Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2011

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:11, 27 May 2011 [1].

---

Grammy Award for Best Remixed Recording, Non-Classical

Nominator(s): Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the few categories not being altered next year. I have not included the original artists of songs, as the prize is awarded to remixers only, but lemme know what you think. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dab/EL check - There are no dab links but there is one dead link. GamerPro64 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Looks great! I would recommend "commanding" the Nationality column to be wide enough to accommodate the length of the widest entry (UK) so that is does not wrap to a second line. I think I used 125px before? (Edit: For accessibility purposes, you might want to look at the scope/width formatting on the Jazz Fusion list.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments Are original artists for the track on which the remix is based available for this list? I could probably hunt them down, but the award is not awarded to the original song. If I was to add the original artists, where would I place them? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Trentemoller has a diacritic on the o in our article. Fixed Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Cat says established 2002, first award on this list was given 1998. Oops, forgot to change it when I merged the two. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like one more picture could fit, is their another suitable one?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I see nothing wrong so I will support--Blackjacks101 (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I notice that the table lists the song title and the name of the remixer, but not the artist whose song it actually is. Is this because this is how the nominations are worded by the Academy........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Academy awards the remixer only, and does not make any mention of the original artist. However, (for the 49th awards at least) the original artists were listed alongside the nominees. So the award is not at all given to the original artist, but I am more than happy to include original artists. I'll need some creative direction, though, as I can't see a non-awkward way to include them in the table. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's how the Academy present the information then that's cool -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - all seems OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:11, 27 May 2011 [2].

---

List of Benet Academy alumni

Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey all. This is my first FLC attempt (and the first list I've worked on), so I'd really appreciate some feedback! FYI a huge chunk of the lead is just a summary of the main Benet Academy article. Thanks, Edge3 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support —Mrwojo (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC); I do have some comments though:
  • It wasn't clear to me that "the school enrolled only men of Bohemian or Slovak ancestry" referred to the Czech college.
    • I'm not an expert on this, but aren't those three ethnicities related in some way?
  • Non-graduates should have an "N/A" or em dash to indicate that the Graduated column is intentionally without a date.
    • Em dashes added
  • A sortable table would be convenient.
  • Porter Moser has a period at the end of his description unlike all others. Because they aren't complete sentences perhaps the few descriptions that use periods should use commas or semicolons instead? (Just a thought.)
    • Period removed from Moser entry; semicolons added between phrases within entries

  Thank you so much for your support! I've addressed most of your concerns listed above; I'll work on the sortable table shortly. Edge3 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  Sortable table enabled. Edge3 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why is this list titled "people" and not "alumni"? Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah I really don't have an explanation for that. I moved the page. Edge3 (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  I fixed up all the redirects etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments' First para is silly short. Merge intelligently (per WP:LEAD, an article of this size doesn't need three paras). Paras combined " An alumni directory compiled in 1937 reveals that older alumni have included members of the clergy, businessmen, physicians, educators, attorneys, musicians, and journalists" while this may be true, this is probably true of any establishment founded for a few years. When was Benet Academy founded? Worth putting that in the lead. Okay, you add that info in the third para, but you can't talk about what happened in 1937 without putting it into context. I went to a college founded in 1284, if I started talking about what happened in 1937 without mentioning that the college had been around for 650-odd years, it would seem strange. I mentioned the year the school was founded in the second sentence US News and World Report is usually called "U.S. News & World Report ". Fixed The lead, as a whole, provides a reasonable overview of the history of the Academy, but this list is about the alumni. You should be focussing on them, not the history of the institution. Ok, I shortened the history paragraph. What does a dash in the "graduation" col mean? Needs clear explanation. I guess "Studied as a freshman" means they dropped out? It's not 100% clear to me (as a Brit...) I added the em dashes per Mrwojo's comments above. The em dash indicates that they studied at the school but never graduated there. I added both the word "only" before "during the ___ school year" and the high schools they graduated from. Ref 1 should be pp. not p. (multiple pages). Fixed. Refs, is it "Daily Herald" or "The Daily Herald" or are they different? Daily Herald, without "the". I removed that one instance. Is "Herald-News" one or both of the above? Neither. See [3] The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them above. Edge3 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• What makes BoxingScene.com (ref 22) a reliable source?

  I can see why you would be suspicious of that source. I've replaced it with a (hopefully) better source.

• Ref 10 gives the page number as pp., when it should just be p. (single-page cite). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  I switched the parameter.

Thanks for your comments! Edge3 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Moray An Par (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments Why is the "graduated" data for Justin McCareins and Molly Schaus an en dash (–)? I think this should be explained as a top hat before the table. Similar to List of Wilfrid Laurier University people. Regarding the move to List of Benet Academy alumni from List of Benet Academy people, are its faculty members not notable? Or is there a separate list for that? I think this should consider adding faculty and, if faculty are included, be moved back to List of Benet Academy people. For reflist, I am not sure if there is policy/guideline on this but it will look better and shorter if it's made into two columns similar to what most articles do. Moray An Par (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have added a brief explanation of the em dashes and separated the ref section into two columns, as you suggested. As far as I know, no current or former faculty member meets our notability guidelines, so I don't think a "notable faculty" section is warranted. Please feel free to raise any other questions or concerns. Edge3 (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more resolved comments from Moray An Par (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more comments: Is "Only alumni who have articles on Wikipedia are listed here." really necessary? It's like saying "only notable people are listed here." I believe it's already a given that everyone listed there should be notable. Ref 7 and 13 has double periods (..) after their publisher. "The all-girls Sacred Heart Academy operated nearby, founded in 1926." has a misplaced prepositional phrase. It should be "The all-girls Sacred Heart Academy, founded in 1926, operated nearby." See this. Moray An Par (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I addressed all of your comments above. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Concerns have been addressed. Moray An Par (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you so much! Edge3 (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments:

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

*The lead picture could be made bigger. I enlarged it. What is "the class of 2013"? Clarified I see what it means, but shouldn't it be "came"->"come" in that sentence? bamse (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed A question on notability (I am from Europe so please bear with me). At least in my country there is no emphasis on high school alumni (maybe on university alumni, but not much on those either). I guess that's different in the US, no? For the sake of not over-generalizing, I will limit the scope of most of my comments to Benet. I don't know that much about alumni relations in other schools, but for private schools like Benet, cultivating alumni relations is very important. By providing an atmosphere in which former students can remain connected to the school and to each other, Benet has established a quite expansive network of connections that can be useful for career-planning or for fundrasing. Alumni, especially the more successful ones, often prove to be the most fruitful targets of fundraising at Benet. And in compiling a list of Benet alumni who have later on become successful in life, the school is giving everyone a sense of pride in the fact that they are a part of a community that has produced so much talent. Outside of school development purposes, local newspapers like to keep track of Benet alumni as well (or any former resident, for that matter). Dan LeFevour, for example, got a lot of local media attention because he was a former resident of the area who went on to become a professional football player. Local newspapers love stories about former residents who become famous later on in life, and when they write those stories, the newspapers provide a bio that often includes the names of the schools they attended. As such, Dan LeFevour's affiliation with Benet was widely publicized in the region, in the same way that other alumni's affiliations with Benet were publicized when they became famous. The fact that Benet students have done well academically, and the fact that it already has so many famous alumni, certainly boosts its public image. Does that answer your question? I hesitate to expand my commentary to other high schools in the US, because I simply don't feel that I could make broad statements about US high schools in general. Thanks a lot. It more than answers my questions. "clergy, businessmen, physicians, educators, attorneys, musicians, and journalists" seem like very normal professions to me. Why mention it? US society focused much more on agriculture in 1937 than we do today, much like the rest of the developed world. The fact that alumni have gone on to non-agricultural industries, in my opinion, underscores the kind of vocational preparation that the school offered. Makes a lot of sense. What is a remedial course? Explained In the table, center alignment of the "Graduated" column would look better in my opinion. I don't know how to do that, but I'll look into it. Short break, will continue review later. bamse (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) continued... What are the inclusion criteria? Having a wikipedia article on the respective person? Yes that is the inclusion criteria. In fact, I previously had the sentence "Only alumni who have articles on Wikipedia are listed here" in the article, but I removed it per the advice of Moray An Par above. Basically, his/her concern was that the sentence conveyed an idea that was too obvious or redundant, especially if it is convention on Wikipedia that a person can be listed on a Wikipedia list if and only if he or she has a Wikipedia article. What are your thoughts? I am fine with the current situation. Personally I don't mind red-linked entries in tables either if there is a chance that an article will be created. Wikilink "2010 election" in Jim Ryan's entry. Linked Wikilink publishers (if possible) in references. I linked all of the ones I could find. Not sure whether they are identical, but at least they share the same name (please check): The San Diego Union-Tribune, Naperville Sun, Chicago (Magazine), Herald News. There are some Daily Heralds (refs 21, 24) which could possibly be wikilinked. bamse (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC) I added extra links for the Daily Herald, San Diego Union-Tribune, Naperville Sun, and Chicago Magazine. The article for Herald News is for a different publication in New Jersey. That's all the images we have of Benet alumni? One more added; do you want more? Adding more pictures would cause the photos to spill over into the References section on my browser. bamse (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC) On my browser, there is still space for two more images or so, but (from experience) I understand that it is virtually impossible to arrange images and tables in such a way that it looks good on all browsers and screen resolutions. I was just wondering that if we have images of most alumni, we could have an extra "image" column in the table instead of placing images outside the table. bamse (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Photos are also available for Lee, McCareins, Salpeter, and Schaus. IMO that's not enough to warrant an extra "Image" column. Alright. I responded to some of your comments above. Please excuse my inability to fully respond. I'm busy at the moment and will respond to the rest of your comments later today. Edge3 (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your patience. Edge3 (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for addressing my comments patiently. Only open question is the center alignment of the year column. I am not good at table syntax, but if you asked at wikipedia help pages or Help talk:Table you'd probably be helped quickly. bamse (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I figured it out through the IRC help channel. Edge3 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Support now. bamse (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Edge3 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:22, 22 May 2011 [4].

---

List of Watford F.C. players

Nominator(s): —WFC— 15:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to all reviewers for my disappearing act at the end of the previous FLC. In my defence I couldn't have known that I wouldn't have access to Wiki for so long, but I'm sorry nonetheless. Given that it only had one support (albeit no opposes) after five weeks, it would most likely have been archived for lack of reviews regardless.

Moving on, I have dealt with the few outstanding issues from FLC 2, and am confident that this is now up to scratch. All comments will be dealt with speedily. Regards, —WFC— 15:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. —WFC— 16:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

;Comments: The first sentence reads awkwardly to me; I would have said that the first comma should be removed, but perhaps others perceive it differently. Both seem grammatically sound; removed for argument's sake. 'First World War' is not linked, while 'Second World War' is in the key prose. I would say it is a border-line case of whether it is overlinking (either way is fine for me), but internal consistency would be nice. Delinked The description of what is sourced where under general should not be in italics. Removed Overall a very well-composed list. Arsenikk (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. —WFC— 16:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments picky as I can be... Mariappa's caption says he "started his career" at Watford, referenced by [1]. I couldn't really find that in the reference. Debateable. Recasted nonetheless. What's the logic behind the ordering of the images? Mostly I'd expect them to be alphabetical (although only because that's what other lists have done, and it matches the original sort of the table). My only real aim was to spread out the Watford kits. Alphabetical order now achieves this, thanks to the inclusion of your favourite Hungarian ex-Hornet. I think Watford F.C. is a supercat of Watford F.C. players, is it really needed? Its inclusion in both has more to do with the categories themselves. Being a "top-level" article (along with the managers, seasons, stadia, club etc) you would probably expect to come across this in the club's category. On the other hand, it's hard to justify not putting it in Category:Watford F.C. players. Most similar lists use a similar convention, notably those of Gillingham and Ipswich Town. You're right to raise this, but I think the redundancy is a (small) net benefit. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Cheers for the comments —WFC— 23:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support I found it hard to be picky and find anything and those odds-and-sods I did find were minor and have already been resolved. Good work (apart from the Priskin image, naturally). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Meets FL standards and is probably the most comprehensive of its type that I've seen. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Couple of very minor points that I must have missed last time...

• Note 6: "Barnes made 31 appearances for England while at Watford, Jackett made 31 appearances for Wales during his one-club career." Comma should probably be a semi-colon.
• Page range in reference 27 should be presented as pp., not p. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Both done. —WFC— 22:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:22, 22 May 2011 [5].

---

List of Vuelta a España general classification winners

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this list is close to featured list, it is similar to the already featured Tour de France and up for nomination Giro d'Italia lists and will hopefully form part of a featured topic. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments "held over 23 days in September" always 23 days? Always in September only? "the newspaper Informaciones, " no link? And presumably it's a Spanish newspaper? "Spain and countries with a close proximity in Europe such as the Netherlands" when was Spain close to Holland? It's probably closer to Morocco. "into day-long segments, called stages. " no need for comma. "There are other jerseys as well: " - perhaps "Other jerseys are awarded, including: " "French cyclists are second with 9 victories " - nine. "also been set up by newspapers" maybe established rather than set up? "The first race was won by Gustaaf Deloor, he won again the following year" not ", he won" perhaps "who". "four year suspension" four year needs a hyphen. "Frenchmen Jacques Anquetil" man. "by the smallest margin," ever? "following year Pedro Delgado won his second Vuelta." no need to repeat Pedro. dashes in the table should sort as zero. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Ok, I think I've addressed everything here, thanks to Edge as well for clearing up the issue over the month of the race and for your other edits, much appreciated. Thanks for your comments TRM. NapHit (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments I checked this, and fixed some inaccuracies in the lead. Did not get to checking the table, but sources look good. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC) More detailed analysis, checking the table with the general source ([6] etc) The current total distance in the article does not agree with the source. Some examples: 1958: The source says the race was 3242 km. 1960: The source says the race was 3567 km. 1961: The source says the race was 2857 km. 1962: The source says the race was 2813 km. 1964: The source says the race was 2860 km. 1965: The source says the race was 3410 km. 1966: The source says the race was 2950 km. 1968: The source says the race was 3014 km. I suggest that you change all total distances in the article to the distances in the source. Or, if you have reason to believe that the Vuelta website is in error (which is certainly possible), show the source that you used. 1935: The total time for Deloor does not agree with the source 1936: Gustaaf Deloor won 3 stages, not 2 1946: Not given in the source, but [7] (not reliable enough to use as a source in a FL) suggests Dalmacio Langarica was part of the "Galindo" team. This source also indicates that before 1955, except in in 1946 and 1948, the race was run with individuals. As you say the source is not reliable enough although very well detailed so unless others deem the source reliable I'll have to leave that out. Plus there is no mention of the team on the vuelta website. NapHit (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 1948: Bernardo Ruiz was part of the "AGRIS RADIO" team according to [8] he was part of another team. NapHit (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Indeed, I looked at the wrong 'Ruiz'. I checked the races until 1969, and hope to be able to check the rest later. Other detail: the cyclingnews website should have work=Cycling News|publisher=Future Publishing Limited. Similarly, the publisher for the Vuelta website is Unipublic. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC) done all these NapHit (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Checked the other years, they seem fine.

• Support -- EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

;Comments: I would have said the semicolon on the first line should be a comma. There isn't a semi-colon on the first line assuming your talking about the lead? NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC) When I think of it, using lines is not accurate since it will depend on screen width and size rendering. The place I am thinking of is "three "Grand Tours"; along ". Arsenikk (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC) done NapHit (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Is the 1941 edition the only which also took place in countries "with close proximity"? Particularly if this is a recurring phenomena, which countries are these? Someone had changed the sentence from what it originally meant, rectified that issue. Regarding the countries, the only one I can find a reference for is the Netherlands which is not close enough to Spain to warrant being put in the lead. See TRM's comment above. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC) The second paragraph of the lead is without references. Added a ref NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC) In the history section there are some very short sentences, such as "He won his second Vuelta in 1983." that perhaps could be merged with adjacent sentences. I'm not sure the prose would read better if I did this, as I would end up saying "so and so won this year, the following year" over and over again which is not good practice, so I think its fine. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC) The history section seems completely referenced except for the last statement of the third paragraph. done NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC) To me it seems odd to have rows for years without a competition. Each to their own I suppose, I personally think it would be odd not to include them, as it conveys to the reader clearly what years the event did not take place. It would look odd in my opinion if the table jumped from 1951 to 1955 without explanation. NapHit (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Linking years countries in the table and elsewhere is overlinking. The countries are only linked in the table as far as I'm aware apart from Spain obviously. I was of the impression that sortable tables were allowed to overlink and this has not come up in any candidacy for a while. Unless policy has changed I'm not sure if there is an issue. NapHit (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC) There is a difference between overlinking and repeatlinking. Tables have an exception from the MOS guideline of only the first occurrence being linked, i.e. tables can have the same link repeated in multiple rows. However, tables do not have an exception from the guideline of overlinking, which involves linking to terms deemed to general to serve a purpose, for which countries are specifically mentioned. More about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking). Arsenikk (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC) According to the MOS page you brought this quote from the repeatlink section would seem to contradict what your stating; "where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links." NapHit (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC) As you say, the table can repeat links from other places in the article, and can repeat links within itself. Nowhere does it say that tables are allowed to have links which normally should not be linked. The repeatlink section does not give any exceptions from the overlink section. Arsenikk (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Well if this is the case then nearly every list promoted would fail this requirement as most lists link countries in the table. I would be interested to see what other reviewers think because I don't think this is an issue at all. I have been at FLC for three years now and this is the first time this has come up so I'm not sure if your interpreting the MOS wrong or everyone else is or they are not clear enough, but in my eyes there is not a problem. NapHit (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Ignore the above, I've fixed this now. The countries now link to the relevant national cycling federation article for that country except for Kazakhstan which does not have an article. Hope that meets your demands. NapHit (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC) The "stage wins" column sorts oddly for me. In an increasing sort, it sorts zero, emdashes, larger numbers. fixed this NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Again, when sorting by "cyclist", 'not contested' is sorted in the middle under NOT.. I tried to fix this, unfortunately as there is a cyclist whose last name starts with Z I can't get the not contested bit to sort after him so I'm afraid there is not much I can do unless there is a way around that issue. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I think my last edit solved this.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Yes it did thanks Edge NapHit (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC) What order is used to display the multiple winners with the same number of wins? It does not seem to be sorter either by year or surname. It's sorted by the year of their first win NapHit (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Then Fuente is in the wrong order. Arsenikk (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed NapHit (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Image licenses look good. Arsenikk (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Pretty sure the apostrophe shouldn't be there in "Vuelta's" (multiple places). Still see a couple in the history section: one in the first paragraph, one in the fourth. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC) should have corrected them all now NapHit (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC) The one in the fourth paragraph is still there. This is the only one I see left. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC) changed it, fairly sure that was the last one. NapHit (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Comma after "The current champion is Vincenzo Nibali of the Liquigas-Doimo team"? History: Feels like the comma after "The Vuelta was not held in 1949" should be a period. Comma before "led to dwindling international interest in the race" should be removed. Is it "Grand tours" or "Grand Tours"? I see both in close proximity to each other. No need to link the Tour de France twice in this section. Comma after "Roberto Heras won his first Vuelta in 2000" feels like it should be a semi-colon. Team should be decapitalized in the headings of the main table. The Cycling News website has the publisher given four different ways. Pick one and stick with it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments Giants all your concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:22, 22 May 2011 [9].

---

List of human characters in Sesame Street

Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a high-quality list with lots of good research. I've worked hard at making this list informative and fun to read, kinda like The Show itself. Christine (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Restarting nomination, previous comments can be seen here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support like I did before.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - what does a "blank" cell mean in the Actor column? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  It means that no source was found about who played the particular character. The source for Buddy and Jim, for example, is the Old School DVD, which does not list the actors' names. In other words, there's a source for the characters, but nothing was found that stated who played them. Clear as mud? Christine (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Is it within policy to cite the closing credits of an episode? On Fridays, NET aired the show's credits, listing Buddy, Jim and Jennie's names. Her official site also mentions the appearances. In other news, Buddy and Jim, Larry and Phyllis are referenced. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – All of my comments were addressed before the restart. Perhaps dashes for the blank actor cells should be considered if that is thought to be a problem, but I can't get too fussy about it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• If I were a reader, a dash would suggest to me it was unknown, like the test pilot Gordon. Not sure. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but I do wonder about some of the one-offs. Listed are Pirate Captain (Tina Fey), Letter A (Nicole Sullivan), and Letter Z (Stephen Colbert). Each were just a one-off character, meant to give the guest a bit more to do than a short segment. Other recent appearances include Kyra Sedgwick as Camouflage Carla, David Alan Grier as Aladdin, and Seth Green as Vinny the deliveryman; none are listed. But do we really need these "characters" on the main list? Edith Ann, Wanda Falbo, yes, because they appeared multiple times, but otherwise? -- Zanimum (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to put the dashes in for the unknowns; will do in the next 24 hours. Re: the one-offs; for the most part, I didn't include them, but went ahead with Colbert and Sullivan because they were included in the Gikow book. That's why Tina Fey's Pirate Captain is in the list, another one-off but which had two pages devoted to her appearance in the book. It follows the policy for inclusion that has been developed for this and other Sesame Street lists: characters and information in books are included first, before characters mentioned in webpages and in primary sources like DVDs and video clips. I'm fine with expanding the criteria to only include characters that appear multiple times, but the problem with that is that the show often shows the same short film or animation several times in several episodes. Perhaps we can expand the inclusion to only include characters that have been in several different segments over a period of time. I'm fine with whatever the reviewers think. Christine (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:22, 22 May 2011 [10].

---

Discontinued Hugo Awards

Nominator(s): PresN 02:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Last one! The first FLC was 11 months ago, and here we are with the 14th! This one breaks the mold of all the other Hugo Award lists- instead of one long table, it's several! As said in the article, each individual convention is allowed to make up its own Hugo Awards, which are just as official as the others despite not being binding on the next convention; additionally, a couple of times Hugo Awards have been officially created by the governing body only to be dropped a few years later. This list contains all of those, resulting in the catch-all title of "Other Hugo Awards" "Discontinued Hugo Awards". I hope you guys find this one as fine as the other 13 lists. Thanks for reviewing this and the other lists! --PresN 02:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose until a decent name is found. This name is simply misleading. It could be "Hugo awards (minor awards)" or "Hugo Awards (deprecated categories)" or something more useful. Plus, the table section should be split into deprecated awards and those still being awarded. Nergaal (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the name itself kind of points out the fact that this might simply be a CFORK. Nergaal (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A CFORK that is twice the length of the parent article (Hugo Awards), even after you pull the extra white space? I'm cool with a better name if one can be found; I don't think the two that you have work- Minor awards doesn't work because what makes these minor other than that they mainly aren't given any more? They're just as legitimate. And deprecated doesn't work, because Graphic Story is still ongoing- given the buzz around it the two years it's been up I fully expect it to get reupped in 2012. --PresN 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "List of discontinued Hugo Awards"? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Would work except that Graphic Story isn't discontinued, it's just only 2 years old. That's why I went with Other- the distinguishing feature was that they were all too short to stand on their own. --PresN 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to include absolutely all of the "other" prizes in such a list. Just change this to "discontinued prizes" and put the one ongoing into the main article as auto-capped. Nergaal (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, renamed to Discontinued Hugo Awards and spun out the graphic award into its own list. This is rather ironic- the list was originally just that graphic award, and I expanded it to include the other small awards. Now it's back to being its own list. --PresN 20:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not sure about the usefulness of having sortable tables with one entry. I know consistency is good, but this still seems a little odd to me. Point; made all single-entry tables unsortable, as well as one where the sorting wouldn't do anything. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "When the Hugo awards were begun in 1953, what awards were given were entirely decided by the committee that organized the Worldcon that they were presented at." not wishing to be rude but I think this is one of the most awkward sentences I've ever read in my life.... Do I win an award? Fixed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "by the overall World Science..." what's the purpose of "overall" here? None, removed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "Despite this, however," no need for however here. Actually, despite this, however, it has been removed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "to add additional categories" reads poorly with the repeat of "add..." (insert repetition joke) fixed. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "The next non-standard Hugo award .." since you changed the title of the list, I guess you need to re-phrase this! Guess so! --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Replied inline. --PresN 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I see no further problems. And yes, you win an award for "worst sentence ever constructed on Wikipedia". It's in the post... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Only thing I would change is to make the level three headers table titles, so there wouldn't be so many sections, but it's not a major issue. Courcelles 23:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I second Coutcelles' comment, there's too many short sections, but it's not that big of a concern.--Cheetah (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:22, 22 May 2011 [11].

---

List of U.S. state horses

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I present the list of state horse breeds of the US for your consideration. I've been slowly working on this for the last few months, and recently took it to PR, where I received some helpful feedback. I'm not all that experienced with FLs, and this is quite different from the other two I have worked on, so I look forward to all of the comments. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - I had some pretty involved comments at the peer review and all of my concerns have since been addressed. I checked with the tools in the toolbox and there are no dab links and all the external links are live. Nicely done and meets the FL criteria. I do have have two quibbles, which do not detract from my support.

• The Delaware quarter does not show any horse and rider, it shows Caesar Rodney on his horse.
• Can the table of proposed state horses be made the same width as the table of actual state horses? I do not think the table of symbols needs to be the same width as the others, but these two are in the same section and would look better if they were the same width.

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! I've tweaked the description of the Delaware quarter to include the name of the rider. On my screen, the two tables are the same width, so I'm not sure what you're seeing. I'm also not sure how I would go about forcing the tables to a certain size - coding tables is not my strong points :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I made the tables the same overall width and added an "s" to the Pennsylvania seal and flag description (so it is now "horses", since there are two). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not convinced how accessible the map is given that it uses just colour to convey information. I'm not very educated about the accessibility guidelines; do you have a proposal to make it more accessible? The general rule is to not use colour alone to convey information. However, since this is an image, I guess the best way to deal with the access issues is to have fully comprehensive alt text which describes to screen readers what the image is trying to convey. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Added alt text to the first image - does it work? "There are twelve U.S. states that have an official state horse, ..." would prefer "Twelve U.S. states has an official state..." Done. Is there a general article n US state symbols somewhere you can link to in the lead so non-experts know what this is all about? There's Lists of United States state insignia, but I'm not really sure that provides any better information... I can link to it if you want, though. I just thought there'd be a good call for a link to something that is meaningful to non-experts, e.g. in the UK we don't have a concept of "state horses". You know what I mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I've added a couple of sentences to the article on what state symbols actually are, along with the link that I posted above. Does this help? "There has been a proposed state horse that was not selected in one state, Oregon, " reads very strangely to me. Perhaps turn it around and say that Oregon proposed a state horse, but it was not selected. Done, I think, but take a look. I see no useful reason for the "description" column to be sortable. Done. What's a "founding stallion"? The stallion (male) from which all or most horses of the breed descend. Linked to foundation bloodstock. Be consistent with the use of periods in the description column. They should all have periods now. Would prefer to see column widths the same from table to table with similar headings. Could you tell me how to do this? You would need to force column widths.... it's no major trauma for me, but I'd prefer it. There are many lists which do this already, I'd need to go back and find an example though! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Dana, I know what to do, it'll just take some tinkering. I'll do it when I get home. Courcelles 20:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Okay, done. You might need to play with the widths some more, but as long as the percentage calls add up to 100 and the two tables use the same percentage (like it does now) it'll work. The third table has separate column names, so leaving it narrow is, IMO, better. Courcelles 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you Courcelles! The sizing looks fine on both of my computers (different size screens but both Firefox), but if anyone else thinks they're messed up I can play with the ratios. Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC) State symbols "date" column doesn't sort correctly in Safari. Could you tell me how to correct this? I think it's because Safari interprets the whole column as text rather than just numbers. In any case, I used the {{sort}} template in this edit and it seemed to do the job. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Ref 2 has a spare period, "cheat" the template.... Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the review! Replies interspersed above. The coding issues I'm going to need help on... :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Welcome, very much so. Have hopefully helped above a little.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Full disclosure- I've done some tinkering with this list over the last month or so. Meets FL standards. Courcelles 18:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Florida: "The Florida Cracker horse was first brought to what is now Florida in the 1500s by Spanish explorers, and they played a large part...". Tense conflict between singular ("was") and plural ("they"). There's a similar issue in the Idaho description. Maryland: "Maryland has an long history of breeding and racing Thoroughbreds". "an" → "a". Massachusetts: The state's name should be spelled out instead of having MA in the description. Not a big deal, but the dashes for blanks in the image column might look nicer if they were centered. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much for the review! I have taken care of all of the above. My only question was on the centering of the dashes - I think I fixed it, but I'm not sure if it was the most elegant solution. Feel free to instruct me as to if there is a better way, or just tweak yourself if that's easier than explaining to a code idiot like me :) Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic list - I have no problems with the main table but I am concerned with the State symbols section. While state quarters are representative of a state's culture, they are in no way official symbols of the state and are separate from the official breed designation. These are irrelevant to the article's purpose, especially for Delaware, where the depicted horse is coincidental and has nothing to do with a state symbol. Also, the Idaho license plate is just one of 38 specialty plates and is unconnected to the main list. Reywas92^Talk 05:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, given that the Idaho license tag is fair-use and not totally necessary under NFCC 8, I think the image needs to go even if the item does not, non-free content in a list is fairly shaky. Courcelles 05:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the picture from the article. The list of Idaho license plates actually lists many of the specialty plates near the bottom of the article, the Appaloosa is just not part of the list for some reason, so I think that the link is relevant. As for the list, I think that it is also relevant. Three out of the six portray the official state breed/animal, while three of the six are issued by the state (license plate, flag, etc). Would it help if we renamed the section? Something like "state and federal symbols"? I think the introduction to the section makes it clear that these do not all portray official state horses/animals, and that they are not all official symbols, instead saying "emblem" and nothing about "official". However, if you think that more explanation is needed, I would love to hear your thoughts on it... Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the flag and seal are official state symbols, but the quarters are not "emblems of several states" as the section into says. They are not federal symbols or emblems either, they are unrelated things that happen to have horses. Delaware and Nevada do not appear anywhere else in the list; the horse is a common animal and coincidentally on the coins, not as a state symbol. I don't see how one of 38 specialty plates is relevant, much less a symbol or emblem. Perhaps these images could be included in the main table, but a separate section isn't appropriate for them. Reywas92^Talk 00:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

They are emblems, though. An emblem is "an object or its representation, symbolizing a quality, state, class of persons, etc.;" per my dictionary. The coins are representations of the state's history. They are not official emblems, but they are emblems. They are also not unrelated - the Kentucky coin has an image of the state horse, which makes it completely related. The license plate is also an unofficial emblem, but is also completely related, as it shows the state horse. At this point, you are the only editor who believes the table should go, so unless more editors chime in with the same opinion, I am going to leave the table in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The KY coin and ID plate are depictions of their designated equines and would fit in a section called something like "Other depictions of state horses". However, the Delaware and Nevada coins and the Pennsylvania flag do not have images of their state horses, not even having one! This article is about state horses, not generic horses that happen to be on state-related currency or insignia. The Washington quarter has a fish on it, but it has no place on the list of state fish. Reywas92^Talk 22:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Was the question of the name of the article addressed? I know with the state dogs list, it started out as List of U.S. state dogs, but was requested to be changed to U.S. official state dogs during the FLN process. Should this article be renamed to U.S. official state horses? Miyagawa (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion in this matter. I like the "List of" name better, but that's just personal preference. If there is consensus here to change the name of the article, I have no problem with that, and will happily do the work. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a reasonable rule of thumb is that if this is the main article about the X in "List of X" then it should be moved to X, if you see what I mean, so if this is the main article about U.S. state horses, there's a good shout that it could be moved to U.S. state horses. Just a thought though, not binding in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, didn't find any issues.The only thing I found iffy was that the lead seems to just jump right in and put almost anything of note in the first paragraph, but I don't know of a better way to write the lead so I won't worry about it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:14, 17 May 2011 [12].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (H)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The next Phillies roster list, following after the promotion of "G". Comments addressed as always. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments I know it's my fault this exists in the first place, but could we change "team[H])" to "team)[H]"? I wouldn't, just because the "H" note only applies to what's in the parens, not the whole line including what's outside the parens. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Gah, looks funky inside the paren. Can we arm-wrestle over this? I'm sure our readers can handle the one-character displacement, and aesthetically it's waaay superior... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Since it's in the key, at least I don't have to change all the lists. I tried a compromise. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I could be wrong but when you say "also a major league record", I'm not sure you've linked to mlb beforehand (or a similarly relevant link). MLB is linked in the first sentence. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Ok, just wondered if it was therefore supposed to be Major League rather than major league (I know there have been discussions over other "major leagues")... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Understood... when we use "major league" as an adjective it's traditionally uncapped. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Recommend you directly cite Bob Hall's 30% in the caption. As a non-expert I can't see it, even if it's in the baseball-reference.com link. Sorry! It is in the B-Ref link, but some "routine calculations" as outlined by WP:NOTOR are required. If you'd prefer I duplicate the link, I will. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I would prefer that, but also (even if it's just for my benefit) how you use the baseball-ref page to calculate that? I am a baseball newbie so it would be instructive for you to help me interpret that page! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) The way I arrive at that is simply an average. If you look at Hall's statistics page, the "Standard Fielding" table shows the number of games played per position. Using only the Philadelphia games, I take an average of the games played for each position shown. In this case, it's 20 at 3B, 15 at SS, and 11 at 1B. 46 total games = 43% at third base, 32% at short, and 24% at first. Hope that helps. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Hallahan's caption ditto. And perhaps go for "in a single season" rather than that awkward "in 1 season" (MOSNUM trauma for me). I'll change the wording in Hallahan, but the cite easily covers the 22 strikeouts - not sure how it's unseen. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) No, it was the "1 season" I had the biggest problem with... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) "Pitcher Earl Hamilton lost his only decision with Philadelphia." this is quite mystifying to a baseball newbie. Any chance you could make that clearer to a dunce like me? Would a link to the article on the decision work? I was trying not to be repetitive - "X won Y games, Z won A games", etc. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I think so. To the rest of the non-baseballing world "los[ing] his decision" can mean a world of things. Again, it's down to me reviewing it as a newbie. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Done. — KV5 • Talk • Hansen caption has typo. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Ref 27 needs an en-dash. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support job done again, good stuff! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support plus a couple of questions
  • Why don't you write 2010-present for active players instead of 2010-2011? When I see 2011, I first assume that he's done with the Phillies in 2011. On second thought only, I start checking what the italics are for. Maybe since in NBA-related articles, we write present, that's why I assume this.
    • "Present" would imply that the player is on the roster. Not all players who have made a 2011 appearance are on the roster; hence, the use of 2011 instead of present. — KV5 • Talk • 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
      • So, since you're using 2011 and not present, it means that Roy Hallaway, for example, made an appearance in the 2011 season, but is not currently on the roster?--Cheetah (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • No, if you're talking about Roy Halladay. The "2011" indicates that he has appeared for the Phillies in 2011, and the blue text and italics indicate that he is currently on the roster. — KV5 • Talk • 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
          • That's the problem I see. The "2011" indicates that he played his last game for the Phillies and is not on the roster anymore. THEN I see the blue background and italics and get confused because I see a contradiction. As a wikipedian, I am used to seeing the word "present" for the players who are actively playing for their teams.--Cheetah (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, for one, not all Wikipedia sports articles are alike. For two, there is no contradiction because 2011 does not indicate the last game; it doesn't say that anywhere (and in any case, the last game may have been the game that the team last played, so it's still correct). Lastly, "present" requires constant updating; if a player makes his first 2011 appearance, then it can stay the same for the entire year and this is more stable than changing back and forth all the time. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
              • It's not only in sports-related articles, it's also in biographical articles that in year ranges first year means the beginning and the second year means the ending. By your logic, we should write in the Roy Halladay article 1977-2011 because he's breathing in 2011.--Cheetah (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
                • No, by my logic, his infobox should read "2010-2011", with which there would be no problem. You've falsified my argument by implying that it should apply to birth and death dates, which I never said and disagree with. — KV5 • Talk • 11:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
                  • I am not implying anything, I am stating that universally whenever there is a year range like "2010-2011" or "1888-1999", the first year means the beginning and the last year means the end. That's it.--Cheetah (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
                    • There are exceptions to every rule, so "universally" is misleading. And even so, if "the first year means the beginning and the last year means the end", 2011 currently is the end because this is the last year the players have currently played for the team. I'm not going to be changing to present because of the horrible complications it creates during the offseason. — KV5 • Talk • 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For pitcher statistics, you have "record, earned run average, strikeouts". For two pitchers, you have "earned run average, walks, innings pitched". What I'm asking is why not write "innings pitched, earned run average, walks" for those two pitchers. Innings pitched implies that those two pitchers lack a win-loss record; walks imply lack of strikeouts. This way, the order is maintained. I know it's a huge nitpicking on my part, but I believe it would be neater.

--Cheetah (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• • • I really don't think that distinction is big enough to worry about, especially since it means going back to pick apart all the previously promoted lists and then adding yet another thing to check before future FLCs. The order of the statistics isn't really that important, as long as it gets the message across. — KV5 • Talk • 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Meets standards. Courcelles 15:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:14, 17 May 2011 [13].

---

1982 Asian Games medal table

Nominator(s): Bill william compton^Talk 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is my first nomination, so please try to go easy on me I'm nominating this for featured list because I think it follows all the attributes of Featured list criteria, also it has been reviewed by some of well experienced users during its peer review. Thanks, Bill william compton^Talk 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "If nations are still tied, equal ranking is given; they are listed alphabetically by IOC country code.[12][4]" — refs should be numerical sorted

Done

• • "The total number of bronze medals is greater than the total number of gold or silver medals because two bronze medals were awarded per event in three sports: badminton, boxing and table tennis (except the team events)[13][14][15]." — ref after period

Done

• • "Three gymnasts in men's parallel bars and two each in men's floor, women's uneven bar and women's floor tied for second place, thus no bronzes were awarded in these events, also no silver was awarded for men's parallel bars; tie for third in men's vault meant that two bronze medals were awarded.[17][18]" — I would replace also with and.

Done

• • Ref 2: Needs a format parameter

I think the format is web, isn't it?

No, it is in pdf format

Done

• • Consistency on format is needed in date and accessdates.

Done

• • YRef 10: May I ask where you found the book? There is no asin and even not a isbn. I don't think the title is "Yojana Volume – 32,, Number – 12 "; I think it is simply "Voyana" and the volume and number should be split into their own parameters. "Volume" should be in volume=, and the "Number" possibly in series=

It's not a book but a monthly-magazine published by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India) (Indian Government). Yojana means Strategy, I didn't know how to cite a magazine (because ProveIt doesn't show any magazine option), but now I've added more specific parameters and cited under journal attribute, like this — {cite magazine |author=Kaur Vijay, Sriman R, Rijvi S.T. Husain |title=Yojana (Spotlight on youth & sports) |journal=Socio-Economic |volume=32 |issue=12 |pages=18–36 |year=1988 |location=Delhi|publisher=Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India)}. I think it's okay now.

Yes, looks good

• • Overlinking in the refs.

Where is Overlinking? please mention.

like "Doha Asian Games' " or "New Delhi"--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

? I'm still lost, if you're taking about that why I referenced this link to NEW DELHI 1982 than the reason is that this is a overview of Games and this is a medal table published by OCA, both are different things. I used reference to "Doha Asian Games" four different times, because I need to provide reference for each boxing, swimming, table tennis and badminton and information is available on separate page of website (which actually is an archive of website). If you still think that I'm not properly responding to your query then please provide diffs for overlinked refs.

I did it for you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now! Thanks

• • "Medal distribution": the brown color in the legend doesn't look like the one in the map.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Done

• Support Meets criteria. Won't capping, because it doesn't work correctly.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Gave a review at PR, and have a second batch of comments, some of which relate to that first review. "The number of the participating countries was greatest in Asian Games history." I fear that I made a mistake in my original review. I meant to say that the "the" before "participating" should be removed, not the one before "greatest". That would make the sentence "The number of participating countries was the greatest in Asian Games history." My apologies on that one. Done Medal table: "a" should be added before "three-way tie in men's pommel horse...", along with another before "tie in men's ring for first place". Done "tie for third in men's pole vault meant that two bronze medals were awarded." "a" should also be added before this. Actually, I think this would make a good sentence by itself, as the prior part is quite long. Done Bullet point would be nice for the one note. Done In reference 2, I don't think the parenthetical part is needed for the publisher. If the country itself should be made clear, you could title it India Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, and then pipe the link. Done Is gymnasticsresults.com (refs 17 and 18) a reliable source? Yes it is, it's a most authentic website which reserves archives of gymnastics' results, for Asian Games they have data from Asian Gymnastics Union. Is the YouTube video from an official source related to the Asian Games people? If not, it's troublesome because we aren't allowed to link to potential copyright violations. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Done Video is neither of Indian govt nor of uploader as it is in Japanese and I don't think anyone would ever claim the ownership of this video. This uploader has great list of such videos, if you want then check here. But as taking precaution I've removed this link.

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments good stuff, I contributed to the PR so not much more to add here. I'd be tempted to put note A after the closing parenthesis, not at the end of the sentence, because the note is particularly pertinent to the nomenclature of the games, not the dates. Done Not keen on leading zeros in "accessdates" such as 01 April 2011. Humans don't need that leading zero to read it correctly. Done Ref 13 has an issue with the accessdate formatting. Done I thought we should use archiveurl= etc for the Wayback machine stuff? Done The Rambling Man (talk)

• Support - everything looks good. Just one minor detail, symbol is needed to accompany the color per WP:ACCESS. I've done it for you already.—Chris!_c/t 21:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chris....

• Support a good example of how to use peer review usefully and respectfully to this process, then a good example of how to address new concerns brought up. Good work, well done, I look forward to more submissions from you Bill! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Rambling Man, thank you very much for your kind words, I've no proper words to eulogize you. You are really an inspiring fellow and with this kind of motivation I'm so determined that in coming future you'll find many such nominations by me and I hope you always help me with your guidance. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:14, 17 May 2011 [14].

---

Led Zeppelin discography

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I improved some things after the first nomination, including some peak chart positions, which were wrong. Also reassessed small things like spaced em-dashes, newspapers not in italicface, references missing and organisations not wikilinked. I hope it passes this time. Happy reviewing.♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Novice7 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – References are inconsistent. For example: Ref 1 says Allmusic but Ref 2 says Allmusic.com. A few more instances throughout. consistent now Ref 6 publisher is wrong. (Billboard → Prometheus Global Media) I think you meant Rovi Corporation and not Billboard. Changed. Many online sources are italicized. Please fix them. I think you are referring to "Encyclopaedia Britannica", which is a book, so I thought it should be italicized. Changed. Ref 35 RPM should be italicized (it is a magazine) True, forgot to do that. Ref 14 vs Ref 36 inconsistent publisher and work. done Ref 40 Zobbel. I don't think it's reliable. Me too, but I'll ask at WP:RSN soon Ref 41 ChartStats. Is it reliable? Don't know. Will ask. Ref 37 publisher missing I think you mean the work. Fixed. I'm doubtful about the usage of "digital songs". Do you mean Promotional singles? Yes, they are promotional singles, but aren't all music download promotional singles? Not really. Now the table looks neat. "released on Atlantic Records..." → released "by" Atlantic Records? Expand US -> United States on the first occurrence. Provide the abbreviation for Recording Industry Association of America in brackets (" including eight-times Multi-Platinum from the Recording Industry Association of America....") Similarly, CRIA too. Usage of times; and "times" → inconsistent from "the" RIAA and "the" CRIA (inconsistent too) "One example is the live album How the West Was Won..." → can you tweak this sentence a bit? You have not mentioned anything about the singles. The notes A, C and D need references A: It was discussed here; I took the first one to prove that it is a studio album. I have no problems to remove the note, but the reader should understand, that some sources claim that it is a compilation album. C: I removed this. D: Is already in the lead. "—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart, albums not released in a particular territory, or chart information is not available. → isn't this a bit too long? Novice7 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks again for the review. I believe I fixed most of these items.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I removed the "music downloads", as I could not find any sources, that these songs were only released as a musical download. I simply merged it with "Singles".--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I restored it, as the source backs up the information, that their catalog, including Mothership, was released as a musical download. --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the review.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support – All the issues I pointed out were taken care of. Also, the discography has improved a lot too. Novice7 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "which produces seven digital downloads and were released...". Should be "produces" be "produced"? Also, "were" should be "was", unless this is describing both albums in the sentence. forgot to change, after I had added a sentence. done "in the iTunes store including." Cuts out rather abruptly, I'd say. done "was one these songs released in digital stores." Missing word. done Note below several tables: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." Conflict between singular and plural here; either change "releases" or "was". This isn't the first time I've seen this at a discography, and I hope it's the last. oopsie. done Note C: "This songs were released as a music download...". Change first word to "These". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC) done. Thank you for your comments.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album, often called Led Zeppelin IV, is their most commercially successful album. It received a 23× Platinum certification from RIAA, the third-highest of all albums." — Can you mention that "Stairway to Heaven" came from this album? I think we can safely say that it's one of the all-time classics of rock'n'roll. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it is really that important to add this. It is already mentioned in the third paragraph.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are the album tracks "Darlene", "Ozobe Baby" and "Poor Tom" listed in the singles discography? None of those songs were released as singles. Piriczki (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I reworded the section, infobox and lead beginning.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

How does the reader know which titles in the singles discography were singles and which titles weren't singles? Piriczki (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

ok done.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Some might think this as being a bit pointy since I recently got into a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1, but, <shrugs> that's for the closing director to decide. I was told there that this is common practice at discography pages recently, and I think it has to stop:

"GER" has no meaning. I could accept it in an Olympic- or football-related article, but that isn't the case here. We should use international standards for abbreviating country names when a differing standard hasn't been approved (such as in the two cases already mentioned). GER is not an acceptable abbreviation in regular usage, and a list that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" shouldn't be using it. So, while the article continues to uses abbreviations pulled out of our arses, I will have to oppose. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a valid reason to oppose, only because you don't like the abbreviation. "Oppose" simply means, that you think this list is against the criteria. "GER" is simply and understandable, whereby "DE" not. This is just a disco and not a list about some sport competition, like you said. You can put any abbreviation you want, but it must be understandable for readers.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Piffle. Of course it's a valid reason to oppose. Not just because I don't like it but because it is wrong. It is against the criteria. Criterion 1 requires "professional standards of writing." GER isn't a valid abbreviation for Germany except when writing about the Olympics or football. Outside of those it has no meaning. DE and DEU do. They are accepted standards. Where did you come up with using whatever you like as long as it's understandable. Again, it has no meaning in general usage, and so I don't understand it. It's usage is incorrect and not professional. This may be just a discog, but it's also being asked to be identified as a page that exemplifies our very best work, and whether it's a discog, sport list, tallest building list or list of species, they are all held to the same standard. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I changed it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support, thanks Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The merging of singles, promotional singles, and other charted songs is not good. It doesn't let the reader know which is which. Separate. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• No, there are notes below (C and D).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I see that, but since there are so many of each, it is best to just have each separate sections. That's my main concern. Other than that, I think the page is missing very little to become an FL. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ok done.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Great, but now there are needed columns that are not needed. For example, in the "Singles" section, no song charted on "US Digital", but the chart is still there. Please remove it from that particular table. Same thing goes for "Charted songs" and "Music downloads". -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• is it ok so? In the "Charted songs" column, if I'll remove the columns, only one column remains. So I decided not to delete it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• One one column should remain. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that if it only charted on one chart. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• ok done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Specially with the new expansion in the lead. Congratulations! A job well done. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• You should strike your initial oppose so the closer doesn't count it ;) Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments "eight digital songs" I've never heard them referred to like this, are they "download-only" songs? yes, download-only songs, MP3 downloads; reworded. Also not clear what a "charted song" is when other singles etc have "charted". A charted song is a song which charted in any charts, but was not released as a single. Singles are released songs, but not vice versa. It is not usual that songs get charted. I'm confused. What format did these "items" chart as? Singles? Albums? EPs? How did they chart if they weren't released? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I don't know how; on Billboard (magazine) it says, that Billboard 100 ranks top 100 songs based on "physical sales, digital sales and radio airplay", so either they were charted digital or per radio airplay. They haven't got any format I deplore.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC) "including 8× Multi-Platinum " -> "including eight times multi-platinum" Not sure why you suggest this; I think it should be consistent with all others. But I reworded it. It was a general comment to make sure that the prose was excellent rather than full of grammatically incorrect figures. There are still other instances of this in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Same for following instances of that phrase. done When was LZ IV released (for the benefit of the lead)? done "the Led Zeppelin Box Set, Vol. 2 and the " not the same title as you used for the album in the table. done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC) --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Comment I'd still like to know what a "charted song" is compared with singles, EPs etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I reworded it to "Other charted song"; they are simply songs which are not singles but were still charted. They were charted per airplay, because music download was invented in 1993. I think you know what a single is, so I can not explain it further. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:14, 17 May 2011 [15].

---

List of France international footballers

Nominator(s): –J10S ^Talk 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the required criteria and would benefit its associated project if it became a featured list due to the importance of the players on the list in their sport. –J10S ^Talk 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment I'm not a fan of colours used in the table, they are two similiar for my liking. I would like to see one them replaced with, for example, with green or yellow. Utinsh (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if the colours are kept, symbols need to be used as well, per WP:ACCESS........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of. –J10S ^Talk 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the intro is overwhelming. Consider splitting a good chunk of it as a separate section. Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, the first column in the table is a bit useless for the "=" entries. Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sortable on the # column since the table is already sorted by the caps. I also removed a portion of the lede and inserted it, along with a little more prose addition, into a created section. –J10S ^Talk 22:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Oppose from KV5 The table doesn't meet ACCESS requirements - table captions, scopes, row headers, and col headers needed. Done. –J10S Talk 05:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC) The numbers are not the appropriate row-headers. This is a list of footballers, not a list of numbers. — KV5 • Talk • 11:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC) That should do it? –J10S Talk 21:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Markup is still not showing properly. I suggest checking out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial or, failing that, asking User:RexxS for a hand. — KV5 • Talk • 21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Seems like the only way it will be displayed properly is if I removed the number column. Or not. I got it. Thanks for the link to the tutorial. Though the markup is showing up properly, it is not allowing me to display the yellow color on the "Name" row to indicate that the player is still eligible for the national team, which has forced me to move the color into the "National team career" column, which conflicts with one of your comments below. I've looked up the classes to see if there is one that will allow me to do this, but I haven't found one. Okay, so I found a way to do it, but it means removing the ! scope="row"

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments See my comment about the hatnote that I left at the List of Fulham F.C. players FLC. Just prefer a tidier hatnote without the markup exposed. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) What defines and references "still active for the national team"? It means they have not retired from international football and are subsequently still eligible to play for the national team. I guess I can add a note. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I would advocate spelling out UEFA before using it, particularly for our readers who may not be completely familiar with the organisation. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Don't like the easter egg from "international" to "FIFA". What would you suggest? FIFA governs international football. I'll just link it to International football. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) We don't need to link basic terms like "Europe". Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Do you have a page number for ref 3? No, but in the intro, it states that 798 players have represented the national team since its first match. Book was published in 2004 and several more players have gone on to make their debuts for the national team. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) While I'm in the refs, can you replace spaced hyphens with en-dashes per WP:DASH please? Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) French language references should use the language=French parameter. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) France is overlinked. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) As is association football. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Not sure you need the bullet point in the italic note in the Players section. Removed. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) "Players are listed by amount of caps,.." you should add "initially" here because the list is sortable. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Curiously, if you sort the list by caps, when caps are equal, it seems to be the players with fewer goals that are listed first (e.g. Amoros and Djorkaeff). This effectively means you can't get back to the way the table was listed when you open the page... However, I've noticed this sort order depends on what you've ordered previously...! Yes, you can't back to the way the table was listed when you open the page. I am not fully familiar with tables on wiki and have tried to find out how to prevent this. I'll get in touch with User:RexxS, who seems to be a table aficionado, when I get the chance. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) "represented France at four major international tournaments." where is this referenced? Can't see anything on the FFF page. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) "was declared the fourth best French player of all time by magazine France Football." reference please. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) "was integral to the French " is this a quote? In any case, it needs reference otherwise it's just your point of view. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Tigana's caption needs reference too. I can't see where it says he won Euro 84. Done. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) You don't need Category:French footballers nor Category:France national football team as cats since you have Category:France international footballers which is more refined and includes both of the former. Removed. –J10S Talk 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Whenever there's a sentence that goes "xxx player who...", there should likely be a comma before the "who". It seems minor, but punctuation is important in professional writing, which is strived for here. There are a few instances like this in the second and third paragraphs. Done. –J10S Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC) "Bossis was passed just six years later by former international teammate Manuel Amoros. Amoros...". Instead of having sentence to sentence repetition like this, why not combine them in the form of "Amoros, who..."? That wouldn't be too long of a sentence put together. Done. –J10S Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Is reference 3 meant to be a cite to the entire book, or certain pages within it? If the latter, page numbers would be nice. I guess you can say its the former, since the book discusses every player that appeared for the national team since its first match. –J10S Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Publisher of reference 19 should be italicized since The Independent is a printed publication. Done. –J10S Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. –J10S Talk 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the status of this nomination? It has been dormant for a few days. — JS^{Rant Away} 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I placed it in the backlog listing at the top of the FLC page. Hopefully that will attract some more attention to this list, which has been languishing here without further review for almost three weeks now. Perhaps you could post a message at the soccer (football) WikiProject asking for reviews? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm happy now that this has been polished enough to become featured. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice indeed, meets FL standards. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:12, 10 May 2011 [16].

---

Grammy Award for Best Jazz Fusion Performance

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it meets criteria and closely resembles other Grammy lists with the highly-sought-after star in the top right corner. Thanks, as always, to reviewers! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: nomination was not transcluded until 00:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC). — KV5 • Talk •

• Support can't find anything wrong, but then again I've looked at so many of these types of lists, I'd like to hope I wouldn't! Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support The only wee issue I see is "No female artists were nominated in 1991, the final year the award was presented," as I don't really see the significance of this year and not many (any?) other female artists nominated. Otherwise, very nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support everything ok.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 08:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Can only find one exceedingly minor point: the hyphen in "newly-created" should probably be removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:12, 10 May 2011 [17].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of the Grammy WikiProject and I will try to take the Latin Grammy lists to featured status. This is a well referenced list, with images and an expanded lead section. Thanks to all the reviewers for your hard work. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Latin recording artists, in the United States" is the comma needed here? FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) "Award-winning albums have been performed by Spanish artists..." seems a little odd way of putting it, perhaps "Spanish artists have won the award more times than any other nationality"? FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) "Spanish singer-songwriter Alejandro Sanz " introduce him as Span. s-s the first time you talk about him and then just refer to him as Sanz the second time you mention him. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) "Performing artist(s)" no need for the (s). FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Mark Anthony is a dab link. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Ref 8 could use an en-dash rather than two hyphens. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Don't like leading zeros in the dates, e.g. September 08, 2010. Humans don't need that leading zero to read the date, in fact most of us don't want it at all. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

*Comments The image captions are a bit awkward. The first could be better written as a full sentence. The others (XYZ winner in [year]) is gramatically awkward. How about "XYZ won the award in [year] for [album]" or "[year] winner XYZ"? FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Linking Spanish seems a bit over the top, but no biggie. FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC) "recordings of the pop genre by a male performer" → recordings of the pop genre by male performers FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I made a change to one caption per MOS:CAPTION. Nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Publishers in references 5 and 7 should be italicized, since they're both newspapers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

FIXED! --Jaespinoza (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, assuming other reviewers' concerns have been (and are) addressed. List looks good, lead is appropriate, correct table and reference formatting, etc. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support a quick revisit shows no glaring issues from my point of view. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:12, 10 May 2011 [18].

---

List of Scotland national football team hat-tricks

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

After randomly coming across the FL List of England national football team hat-tricks, I checked to see if there was a Scottish article and there was - I've changed it to match the formatting on the England FL, expanded the prose section and added the conceded section. Hit a problem image-wise as there simply doesn't seem to be much in the way of free use images available for Scottish players listed (in fact, there isn't a single one). Miyagawa (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose until a few issues are solved:

• no reference provided that these 29 are the only 3 or more goals scored
• same for those scored against (I am suspicious that the list is so short)

• There isn't a specific reference to say either - essentially I went through the entire list of Scotland results to double check and collate the article. I've added a general reference for the index page of the website, but in order to place an inline citation for either of those comments on the tables below, I'd have to insert 21 seperate citations for each (as the information is spread across 21 seperate webpages). Miyagawa (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• An fairly elegant solution would be to use something like that at List_of_Metallica_concert_tours#Notes. Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've implemented a similar solution. Miyagawa (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• color scheme needed for 4 goals and for the instance where Scotland actually lost (really rare to score a hat-trick and still lose

• Its only happened once, in the 3-4 defeat against Norway on 4 June 1963. Would a note be more appropriate as it's a single occurance? Miyagawa (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just a quick note as I realized I missed it - I've added a color scheme for 4 goals. Miyagawa (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• a hat-trick is 3 goals, not more

• Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Caption - should be Denis Law not Dennis. "scored three sets of hat-tricks" don't think you need "sets of". "in a match has been four" really it's "in a match is four". Above three are fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) "although some sources" the two sources reffing this are the SFA and RSSSF, can you explain why this shouldn't be classed as correct? The RSSSF is the one that states that some sources specifically, while the SFA website is one of those sources. RSSSF has him listed as four goals, not five. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) "Robert Smyth McColl, Denis Law and Hughie Gallacher " no need to repeat Denis or Hughie here. "with three sets of hat-tricks each" again, no need for "sets of". "in a Friendly against Wales" no need for capital F here. United States national football team is a dab link. Above four are fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Would prefer to see both tables have consistent column widths. I've run a script on the references to ensure they meet WP:DASH (i.e. replacing spaced hyphens with en-dashes per this edit). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, will sort out the column width issue shortly. Credit has to go to Jmorrison230582 who did a series of copy edits on the article which fixed all but one of those issues before I could. Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Have now formatted the tables so that they both match. Miyagawa (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "until the 2003/2004 season...". I believe the MoS recommends against the use of slashes when possible. The en dash usually works well for season ranges. The non-free image needs to go. It adds nothing to the article that a free photo of one of the players couldn't provide. Even if there aren't any free photos possible, I don't think the purpose given of "illustration" is sufficient. Check the sorting in the Results column in the first table. I'm getting single- and double-digit scores sorting separately. This may require the use of a sort template to fix. Note b: Year ranges should have en dashes. Even in notes, style should be maintained. The first range still has a hyphen. The rest look good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Note c: Showing up on the same line as the end of note b for me. Maybe this could be avoided by using bullet points? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC) I think I've fixed those points. Removed the image, realized it was a coding error causing note c to attach itself to note b. Fixed the sorting in the results column - found that it was due to a lack of preceding zeros for the single digit results. Let me know if any of these issues are recurring for you and I'll find another way to resolve them. Miyagawa (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

;Comments: The information in note A is essential enough that it should be presented before the table. It is generally less reader friendly to produce the key after than before the table. People need to know the legend before they read the map. I would recommend making a short introduction to the table which contains the note about war-year matches, the content in note A and the yellow issue. If the content in note D sourced in any way beyond grooming through the ten RSSSF links? Any possibilities of free images? For instances any person to have made a hat-trick. Refs are normally center-aligned. I believe the Dutchman should be sorted as 'Nistelrooy' rather than 'van Nistelrooy'. Should not the RSSSF links be dated? Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I think I've addressed these issues now. The sorting has been fixed for Nistlerooy and the key moved above the tables. Ref columns are now center aligned and moved the info from note A to above each table. There are no free use images of any of the goal scorers as far as I can find, I did have a fair use image but it was requested to be removed by an earlier reviewer. The content in note D (now C) isn't available in a single link - those ten links list every Scotland football result and are to represent that there are no missing hat tricks. Miyagawa (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Also, I just replaced the mess of references in the lead with a note tag linking to note A (formerly B), as it was previously referenced by six different references and just looked messy. Miyagawa (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I should also note that there are no free use images of Scottish goalscorers. There are images avaliable for a couple of players who scored hat tricks against Scotland, but I thought it was better to wait until a free use image of a Scottish goalscorer became avaliable. Miyagawa (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Flickr kind of has an image of Law which meets our licence requirements for inclusion, worth a thought? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC) After looking at that I checked Commons and found other shots of the same statue - I created a head shot of Law and added it to the article. Miyagawa (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC) It is normal to use straight text (and not indented italics) for information about what the list contains. Indented italics is intended for navigation between articles. Placing the yellow box in its own section looks rather odd, perhaps it is better to move it somewhere else; for instance if the key is provided before the first table, it would understood that it also applies for the second table. Arsenikk (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment mildly trouble by the use of yellow alone to denote "more than a hat-trick scored" (according to the key). WP:ACCESS needs a symbol plus a colour if you're going to use a colour. I know the table is reasonable because it has 4 or 5 as well as yellow, but the key doesn't... Other thing, which is well picky is that sorting by result in the Scotland hat-trick table should, in my mind sort "best result first" or "worst result first"? So when listed in descending "best results", I would expect to see 8–0 come before 8–1 and that to come before 8–2. It's not a big issue, but one which would I would delight in being sorted (no pun intended) if possible. Oh, and ref 2 could use an accessdate... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Well... easy stuff first. Added the access date, and changed the key to include a symbol. Now the hard - after trying a few different methods and searching a lot of existing lists for a way to do it, ended up throwing out the rulebook and essentially used a sort template to sort the column manually. But it works. :) I put the single loss at the bottom of the list. Miyagawa (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support brilliant. I love working with editors like Miyagawa. Considerate, grateful, attentive, all good. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:12, 10 May 2011 [19].

---

Miley Cyrus discography

Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria to become a Featured List on Wikipedia. ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Don't you think the lead is too long for such a young singer who has released only three studio albums, and probably has a long career ahead of her? With every new release, the lead will only become more bloated, and would need to be significantly rewritten. I suggest that rewriting be done now itself so that it can easily incorporate additions.—indopug (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think so because although she released three studio albums, she released five well-known soundtracks. And as her career expands, the discography will probably be split in half, such as Mariah Carey discography. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hmmm I've never been a fan of the tendency among pop-music editors to split discographies; but I guess that isn't relevant to this FLC.—indopug (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

*Quick Comments Extened plays: Spanian Platinum no ref? Done "Walt Disney" label should be wikilinked to Walt Disney Records Done Some references without a format=PDF parameter Done Some references without a language= parameter Which ones? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC) German-language references 21, 23, 24, 34.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Done. Ref 21, 23, 24, 45, 46, 58, 59, 60 German (seriously, Dutch and German are not very similar); 85 Japanese Done. Ref 6: no need to link "Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc." Done Ref 9, 17, 84: Check them up; see some errors.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Done

• Comment Look at Ref 99. Something's wrong there. Otherwise nice disco.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done.

• ok then I'll Support. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why isn't Hannah Montana discography completely merged here? Nergaal (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Since Miley Cyrus discography covers all the Hanna Montana releases, why does the HM discog need to exist? Shouldn't it be a redirect to MC discog?—indopug (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus is yet to be determined for that. But I'm thinking of keeping it and leaving as a discography for the Hannah Montana franchise (which includes more albums and singles) and not the fictional character, which makes more sense. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "It peaked at number on the Billboard 200...". Number itself is clearly missing. Done. "Meet Miley Cyrus spawned two singles, the first, 'See You Again', which became her first top ten hit in the United States." Change the first comma to a semi-colon, and remove "which". Flow is a bit off the way it is now. Done. "which peaked at number on the Billboard 200...". A forgotten number twice in the lead? This is a first for me in discographies. Done. "both which peaked at number two on the Billboard 200." Missing "of" before "which". Done. "being unable to duplicate prior success." Should it be "her prior success"? Done. The note at the bottom of several tables: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." Why is "was" being used for potential multiple releases. Shouldn't it be "were"? Done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Some might think this as being a bit pointy since I got into a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1, but, <shrugs> that's for the closing director to decide. I was told there that this is common practice at discography pages recently, and I think it has to stop. "GER" and "SPA" mean nothing. More so for "SPA". I could accept "GER" in an Olympic- or football-related article, but that isn't the case here. We should use international standards for abbreviating country names when a differing standard hasn't been approved (such as in the two cases already mentioned). GER and SPA are not acceptable abbreviations in regular usage, and a list that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" shouldn't be using them. So, while the article continues to uses abbreviations pulled out of our arses, I will oppose. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to change the abbreviations to anything, but the discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. Also, if the abbreviations are changed, how would you order the charts? By alphabetic order according to abbreviations or full English names? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 17:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would alphabetize by abbreviation, so "DER" comes before "FRA" (even though "France" is alphabetically before "Germany"), but it's up to you. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They have been changed. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Support Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments "which first aired in March 2006. " ref? Done. I find it odd that in the lead you have "triple platinum" i.e. uncapitalised platinum, but in the tables you have "3x Platinum"... Many FL discographies like Madonna albums discography follow the same procedure, as it in the text, certifications are in paragraphs and are treated as a regular noun (not a proper noun, which are supposed to be capitalized). Meanwhile, in the table, they are not. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) "Cyrus then signed a record deal with Hollywood Records to launch a career under her own name." ref? What type of source is needed? It is sourced throughout the article that all material as herself have been released with Hollywood Records. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Two dates "as of (mid) 2010" - any updates considering it's nearly mid-2011? Nope, sorry. Since she hasn't released any material and, therefore not set any records, in over a year, updates are extremely scarce. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Other live albums calls both releases EPs, but yet there's only one EP listed. I guess this is ... okay ... but a little odd, are they live albums or live EPs? It's a complex explanation, but they are considered live albums because they are live... however they do have EP lengths. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Where is "I'm Still Good" referenced? The general references, like the Allmusic source, reference uncharted releases. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Recommend you specifically link these. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I don't think it needs it. Then, every single release would need a specific source. A general source should suffice. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC) No, every single which didn't chart anywhere should be individually cited. Otherwise I don't know how to prove they ever existed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Provide links here, to you. Is that what you mean? Here they are: [20][21][22]. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC) No, I mean provide sources in the article. Amazon is interesting but is it really reliable? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I don't think they need specific sources if there is an overall source to warrant every single release's existence. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I do, and just about every discog passed through FLC provides individual and specific citation for releases that haven't charted anywhere. Recommend you check out a few of the recently promoted discogs at FLC to see what I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Done. Same comment for "Nothing to Lose"? Done. And "Rockin' around the Christmas Tree" and "Are Your Ready". They didn't chart, how or where do I determine they ever existed? Done. "Can't Be Tamed - Mini DVD" needs an en-dash. Done. Note P - "ninety-aix" Done. Ref 1 format fail. Done. Ref 2 - en-dash please. Done. And ref 16. Done. and ref 32. Done. Check all others, there are many more... Done. You relink Media Control Charts in the refs, but you don't relink Billboard etc. Take a consistent approach to relinking (or not) in the refs. I don't believe there are any repeated links to Media Control Charts in the refs. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Did you look? 24, 25 both link it. As do 46 and 47. However, 59 to 61 and 67 don't link it... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Done. Also, if you only link once, make sure it's the first time. Done. Refs 95, 96, you cite a single page so it should be p. not pp. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – I feel this list means the FL criteria. The only thing I find confusing is the singles as Hannah Montana. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Novice7 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Singles that are credited to the character Hannah Montana. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 18:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:12, 10 May 2011 [23].

---

General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well as it turned out, my last FL candidate (which is still waiting for more reviewers; First Deputy Chairman of the Soviet Union) was not my last FL Soviet-topic candidate. --TIAYN (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Done Mikhail Gorbachev ruled the Soviet Union through the office of General Secretary until 1990 when the Communist Party lost it's monopoly of power over the political system — you forgot a comma after "until 1990"; sentence beginning with a conjunction means it is a compound sentence and should not be merged with the matrix sentence without adding a comma between them. Done The office of President of the Soviet Union was established so that Gorbachev still retained his role as leader of the Soviet Union.[10] — without comma it is confusing what you want to tell us. Without the comma, the sentence has two meanings: Either it was established, so... or it was established, so that... Done He was succeeded by his deputy, Vladimir Ivashko, who only served for five days as Acting General Secretary before Russian President Boris Yeltsin suspended all Communist Party activity.[12] why is president capitalized? Done As Technical Secretary Stasova and her staff of four women, were responsible for maintaining correspondence with provincial party cells, assigning work, keeping financial records, distributing Party funds,[14] formulating party structure policy and appointing new personnel.[15] — "As Technical Secretary, Stasova and her staff of four women were responsible for maintaining correspondence with provincial party cells, assigning work, keeping financial records, distributing Party funds,[14] formulating party structure policy and appointing new personnel.[15]" Done When her office was dissolved Stasova was not considered a serious competitor for the post of Responsible Secretary, the successor office to the Chairman of the Secretariat.[18] — "When her office was dissolved, Stasova was not considered a serious competitor for the post of Responsible Secretary, the successor office to the Chairman of the Secretariat.[18]"

Support after done now.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Done Excess "the" needs removal in "were obliged by protocol to rule the country the in the same way as Brezhnev had."
• Done Konstantin Chemenko: Hyphen in "72-years old" should be removed as well.
• Done Not a big deal, but the dash in Vladimir Ivashko's picture column would look nicer if it was centered. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Done Would move ref [7] to end of sentence. Done "August 1991 Coup" this is not its official title so uncapitalise Coup. Done "more-or-less like a secretary, a somewhat " little bit unencyclopedic for my taste. Done No real need to relink Brezhnev in the table as it's not sortable. Done Category says "1922 foundation.." but the list says 1917 was the first time someone occupied the post, albeit under a different title. Otherwise excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks! :) --TIAYN (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• SupportComment Three links in the See also section are already in the {{Soviet Union topics}} template, the other three links should be in that template. Move the other three links to the aforementioned template and remove the See also section.--Cheetah (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Done --TIAYN (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Support another good list from TIAYN after some good work on the comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:12, 10 May 2011 [24].

---

List of U.S. Women's Open (golf) champions

Nominator(s): SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria listed. SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Even though they are retired, please inform User:Bluedogtn of the nomination as they are the primary author of this list. "early-July" - unnecessary use of the hyphen here. "It was established in 1946 and one of the four women's major championships..." - should be "and is one of the four..." Break up the aforementioned sentence, it drags on: "...played each year which include the..." "The champions receive the Harton S. Semple trophy, which is named after the person whose family replicated the previous trophy because Semple was a former USGA Committeeman and President of the USGA from 1973–1974 that was first given out in 1992 to Patty Sheehan." Poorly worded sentence / run-on. "The lowest score for 72-holes is (16-under par)" - why is this encased in parentheses? Use the minus sign (−) instead of the en dash (–) to indicate negative numbers in the table. Slight difference but this conforms with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Common mathematical symbols. 'Total score' for the first year does not sort consistently. If I click it once it stays at the top, click it again and it goes to the bottom, then stays at the bottom upon another click. I understand it was scored differently than the others, but it needs to be understandable to a layperson, and I don't understand it. Use a sort key or a note or something to clarify the situation. Jujutacular talk 20:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Addressed, I hope it satisfies your oppose, but if not just give me further comments or questions.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose a quick pass Just a query, any reason why (golf) is in parentheses in the title? I guess they did it because they were going off of List of U.S. Open (golf) champions, which I would be glad to take it out if you would like me to do so. They might want to avoid confusion with List of US Open women's singles champions as well, but I simply don't know that for a fact. " is conducted by" what do you mean by this? Go look at List of U.S. Open (golf) champions What? How will that help explain this terminology in this particular list? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Corrected it, and gave the opening paragraph a bit of a revamp. Please, tell me what you think of it now.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC) "It was established in ..." -> "The tournament was established in.." Corrected, but should I leave in ...[the] four women's majors? What's "stroke play"? Corrected with link to article. "the lone exception of the first competition" lone is redundant here. Corrected, took it out. "The champions receive the ..." -> "The champion receives..." Corrected "who was a former USGA Committeeman " -> "named for a former..." Corrected "His family and friends replicated the previous trophy in July of 1992, which the first winner to receive it was Patty Sheehan in 1992.[3]" don't understand this at all. Corrected, but I don't know if it satisfies? "The most consecutive wins at the event are two" "is two". Corrected "and that was accomplished by the following players: Mickey Wright, .." just "by " and the list would work fine. Corrected Don't repeat first names in the lead. Corrected Not sure why you hyphenate 72-holes in the lead. Corrected "which by the way both were " terrible grammar I'm afraid. Corrected, but go check it out to see if it is up to par, which is the last part of the final paragraph. Ensure images have alt text. Already was done. Ensure you use {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}}, not just the graphical versions. The men's FL List of Masters Tournament champions, List of U.S. Open (golf) champions, List of The Open Championship champions, List of PGA Championship champions do not use them. Why the discrepancy, now? We're moving on and improving things for accessibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Corrected Ensure the table uses row and col scopes (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for more help) The men's FL List of Masters Tournament champions, List of U.S. Open (golf) champions, List of The Open Championship champions, List of PGA Championship champions do not use them, again. Why the discrepancy, now? Corrected Don't use bold alone to convey information. Put an asterisk by the bolded years. Don't use ALL CAPITALS in references, even if the sources do. Corrected The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – A long list below, but this is an event that I enjoy watching (especially last year) and a list that I want to see reach the highest quality possible. Throughout the lead there is a bad case of over-citation. There's a citation after every sentence, all to the same source in most cases. You could chop the first four cites from the first paragraph, three from the second para, and five from the third para without harming the integrity of the list. There are a couple issues with that, but I'll cover them as I go with my review. For this one, make sure all of the information actually is cited. I notice this in particular at the ends of paragraphs. none of which seem covered by cites now. It's a tough balancing act sometimes between too little and too much. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Corrected.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) "The championship is sanctioned by the United States Golf Association rules of golf, which is the governing body of the game in the United States." Would make much more sense without "rules of golf". "In addition, this is a USGA Championship event." This whole sentence is probably unnecessary. We already know from the previous sentence that the USGA sanctions the event, right? "and is always the third women's major of the year, and is scheduled to take place in July." It's untrue that it is "always" in July. I remember it being in June in 2008, as the source indicates. It looks like there were a couple other June opens in recent times, too. "A trophy was first presented to the champion in 1953 to Betsy Rawls, and that trophy was retired to the USGA Museum." A less wordy, cleaner way of doing this would be "was first presented to the champion in 1953, when Betsy Rawls won, and was retired to the USGA Museum in 1992." Actually, on another look at the source used, the sentence is untrue. A trophy was awarded before 1953, though not by the USGA. This is surely worthy of a mention, if the other trophies used are discussed this much. To clean up the writing a bit, try replacing "done so by" with "from". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC) CorrectedSaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) While on this topic, I know that the Open was run by the various professional tours before 1953. That seems worthy of a sentence or so as well. Add "a" before "former USGA Committeeman". "commissioned the replacement replica trophy in July 1992 to honor his legacy and memory." The source doesn't say why the replica was made, and I certainly don't think that can be assumed. Also, "the" should be "a", since this is the first place the replica is discussed. This source might make it explanatory or not, and should I put it in?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Since it doesn't mention the trophy or future replica, I don't believe it's useful for this purpose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Corrected the to a situation.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC) "and they won the events in a playoff." "a playoff" → "playoffs". TRM mentioned up there how you should be using minus signs instead of dashes in scores. Well, I think you accidentally put in hyphens instead. To find the minus sign, go to the menu below the edit summary and select Wiki markup. The minus sign is next to a plus sign in the first row. Multiple champions: Per MOS:BOLD, bolding shouldn't be used as a way of emphasis. If you want something to emphasize the back-to-back winners, you're best off with italics. Can the last two tables be made sortable? Note b could use a citation. Surely one of the sources already used will cover this. The first See also link is used in the lead, and therefore shouldn't be repeated here. Spell out USGA in the second general reference and specific refs 3 and 4. Check the capitalization of ref 57. I recognized this because I added it myself a while back, and it was different then. The publisher of ref 58 (The Times-News) should be in italics. The date Google News is giving for ref 77 is wrong. Scroll up a bit and you'll see the paper is from July 2, not July 1. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I will get on this over the weekend and on Monday, when I have time. Thanks for the comment Giants.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Corrected all except the sortability comments. I will now have to fix the edition column.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Got the multiple champions sortable and fixed the sort feature in the champions box of the edition. But my question is how should I notate it?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Edition sounds just fine. For the last two tables, you could try Rank or something like that. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Fixed them with three sentences to explain what they are.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Tinkered away, I feel this article is getting better with all your comments, keep them coming strong.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now. Jujutacular ^talk 01:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • The sortability of the "total score" is not working because of the 5&4 score.
  • The Key section applies to the champions' table only. Why not move the key to the Champions section?
  • The first key and the second key should look similar. Right now, the first one is in 2 columns and the second column is not colored while the second key is a one column with the whole row colored.
  • The symbols should be different. Right now Deceased golfer and Tournament won in a playoff is marked with †. That's confusing.

--Cheetah (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As the editor has not edited for over a week I have decided to address these issues. NapHit (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NapHit for fixing them during my absence from Wikipedia.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This list looks real good. The only comment I have is the sentence "This event is scheduled to take place in July 2011.". It makes it sound like this is a one-time event. I think a better sentence would be This year's event is scheduled to take place July 7–10..»NMajdan·talk 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  I adjusted that to "The 2011 event is..." just in case we forget which year's event is being discussed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:06, 5 May 2011 [25].

---

List of Chicago White Sox first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Wizardman 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

For those of you that may not be fans of this baseball group, this is part 30 of 31, so worry not, we are just about done. For the rest of you, I present the Chicago White Sox draft pick list. They are actually one of the more successful teams draft-wise; 2/3 of their draft picks have made a major league roster, and one of them just won a World Series ring, though it was not exactly thanks to him.

I think I've earned a milkshake break. While I get one go ahead and comment :) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Images would benefit from alt text. Otherwise, the article is well marked up to maximise accessibility. I know nothing of the subject, so I had to follow a lot of links, but the balance is good between links and in-text explanations. Overall, it is an interesting read, well-referenced (if somewhat reliant on a major source), and visually appealing. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know much of anything about alt text, and it's not required, so I won't worry about it unless someone else wants to add it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 04:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment One quick thing, Frank Thomas should be linked the first time in the lead like the others. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Wondering if due to that team from the north-side an unmodified "Chicago" shouldn't be used here? (2nd para, 1st sentence) Before TRM comes around, spell out MVP in the prose. Don't you mean "Before The Rambling Man (TRM) comes around...."? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Not if it's the lone mention. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Not so sure about access dates that are eight months older than the list itself... Courcelles 08:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Just a couple of small ones...

• Comma after Jack McDowell would be nice in the lead.
• In the key, an apostrophe should be added after White Sox in the championship definition. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Both taken care of. Courcelles 03:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Support – Issues are resolved, and it's another great list in this series. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Perhaps I missed this on (all of ??) the other lists but I think left/right handed pitchers should sort by pitcher, not by l for left or r for right. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's been that way on all of them. I figured out how to make them sort as pitchers, but the lefties first, then the righties, so it should be good now. Courcelles 03:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Excellent, thank you. In which case, I support the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Same as above FLC: it would be nice to have some quantification of a first round pick vs other rounds by say looking at the average salaries. Nergaal (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • And then? Draw our own conclusions? Looks like WP:OR to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've been having a good read, and, yes, it does appear that you have asked for original research to be inserted into three articles, Nergaal. This isn't the NBA, which has a fairly strict scale where your salary for the first few years depends on where you were drafted. Courcelles 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• Alt-text: remove periods/full stops from sentence fragments, one image is missing alt-text. Also, I'm not sure about the usefulness of the alt text. I hate to be a stickler, but how does a person who can't see know what "Frank Thomas, smiling and holding a red cup" looks like?
• Superscript § indicator since it's at cap height.
• Unspace the asterisks.

Other than these (admittedly very minor) comments, I can't find anything else to quibble with. — KV5 • Talk • 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. I'm not a fan of alt text myself and would have kept it out, but was requested earlier in the FLC. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be just me but why wouldn't something like "A bald black man in a vertically striped shirt, facing left, smiling and holding a mug" be of use to a blind person? Putting people's names in the alt text is a bit of a waste of time, particularly as his name is already mentioned in the caption. I know the subtleties of alt text leave most people cold, but I've always thought it better to have some rather than none. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, went ahead and fixed that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the alt text, save for the lead image, still utilizes player names, which doesn't really tell a blind reader what the picture looks like. Anderson still doesn't have alt text. I have to leave for work now, but after work tonight, I can re-do the alt text in the interest of getting from FLC to FTC. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem? WP:ALTTEXT gives the example of File:Blair Bush Whitehouse (2004-11-12).jpg's appropriate alt text being "Tony Blair and George W. Bush shaking hands at a press conference."- using their names. Courcelles 11:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Forgot I never actually weighed in after my initial comment! Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:06, 3 May 2011 [26].

---

Appy Awards

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Haven't done this in a while and I was surprised to see that no such list existed. Built it in one go, and hopefully it's alright. Let me know what you think, and, as ever, thanks for your time and energy in this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 20:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Some initial comments from Bencherlite A lovely idea ruined by your usual awful prose, of course... Title: both "What Mobile?" and the Torygraph call it T/the Carphone Warehouse Appy Awards. Is there a rule about sponsors' names in titles on Wikipedia? If not, perhaps it should include CW in the title. Hmm. Interesting. I'd be happy to create a redirect here, generally I avoid these sort of names, although having said that, the Orange Prize for Fiction is definitely accredited, while Carling Cup isn't... It's perhaps a problem to solve if there's a 2nd Appy Awards ceremony (or a subsequent one with a different sponsor)? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, looking again, a fair number of the sources just call them the "Appy Awards" rather than plug the sponsor, so I don't mind. After all, we have The Oval, not The Kia Oval, and 2011 Grand National, not 2011 John Smith's Grand National. BencherliteTalk 20:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Image: why not use the logo from [27] under fair use? Done, you fixed my awkward infobox formatting... thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC) "A video game awards ceremony"? Are apps like Amazon, Skype, LoveFilm and Tesco Groceries really "video games"? I think the opening sentence is a little awkward because of the "Awards... awards" phrasing, and I think that an explanation of an "app" is needed sooner rather than later. The presenters' names aren't quite as important for the opening sentence. Suggestion (on the basis that the title remains unaltered): The Appy Awards, first presented on 11 April 2011, mark successful and popular applications (generally known as "apps") for mobile devices. Sponsored by The Carphone Warehouse, Europe's largest independent mobile phone retailer, awards were presented in ten categories in a ceremony hosted by TV presenters Richard Hammond and Amanda Byram. Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) If I see you use "downselected" ever again, I think I will have to burn your computer. Yuck. It ought also to be clear that whilst the initial longlist was produced by staff, the votes from the shortlist were a public process. The free downloads point is rather tacked on. Suggestion: Carphone Warehouse staff nominated around 1,000 apps from which a panel of judges produced a shortlist of 50, announced by Hammond in February 2011. In an online process, about 30,000 votes were cast by the public to choose the winners. Most of the shortlisted apps are free to download but others require a one-off or an ongoing payment. Okay, I won't use "downselect" again. My apologies. Ouch. Self-spanking starts here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Should "App of the Year" be at the top? I respected the order of categories as presented by the official website. I guess it was one of those award ceremonies were the best came last. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Perhaps more later. BencherliteTalk 19:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. And thanks dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) No problems, matey. BencherliteTalk 20:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support As I see no issues. Some third-party sources would be great, but I still support.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – I do not think this is a proper list but instead a regular article on the awards itself. –MuZemike 00:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I would agree, but we have many precedents on this, e.g. Orange Prize for Fiction, Templeton Prize, Bodley's Librarian etc etc, and where no main article exists this is the way ahead. Besides, it's hopefully the first in a series of the Appys so, like the Academy Awards, we will hopefully have 1st Appy Awards and 2nd Appy Awards. Can you describe precisely how it fails to meet the criteria? Cheers... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Your examples are different than the Appy Awards. They all have one category each year, while this one has several categories each year. If/When there is a 2nd ceremony, you're going to be forced to move this page to 1st Appy Awards and create a page for 2nd Appy Awards while the Appy Awards page with a FL star is going to be a redirect. I am indifferent right now--Cheetah (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • 1st Appy Awards already exists as a redirect to this list. I'm not sure I see the problem here. The original oppose was that this is "a regular article on the awards itself". Yes, agreed. Which is mainly a list, so it's at FLC. Cheetah, you're now saying something different from that which seems to focus on the fact that once the second set of awards has taken place, I'll need to move this one. So what? What part of WP:WIAFL does this fail right now? Don't forget that there may never be a second set of awards... we've got 12 months to wait to find out... And of course, if this was moved, the FL star would move with it. Having a redirect with an FL star is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I never said it failed our criteria. I just can't support a list that has a strong potential of getting moved/demoted in the future.--Cheetah (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't see a problem with it being moved in the future. That'll be in a year, if ever. But thanks for making it clear that the list doesn't fail any of the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Two things: As Crzycheetah said above, what if you don't need to have separate articles (I mean, "lists") for each Appy Awards? Moreover, roughly half the page content consists of readable prose, while the other half is the list itself. To me, it does not look like a list but more of a regular article with an embedded list, especially for being the main topic. –MuZemike 20:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate, there is one article and there will be only one article until there's a subsequent award ceremony. (There may not even be another one, who can predict the future?) That means the article is the list or the other way round, however you fancy it. We have many lists which the "main topic" is just the list. This is not a precedent. For another time of asking, where does this fail to meet WP:WIAFL please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my comment above, my oppose is not necessarily based on whether or not this fails the criteria, but whether or not this is a list page (which in my opinion is not). Also, I think what Crzycheetah is getting at is that if this is likely going to be moved in the future, this may not meet #6. –MuZemike 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm shocked that "this may get moved in the future" is a problem here. That (if it happens) will be in 12 months time, and we can deal with the issue then. Reminder to MuZemike, #6 says :"It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day" i.e. not subject to edit wars (check) and the content doesn't change from day to day (check), so where's the issue? The list is inherently stable until proven otherwise. But I'm beginning to get the feeling I'm fighting an invisible agenda. It meets all the criteria, and yet two experienced editors see it their own way. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Reference 11 (from PC World) needs to have the publisher italicized. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Publishers are normally not italicised while works generally are. At least that what the template does. PC World are the publishers of this information in this case so that's why I haven't italicised it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, but PC World is a printed magazine and we usually italicize print publications, whether through the work parameter or not (usually with it). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Aha, so true. PC World actually is also high street store in the UK, but I guess this one is the mag. Mea culpa. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support following TRM's fine initial work as subsequently polished in response to my comments above. As for the discussion above, my thoughts FWIW: (1) It is eligible for FLC and ineligible for GAN and FAC because at heart it is a list with some introductory prose, not an article with a list incidentally attached, per multiple precedents. (2) It meets the criteria re stability and content. That's all it has to do now. If there's another award, then the list can be updated, either by adding the 2nd awards to this page or otherwise. (Incidentally, as someone who has renamed a FL when altering its scope, the star goes to the renamed page and doesn't remain on the redirect - I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise.) The issue of content can be revisited, if necessary, then. If the reworked page is thought not to deserve FL status, it can be taken to FLRC. Speculation now that this list may fail the criteria at some unknown point in the future (if, indeed, that point ever arrives) is not appropriate commentary for judging this list against the FL criteria as it and they currently stand. Bencherlite^Talk 20:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support It meets the FL criteria, so there is no reason to oppose imo.—Chris!_c/t 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Support MOS:ITALICS says, in its list of things to be italicised: "Computer and video games (but not other software)". I do not think that mobile device applications should be italicised. Firstly, the are not computer or video games, and many of them aren't games at all. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting point, but many of these are games. So would you prefer to see a mixture of italicised and non-italicised titles? I mean, Angry Birds is clearly a game, clearly italicised in our own good article and is clearly a "computer" or "video" game. The others, perhaps not quite so. So, would you prefer me to selectively italicise games only? It would seem odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I would say keep them all a uniform style. I will support this now, but I strongly advise that you archive the nomination category refs using WebCite because they will probably rot sometime soon. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, good advice. I've seen that starting to happen quite a bit but I hadn't considered doing it myself, so I'll get onto it later today. Thanks for your comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:06, 3 May 2011 [28].

---

List of San Francisco Giants first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Courcelles 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

31 of 31. Yes, this is the end of the line. After this one, you won't see another MLB first-round draft list here unless the league expands. It's been fun, hopefully one last push here and then we'll go bug the folks at FTC. Courcelles 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

*Comments: Second paragraph is missing a few citations for the quantity, as well as the Cali and Clark notes. "Two of the Giants' selections have won the National League Rookie of the Year Award," semicolon instead of comma This is more nitpicky, but city-state combos that redirect to just the city can have two links (i.e. [[Houston]], [[Texas]] instead of [[Houston, Texas]]) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• For somebody not well aware of the subject, it is not clear how much more important is the first round pick vs the second round. Is there some average salaries comparisons to provide a quantifiable measure for the relative importance of the first round picks? Nergaal (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned before, this would constitute WP:OR and is therefore not a good approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments - my usual "try to find something picky" stuff: "which they used on Will Clark." - "with which they drafted Will Clark" would seem more elegant to me? Done. "Four of these players have ..." may have missed this in every list etc, but it is conceivable that, by this point, the reader has lost who "these players" are. reworded. Lincecum is overlinked (and doesn't need his first name repeating) in the lead. Good catch, fixed. Courcelles I think pitchers should be grouped together in the sorting of the list regardless of handedness. Used the same hack I put in the White Sox list the other night. Courcelles Consider using Baseball at the 1984 Summer Olympics as a more direct link somewhere in Clark's caption. Done. Courcelles Probably something similar for Jensen's. Baseball at the 2000 Summer Olympics, instead of 2000 Summer Olympics was already the link here. Not sure why I wasn't consistent. Courcelles "In alphabetical order, David Aardsma (2003) comes before any player in MLB history." this is the best caption I have ever seen in Wikipedia. Brilliant! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I liked the caption, too- I like finding unusual things for captions instead of just repeating something from the list. Courcelles 20:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• No need for two Buster Posey links in the lead. His first name doesn't need duplication either.
• Some of the footnotes have a hyphen in "free agent" and some don't. I don't think the hyphen should be there, but it should be consistent either way. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks for the comments. Courcelles 21:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• "Since the establishment of the draft in 1965" - comma after
• How can you have four first basemen and three first basemen? I'm guessing one is third, the only unrepresented position. Check.
• Extend link for "second baseman" to include the word "base".
• All outfielders should be "outfield" so it's consistent; the last selection should be changed from center fielder.
• "Rookie of the Year Award," - change comma to colon
• "in 1973," - since it is preceded by a colon, this comma should now be a semicolon
• "failed to sign two of their first-round selections, - change comma to colon
• semicolon after "1979 pick Rick Luecken"

Otherwise looks good. Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 23:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Taken care of everything except one- both ESPN and B-R agree that Gary Brown was picked as a center fielder, not a generic "outfielder". In this entire series, this is quite rare, I think this is the second in the entire run of 31 lists. Courcelles 23:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, since center fielders are outfielders, I'd say it would be fine either way and should be kept the same for consistency's sake, but since it's such a nitpicky little thing, it's easy to overlook. I'll gladly support. — KV5 • Talk • 23:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support, looks good to me, but then, you've had plenty of practice! Only thing I might suggest is a short explanation of the Cy Young Award in the prose itself (maybe something as simple as "the Cy Young Award for the best pitcher in..") even without that addition though, you have my support: really top work! Harrias ^talk 21:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good idea, done. Courcelles 10:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just took a look at this addition, and I think the semi-colon that comes after it should be a regular comma. Doesn't read that well the way it is now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it in a slightly different manner. Just helping out. — KV5 • Talk • 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Courcelles 20:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:49, 1 May 2011 [29].

---

Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album

Nominator(s): Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets FL criteria. I also have received help from User:Another Believer who has promoted multiple Grammy lists before.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

*Crutiques Are their any possible not redirects for the following: Music (album), Rock Steady, and Seal (album), which if they do will you please fix them. Sarah McLachlan alt text singing is misspelled. Done Both--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Comment You could insert a winners by country table like it is say List of Masters Tournament champions if you care to do so. I think by emphasizing it in the lead that would be a nice add to the article. Most Grammy's don't have this list but possibly later I may add it.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Concerns I see four redirect in the references just go look in the toolbox for them. Working on it--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC) By the way, I give you some credit for putting work into this article, and lending your time to the nomination of this article. I hope it goes well for you Blackjacks101!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Promote to FL, Support This looks up to standard to me!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments You could say "pop music" in opening part of the lead instead of just "pop". "honor was first presented at the 10th Grammy Awards (1968)" not overwhelmed by that date in parentheses, you could rephrase... "honor was first presented in 1968 at the..."? No need to try to disambiguate The Beatles (band) (in the table) - there really is only one The Beatles! Seal (album) is a dab link. Bobby Gentry is actually Bobbie Gentry according to our article. Spell Jamiroquai correctly. Ditto for Avril Lavigne, (not Lavinge!). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Done! Thanks so much for your comments!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments Are there any controversies that can be added to the lead? What media thinks about the award? A sentence or two would be beneficial. Alas I have researched multiple times for such controversies to enlarge the lead yet the category seems to have a boring history.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) The nominees are too important to be so small. Make them bigger, not as big as the winner, but still. I think font size 90% would work. Almost all featured Grammy lists have the same font size, so I was still trying to keep it all the same. Is that ok?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) It still does not change the fact that it's too small. I don't think it's a lot of work to enlarge them, so I still want to see them larger.--Cheetah (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC) This does make the list inconsistent with other Grammy lists with FL status, but I made the change per request here and on my talk page. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC) In the 1995 nominees, first link to Seal is a disamg., please fix it. Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) There are two links to List of Grammy Award categories on this page; the one in the see also section can be removed Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) The "Category description guide" does not have the citation on its 3rd page. I don't quite understand, do you mind clarifying?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) The "albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded pop vocal tracks" citaion is not on the 3rd page of 52nd OEP Category Description Guide.--Cheetah (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Oops, I see now. It's on page 1. Silly mistake.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC) In the 1967 Grammy finalists reference, you have "10', which should be changed to "p. 10". Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I don't see any changes.--Cheetah (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC) The page parameter is designated as 10; this is done correctly and its appearance is based on the display commands of the "cite journal" template. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Agreed, the various citation templates use different formatting which is a nightmare. This usage of the template is correct (although possibly undesirable). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC) CBS News is linked twice in the references; once is fine. Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments! If you can clarify on a few that would be most appreciated!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks again! Give me a bit because I'm busy to get to them today, but I'll get them done by tomorrow! --Blackjacks101 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC) What makes Rock on the Net reliable? Numerous conversations between editors have been discussed to create the consensus that it was a reliable source. Almost all featured Grammy lists use it.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Can you provide a link to one of those discussions, please?--Cheetah (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC) See discussion here. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC) It does not have a consensus, does it? One is undecided, the other is tempted to use. It's only for 3 ceremonies, I think it's possible to substitute them.--Cheetah (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I'll try but multiple other Grammy lists use this site as a source and it hasn't brought up any problems, since most discussions on the topic lead to the consensus that it's okay to use.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I think compromise here can dictate that if a more reliable sources than Rock on the Net can be used, it should. If a more reliable source cannot be found (I have seen instances of this), Rock on the Net should be acceptable. No? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC) (→)I see what you're saying here, but it means that we all will trust editors even more. There will be some who are too lazy to look for reliable sources and use this Rock on the Net website instead. By the way, the 41st award nominee list is at CNN, as well as the 40th. If you're more of a MTV fan, you can click here for the nominees of the 40th ceremony. --Cheetah (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Just replaced all of the Rock on the Net links! Thanks again for the comments.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support thanks for the changes.--Cheetah (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Support, I just fixed some vandalism, now I think is good enough to be a featured list. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Since the issue was raised here, I just wanted to direct any interested reviewers here for a discussion about the potential use of 90% text size commands in the Nominees column for all Grammy lists. Feel free to weigh in. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: The lead is a bit short, but I think the list meets criteria. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support No problems here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Can you see also link to Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album? It might be wise to use the invisible col and row headers per WP:ACCESS You should link directly to the pop field in the general reference I removed the list from Category:Grammy Awards as it is already in a subcat. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Done All! Except I'm not quite sure about the invisible columns/rows? I posted a comment on your talk page as well about it.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Check out this edit which I think solves the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

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