONE!
  • "franchise got its official name" - I don't think got is the right verb here. DONE!
  • I disagree with the above reviewer, I believe that HoF and tenure should be color-coded as well. Not to be indicated by those weird symbols only. DONE!
  • Citation #5 should be note [a]. DONE!
  • Some other general reference should be added to check the basketball-reference.com. We should not rely on one source.
  • What new info did you take from the refs in the "refs" column that you could not take from the general reference?
  • PLEASE, do not strike out or undo any of my comments. Thanks!

--Crzycheetah 06:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I took the year of when they won a Championship and checked if they coached for another team from the refs in the "refs" column that you could not take from the general reference. Annoyomous24 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why are the term years unlinked? DONE!
• Basketball-reference.com still remains the only reference for this list. There should be more than one. DONE!
• Why do you need to know if they coached another team? Thankfully, you didn't add that info to this page, but still why did you provide those refs?

--Crzycheetah 23:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Because some of the coaches spent their entire coaching careers with the Lakers and on the list, it denotes it. Annoyomous24 (talk) 23:54, 03 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support The only thing I don't understand is the last part in the lead: have all played and head coached for the Lakers. I never knew that "head coach" may be used as a verb. I suggest reword that part better.--Crzycheetah 06:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:10, 4 July 2008 [81].

---

List of Indianapolis Colts head coaches

Well I finally got around to creating this article and I've doubled checked everything to make sure it is worthy of FL status. The only thing I've seen wrong with it is that it has 1 red link (Joe Thomas). I was going to create an article but I know absolutely nothing about him and there are minimal references for him. Besides FL criteria states "minimal proportion of red links." so it should be okay. HoosierState^Talk 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator. HoosierState^Talk 14:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What makes Sports Ecyclopedia a reliable source? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Opening sentence is boring, a verbatim copy of the title of the list with "This is a ..." added.
• (17 total) is confusing.
• "March of 1984" -> March 1984.
• I prefer to explain NFL before using it as an abbreviation.
• "...by at least one major news organization. Additionally, Ewbank and Shula are members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, having been inducted in 1978 and 1997 respectively." - citations?
• W/L records need an en-dash, not a hyphen.
• "managing to win 2 games, and finished the season at 2-12" - two and tenses change mid-sentence.
• "Then 2005 Tony Dungy was forced to miss the 15th game of the season due to personal issues and Jim Caldwell was named as the one game interim.[4]"- this is nowhere near English I'm afraid. Copyedit required.
• Loses in the Key should be Losses.
• W – L doesn't need the spaces.
• Confirm all coach awards are cited.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done I believe I covered everything. HoosierState^Talk 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good Gary King (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Just 2 for now.

• "This is a complete list of Indianapolis Colts head coaches." I would hope it is complete if it's featured. Repeating the article title is also a boring way to introduce the article. Try no use something which engages the reader.
• Most of the other FLs of this genre don't use a bullet to identify those who spent their entire career with the team. Try to be consistent with those.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done, Also after looking at the other articles like this, I noticed there isn't really any consensus on how to show coaches that spent their entire career with their respective franchise. So I just removed the symbols and stuck with color solely. HoosierState^Talk 06:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You can't do that per WP:ACCESS. If you use colour, you must use a text based marker for those who are colourblind or have a black and white monitor, or who are accessing a printed version of the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Duh! I knew that, it's fixed. Backing up to when I used the bullets, I was using the Green Bay Packers version of this article as a guide and they had bullets so it ended up the same way over here. HoosierState^Talk 06:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Prose is ordinary; MOS breaches.

• Please read MOS on en dashes.
• "He also led" --> "; he led". And please remove the ugly "Additionally".
• Sentence case in table text (e.g., "Games Coached"). TONY (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Keith Molesworth became the first coach of the Baltimore Colts in 1953 but he was reassigned to a different position with the team following the season." No: "... 1953, but was ...".
  •  Done, all fixed. HoosierState^Talk 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment
  • Not all done - en-dash needed instead of hyphen in the lead.
  • No bold links in the lead.
  • Prose, as Tony said, is very plain.
  • Why no article for Thomas? Makes the linking out from the list incomplete, which is a pity.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • •  Done, everything you commented on is fixed. The only thing is, I only changed the lead of the article a little bit. I honestly don't know what else I could do to make it better. I looked at every other FL list like this and they're all similar to what this list has. HoosierState^Talk 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:10, 4 July 2008 [82].

---

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

This list is based on List of heads of state of the Central African Republic and Central African Empire. Enjoy! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments by Baldrick90

I really enjoy lists like these, keep up the good work. Here are a few comments to start with. I wish you luck on your nominations and I will probably support once these are addressed.

- Please don't write centreafricain with a capital c, just like in your other list I reviewed here at flc.

Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- In the table, either write both "territorial autonomy" and "Independent" with a capital letter or not.

Capitalized. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- You should probably add ", Prime Minister" to the name of David Dacko in the table.

Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Could you create an article for Operation Barracuda? I noticed it in your other list too.

This is on my to-do list. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Since there are just two red links, I would recommend you create articles for both the "Operation Barracuda" and "Civic forum".

Same as above. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- I am somewhat confused about the latter. In the notes section of Malendoma I read "Democratic Forum". Am I correct the Democratic Forum and the Civic Forum (capital f?) are the same party? If not, please explain.

They're not. It's weird, but Malendoma founded the Democratic Forum, but ran as a candidate of the Civic Forum party in elections. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- I wonder if the term "Nonpartisan" is American. I only know it as a military term and have never heard someone use it in European politics (I am Dutch). Do you know any alternatives?

Independent is frequently used as an alternative, but it's not the same. Nonpartisan usually means that the person hasn't declared a political affiliation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- "prime minister" in the notes section of Élie Doté should be "Prime Minister".

Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Why is "September 2006" wikilinked? The reshuffle apparantly wasn't notable enough to be mentioned in this particular article. I would remove this link and just use [[September 3]], [[2006]]. This makes note 38 completely redundant. Also, I don't think "Central Africa" should be used to refer to the country, Uganda and Congo (to name two) are also in Central Africa.

Ref 38 was actually AFP press report, but I messed up one of the parameters. Also, link to September 2006 removed. I think I had copied that link over from Doté's article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Why was Domitien removed from office?

Added. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Koyambounou has been in office for almost a year and two months. Nothing to comment on?

Nothing significant during his term (as far as I can see in LexisNexis). I did include a bit about his prior occupation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Same goes for Dacko's first term and the second term of Patassé. - I think it's worth a mention that Doté has served the longest term of all.

Added to image caption. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Two footnote links don't work: C and I. It's always a good idea to check those.

Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Note that you put a footnote in front of a reference in this article. Like here: "October 22, 1993[I][12]". You do the opposite in your list List of Sultans of Zanzibar: "(..) or 1840,[2][A] Sa'id (..)". Please be consistent.

I did that on sultans because [2] was a reference for "1840", while [A] is a note regarding the inconsistency with dates. I didn't want to have [A][2] because it wouldn't make sense to the reader. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Where are the accessdates?
Baldrick90 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Weird, I couldn't get the accessdates to work before, so I thought they didn't work on {{citation}}. It looks like I had this problem because I included an accessdate for a non-URL citation. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Good! TONY (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Criteria 2 (info in lead woefully inadequate) and 6 (visual appeal lacking in shambolic column widths).

• (1) Essential information: is it a representative democracy? How do these people become PM/president? Is there an assembly? Just a few sentences filling in the context from a mechanistic point of view is important. And parties are mentioned in the key and the table, but the lead has to foreground this: has policy ever been at issue, or is it all personality-based, stab-in-the-back stuff? If it has been a contest between colonialists and independence promoters, or between landowners/corporations and other societal interests, please tell us IN THE LEAD. At the moment, it's just a mystery and a collection of meaningless names and parties. Not featured stuff.
  • The Central African Republic is a republic. They hold elections, both presidential and legislative. But this doesn't appear to have been stated, still. TONY (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC) The President names the Prime Minister and I believe the National Assembly votes on the candidate (not sure about this, I'll check). The parties differentiate in their ideologies. MESAN was the ruling party for decades before other parties were allowed to enter the political scene (most of this happened during President Kolingba's rule in the 1980s). I'll add these details. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• (2) Tons of horizontal space wasted in the second and third columns, and then the Notes column squashes large amounts of text into many many lines, thus creating wasted vertical space in the table. Need to do some width "forcing".
  • I reduced the width in the second and third columns. Better? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• (3) Too many words in the "Notes" column. Start by removing the names from each opening, since they are entirely redundant. Use the stubby grammar of note-form, like this:

Founder of the MESAN party;[1] negotiated for the independence of Oubangui-Chari and named the country the "Central African Republic".

Not this:

Boganda was the founder of the MESAN party.[1] He also negotiated for the independence of Oubangui-Chari and named the country the "Central African Republic".

Notice that I've removed the redundant "also". The subsequent "also" is required, though. TONY (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I'll start simplifying. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I don't think the section heading "List of Prime Ministers of the Central African Republic and Central African Empire" is strictly necessary given the nature of the article (i.e. we already know it's a list of heads of government of the CAR etc etc etc) so just "List of Prime Ministers" would suffice.
  • Alright. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Heads of governement, heads of state, Prime Minister - these seem to be used interchangeably, can we be more consistent. I find it a little confusing.
  • The Prime Minister is the head of government, while the President is the head of state. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • And this is a list of Prime Ministers only, right? Also, you have the legend "For heads of state with multiple affiliations..." above the table, the table has no heads of state in it, does it? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is only a list of Prime Ministers. Just noticed the legend a few minutes ago, fixed that. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Any reason why the names are bold?
  • I just wanted to draw the readers' attention to names. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• And why is "Prime Minister" repeated in every row (apart from the acting Prime Minister which could be added to the notes column)?
  • Alright, removed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Consider merging the tables. You can add a colspan'ed row for changes of the name of the country. This would then alleviate the repetitive heading rows. Also, getting rid of "Prime Minister" from the name col, squeezing the Entered/Left office columns up, you can make the Notes column wider which will reduce the length of the table. Particularly if you follow Tony's advice on making the notes more note-like.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Tables merged, removed "Prime Minister" from name column, width reduced in second and third columns, notes column wider. I'm simplifying the notes, as well. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments I have to disagree with you Rambling Man. A table merged like this one is terrible to look at. Please have another look at List of heads of state of the Central African Republic and Central African Empire. Now tell me, which is clearer? Isn't that what a table is supposed to be? I would really opt for the same layout in both CAR lists, like this:

1. Prime Ministers of the Central African Republic (1960–1976)
   
2. Prime Ministers of the Central African Empire (1976–1979)
   
3. Prime Ministers of the Central African Republic (since 1979)
   

• Please check the colour codes of both lists. In the presidents list, the nonpartisans have a different colour. While you're at it, wikilink "Nonpartisan" in the Bozizé row.
  • Done and done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for clearing up the Civic/Democratic forum issue. I do however think it would be best to leave it out. Apparantly the Democratic Forum has no article here on wp and we aren't told anything about its significance. It's also confusing, not just the similar name but also the fact he founded it in 1990 and became pm in 1992. Why did he abandon the party he founded? In this context it adds only confusion, I would suggest leaving it out or adding relevant information, either in this notes section or by creating an article for the Democratic Forum. Baldrick90 (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that seems like the best thing to do here. Kalck (2005) only mentions Democratic Forum in passing. There's nothing else written about it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I see that Rambling Man suggested to rename the section to "List of Prime Ministers", but I actually think "Heads of government" would be a better section title; I especially dislike having the words "List of" in a section title. The question that should be asked is whether or not the section is about Prime Ministers (or Heads of government), and if it is, then simply state that, rather than preceding it with "List of". Gary King (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Heading changed to "Heads of government". Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Baldrick90

• It strikes me you use so many French language sources and yet do not claim any knowledge of the language on your userpage. I decided to randomly check out one French link (ref 35) and believe you may not understand it sufficiently. The article says he was 'directeur général' of the UBAC. This does not (necessarily) refer to the BDEAC and BMPC. By the way, the correct spelling would be director-general and not director general. The following sentence tells an interesting fact: Gaombalet was fired (French: limogé - this means breaking up (as in a relationship) and is used here informally and metaphorically) by general and president Kolingba in 1981, just after he became president. Then we are told he worked for the BDEAC in the Republic of the Congo (his function is not mentioned) and he returned to the CAR in the early nineties to 'dirige' (lead, direct) the BMPC (again, we don't know his function, he could be the CEO or just be a member of the executive board, I suggest you leave out the function and just say he lead the BMPC).
  • It seems I mistakenly wrote BDEAC instead of UBAC. I've fixed this now. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• If you want any help translating French sources you can always ask me (I learned French in grammar school) but ofcourse it would be best to contact a native speaker.
  • Thanks for the offer. Could you verify that the French refs I use actually correspond to my "translations"/interpretations? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Please have a look at the article on Célestin Gaombalet. It translates 'La Banque de Développement des Etats de l’Afrique Centrale' as 'Development Bank of Central African States'. You translate BDEAC as such: 'Central African States Development Bank'. I think there should be one translation used. I have found the official translation here (see section 'ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS'). It should be 'Development Bank of Central African States'.
  • Alright, fixed. I found my translation on another Wikipedia article. See this. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• His full name is 'Célestin-Leroy Gaombalet'. Your article says 'Le Roi'. I presume you know that translates as 'The King'. You are correct phonetically :-).
  • Hmm...that bit of text was in the article before I started working on it. Fixed, though. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also note that if you use his full name, it should be 'Célestin-Leroy'. That dash is used in most sources referring to him, including a lot of reliable sources such as Amnesty and the website of the European Union. It should be noted that a lot of reliable sources do not include the dash. Célestin Leroy Gaombalet has 1490 google hits, Célestin-Leroy Gaombalet 2040. What do you make of it? Baldrick90 (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well it seems if you search the dash version, you get results which include the non-dash. I will use the dash, I guess. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Please don't open with "This is a complete list of the heads of government of the Central African Republic and Central African Empire." You need to engage the reader, rather than repeat the title of the article

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Reworded. Good? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The image at the top of the article seems unnecessarily large. I suggest adding the upright parameter to the thumbnail specs, as follows: [[Image:Elie Dote.jpg|right|thumb|upright|Former Prime Minister [[Élie Doté]] has served the longest of all Prime Ministers of the Central African Republic (2005–2008).]] --Orlady (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 20:27, 2 July 2008 [83].

---

NBA first overall draft pick

I took my time and improve the list. Since I believe it meets all the featured list criteria, I hope this list will get featured.—Chris! _ct 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some comments (I'll add to this as I look through the article):

• In the second paragraph, is there some way of clarifying that the dates in parentheses are the years when the players were drafted, and not the years those players won the MVP awards? Zagalejo^^^ 03:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• It seems like the refs formatting is inconsistent. Zagalejo^^^ 04:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that. All refs are now using the cite web template.—Chris! _ct 19:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I'm satisfied with it. Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The bold text if a link is going to be used in it, per WP:BOLDTITLE. Gary King (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I readd a link for the NBA in the fourth paragraph. It is pretty far down though. Perhaps it is a good idea to add a new sentence or reword the first sentence to include a link for the NBA.—Chris! _ct 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note Just wanted to inform all of you that I might be out for the next few days and might not be able to attend to any issues regarding this FLC during that time. Hopefully, editors who are attached to this FLC or the NBA Wikiproject will be able to fix any problems raised by other editors when I am away. I will return to this FLC as soon as I can. Thanks in advance.—Chris! _ct 20:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I really don't like that dark yellow colour. Could you use a lighter colour like the scheme used here? As well, it would be great if you could highlight which players won the Rookie of the Year award. Simply have 3 colours, 1 for all stars, 1 for RotYs and 1 for all stars and RotYs. I've got to admit, I really don't like the column layout of the table. It should go Year | Name | Nationality | Former club |NBA team |Everything else similar to the NHL #1 pick page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I changed the color. Then I add several new colors for other awards. I will add RotYs award later when I have time. As for the column layout, I didn't do anything on that because I think the current arrangement is better. For draft info, team name is very important and therefore shouldn't place on the far right.—Chris! _ct 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Any reason why the school col is far too wide? In fact, quite a few columns are too wide.

I tweaked the column. —Chris! _ct 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Add the abbreviations PPG etc to the key instead of as footnotes. It makes the table easier to understand without having to flick to footnotes.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• RPG, PPG, APG cols don't sort correctly.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you want to include a blank row for 2008 (and personally I wouldn't) then you should at least footnote it with why it's blank.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The first three players listed below..." they'll only be the first three if you haven't resorted the table.

Fixed by another editor —Chris! _ct 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• You link NBA in the first sentence and then link National Basketball Association in the last. I'd use the full version in the first sentence with a (NBA) after it and then not link the second instance at all.

Fixed by another editor —Chris! _ct 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• date field in the {{cite web}} template should be of the YYYY-MM-DD format so it gets converted correctly and consistently.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a Basketball lists category to which this could be added?

Fixed —Chris! _ct 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Move the footnote links next to players names and nationality to the notes column

Well, that won't be a good idea since the footnote links are used to explain the draft picks and the nationality of that player.—Chris! _ct 01:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Explain the abbreviations for PPG, RPG and APG in the key section.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please read MOS on spelling out numbers. "6-time winner", etc.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why is a dictionary word such as "media" linked? See MOS. Generally, avoid linking the names of anglophone countries (I see at least two), and other countries that are sure to be well-known to almost all readers. Your lead is getting very blue.

Fixed. I also remove several repeated links. —Chris! _ct 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why "Nat." in the column heading, rather than "Country"? Isn't the space enough for that full word? If not, borrow waste from other columns.

Fixed. I use "nationality" because that is the word used by the creator. Since "country" and "nationality" are really interchangeable in everyday usage, I don't see the point of changing it around. —Chris! _ct 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please use sentence case for your column headings, not title case. "College/High school/Former club" is like alphabet soup.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Criterion 6: Can you find a less vomity colour than that bright yellow? I need sunscreen.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise good. TONY (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Coments college, Position, and Selected by columns should not be overly-wikilinked. Link them only the first time they appear. --Gman124 ^talk 23:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Chris! _ct 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• One more color shouldn't be the only indicator for the All-Star. --Gman124 ^talk 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't what else I could use to indicate the All-Star. Perhaps an asterisk will work.—Chris! _ct 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I try to add another color or symbol, but that just makes the list more confusing. I think it would be best to stick to the current arrangement.—Chris! _ct 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Asterisk would work. --Gman124 ^talk 19:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I think the list should be named List of first overall NBA draft picks.

I will rename it.—Chris! _ct 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • The second paragraph bothers me because the years in the bracets could mean draft year or year of the MVP winning.
    • Yeah, I mentioned that above. The years refer to the years they were drafted. I think we could just remove them from the lead, because the list is already there to provide that information. Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the years now if it causes confusion.—Chris! _ct 01:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • In the sentence "Duncan is an American citizen, but is considered an "international" player by the NBA because he is originally from the U.S. Virgin Islands, and not one of the fifty states.", the District of Columbia is also not considered as a state but is also not considered as international so you should some how fix up that sentence.
    • Good catch. I was responsible for that phrasing. I've added a mention of Washington, DC. Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The Basketball Association of America became the National Basketball Association after absorbing teams from the National Basketball League in fall 1949.", the last words should be in the fall of 1949.
    • I wrote that one, too. I've added the missing words. (I don't think there's anything wrong with "fall 1949", but "the fall of..." seems to be the more common expression, so I'll just go with that.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the Lebron James picture is too big. you should make it to around 150-175px.

I resized it to 150px.—Chris! _ct 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • In the key, every first word should be capitalized. So "points per game" should be "Points per game".
  • Since the list is sortable, I think you should link all of the team and clubs.

Not sure what you mean, all of them are linked.—Chris! _ct 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all the colleges were linked. I've taken care of that, though. Zagalejo^^^ 02:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • If everything I requested is finished, I'll support.

Annoyomous24 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Annoyomous24 (talk) 1:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 12:05, 2 July 2008 [84].

---

List of submissions for the 79th Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

I think I must thank the FLC contest for getting me involved here. Hopefully, this is the first of many more :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Could you include the year of the 79th Academy Award in the lead? I couldn't find it anywhere. Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Added. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why does the table have "|- style="border-bottom:3px solid #CCCCFF""? I find it goes against the layout of a standard wikitable, and just brings a lot of unneeded attention to it. Gary King (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Image in lead has a fragment for a caption so no need for full stop, and if you follow WP:MOS#Images, you should use a minimum of 300px for the lead image.
• "each country is invited by the Academy" - really? Is it an open invitation? In fact, judging by the next sentence there's a select number of countries invited - what dictates this shortlist?
• "Finland's submission" is repeated in one sentence.

Otherwise, pretty faultless from my point of view. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Try to engage the reader by avoiding the repetition of the article title as the first sentence
• I'd like it to be mentioned in the first paragraph that the 79th Awards occurred in 2007.

Otherwise it's all good. -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed both. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support The facts about the two "not counted" films are repeated. IMO those aren't interesting enough to warrant mention in the lead and think the footnotes are sufficient. Can you fix the sorting of "Result" so that "Won Academy Award" comes first rather than last? I don't think any of those external links meet WP:EL for this list. Colin°^Talk 12:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Should Guillermo del Toro be sorted under T rather than D? Colin°^Talk 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed the lead mentions and the sorting and I cut out the ELs. And I think "D" is where del Toro should be sorted because we refer to his surname as "del Toro" (in his article also) and not simply "Toro", although I could be wrong. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There really are no standards for colouring, but perhaps you should follow the {{award-won}} and {{award-nom}} templates, which use green for the winner and pink for nominees. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• On the FLC for the Japanese submission lists, I was originally using {{award-nom}} for the nominees, but another user indicated that pink was a more suitable color for the rejections. I think the present is alright. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the color for the winner's cell is too similar to the pink used for the non-nominees - any chance of making it more distinctive for the sake of contrast? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Won Academy Award" one? I can't see how yellow/bronze can't be distinguished from pink IMO. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Because they are adjacent colors which start to become indistinguishable when they are pastelized (which lowers contrast), especially when viewed on a monitor with lower brightness. Additionally, it generically wouldn't be a bad idea to have the winner as a non-pastel color, for the sake of extra distinctiveness. Lastly, is there a reason why you're following one color scheme for the List of country's submissions for the... articles and another one for the List of submissions for the Xth Academy Award for... articles? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the color for the award winner. And I don't see any color difference between any of the articles I've nominated... Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 12:05, 2 July 2008 [85].

---

List of first overall NHL draft choices

This list is in honour of the 2008 draft, which started today and concludes on Saturday. For those who think this may cause a lack of stability, please note that the first pick was selected earlier and there won't be any changing information. Anyway, the list is fully sourced and most of the concerns will be addressed by me. I will be going away on June 28, so any comments after that date will be addressed by Maxim. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I got drafted. :D Maxim_(talk) 12:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks pretty good to me Gary King (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Should "entry draft" and "amateur draft" be capitalised as proper nouns? entry draft definitely links to Entry Draft.
  • Done.
• Fourth entry in the key says "Player..." but none of the others do. Could just leave it as "Never played.."
  • Fixed.
• "Comite des jeunes (Rosemont)" links to a borough of Quebec, not a school etc.
  • Fixed.
• And Montreal Jr. B links to Montreal - misleading linkage. Check the others.
  • Fixed.
• I would also consider making a key for the league acronyms, especially as CZE really just means Czechoslovakia.
  • I was going to, but I'm not sure if it's necessary, since every league has a wikilink.
• Centrally align all league acronyms.
  • Done.
• Ext links link looks like it's missing a ).
  • Fixed.
• Can the list be added to an NHL lists category?
  • Yes it can.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Use {{flag}} instead of {{flagicon}} for the flags, for those who have graphics turned off. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done, by Scorpion. Maxim_(talk) 15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gman124 ^talk

• why are the Amateur/junior/former club, Position, Selected by, and League column overly-wikilinked? Link them only the first time they appear. Gman124 ^talk 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Maxim_(talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I think List of first overall NHL draft picks sound better.
    • "Picks" is not encyclopedic tone, and it may confuse a reader who's not as familiar with sports. Choices is much more clearer.
  • Since this list is srtable, I think you should link everything on the list.
    • Makes sense if the list is sortable.  Done.
  • You should delete the link to List of NHL second overall draft choices since it has not been written yet.
    • Redlinks encourage article expansion. I'm not sure if that list is useful, but I'll enquire at WT:HOCKEY. It was deleted yesterday per WP:PROD. I also asked, but, of course, such lists are nearly infinite (we'd list the entire NHL's draft history in 200 pages...) (23:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC))
  • The picture of Sidney Crosby is too big. You should shrink it a little to around 200-250px.
    • Done.
  • If all of this is done, I'll support.

Annoyomous24 (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Nurmsook (talk · contribs)

• Instead of linking to the NCAA for DiPietro and Murphy, should you link to Hockey East and CCHA respectively like what seems to be the standard across all the draft articles?
• Roman Hamrlik's league should link to Czechoslovak First Ice Hockey League as the Czech Extraliga was not founded until 1993. Also, you should put "Czech" rather than "CZE" as the pipped link for this. You didn't use "SWE" or "RUS" for the Swedish or Russian leagues.
• Do we need to have everything wikilinked here? I'm not sure the MOS on this, but it seems to me that linking Goaltender, Defenceman, and Forward each and every time isn't necessary. Same for leagues and teams.
  • The list is sortable so the "first time" link varies, and having seemingly random links scattered is unsightly and can potentially be a timesink. (12:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
• According to this, Nacka HK was part of the Elitserien when Sundin was drafted, not HockeyAllsvenskan.
• Check your disambiguations, there should be no links to dab pages (ie: Stefan, Fleury, Hamrlik, Quebec Remparts) and make sure to have no dios in the article (ie: Houle)
• I personally think the flag beside Hamrlik should be a Czechoslovakian flag, as that was the nation at the time in 1992. (Use TCH for this in the template)

Those are all of my concerns with the article, some you may disagree with, but for the most part I think these are some pretty decent requirements. After these are addressed, you have my support! – Nurmsook! (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• All else was fixed. Maxim_(talk) 12:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support All of my concerns have been addressed, you have my support! As for the overlinking, I never even noticed that it was a sortable table...makes perfect sense now! Thanks. – Nurmsook! (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 12:05, 2 July 2008 [86].

---

List of Buffalo Bills head coaches

This list is based off of List of New York Jets head coaches (a featured list) and List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches (a featured list candidate). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The first paragraph needs a lot of work and some citations. I understand that teams play eight home games. Many would be confused on whether they are now playing all their games in Toronto. It is not even clear to me whether they will play a home game in Toronto every year going forward. You may want to mention that they formerly played at the War Memorial Stadium (Buffalo) (aka The Rockpile) although I am not sure if other coach lists make mention of current and former stadia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know how that text got garbled. I guess I wasn't thinking straight when I made this edit. Eh, screw it. I'll just remove the entire stadium bit. It's not even included in any of the other head coach lists. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • O.K. Can you find at least one citation for the first paragraph to satisfy my need to see at least one in each paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I added a ref for the last sentence of the first paragraph. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support My minor problems above have been resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "Games Coached ->coached" and "Loses -> Losses" in the key.
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Regular Season ->season.
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Any reason why present is in italics?
  • To bring to the reader's attention that Dick Jauron is the current head coach. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that's obvious from the word "present" and from the fact he's last on the list and from the fact you have a dedicated paragraph in the lead stating such. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright, fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I've gotta find something to talk about... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• ref [24] needs date.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The opening sentence doesn't engage the reader as it's simply a repetition of the article title
  • Rewritten. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Move the note links in the Term column to the reference column

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• • That's just going to confuse the reader. The notes are positioned to help the reader understand certain coaching circumstances. Moving them to the references column will just make things complicated. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please recast the opening sentence so that it does not mostly or fully repeat the title of the article. Please note the standard set by Criterion 2 of the featured list criteria, which states that the lead should have "an engaging lead section", and the Bold title and Establish context sections in the styleguide for lead sections. The opening is just where we need to capture readers' attention by contexualising the list, not irritating them with straight repetition of what they've just read.
  • Rewritten. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why upper-case L for loss, in the Key? TONY (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No particular reason. Don't see why it can't be capitalized. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please ensure the GC, W, L and T columns are all of the same width (for both Season and Playoffs), it looks awful. Why colour the table, if there is already a *? indopug (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Added widths. I don't see what the problem was before. The table normally would just have colors, but per WP:ACCESSIBILITY, I've included an asterisk to denote HoF status. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 12:05, 2 July 2008 [87].

---

List of Detroit Red Wings head coaches

previous FLC (04:12, 1 June 2008)
This is a co-nomination with AndonicO (talk · contribs). The major concern (and the only reason for the oppose I believe) as that this list was different from other "head coaches" lists. Anyways, that concern has now been resolved, and I believe its ready for another shot. Thanks in advance for the comments. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe we're allowed to support ourselves (at least, we aren't on FAC...). · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment "See also" goes before "References" per WP:LAYOUT. Gary King (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Lead image can be up to 300px according to WP:MOS#Images so have a fiddle to see what looks best.
  • Isn't it better to leave the size unspecified, so that user preferences can be displayed? · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well it depends - the manual of style recommends just the lead image to be at least 300px. With other images yes, I agree, use thumb only (and upright for portrait images). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Five paragraphs in the lead is too much - WP:LEAD would probably recommend three, max, and it looks relatively easy to me for you to merge them.
  • Done. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• "There have been a total of six Red Wings..." a bit of redundancy here. Why not just "Six Red Wings..."?
  • Done. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Leading zero or no leading zero for your %? Be consistent either way.
  • Done; are the percentages usually cited as decimals? Because 0.8% is pretty low... shouldn't that be written as 80%? · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you'll find if you read the WP:MOS, decimal numbers should take a leading zero (e.g. 0.8 rather than .8) but it does make an exception for sporting percentages where your 80% would normally be written .800. Hope that makes sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'd reorder the citations numerically [1][4] unless you have a specific reason for [4] being more important.
  • Done. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Scotty Bowman has also won it twice, but he was the coach of the Montreal Canadiens when he won this award for the first time" - not keen on the English here.
  • Done. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Games coached" and "Losses" in the key.
  • Done. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• No spaces between the en-dash and the W/L, repeat for table.
  • Is this what you mean? · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Remove spaces between years and en-dash per WP:DASH.
  • Done. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Regular season (not Season).
  • Done. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• No need to relink Adams.
  • Done; left a re-link in the table. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why is "Detroit Cougars/Detroit Falcons" section combined?
  • I've got no idea about that, so I'll leave it to MFC. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The Detroit Falcons only lasted two years. And they had the same coach (Adams) through the Cougars, and the Falcons. I really can't think of a useful reason to split it. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I agree - the reason to split it is to clarify that the franchise existed in three guises. So you'd only have two extra rows to add in if it was only one coach throughout. It would make it clearer to the non-experts and also to the experts if AndonicO's comment is anything to go by! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Okay then - done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 15:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support, with one comment. Change the "References" section to "Notes". Other than that I can't see anything to complain about. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 15:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Ditto with Julian. Can't find anything to comment on. Everything looks in order and meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • That's because on the last FLC, you only had one reason to oppose ;) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 17:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support Nice work, the list looks great. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—Can you please change the colouring of the separators/headers of the Cougars/Falcons/Wings? The dark red, with the bright yellow hurts my eyes. Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose—fails Cr. 6. It does not make good use of colours. Maxim_(talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
      • What do you think of the team colours? Maxim_(talk) 22:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Really nice, thanks. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • "There have been 27 head coaches in franchise history" should be "There have been 27 head coaches in their franchise history"
  • What's with the picture in the key?
  • I think the year should be linked in the list including the term and the year of the award.
  • Where are the shootout loses?
  • The subtitles in the list should be the same colors as the colors of the Detroit Red Wings.
  • If all of these are finished, I'll support.

Annoyomous24 (talk) (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Gimmetrow 12:30, 2 July 2008 [88].

---

List of San Antonio Spurs head coaches

Worked on this article in my sandbox then moved it. There aren't any pictures for the coaches becauseI could not find any images uploaded on Wikimedia. --Gman124 ^talk 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Use en dashes for year ranges (in the lead—it looks like they are properly applied in the table) per WP:DASHY
• Missing a period in "season[2]"?Y

Gary King (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Force a TOC with Help:TOC Done
• Otherwise, Support

Gary King (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Confusing with Dallas Chapparels mentioned first - mention Spurs first and say something along the lines of "...and former franchise incarnation..." (or similar)Y
• "of the original version of the " - reads odd to me. Why not something like "...who played in the ..."?Y
• "...in Dallas. In fact, ..." a little chatty. Drop the "In fact" and merge the sentences.Y
• Order citations numerically if possible.
  • They are ordered like that automatically. --Gman124 ^talk 13:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No, you can reorder the ref names. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 15:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Expand, link and then place (NBA) after the first use of National Basketball Association.Y
• The lead contains virtually nothing about the head coaches (except Popovich). It needs to focus on the men, not the franchise.Y
• Surely "Loses" should be "Losses"?Y
• "Regular Season" can just be "Regular season" and the W &ndash L should lose the spaces in the table.Y
• No-one elected to the BHOF so axe it from the key.Y
• 2002-03 needs en-dash (in the coach of the year).Y
• present doesn't need to be in italics.Y

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• I reworked the first two sentences slightly to say what the Spurs do, and to avoid repetition of the Dallas Chaparrals.
• "The team suffered from poor attendance and general disinterest in Dallas;" The team was disinterested in Dallas, or the Dallas people were disinterested in the team?Y
• "The team suffered from poor attendance and general disinterest in Dallas; therefore, during the 1970–71 season, the name "Dallas" was dropped in favor of "Texas" and an attempt was made to make the team a regional one, but this proved a failure and the team returned full-time to Dallas in time for the 1971–72 season." Very long sentence. Should be broken into twoY
• "and were coached by Gregg Popovich." No need for "and were"Y
• "were coached by Gregg Popovich.", "2007 NBA Finals under Popovich.[1] Popovich is the franchise's all-time leader", "Popovich won the NBA Coach of the Year" Too many "Popovich"s. Perhaps some could be simply "he"Y
• "and Gregg Popovich spent their entire coaching career with the Spurs." No need for his first name here.Y
• Did you try Flickr for some free-use pics?
  • I have never used that and also don't know what that is. --Gman124 ^talk 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a web-based image repository where some contributors license their images in a way that's compatible with upload and use on Wikipedia. Have a look at flickr.com The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • So after I find an image, do I have to upload it to wikipedia? and what license would that be? --Gman124 ^talk 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be the same licence the picture has at Flickr. See Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I looked at Flickr and can't find any free images. --Gman124 ^talk 18:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • • • • •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• All the refs links at the end of the lead look a bit odd, could they be placed anywhere else?
  • They are for the last sentence, so I don't know where you would want me to move those. --Gman124 (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Couldn't the years in the "Term" column be linked?
  • Do you mean like link to the season pages, because all season pages for Spurs don't exist yet, I will once they do. --Gman124 (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done Gman124 ^talk 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• "San Antonio Spurs National Basketball Association" is there a word missing here?Y
• No image.
  • as far as I know, there isn't any free images for use on Wikimedia projects. --Gman124 (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Buc (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Basketball-reference is your only source. You need at least one more general reference. We can't rely on just one reference.Y
    • That nba page is one loooong page, can't you find another shorter source?--Crzycheetah 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What do the refs in the "references" column give to this list? All the info in the table is provided by the general reference, so why are there individual references from the same website? At least provide refs from a different website.
    • added one ref for Larry Brown and one for Popovich --Gman124 ^talk 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Why did you add more? I was actually saying to remove the older ones because they don't give more info than the general reference.--Crzycheetah 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 14:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref#13 should be note [a].Y

--Crzycheetah 17:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I think the term years should be pipe-linked to the seasons because some people believe that 1996, for instance, is the 1995-96 season while in reality, it is the 1996-97 season. The links are needed to avoid this confusion.--Crzycheetah 07:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done added links to terms. --Gman124 ^talk 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Support--Crzycheetah 03:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • You should find a picture somewhere to put up on the list.
    •  Done Gman124 ^talk 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The franchise won their first NBA championship as the in the 1999 NBA Finals coached by Gregg Popovich." should be "The franchise won their first NBA championship in the 1999 NBA Finals while being coached by Gregg Popovich."Y
  • In the sentence, "He is the franchise's all-time leader in both regular season and playoff games coached and wins.", I think "He" should be "Popovich".Y
  • You should link "2002–03 season".Y
  • In the sentence, " Larry Brown is the only member of the franchise that has been inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame as coach.", the last words should be "as a coach."Y
  • In the sentence, "Cliff Hagan, Max Williams, Bill Blakely, Dave Brown, Morris McHone, Jerry Tarkanian and Popovich spent their entire coaching career with the Spurs.", the last words should be "spent their entire coaching careers with the Spurs."Y
  • "Games Coached" should be "Games coached".Y
  • If all is finished, I'll support.Y

Annoyomous24 (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:40, 1 July 2008 [89].

---

List of U.S. Open (golf) champions

I'm nominating this list for featured list candidacy as I believe this list meets all the criteria, a list similar to this List of Masters Tournament champions has already passed feature status and this list is similar in style. Thanks in advance or your comments NapHit (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• Comments There's a few accessibility issues: information shouldn't be described only by images (the flag icons) or colors (the amateur/playoff things). Some sort of text-based equivalent is needed. But, that doesn't necessarily mean you have to get rid of the flag icons and the colors, but by themselves they aren't enough. Also, the year column should be centered. Also, it would be good to separate footnotes and citations into separate sections.Drewcifer (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is text for the colours which indicate playoffs, every colour has an accompanying footnote. I'm opposed to the idea of using the text for flags, as its quite clear by the flag what country it is and many other lists such as List of UEFA Cup winning managers have used this format and passed featured list status. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding text is encouraged for accessibility reasons, per WP:ACCESS, where in some cases Wikipedia articles are read without images (such as for mobile devices). Gary King (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've fixed the flags they now all have the three letter after the flags. NapHit (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Also take a look at the other issues I brought up, since those have yet to be addressed as far as I can tell.. Drewcifer (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done it all now I think NapHit (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great. Drewcifer (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Use something like {{flag|USA}} to show some text. Gary King (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• You can make the lead image bigger (as long as the resolution supports it) per WP:MOS#Images - it encourages lead images to be at least 300px (I think 250px in this case as the image isn't that big).
• Try a more imaginative lead sentence than saying "This is a [TITLE OF LIST]".
• "Tiger Woods holds the distinction of being the most strokes under par for 72 holes. He was 12 strokes under par (-12) when he won in 2000.[6]" consider merging these two sentences.
• "(n/a) = Information not available" looks odd as it's bigger than the rest of the legend. Also, why is not available in italics? (n/a) isn't...
• You need to explain E for even par.
• I see it in ref 7 (explanation of E), but you need a space before the E.
• ref 28 appears to be missing a full stop.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed everything you mentioned except the image size which balloons in size when I put 250px in instead of upright. NapHit (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Just a couple for now.

• Remove "The following is a list of U.S. Open (golf) champions." which simply repeats the article title, and open with something that engages the reader.

done NapHit (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• besides the salmon, blue and green shaded cells, you need some kind of marker to identify, per WP:ACCESS. Asterisks, daggers and carets would be fine.

done NapHit (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:40, 1 July 2008 [90].

---

List of Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients

Hello, another Victoria Cross recipients list. This is similar to the featured lists List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy and List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army. It is comprehensive, it works (sorting all sorted), it is referenced and it as pictures. As such, I feel it meets all the criteria, I hope you agree. Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH. Gary King (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed thanks. Woody (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

More comments:

• Force a TOC please, so people don't have to scroll down to get to the References. Help:TOC will help you with that.
• "1857-02-24." – I assume this is the publication date in the references. If so, wiklink it, otherwise, some people might not recognize that this is a date.
• "Chapter 8 pp.68–90" – use a semicolon as a separator before the page, especially if you are going to do that with the previous reference

Gary King (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the refs, though I haven't added the __FORCETOC__ as frankly, to me, it looks stupid. There are only two sections to this; Recipients and References and the TOC becomes slipped in between the Lead and the ==Recipients== Do you feel this is absolutely neccessary? Woody (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes; its usefulness outweighs its aesthetic effect. I usually strongly recommend adding it if the article is long enough to require that I scroll; it provides a quick glimpse as to what the article contains. For instance, if I visit this list, and am curious to know if there is a See Also section because I'd like to see similar topics, how would I know – without scrolling to the bottom? The TOC will tell me. Gary King (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You think people find it hard to scroll to the bottom? See also sections aren't a prerequisite for FA, indeed, they are seen as topics that should be expanded upon in the text. If you want similar topics, go to the navbox which isn't in the TOC. In fact, the recipients heading isn't actually neccessary so all it would be is a hyperlink to the references section. As far as I am aware, it is limited to three sub-headings for a reason. This isn't an article, it starts off with list of... so to the perceptive reader, they can get a quick glimpse of what it contains. It is personal preference as far as I am concerned. Perhaps a note on WT:FLC to gauge opinion? Woody (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good now. Gary King (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• WP:MOS#Images recommends lead images be no smaller than 300px so feel free to force the Sevastopol picture up a bit.
• The Crimea War page says it started in October 1853 (or am I missing something?)
• "large scale" should probably be "large-scale".
• "sale of commissions" forgive my utter ignorance but I don't know what this means at all. Can you expand on it a touch for non-experts?
• Anything special about recipients who had multiple dates of action?
• I probably said it before and you doubtless gave me a good answer but you could include a few portraits of the recipients down the right hand side of the table, just to make it aesthetically more pleasing.
• Sebastopol links to a disambiguation page.
• Balaclava links to the ski-mask.
• For George Strong, why is individual year linked?

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the image, fixed large-scale, Sebastapol, Balaclava and Strong link. Does the addition of the wikilinked Sale of commissions assuage your concerns?

In terms of the start date of the Crimean War, Britain and France declared war on Russia on 28 March 1854. As with any conflict the preceding events and skirmishes are seen by some as part of the War, not by others. On the British side, 1854 is seen as the start date. See Talk:World War II for a lengthy argument on the start dates of wars.

In terms of multiple dates, special in that they were recognised for multiple acts of bravery, not that uncommon in the early (first 40 years) of the VC. I have added links to their gazette entries.

Images: We have been through this before ;) If images were placed on some of the more cramped VC articles, then they would get very cramped at lower resolutions. When I go down in resolution, there is simply no room to put them in other articles. With this article, I don't get that problem, but, there is a shortage of pictures for Crimean War recipients. Woody (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments left on talkpage

• Notes left on Talk:List of Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients by User:Anthony Staunton. Woody (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work as normal, and the previosu queries seem to have been addressed. David Underdown (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:40, 1 July 2008 [91].

---

Boston Red Sox captains

Self-nom: I greatly expanded and worked on this list, and believe it meets the criteria. RedThunder 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Use en dashes per WP:DASH for numerical ranges such as "1908-present" and "1901-1907".
• I don't think any of the years need to be linked. They don't add much more for the reader to help understand the article, and per MOS:UNLINKYEARS.
• Unbold all that bold in the lead. Perhaps bold "team captains for the Boston Red Sox" but remove any links in all bold text, per WP:LEAD.

 Done RedThunder 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• "as the Sox.[2]" – remove italics, and change to "as "the Sox".[2]"

Otherwise, Support.

Gary King (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "From 1912 to the present, the Red Sox have played in Fenway Park" - beforehand (i.e. from the start of this list?)
• "Most fans simply refer to them as the Sox." - prove it, or else it's WP:OR.
• "This role has been particularly important during eras and situations in which managers and coaches have been precluded by the rules from interacting with players on the field while the game is in progress." - again, prove it. Sounds good but needs citation.
• Gaps in captains from 1923 to 1940, 1942 to 1966, 1967 to 1969, 1989 to 2005... needs explanation otherwise the list looks far from complete.
• Dick Hoblitzel caption needs no period as it's a fragment.
• Ref 16 has a spare period.

That's ma lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done RedThunder 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps you could add explanations about why there were several long periods where there was no captain. Also, you should add at least one reliable source list of captains. The sources prove that those individuals were captains, but they don't prove that there wasn't anyone else, which is why a list source would be great. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done RedThunder 13:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

• Wagner and Yastrzemski should be in different rows for each time they captained.
• Authors for references 9 and 16 please
• Reference 13 is a footnote

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Comments

• What does the opening sentence offer? "The following is a list of team captains for the Boston Red Sox American League franchise". We can gather this information from the article's title
  • Find a way to engage the reader, other than "The following is a list of team captains for the Boston Red Sox". Articles don't begin with "The following is an article about blue iguanas."
• An explanation and references for why there are no captains in the periods when there aren't. Right now it could be that you don't know and put that there as an easy way to get around it.
  • Apologies, I didn't see that ref 6 covers everything. You can remove it if you want! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This shows the average reader that everything is covered with sources, contrary to what some believe about Wikipedia, so I think I will keep it there. RedThunder 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• The New York Times, Boston Herald and Boston Globe are publications, so they should be italicized in the references. And wikilinked.
  • Ref 16 still needs doing. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done RedThunder 13:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done RedThunder 16:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Comment

• How and why were there times when they had no captain? Buc (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There were periods of time where there was no captian awarded on the team, but no source says why. The book only says "no captain period of time. RedThunder 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The "this is a comprehensive list" thing is bad. Don't force the bolded title thing. Drewcifer (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done RedThunder 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Why say no captain in 1923 when you have two in the table that captained in 1923? Same for '42 and '69.
  • Carl Yastrzemski row is repeated.
  • what about 1984?
  • I know you've sourced the lack of captains but it needs to be explained in the lead as well - it's unusual. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment How did Harry Hooper become captain when he wasn't even active? Annoyomous24 (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • In the sentence, "They are a member and current champions of both the Major League Baseball’s (MLB) American League Eastern Division and of the American League (AL).", They are a member shouls be They are members.
  • This list should be names List of Boston Red Sox captains.
  • You should divide the captains from the Boston Americans by putting Boston Americans above the captains from the Boston Americans and Boston Red Sox below the captains from the Boston Americans.
  • If all of that is finished, I'll support. Annoyomous24 (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Well done! Annoyomous24 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Repeat comment
  • What happened in 1984? No captain? It needs noting.
  • "No captain 1924–1940[6]" but then the next row says Foxx started in 1940...
  • Same for "No captain 1990–2005[6]".
• Clear these up and I'm done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:52, 1 July 2008 [92].

---

List of baryons

previous FLC (04:49, 30 May 2008)

Renomination (self nomination): I believe I have addressed all the concerns of the previous FLC , which were mainly referencing issues, visual appearance issues, and thoroughness of some explanations. The only exception is that Crzycheetah still experiences a long scroll bar due to some templates (which have been identified, but there's no work around that I know of). I've contacted the author of the templates, and had no reply from him in a month. I've contacted the Village pump and no one even gave a comment. I've tried multiple things and none of them worked. Since this is IMO, a minor visual annoyance that seems to be exclusive to Crzycheetah (I tried at least 10 different computers with different OS and different browsers), and that I gave it my best try, I am resubmitting the list of baryons. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• That is one really long signature you have (over a dozen lines!)
• Remove bold from linked text or links from bold text per WP:LEAD.

Gary King (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to User:Gary King:

• But the bold is there because of WP:LEAD...
• Yeah I noticed my sig was incredibly massive. I'm trying to find a better way to do things. Headbomb16:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, per WP:BOLDTITLE, "Avoid links in the bold title words." Gary King (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Headbomb19:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This article looks good now. Gary King (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Any reason why triquarks is in italics? Seems unique.
• "Spin, orbital angular momentum , and total angular momentum" remove space before the second comma.
• Refs [4] and [5] need to be the other side of the full stop.
• First image in isospin section has a full stop in the caption - not needed as it's a fragment.
• "this wasn't known" was not - avoid contractions.
• "anti-quark" or "anti quark" - consistency required.
• Remove spaces between Particle name and reference in the table.
• Use proper notes in the table rather than your own version.
• "The specific values of the name hasn't been decided yet. Will probably end up to something close to Σb(5810)" avoid contractions, second sentence should be written as English, add a full stop at the end and avoid phrases like "end up to something close to..." - non-encyclopaedic.
• "Some controversy exists about this data. See references" Specifically which references?
• "Charmed Theta" should be "charmed Theta" for consistency with the rest of the table.
• For web references, best to use {{cite web}} and fill in as many parameters as possible, such as accessdate, author, title etc.
• First and last non-specific references appear to use a hyphen to separate page ranges (if that's what they are) rather than the en-dash.
• Further reading can also use the {{cite web}} template.
• Isn't category:Particle physics a sub-category of category:Physics? If so you can axe the latter cat.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented most of them now.

• Any idea about how to handles notes automatically? If I use <ref> tags, they get mixed up with the references, and I really want them to be immediately under the table.
• About {{cite web}} for the web references... it's already used...?
• I'll implement {{cite web}} for the further readings section later today. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I tried using {{citeweb}}, but I found it made things kinda ugly. Plus it's kinda misleading to use {{citeweb}} since it's not a citation. I hope you don't mind, and if you do mind, then check the other featured lists. I tried 10 and I haven't seen one that used {{citeweb}} for external links.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, notes. Yeah, I'll go dig up an example. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Here you go - List of Governors of Ohio shows how it's done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• <ref name=PDGProton>Yao et al. (2006): [http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s016.pdf Particle listings—Proton]</ref> doesn't look like it's using the template to me...! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll look into the List of Governors of Ohio later today.
• These refs were done like this on purpose. The reason is all these refs are actually the same document, but the Particle Data Group chopped it up in these sections for the online version so you don't have to download a 1200 page PDF everytime. The "true" ref is Yao et al. (2006) (with the full ref given below). The link is given as a convenience, not as a "citation". Dunno if that made sense.

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, understood. Not a huge deal, just a little confusing. You could manually add accessdate style text to make it appear like a cite web...? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

* Yeah, I guess I could. I'll think of something. Again that'll happen later today. I also noticed that <ref name=ParticlePhysicsOverview>{{cite web |url=http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/extras_particlephys.html |title=Physics Particle Overview — Baryons|accessdate= 2008-04-20}}</ref> probably needs to be reformated into something cuter for the short ref version, and put in the "full reference" section. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed everything you've listed. Hopefully this was everything, but if you have anything else that makes you iffy about placing a bold support, someone on this page, go ahead and mention it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Very nice list! Some minor things:
In the parity section you write the wavefunction as |psi(x)> but the wavefunction is, of course, the complex number <x|psi>, which you should call psi(x). If you consider the given function of x as an element of Hilbert space then you could still denote that function by a Dirac ket, but then the argument x should not be used in the ket (an argument in the ket, like a time variable, means that for every value of that argument you have some different element of Hilber space). So, I would just replace the Dirac ket by psi(x).

It would be nice if you could show how isospin symmetry of strong interactions explains certain branching ratios in strong decays. So, you give an example of some particle X that decays into another particle Y. You apply a ladder operator on both sides and then X becomes some other particle but Y becomes some linear combination of two other particles, the absolute value squares of the amplitudes are the relative decay probabilities. This kind of argument is very easy to follow for people who know only the very basics of quantum mechanics but haven't seen any complicated particle physics stuff yet. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• You're right about the ket thing, and I've changed it. It was an abuse of notation on my part (bad Headbomb, bad baaaaaaad Headbomb).
• As for the isospin symmetry explaining the branching ratios, I don't know anything about that. I've fiddled around with the ladder operators, but only to check if my wavefunctions were consistent, and to "crack" what the hell was isospin. I've been thinking of adding a decay section, but I think that would be more appropriate for an article on decay, or perhaps for the baryon article (which needs a lot of work), as that is not required to make sense of the list of baryons.

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I really don't want to comment much on this one because I feel that to support or oppose something that is far beyond my comprehension is unfair. However, the opening sentence, "This is a list of known and predicted baryons." is rather uninspiring. Something more engaging should be used to interest the reader, rather than a copy of the article title. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well I wrote it with non-experts in mind. Two months ago I didn't know one thing about baryons other than there were made of "three quarks". I wrote the list as a way to understand what there were, what made them tick etc... Being a n00b at baryons allowed me to write the explanations from the perspective of a guy who didn't "get it" until a minute ago, so can see why someone is confused by the usual explanations. I can't say that you'll get everything in a quick read, but you'll certainly "get it" a lot more than if you read any of the reference provided. If I did my job right, you should never feel lost, even in a quick read, and while you might not "get" why something is important (parity comes to mind, since it's just something that some info about the shape of the wavefunction), sitting there and reading things carefully should make nod along the way, rather than pull your hair and wonder if I'm speaking in Swahili. It's surprisingly not that complicated and I'm really pissed at the authors of particle physics textbooks to explain things in ways that are completely unhelpful which make it sound much more complicated than it really is.I've had the list reviewed by many particles physicists (at least 4), both on wiki and outside of wiki, so I wouldn't be too worried about factual accuracy if I were you. I can guarantee you the lists themselves are complete, accurate, and up to date as I took great care to find a reference for absolutely everything that is written in those lists. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Well it's 12.30am right now so I don't want to read it while I'm feeling tired! I'll do it in the morning after some sleep! :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Cool beans. If you come up with a better intro line, don't be afraid to mention it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• You could just axe the first sentence entirely. It adds virtually nothing that isn't in the title of the list and in the remainder of the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, it's slashed. Not sure it's my preferred version of things, but I can live with it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 11:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sentence is back, but is "detached" from the lead. This should make all of us happier than a kid in candyland. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:52, 1 July 2008 [93].

---

Kaiser Chiefs discography

This is the discography of British rock group Kaiser Chiefs. I am nominating this list because I believe it to be complete and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Disambiguate the link "War Child". Gary King (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - a well put together list though, the chart positions have no references to reliable sources, also the release of the DVD, and the notes in the EP section cannot be verified as they too do not have references to reliable sources.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments - Looks more verifiable, but the Video album needs a ref to a reliable source.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Any details/information about the DVD release can be found in the general references section. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Tenacious D Fan

• "one music DVD on B-Unique Records." Why are you in particular pointing out the label this was released on? Perhaps this should read video album instead.
• "Eil.com" is not a reliable source.
• "Contained b-sides, live recordings and an exclusive remix." Not a necessary piece of information.
• "Contained a documentary, live performances and music videos." Weird tense, fragment sentence (no f stop required) - Perhaps this note isn't neccessary.
• Instead of having the title "DVDs", have "Videos". This would make more sense, as why would any thing below the title "DVDs" not be in the DVD format, as you have noted.
• You say "discography of the Kaiser Chiefs", but then you say "Kaiser Chiefs are currently recording..." Where is the "the". Consistency?

That's me. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've added all your comments into the article. Thanks for your suggestions. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Music video directors need reliable sources.

Done. All the video directors are referenced using their official websites or their production company sites. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic work so far. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Keep all the Title columns of the same width.
• Can you expand the lead? See: The Strokes discography or The Libertines discography. indopug (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Expanded lead. Hopefully I got everything. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Your dates have to be in the [[1 January]] [[2008]] format throughout
• What about the Misc. section title width? For consistency name the Song column in misc and music video to Title.
• I think remove applying a width to the Year columns as they have the same widths as the individual years. Remove align center too for the years too casuse they get kinda redundant. indopug (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, hopefully I fixed everything. All the title columns are the same width now. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm nervy about using the band's own site for sales information. Self-published sources are discouraged and there is clear personal interests involved.

I found another website that verifies the sales from their official website. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is Acharts.us reliable?

I believe it to be. I have checked their charts against charts published from other official websites and they all appear to be correct. Charts from the UK cannot be found online elsewhere (unless you use everyHit.com). -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to use Webcite on the band's official site etc. These often change without warning. indopug (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think contactmusic is accepted as a reliable source. indopug (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to remove it then because I cannot find another "reliable" source to support the sales. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found an article from The Times which contains the album's sales in the UK. I have used this to replace world sales because another reliable source cannot be found. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks very good! Drewcifer (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Good work so far. A few suggestions:

• I highly recommend redoing the citations using citation templates, since a few of them seem off format-wise. Though you did do a fairly good job of it by hand.

They look fine to me. It's the same format I have used in past discography FL's. I guess I could go over them all again. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's not need to repeat the chart sources in the general references, since you do that through in-line citations as well.
• Consider bolding the album titles in the "Studio albums", "Video albums", and "EP" tables.
• The "EP" seciton should be called "Extended plays" not EP. Same with the first mention of an EP in the lead.
• Was "Lap of Honour" released in Japan or only in Japan. May want to make that clear.
• The Year columns need to be center-aligned. This isn't a big deal in most of the tables, but for some reason the years in "Miscellaneous" table look a little funky to me.

I think that's only because it had its width set to 33. I removed it, must be better now. indopug (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• British Phonographic Industry should be wikilinked in citation #6.
• B-Unique is called "B-Unique" in the first table, but "B-Unique Records" in the last one.
• Is it really necessary to wikilink "interviews" in the lead?
• "It did well on the charts" is a little opinion-y. I think the sentence is stronger without. Drewcifer (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Added your suggestions. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't force the bolded title in the lead.
• Is there a particular reason "You Can Have It All" isn't in the singles chart? I know it's "limited edition" and all that junk, but it's still a single. You can specify it's availability very easily with a footnote while still including it in the singles table. Drewcifer (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Further Its looking very good now; I just have minor points.

• There's a lot of redundant code: assigning width to the Year column is unnecessary as the width of "Year" and "2008" (any year for that matter) is the same. align="left" is redundant as it is the default setting to align it that way. See my edit to the singles table.

• rowspan="1" is redundant too.

• <br> should be <br /> to allow XHTML compatibility

• There are still a few; ctrl+F for <br> and then replace.

• I think BBC.co.uk and Billboard.com should actually be BBC and Billboard in the references.--indopug (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I still see quite a few. Again, use ctrl F. indopug (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Went over it again. I believe I got them all this time -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Support -- Nice work. indopug (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is it "Kaiser Chiefs are currently recording their third album", or "Kaiser Chiefs is currently recording their third album". There's only one band, but it sounds odd as "is". I'm unsure of this. A wikilink to discography in the first sentence would be nice, but I think everyone else has covered the things to be resolved.

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

Oops.. make that Conditional support. The ordering of sections should follow the ordering of the infobox. Or vica-versa. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Still conditional, as I'm unsure whether "Kaiser Chiefs are currently recording their third album" is correct, or "Kaiser Chiefs is currently recording its third album". There's only one band, but it sounds odd as "is". I'm unsure of this and have asked at WT:MOS#Is a musical band referred to in the single or plural tense?. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:52, 1 July 2008 [94].

---

List of Sultans of Zanzibar

Nishkid is trekking the African safari as part of the FLC contest. Hope you enjoy the list! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "1886, The Sultan of Zanzibar" – Lowercase the "the", unless it's part of the title? Gary King (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Weird, I had taken this article off FLC before your comment (I still had some issues I had to work out). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh okay; I suppose I had the window open before you closed it, and then I edited it afterwards. Gary King (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent list!--Dem393 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• "This is a list of the Sultans of Zanzibar." We know this from the article's title. Please find something more engaging for the reader.
  • Reworded. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Zanzibar needs wikilinking on it's first use (but not where it's bolded)
  • It was already wikilinked on first non-bold use. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• "In 1832[1] or 1840,[2][A]" refs should go after punctuation. Perhaps also try "Some time between 1832 and 1840,[1][2][A]"
  • The ref here does not need to be placed after the punctuation. That MoS guideline only regards the placement of a ref directly after or before a punctuation mark. So, "In 1832[1] or 1840[2][A]," wouldn't be appropriate, but "In 1832[1] or 1840,[2][A]" would be. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why wikilink plantations, but not cloves? I would think cloves is more important
  • Link added. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Do the sultans names need to be bolded in the table?
  • No, but I've stuck with this convention on all my lists. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename the notes column as comments, and create a notes column for the footnotes and references
  • Unnecessary. Clumping up notes/references in a single column just makes matters confusing. It's better to have the refs and notes where they are relevant. "Comments" doesn't seem like an appropriate title for a column, as it gives off the aura of personal commentary (when it's not, really). I think the current title is appropriate. I'll rename the "Notes" heading to "Footnotes". Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, but did they gain independence from Great Britain, or the United Kingdom? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• UK, fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • 1832/1840 in lead probably needs explaining in the lead rather than footnoting since it's quite confusing.
    • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, per Matthew, I would imagine it to be the UK.
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is each sultan's name in bold?
    • Just a personal preference. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Rule in the table need not be capitalised.
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "This treaty essentially turned..." - what does "essentially" add/mean here?
    • Removed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ref [8] seems incomplete.
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ref's [20] and [21] don't have a p. in front of page numbers.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Added. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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