Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2010

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:29, 28 October 2010 [1].

---

1984 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Here's the 10th list of the Winter Olympics medal table series up for nomination. Not much to say at this stage. Review all the way! Parutakupiu (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I can't see anything wrong with the list. The only thing I would like to put in the article is to add a note that (although it was Yugoslavia's first medal) it was also the first time since 1928 that the host did not win a gold medal. It only happened in '24, '28, '84, and '88, which is sufficiently rare enough to worth putting it in. Nergaal (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support, and for that info. It didn't come across my mind before. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I found no problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments I really can't express how much I hate these maps as lede images. I don't like maps as the lede in any article, but this one is really boring and useless. If you want something in the MOS, conveying information by colour alone is in contravention of WP:ACCESS. The article is called "medal table" and refers to countries in the medal table. What representation of countries that depicts the medal table do you want? I have no idea why does wikipedia have to be so politically correct as to end up handicapping articles by not allowing such maps because 10% of the people can't get them. The point of wp:Access should be to help those 10% without diminishing the value of the article. What is next? Don't allow FX's when a reading of the article is not available because x5 of the people can't read? Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Having the map does diminish the article, that's the point. I can't tell the silver nations from the nations that didn't participate, and I'm not even colourblind. You seem to be the advocate for these maps, so tell me this. How does this article improve by showing people where Switzerland is? Besides that, the map is unlabeled! If you don't already know where the various countries are, it is just a blob of colour. Courcelles 23:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Ok, I'll give you that knowledge of the world map is kind of necessary to appreciate the use, but the solution would be then to put a legend with the ISO code of the countries in question. On the other hand, having an infobox image of a medal given to the Olympics, other than being nice, does not improve the quality of the article; it does not aid in anything. I still think having a map for people with general geography background (essentiall everybody with some college degree) to "read" is more useful than having a random medal picture. Nergaal (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC) So does this mean I have to remove all maps and wait for Nergaal to come and tell me to put them back? We never quite reached an agreement on this. I actually let the medal images stay, but what about other Games fow which we don't have medal images? No lede image? Really, help me on this. Then we adapt. There's always something we can use for images, without resorting to a map (that actually doesn't look like anything at this scale). Courcelles 23:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Then make the image 2x. Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC) There is something that this image does that helps the article regardless weather you like maps or not: it shows what nations participated but did not get anything Putting countries like Iceland or China that did not win a medals in a text form would be incredibly boring; the image fixes that. Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC) You'll notice that information is in 1984 Winter Olympics, though unsourced. And, no the image doesn't do anything of the sort- the map is not labeled! Courcelles 00:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC) What do you both think of this compromise? Parutakupiu (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Has Courcelles been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC) "For the first time, since its debut at the 1972 Winter Olympics, East Germany " Huh? The GDR competed in 1968 Grenoble separately from the FRG. (Though they did compete in Cortina, Squaw Valley, and Innsbruck together.) Doh, you're right. I mislooked that. This was written way before the 1968 list where I actually state that. Corrected now. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC) "Austrian athletes failed to secure more than one bronze medal," "Austrian athletes secured only a single medal; bronze in the Men's downhill alpine skiing event," as the current wording does not actually mean the bronze was their only medal, rather that they only had one bronze medal, saying nothing about their silver or gold totals. Well noticed. Fixed that. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding the "compromise". It is a really neat idea. It might be better to unhide the map and move it after the table (before the see also section). Nergaal (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Also, use www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1984/or1984w.pdf (pages 89-90) to reference NOCs. Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Right-o. How about now? I had to reduce the size of the photos so that they wouldn't mess up the map. Even so, I had to add a break before the map section. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Good! If you can, you might want to increase the size of the yellow and red circles, but otherwise it looks good. Nergaal (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support The map is beyond useless, and I hope to never see another one, but the list is otherwise fine. Courcelles 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments (apologies if I'm going over old ground, just trying to catch up...) " A new event was contested: the women's 20 km in cross-country skiing" reads a little isolated. Perhaps it's just me but I fancy putting that into context, maybe just saying that new events are periodically added, and maybe how, and maybe say when the last time one was added before this? Just for non-experts... I think that should be something that would go well in higher level articles (Cross-country skiing at the Winter Olympics; or 1984 Winter Olympics). Even so, I added that "Compared with the previous Winter Games, a new event was included in the program...", which may not change much but it stresses the info. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Any reason why alpine skier isn't appropriately linked? Linked. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC) "On the opposite end," - I'd prefer "In contrast". Replaced. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC) "were a historical best" well, presumably they were respective historical bests, not singular, but if you insist on singular, then it should be "an historical best". Pluralized. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Jane Torvill -> Jayne Torvill. Doh! Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Not sure See also for "Torvill and Dean" is needed. Can you provide a decent (maybe piped) link for it in the last para of the lead? Nah, removed... Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Not keen at all on leading 0's in reference date days, e.g. "09 October 2010". Wow, didn't even notice those. Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the review. Hope it satisfies you. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• I probably get this wrong always, but the lead image is a map which uses only colour to designate things, does this really meet WP:ACCESS?
  • That is beeing discussed despite, no conclusion been reached by the disagreeing parts. I'm gonna implement the compromise layout (which had been in a userpage of mine) where I took that map from the lead section, enlarged it and labeled every participating country, so that at least we know what countries won (or not) medals. OK, colors are still only used to identify medal types, but where do we draw the line? If I use patterns to discriminate medals, it would look awful. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll see what the new image looks like. I understand that it may look awful to meet WP:ACCESS but one of our criteria is a compliance with WP:MOS... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • A solution would be to just group the entries in the legend by color and say what the color means. Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Remove comma after "For the first time"? There's also something similar in the third paragraph.
  • Commas removed. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• The last reference should have an indication that it's a PDF. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I see no problems with the list. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 10:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:29, 28 October 2010 [2].

---

Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and is consistent with the nine other Grammy-related lists that I've successfully nominated. Grammy Award for Best Bluegrass Album is currently undergoing FLC review, but it has received support from three reviewers already so I assume it is acceptable to nominate a second list. Thank you for taking the time to review this list and offer suggestions! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Comments "Award recipients often include the producers, engineers... " vs "to recording artists for..." vs the notes. It's not clear to me which of these were presented to the artist and the engineer, for instance? Hmm. I am confused about what you mean here. With all of these Grammy lists, I am only displaying the artists that perform the works since that is what most people are interested in. There are exceptions, though, such as if award is related to people other than the performing artists (Grammy Award for Best Short Form Music Video, for example). For many award categories, producers and engineers are also given a Grammy. I do not include these names, unless it is for a compilation album and only the producer was awarded. This is the case for Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album, which is consistent with the other Grammy Award-related lists I have worked on. Please let me know if this does not make sense or if this does not address your concern. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Well the only non-artist mentioned is a producer, no sign of engineers etc...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I see what you mean now. Actually, it appears most of the entries for Best Pop Instrumental Album include engineers as award recipients. However, names of award-winning engineers and mixers are not included in these Grammy lists. In this instance (47th ceremony), James R. Jensen was the only award recipient as the producer of the compilation album. If other people had been awarded, they would have been listed as well. Does that make sense? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Okay, maybe I'm being uber-picky but these guys aren't cited (or noted) anywhere. Official recipients I guess are listed here, and I guess there's a sub-note missing which might say "all the great engineers etc who worked on these great works got credit, but not citation from the Grammys"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The General source is always listed. If instructions are followed, users can view every award recipient for each year. This is consistent with all of the Grammy Awards lists. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't it make sense for Grammy Award winning albums to have articles? I.e., red link those which don't have articles? Done. And FYI, I am starting stubs for many of the albums listed on these Grammy lists that I am working on. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC) You got the wrong N.E.W.S. I think. Ah. Done. (One additional period more than required.) Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you, much! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support tried to be picky, failed. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment in response to a wave of opposition by one reviewer regarding FLC promotion, mostly relating to MoS and Access: Please let me know if any changes need to be made to the table format. If changes are required, I hope FLC nominators are given enough time to make them. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Whatever pickiness there was to be had, TRM beat me to it. Courcelles 16:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:29, 28 October 2010 [3].

---

Counties of Romania

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured list because it was (just) closed without any outstanding comments. I would appreciate any points regarding weather this list passes or not FL? Many thanks! Nergaal (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Anybody??? Nergaal (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Outstanding list from a first glance. I only have time for a quick check through right now, but I'll give it a more through review later if I get the chance.
• Why is Bucharest's name highlighted in a different color? If it is because Bucharest is the capital, it should be noted as such in a key, and the color should be accompanied by a symbol.
  • Bucharest's status is similar to Washington DC in the USA or Berlin/Bremen in Germany. It is of a different color because it is not a county, but a municipality with an identical status to that of a county. The key right now is its entry in the county seat. i.e.: "Municipality of Bucharest" (instead of county) is put in italics and in parantheses. Nergaal (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah that makes sense. Could you maybe append a note to the italicized "Municipality of Bucharest" cell to explain that it's not technically a county? Nomader ^(Talk) 03:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Added note. Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Why is the area column not cited like population and FIPS code? Nomader ^(Talk) 13:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I fixed it. Nergaal (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support After an FLC which was closed because of a lack of supports, I won't let this one meet the same fate when it meets the FLC criteria. Nergaal's addressed my minor comments and it's time to finally make this featured. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Tyvm! Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support, but just one comment: is there an extra "the" in "... the administration at the judeţ level being reintroduced until the after the war."? I'm not sure if that's on purpose, that's why I'm asking. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Weirdly how I missed that. I've fixed it. Thank you very much! Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to miss. After several run-throughs you tend not to see some words, especially small ones like these. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: the administration at the judeţ level being reintroduced until after the war I do not understand what it means. Does it mean that judet was reintroduced before the end of WWII or after? switched to "and the administration at the judeţ level was reintroduced after the war" (it was poor prephrasing of previously-longer sentences Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Due to Bucharest's significantly larger population and size I do not think the size of Bucharest is so large. rm "and size"; should I keep "and its size" instead? Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I think I'd remove "size" altogether. The point Ruslik is trying to make is that physically, it's not a large geographic area– the reason why its separate is its concentrated population. No need to repeat that point. Nomader (Talk) 06:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Ok, there is no mention of size currently. Nergaal (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I see no more problems. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, since all my comments in the previous candidacy have been addressed and the list only got better since then. bamse (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | [[User talk:

Could you translate that into a more useful alnguage for readers? Like Chinese? Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS is part of the manual of style so its not something 'we' dreamed up. Then changes I am asking to be made (of which I will facilitate help with examples) are necessary because they make things accessible. The whole point of accessbility is it improves an article's readibility by calibrating wikitables for Screen Reading and Assistive Browser software. Such changes are necessary so that users hard of sight, color blind users and users of no sight can still access/read/use articles. It is not an idealism rather it is consideration for those who are less able than you or I. There is no massive ask here. For some more background on the situation see WP:ACCESS and this. I urge you to keep an open mind and actually consider what's being asked instead of judging a book by its cover. An example of the changes needing to be made can be found here -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not patronise our regular contributors with the aims of WP:ACCESS. Instead, direct them precisely to the sections of WP:ACCESS (not help pages like WP:Wikitable) which their lists currently (in your mind) don't meet. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry the correct thing for me to say should have been... per WP:ACCESS#Data table there are changes that should be made to make this list/article of a better standard. I've retracted my earlier comments. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support! Reywas92^Talk 20

30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent lead and history section; very informative.
• The FIPS code is just an identification system used by the US government, so I'm not sure why they're really relevant here.

I modeled the list after the US counties FLs which is where I got the FIPS form. If people think it should go out I would have no problems removing it. Nergaal (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion? I don't really find them necessary; whereas the other codes may have some use the FIPS is more obscure. Reywas92^Talk 16:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the codes and added the link to the external links. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the population and area of a county is much more important and useful to the reader, so I think they should be placed further to the left of the table next to region; I don't see why postal or NUTS code should come first.

The reason it is grouped this way is because some of the codes are linked to the development region so I thought they might sit near them better. Also, having the area right near the map is a bit more natural because you can see the relative area visually. Nergaal (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay.

• See also goes before referenced.

Moved. Nergaal (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! Reywas92^Talk 01:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:29, 28 October 2010 [4].

---

Ciara discography

Nominator(s): Candyo32 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In transforming the discog from this to this, I now believe that the article satisfies the discography MoS, and is up to par with other FL's. Everything is understandable and comprehensive, doing justice to the representation of Ciara, as well as removing unnecessary fancruft and other unneeded information. Additionally I have cleared up all errors with the discography from the previous nomination. Candyo32 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support

-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me (UTC)

Comments: comment, no dabs. according to Dablinks. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Music video table should be converted to the new format per WP:Wikitable. Look at Kelly Rowland discography#Music videos for an example of how it should done. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Only one link should provided for certs column. List of music recording sales certifications should be piped to Certifications. e.g.([[List of music recording sales certifications|Certifications]]) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC) My own recent nomination for Kelly Rowland discography established that their is no need for style=font-size:smaller; formatting. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC) While the certs thing makes since, but are the other changes required as per new wiki rules? I see they were not recommended to be implemented for current nominations Lady Gaga discography, Kesha discography. Candyo32 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Well they were required when i did Rowland's fear not. If they are not done now they will have to be done later when WP:DISCOGSTYLE is updated. =) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC) side issue... if you look at Basic Instinct (album) there is now a detailed release history (from reliable sources) so the album's table here needs updating. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Changes made per Basic Instinct article. Candyo32 00:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Cool. I know it seems optimistic (highly) but several music stores are listing a US release for October 5 (including sony music) which supports the international music stores reporting the earlier dates as this is often the case. The situation will need to be monitored to see if the date stands or not. I will look at the rest of the discog for you. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment: User:Lil-unique1, there is not yet consensus to implement the new table formats in the WP:DISCOG lists, therefore the current format used here is fine. –Chase (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I am aware... but some of the changes like removing small formating can be done as it is being encouraged accross wikipedia. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose Something that just struck me, you have sales and certifications the wrong way round in the Studio albums section. Compilation and Extended play tables - would be good to see the columns the same width from table to table. done Done by me. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) EP is not referenced (the release date of the compilation album appears to be) added -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Notes don't consistently have full stops. Done Single Gimmie Dat appears not to have charted anywhere, where is its existence referenced? Done As featured artist table - check the spaces after the colons are consistent with the rest of the list. Done "(and Deluxe and Japanese editions)" what does that mean? Some songs that charted were only from the Deluxe and Japanese edition of Fantasy Ride. Ref 46, no-no to ALL CAPITALS (per MOS). Done Same for ref 61. done Ref 61 has a spare ]. Done. Refs 62 and 63 are incomplete. Done. Ref 11 (as a sample) has a publication date (2009-04-30) missing. Suggest you check all other references to stop reviewers from having to do same. Done. Candyo32 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 01:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC) :"which included the title track, "1, 2 Step" with rapper Missy Elliot, and "Oh" with rapper Ludacris. " Why link Missy Elliot, and not Ludacris, whatever or whoever that is? If t doesn't have an article, is it even worth mentioning? I forgot to link Ludacris. Even if Ludacris weren't mentioned, a number one hit in several countries shouldn't be mentioned in a discog? "The titular track remained atop the Billboard Hot 100 for over a month.[5] " The source given verifies that it reached number one, not how long it stayed there. Added Billboard source, the only verifiable source for how many weeks. I know you're going to have a problem with it so I'll tell you beforehand to use the visualizer gadget. "Two years later in 2006, Ciara returned with her sophomore effort, Ciara: The Evolution, which saw her remain consistent to her urban roots, and R&B and hip-hop driven dance while experimenting with old school songs combined with huge pop hooks." Your source doesn't back this up, at all. This is dangerously close to original research without better sourcing. Fine, removing. "and charting in the top thirty of most international markets" Really? Of the ones you give in the table, it is 5 to 4 in being at or over #30. And there are many more markets than the ones given in the table. Needs a source, or it is definitely POV. Will change most to "several" then. "Ciara's fourth studio album, Basic Instinct, set for a October 29, 2010, release, will see the singer returning to her urban roots.[13] " Not in citation given. Added source "It album is preceded by the lead single" It album? Fixed to "the" No charts for the guest appearances? Um, Well the are "apperances" on album tracks not singles, that's why they dont chart...:Same for ref 57 Same as 64, these are sites that report on video booking. I can figure out what they do. That wasn't the question. Why are they a reliable source? Entirely different question. Courcelles 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Giving a new source since it seems to be such a big deal. Candyo32 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Candyo32 23:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC) What makes ref 64 a reliable source? Well its used in the FA Kesha discography without a problem, so I assume it was used. That's not an argument. Not every FAC/FLC catches/questions the things it ought to have. Courcelles 03:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Considering the detailed FLC it went through, I'm sure it was brought up. It'll have do now because it is the most reputable source other than blogs. Then you're saying you can't defend it as reliable? Oppose stands. Unreliable sources, promotional language, POV problems. Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC) To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Will this help with the reliability issue? articles about the magazine from The Daily News [5], and The New York Times [6]. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC) This is why I should have linked to the version I was using ref numbers from. I was questioning video static, now ref 65, not Rap up. Courcelles 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC) What is the status on these sourcing concerns? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Can all other reviewers comment on the sourcing issues? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Why not just use [7] instead of Video Static? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Good idea! I forgot the video was just released. Candyo32 03:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC) "The album's fourth single, "And I" achieved little chart success in the United States." 27th rank is "little" success? This is too POV-ish for my taste. Later on, something that never got over 30 is a "moderate success" I assume your not familiar with the music industry. 96th on the Hot 100 its not successful. The 27 was on a COMPONENT CHART. I never had any complaints like this in the first review, so I believe you may be going a little overboard with the POV. Read WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYN. Is there a source saying this is little success, or are you saying it? If you can source it, fine. If you can't, it's two of those three. This is crazy. I need a source to say a song received little chart success when it was 96 on the Hot 100? Yes, you do. Being one of the 100 most popular songs sounds successful, you are saying it is not. So is it sourceable, or is it original research? Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC) This has been reworded. Can you please revisit this, Courcelles? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) ""—" denotes a title that did not chart, or was not released in that territory." I'll pass along the information that New Zealand has been demoted to a "territory". Well it used in Kesha discography, Lady Gaga discography, Rihanna discography, and every other FA discography on Wikipedia, so pass that information along too. Gah. A bad phrasing doesn't become good phrasing just because it is multiplied by four. Courcelles 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Since FL's are "believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia," its not changing. Seems like if it were a big problem, someone would have been let know in every single other FL candidacy that uses the same phrase. Nominator is uncooperative. Stare decisis doesn't govern Wikipedia. Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with Courcelles here. Why not simply use: '"—" denotes albums/singles which did not chart in that country.' (or something similar? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) This has been changed. Candyo32 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC) "However it spawned the highly successful worldwide top ten hit," Again with POV problems How is it POV, again? I'll remove highly, but it was successful and worldwide, indicates it had worldwide success rather than US only or international. Okay, POV might have been the wrong thing... actually, no, it is right, but WP:PEACOCK is more directly related. You seem to be making lots of analysis of the numbers without using sources to back up your analysis. Courcelles 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Numbers are sourced in the charts below. Per WP:LEAD citations should not appear again. Candyo32 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC) When info is likely to be challenged, you absolutely do repeat citations. I'm challenging this as POV. Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC) How about "However it spawned the international top ten single,"? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) This has been changed also. Candyo32 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC) ""Work" had moderate success in few international markets." What does it take to not sound promotional? Charted in four countries, none over #30? Source for the "moderate success" Again, how POV? Wasn't a big chart topper, therefore "moderate." You're providing analysis. That is not allowed. This article is written almost entirely non-neutrally and promotionally. Something like ""Work" appeared on a few international charts."? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) This hasn't been changed, considering your suggestion, appearing on a few international charts means the song could have topped the chart, or appeared at so and so position, while moderately denotes it charted moderately. Candyo32 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I moved the sourcing discussion up into the cap, but I still see fairly major NPOV/OR problems with the prose. Courcelles 04:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Per Lil-unique's comments below mine, I still think that the POV is fine and OR is not in action. I have made some corrections but per other FLs, terms such as "moderate" and indicated highly successful and less than successful singles and or albums is acceptable. Candyo32 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• POV problems are better now. I wouldn't hold this article out as a paradigm of NPOV, but so very few actually are. Courcelles 01:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• As someone who supported the article in its previous nomination I question Courcelles, are you not being too harsh here? I've looked through and I don't support claims that this article is written POV/Promotionally. Lots of GA and FL articles use words like smash for number-ones, hit for top-tens, moderately/reasonable for top-twenty/thirty etc. For example you appear to be harsh with the terminology of "not released in that territory" yet it is acceptable in other FLs. At the end of the day countries are territories. reference 64 is Rap-Up.com is the website of a known and recognisable published magazine about R&B/Hip Hop music not a blog as asserted by Courcelles. To assert that it is not notable without an reasonable opposing argument is verging on questionable. Whilst I respect Courcelles opinions it feels like they are too picky and based on personal preference rather than genuine hinderances to FL status. I'm not trying to fall out with you Courcelles but I would ask you to look at the discography again and consider whether those 'issues' above are actually issues. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While I haven't gotten to closely inspecting the article, I would like to support Uniques statement. Rap-Up is a reliable and industry related source. It is used for many things, from release dates, sales and news. It is reliable and useable for FA,FL or any such article.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues from –Chase (talk)

*Comments: Debuting in 2004, with her album, Goodies, the singer was hailed with the honorific title, "The Princess or First Lady of Crunk&B," the comma after 2004 is not needed, neither is the one after album. Done. If you're going to mention that "1, 2 Step" was with Missy Elliott and "Oh" was with Ludacris, why not mention that "Goodies" was with Petey Pablo? Done. Can't believe I hadn't noticed that "Lose Control", with Missy Elliot drop the comma. Done. Ciara: The Evolution should be referred to as her second effort, not her sophomore - the term sophomore for albums is not widely recognized outside of the US. Done. debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, and charting in the top thirty charting → charted Done. reaching Platinum status in the US,[6] and selling drop the comma, again. Done a US top twenty a US top twenty hit? Done Whilst is primarily used in British English and not widely recognized in American English. Since this is about the discography of an American singer, I'd change it to while. Done Having "to be released" covering all of the peak chart position columns implies that the album will chart in those territories when released (WP:CRYSTAL). Just put a "—" in all of the columns - the note at the bottom of the table even says that that represents albums that were not released. But wouldn't "-" give the impression that the album was released and had not charted yet as it indicates "not release" instead of "pending release." ? Per WP:MOS: "if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout". U.S., U.S. R&B, and U.S. Dance in the singles table should be US, US R&B, and US Dance. Done Guest/soundtrack appearances should be removed - discography covers releases, not non-single songs. Same goes for other charted songs. –Chase (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I know this is WP:OTHERSTUFF but since FL's are recognized as the best by the Wikipedia community, FL's Taylor Swift discography, Kelly Rowland discography, Sugababes discography, M.I.A. discography, Rihanna discography, Tokio Hotel discography, Maroon 5 discography, etc. all include them. I still think that songs that weren't released serve no purpose in a discography and I stand by that point. The only reason I could see for including them is to flatter an artist by highlighting their "popularity". –Chase (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I don't understand why emphasis is put only single releases, when Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a discography as "a descriptive list of recordings by category, composer, performer, or date of release" and "the history of recorded music." More importantly, the majority of users have voiced their opinon to keep them in discographies. Candyo32 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC) On wiki, our focus on discographies is releases. Which is why whole track listings are not included, as they are not relevant. Honestly, I see no valid points in the discussion you are pointing me to. All I see are inclusionist essays that have no real reason as to why "other charted songs" are relevant in discography articles and comments that including such a section "shows an artists popularity". Thus I have begun a new discussion regarding the matter. I firmly maintain my point. –Chase (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I'm a bit confused of you bringing it up again considering the overwhelming voice of support for keeping them the first time. Candyo32 01:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC) In the music videos section, for videos where Ciara is the lead artist, drop Ciara from Ciara featuring... it is implied that she is the main artist unless stated otherwise. Done Refs: Pitchfork Media, MTV News, BPI, CRIA, Static Multimedia (I think, anyway), Allmusic, German Albums Chart, Oricon, iTunes, German Singles Chart, RIAA, CDUniverse (I think), CMT, and AfterEllen (this actually brings me to my next point...) are not print works and thus should not be italicized. Done, besides Oricon, which is print. What makes AfterEllen a reliable source? In fact, this article looks to be user-submitted, a big no-no as a WP:RS. Replaced with better source. Candyo32 20:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Fix these issues and I'll support. –Chase (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. My issues have been clarified. Consensus at the discography wikiproject shows that other charted songs and other appearances are acceptable. However, they shouldn't be a level-3 header under the main singles section, and this still should be addressed. –Chase (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, with a level 3 header for other charted songs. Candyo32 13:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually forgot to address the "to be released" issue but no, I don't think it would give off the impression, especially since the album details should explain that it has yet to see a release. "To be released" covering the peaks implies that it will chart which is a major no-no per WP:CRYSTAL. –Chase (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, just a couple of minor issues in the lead; "...and the second single, "Promise" was a US R&B chart topper." - maybe a comma after the title? Second sentence in fourth paragraph: "It album is preceded by..." - 'It' → 'The' (or something) Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback! Fixes were made accordingly. Candyo32 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Further comments. I have just noticed that one album and two singles have appeared on the Australian charts over #50, which are not sourced by Hung Medien. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Done with Adabow's assistance. Candyo32 19:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I see there has been a dispute with the reliability of Video static. Now, im not very familiar with how we determine if a source is reliable or not. I chose to include it and thought it was reliable because its written by "Steven J Gottlieb" who is the former Senior Editor of music video trade magazine CVC Report (published from 1983 through 2004). Considering he is an author in his field i thought it would be appropriate to include the website. Please share your thoughts on this here as im watching your page. Talk to you soon :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this Reliable? :

• Is the author a considered a subject expert in his field?

Yes "Steven J Gottlieb" is an author for his field. He was the Senior Editor of music video trade magazine CVC Report (published from 1983 through 2004).

• Has the website/publication been cited by other reliable sources?

I dont know if wikipedia counts but i know consensus doesnt always have to be discussed, instead it because a general use, this is the case here, more and more articles are using this source.

• Does the website/publication cite its sources and undergo a rigorous fact-checking process (or both)?

From what ive seen, yes it does, actually this website generally gets the director information first, then other websites seem to follow. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Ref 18, 20, 29 isn't english. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 11:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In the past that hasn't been a problem, so why is it now? It's not like you can retrieve them in any other reliable source since they are the official Musicline and Oricon sites. Candyo32 11:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying its a problem they aren't english but it should be stated like the other references. Afro (Talk) 11:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Note the manual of style for discographies has been changed since the time of nomination and unfortunately I can no longer support this discography until it is converted to the new format given at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. This in turn is updated for the new WP:ACCESS part of WP:MOS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Retracted comments for now... its fairer since I would like to see a mass change that I making notes on the featured list talk page instead. Sorry for the disruption caused. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You know I find it funny how you put "Fail" for my article, something that would severely hinder it, versus putting a "Note" like you did here. I don't know, that doesn't look too fair if you ask me, but whatever, just saying.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok good. I also asked Dabomb87 about it and he said since the nomination was prior to the conversion that it will be compared to the criteria at the time, and then will have the time to convert to the new format, and that it would not affect the current nomination. Candyo32 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You need some consistency with the Abbreviations for Chart positions, you kinda jump from 3 letters to 2 letters and IRE to IRL. Afro (Talk) 04:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the abbreviation consistency as well as the language concern. Candyo32 07:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Still are using IRE and IRL for Ireland, both have the same link so I assume they should be the same abbreviation. Afro (Talk) 10:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

oops that should be fixed now. Candyo32 12:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Still IRL in "as featured artist", also not sure on the policy but does About.com fit WP:RS. Afro (Talk) 13:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok should be fixed now, and About.com is reliable used in almost every album and single GA and FA, and is published by the New York Times Company. Candyo32 21:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support After a slight edit with a ref, I think theres no major problems with this list, I Support the promotion. Afro (Talk) 22:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support The article isn't perfect, but there aren't any large issues which would stop me from promoting this list. Good work!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Looks pretty good. Nice job!--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Several supporters still have not addressed the NPOV language issues that Courcelles raised. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support : i have made the corrections asked by Courcelles so i now support this article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [8].

---

List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is just about finished with a MilHist ACR and I believe that it meets all the FLC criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support on prose. I recently copyedited this one, but there wasn't much to do; Sturm's prose is straightforward, just like it should be. My British English isn't great, but John and Diannaa also worked on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Can years be added to all captions? Ruslik_Zero 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sort of. I added a date to the Indefatigable class caption, but I don't know when the photos of Lion or Queen Mary were taken. I can narrow it down a bit, but I'm not sure that a date range over a couple of years is really all that helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You can use a better image of Lion, which was taken in 1915. Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Done

• Support - an excellent list with no problems I could find. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks good! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support great work on this, Sturm. Buggie111 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "The classic example is the Battle of the Falkland Islands ..." this is the "classic example" according to whom? Sturm, I'm guessing "According to historian X, the classic example ..." or "In the Battle of ..." would work for the Rambling Man, and I think he's right ... opinions should be attributed. - Dank (push to talk) Lemme see if I can find an attribution.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Changed it to best rather than classic. The existing cite suffices.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Best according to "Robert Gardiner"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Indeed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Who is insufficiently notable to not even have an article? Forgive my ignorance, but you're saying that one guy (who is "non-notable" per Wikipedia) is the sole source for the "best" example here. Just seems a little incongruous to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Sturm, many Wikipedians think a statement like this represents an opinion that needs to be attributed in the text, and some want the attribution to an expert, at least at the FAC or FLC level. Rambling Man, I haven't read a tenth the books that Sturm has, but even from my reading, I know that he's representing this accurately; everyone who writes on the subject thinks of this battle as paradigmatic. It wouldn't be going too far to say it's common knowledge among naval historians. What's the best way to represent this in the text without going into a winding digression along the lines of, "X [list of credentials] calls it this, Y [list of credentials] calls it this", etc.? - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Most people quoted in Wikipedia lack an article. Has nothing to do with notability per se. He's a published author, nothing incongruous about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, but you're saying that "in one man's opinion" this is the "best" example. What makes his opinion so important? Are there any other sources which back up the "best example" claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC) <Puzzled>A consensus is not needed and never has been on Wiki. Don't need anybody else's opinion; one man's published opinion suffices since it conforms to WP:V and WP:RS. Just curious how one man's opinion (a man who isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article) counts as absolute. I'm only asking if anyone else in the world shares his opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Dank already explained the consensus position above. Although, again, such consensus wouldn't be needed to justify any superlative. Only takes one author's opinion to support provided it meets V and RS. What's the fundamental point that you're trying to make here? I'm perfectly willing to add an additional cite duplicating the existing one at the end of the paragraph to further clarify that this is Gardiner's position, though that seems an unnecessary duplication to me, but what are you looking for? You seem to care quite a bit that nobody's written an article on Gardiner, although that has absolutely no bearing on any notability he may have, and that some sort of consensus is needed to justify the superlative of best, when, in fact, nothing like that is necessary, nor has it ever been. You've made a number of other worthwhile comments that have improved the article, but I'm wondering what the issue here is since we seem to be talking past each other?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC) The point, I guess, is that you're saying definitively that the "best example" of something is based on one guy's opinion. That's all. It may be me but when I make such claims, I tend to use at least two, preferably more sources to back it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Unnecessary by Wiki standards, but fair enough. I only add multiple cites when I have two or more sources that disagree; an explanatory note is advisable, rather than just picking one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Sturm, different Wikipedians have different standards on this. Whether and how WP:PEACOCK applies depends on whether the statement feels like "This is the greatest!", and that's going to vary depending on the reader and the material. WP:PEACOCK is just a short section in WP:WORDS now; well worth re-reading. Bottom line: when you can find a snappy way to do it, "show, don't tell" (and then if the reader draws the conclusion themselves that it's the paradigmatic battle, that's fine). Sometimes you really want to get across that something was the "best" of something, but it's complicated and there isn't a reasonably quick way to lay out the facts so that the reader can put that together for themselves, and in those cases, quote marks and attribution to someone or something the reader can recognize may be appropriate. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Cite added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC) What's "flash protection"? Going from memory, the issue was protection of the ammunition magazines, but Sturm is the expert here. - Dank (push to talk) Explained, how does it read?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Nice. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC) "a speed of 25 knots" do you mean a "top speed"? I don't remember having seen this point in style guides but I'll keep an eye out for it. In a list of cars, if someone writes that a car has a certain turning radius, would you object that it should be "maximum "minimum turning radius"? Consider another sentence from this article: "... sacrificed armour protection and one gun turret from the main battery for a 4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) speed advantage." Just a personal preference, but "4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) top-speed advantage" seems too involved, and rewording seems too verbose. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Well, what I mean to say is that the cruisers did not always travel at 25 knots, their top speed, however, was 25 knows. And perhaps instead of "advantage" it should be "increase in top speed". And I'm not surprised it's not in style guides. It is, after all, just a point of description, not a rule of grammar. And in car lists, I'd find a list of maximum turning radii to be a very odd thing to list. Perhaps minimum...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Good point, struck "maximum". My point is, do you like "4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) top-speed advantage", and if not, where do we draw the line on omitting "top"? Btw while I've got you ... great copyediting instincts, please weigh in on our articles any time! - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Well, I like the alternative I suggested (i.e. "increase in top speed"), but it's difficult to draw a line in something so qualititative... (as for copyediting, just ask!). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Done, and I will. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I've reverted to the original phrase as I think it is perfectly clear that top speed is being judged. Who wouldn't understand that if my car has speed advantage over somebody else's it refers to maximum speed?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC) It wasn't just the "advantage", it was all mentions of speed which actually should be top speeds. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC) The key specifies top speeds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC) The prose before the lead doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I didn't mind Rambling Man's request for more exact phrasing in a couple of places, it does no harm and maybe it's a little clearer. This current edition of Chicago is great and it wouldn't surprise me if I stumble across this issue in the next month. But I never see the extra words Rambling Man is asking for in a long list of technical specifications. I have a Nissan Altima with a 150-horsepower engine and a 12-volt battery that deliver an acceleration of 0 to 60 mph in 10 seconds. I've never seen anyone describe that as a maximum of 150 horsepower or 12 volts or a maximum acceleration; that goes without saying. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I bet somewhere you have a mention of the "top speed" of the vehicle though. I'm not asking for maximum or top horsepower, but you must concede that cars have "top speeds" in specifications, not just "speed". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC) The top speed is mentioned in the key, with all the other stats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC) The prose before the key doesn't (i.e. my original point). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I don't feel that it needs to be explicated; it's not hard to understand what is meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC) So adding the word "top" in the prose before the key is not possible? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Well I'll be jiggered. I just spent a lot more time on this than I should have, and came to two conclusions: references to cars are much more likely to avoid "speed" as a synonym for "top speed" than I expected, and references to ships are much more likely to use "speed" (meaning "top speed") than I expected. For the first 20 ghits on "ship "top speed"" where it's reasonable to assume some professional copyediting and where there were more than just a few random mentions of speed, every one of them uses "speed" synonymously with "top speed". I don't know what to make of that. On the question at hand: I don't see a problem with adding "top" before the key; it's not like the phrase "top speed" is unknown among aficionados or historians. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Many things are possible, but I don't see a need and it detracts from the prose, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure how making things clearer and more accessible to non-experts and less ambiguous can be a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I guess it's just a style thing because I don't see it as ambiguous at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Style? But you have top speed in the tables.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Right, but it doesn't mess with the flow of the text in that position.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Well, by now it's clear that you're not going to budge, which is a shame. Good work besides. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC) "again appointed" you didn't mention he had been appointed to this position beforehand. Changed to "for the second time". - Dank (push to talk) Worth explaining what a "magazine" is in the context of a "magazine explosion". Linked, and changed to "artillery magazine". - Dank (push to talk) "They spent most of the war" previous sentence ends by talking about just one ship, so this is mildly confusing. Nice catch ... but I think the thing that makes it mildly confusing is that the wrong sentence is first in the paragraph, and I fixed that. - Dank (push to talk) Is it World War I or First World War? I'd prefer the latter, but whichever, be consistent. We lean towards "First World War" in BritEng articles, and there was only one "World War I", so that was the one I changed. I recently found out that WP:AWB automatically checked for duplicate links, and I'm trying to find someone to use it on our FAC and FLC articles, it would have caught this ... anyone? - Dank (push to talk) Sometimes you hyphenate e.g. Lion-class battlecruisers, sometimes you don't, e.g. Admiral class battlecruisers. Is there a reason? Caught the two we missed. There's a recent policy change in WP:TITLE, "Use italics when italics would be used in running text", and I'm wondering if, by analogy, we also want to use hyphens in titles when they'd be used in running text ... I think the mistakes here came from copying the article title. - Dank (push to talk) "sinking her within five minutes of opening fire" of who opening fire? Reworded. - Dank (push to talk) Ref 39, for consistency should be 172–73. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

;Comments Apart from my concern at a number of apparent "drive-by supporters" I have some concern with the table coding. In G3 Battlecruiser I get text wrapping in some odd places (indicated by [br]: "53,909 long tons (54,774[br]t)" and "4 screws, steam turbines, 31 kn (57 [br] km/h; 36 mph)". Some consideration of &nbsp and forced breaks is probably needed. I realise alot of these come from convert templates which should have it hardoded in so... Your width forcing is causing problems. Seem to be random collection of 98% and 100%. Isn't the point of percentages that they add up to 100? In some places it is causing (well I'm pretty sure it's that) some randomness. I've deleted all forced widths, I think that the tables will display a little better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC) In "Indefatigable class" I think rowspans might be causing the absence of a bottom border They're definitely not the cause, although I haven't been able to figure out the problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Turns out you were half right. The rowspans were set to three when they should have been two. All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Do you mean me? If so, see WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy and the edit history. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC) No I was think more of some of the other people who haven't edited the page or participated in that Assessment. But I do admit I was at fault for glossing over "MilHist ACR" in the nominators rationale because I didn't understand what it meant. In future, some reviewers (well I can only speak for one, me) may find it useful to have a link to any peer or WikProject A-class reviews in the rationale. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Screenshot illustrating odd table wrapping. I've been asked to revisit this but I'm still concerned about visual appeal of the tables with unwanted wrapping (screenshot of what I mean to the right). I think this it quite ungainly. Can't find anything in the Convert template stuff that might cause this, or how I can fix it. Could |disp=table be utilised, seehere. I'm interested what other people think as it just frustrates me when things don't display right. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC) It's a function of screen width. They display properly if I change my window size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Unfortuanately it is not just "a function of screen width". I mocked up some tables on the talk page, see here for what I mean. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for spending time on this. My understanding is that we're required to follow the manual of style here. WP:MOSNUM (at WP:MOSCONVERSIONS) recommends the {{convert}} template, and WP:TABLE doesn't make an exception for tables. I have to admit that I have no idea what's customary at FLC, but I'm leery of having an unwritten set of style guidelines that differs from custom at FAC and from the Manual of Style. Would you like to argue your case at WP:TABLE or WP:MOSNUM? - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Actually the MOS doesn't recommend {{Convert}}, it says "Conversion templates can be used to convert and format many common units". However, let's not get into arguing semantics. I recognise Convert is a highly used template, but it is obviously not functioning optimally. My examples are just copying the text from Convert and putting in a few nbsp's (a simple fix if it wasn't for all the coding). Now I think Convert puts in nbsp's, however if it puts them in everywhere it has the same effect as having none at all. I realise this is unlikely to make or break the candidacy but it is clearly an issue (one which I think you have now seen for yourself) and should be addressed – moreover, it likely affects hundreds of articles. My problem there is that the Convert templates have coding that is incredibly hard to follow for us meer mortals. Any idea who would be the code person to go to with this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC) A relevant thread has just been opened at Template_talk:Convert#.26_nbsp.3B. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I gotta say that I'm not very inclined to hand-code a table; too much work for too little return. I may go in and delete all the subsequent conversions as they're not needed and see how how that displays, but that's about the limit I'm willing to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Well it seems there is an easy fix (according to thread linked above) which is using abbr=mos instead of abbr=on for the short units. While you are there can you also check the vertical alignment of text in all the tables. There is a random mixture of top and centre present. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Half there. I hope you agree that this does make a difference. There are some tables that jump out at me as still needed. Queen Mary, Courageous (displacement) and G3 {the earlier columns). Perhaps there are a couple more. Also Sorry, they look fine at my screen width.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Okay this is what I required. Feel free to revert if you think it is wrong, but I see no problems with it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Seperate concern: "8 × 13.5 inches" (Lion) is fine but "8 × 13.5-inch" (QM) is not in my opinion. You'd have a thirteen-inch but not a thirteen-point-five-inch which is how it reads. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC) All guns are now x-inches with a manual conversion. Turns out that the abbr=mos is incompatible with the adjectival form.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Bit more consistency please. I assume you are not converting on second/third appearance etc. Personally I would, but regardless of that it needs to be consistent. Currently 6" converts in Renown even though it has been converted in Invincible class. Double check this hasn't happened elsewhere too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While I have not thoroughly reviewed this (and have found what I've done excessively laborious) I now no-longer have concerns with the tables. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• Can you add a citation to "Suspended 9 March 1917" on one of the tables?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I've made the citations in rows of three instead of two. (They seemed to be getting rather long with only two columns) Feel free to revert if you think it's ugly or something :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
      • That's fine, I'm pretty indifferent either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support With the assumption that all other issues above have been addressed.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Support, no additional issues from me, similar to White Shadows, my support is based upon remaining issues raised being addressed, but it is only a few tweaks away. Nice work on this! Harrias ^talk 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I know this is nitpicking, but could you make the top template a bit more compact? Try to reduce the empty space, or even reduce the font size. Nergaal (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • it's not mine, but I'll look at it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Shrunk. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [9].

---

Gordon Bennett Cup (ballooning)

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Initially I found this by chance, with a curious title and all that, I was engaged by the fact that it happened to be taking place as I read the article. Now, events have taken over, we're missing one of the USA teams somewhere over the Adriatic. It's an amazing race, one of the oldest, slowest and simplest, basically it's "float as far as you can". It's not as simple as it sounds, not by any means. The list won't be up-to-date, of course, until USA2 are heard from/discovered, but in the meantime, I'd like to thank you all for your time and energy in giving me feedback in making this a decent list, one which the community should be proud of. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Update somewhat terribly, I think the list is now stable. USA2 has not been found and the lifeguards have called off their search. Thank you all, once again, for your interest and attention in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Cheers Ucucha. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comment The images are all right-aligned on top of each other, but also above the table for me. I suppose that they are meant to be to the right of the table. Can this easily be fixed? (I know it is not a pleasant task to do that for all browsers and screen resolutions.) bamse (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I need someone clever to help me with that, so it'll be on-going until then...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) OK, I see. bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Well, I looked at the page in Firefox, IE and Chrome and don't see any problem.—Chris!c/t 22:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I think it also depends on the screen resolution. In my case, I am watching it on a small laptop screen at 1024 x 768. It is the same problem for IE, firefox and opera. However, don't waste your time searching for a fix. At some extreme screen sizes such problems always happen. bamse (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 1931 is missing from the list, why? bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC) True, the official website says the event was not held that year. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The row "Event not held from 1940 to 1982" jumps around when sorting. AFAIK, this cannot be helped with present wikipedia table technology. Did you consider getting rid of it completely? bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I could do that. I was asked to put it in, actually, by another editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Looks better now to me. bamse (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Should there be a row like "Event not held from 1940 to 1982" for the time from 1914 to 1919 (supposedly because of WWI)? bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Well if you want me to remove the other row, then I guess this is a moot point! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) It was meant as another option: either have both intervals marked by a row like that or none. bamse (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Every "missing" year is now noted in a referenced note. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The intro could have some more information on who the organizers are (Did Gordon Bennett only sponsor the first race or also subsequent races?) and why the race was not held for a long time after WWII (Who revived it in 1983?). bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I'll see what I can do, but the official website is not particularly useful with respect to your questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Interesting. Did some digging, discovered that an American revived it in 1979 but no results (or evidence of subsequent races until 1983) seem to be considered official by the organisation. Still, it comes from a RS and I've added it in there with a note. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Aha, even better, some official minutes from the various balloon organisation meetings with a quote stating 1983 was the first official running of the trophy since 1938. Added new reference, with quote. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Much better now, but the following phrase confuses me: "appropriate international sanctions, and permission from the Poles". What sanctions? And why did he need permission from the Poles? bamse (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Revised a bit, the Poles were the incumbent holders of the trophy... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments Bamse! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Could he have organized the cup in Poland without permission? Or am I missing something. bamse (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC) He was organising the cup in a country which wasn't the holder, that's why he needed permission from Poland to host it. I guess if he'd done it in Poland, that would have been fine. But he didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. All comments have been addressed. bamse (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 03:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Incredibly fascinating subject, much different than the usual stuff that comes through FLC. Nice choice. Agreed, a very interesting topic! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Is the race still on-going? If it is, it should say "the race has been marred" instead of "was marred" in the third paragraph of the lead, as it's still current. Yes, it's still on-going until the discover the fate USA2. Obviously the list will be updated at the conclusion of all this, but I've made your change regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) In the rules section, what is "FAI"? It should be defined first before being used as an abbreviation. My mistake, it was, however, a direct quotation from the rules. Now expanded and linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The second paragraph of the rules section is a bit confusing. Does the NAC host the next tournament, or does the country that the NAC is from host the next tournament? Might be best to clarify that. The winning team represents a NAC. That NAC then hosts the competition two years later... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC) "Any NAC winning the cup in three consecutive races will be the final holder of the cup..." Does this mean that if one NAC wins three times in a row, the tournament as a whole ends? Or do they get to keep the trophy and offer a new one in its place? It means as it says, the trophy can be kept and the NAC is invited to host a new tournament. It doesn't appear to have happened though! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The sortability of the list checks out, as do most of the references– I don't have Excel or Open Office right now though, so I couldn't check the main source of the list. Otherwise though it appears to be well written and well put together, well done. Nomader (Talk) 05:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm terribly sorry that I haven't had the time to do a more thorough review for such a fascinating list, college is just eating away my time. I'll let the other reviewers express their support, as unfortunately I haven't looked at this closely enough to lend myself to either direction. From my quick glance though, it's a job well done Rambling Man! Nomader ^(Talk) 03:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) Many were previously addressed here. Why is the 2009 time missing? Dunno, added now! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 2010 row is currently not cited (it isn't in the Excel spreadsheet) Cited from 2010 website. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) The time disagree unless you are drawing on another source. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC) WRT that row you removed because it was jumping around with sorting. Although Bamse said there wasn't a workaround I think this would work if you wished. However, I'll leave this to you and Bamse. I don't feel strongly about these colspan rows. However, the problem here is that there is no meaningful position for these rows when you sort for anything besides "Date". Note that this is different to the examples in the colspan workaround which do have a meaningful position when sorting for either of the two columns. Besides, it would be quite cumbersome to implement something like it here. bamse (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC) I feel, like bamse, if the colspans bunch up or jump around when sorted by something other than date, then the notes will suffice. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Are the italics needed as well. They don't help from an access POV. Italics removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) This might mean some work but isn't it logical for location to sort like "United States, Albequerque (sp!)" and "United States, Chicago" so the same host countries sort together. I remember mentioning this at someone elses FLC in the past. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC) "record time for the event" is ... While possible, this is not necessarily true. It is the longest time in the air of a winner, however times of non-winners are not listed as far as I can see and it is is possible that someones stayed in the air longer but in little/no air current so didn't travel far, didn't win, and isn't recorded. Understand where I'm coming from? Added "... the winner of..." between "for" and "the". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Never know the answer to this in "American teams", is American acceptable for refering to the US (bit like the British, for the UK) thing you asked me in an FLC. I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not American! Unless anyone finds it offensive, I'll leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) "Any NAC winning the cup in three consecutive races will be the final holder" is this a recent rule or have there been other trophies as there is certainly occassions where this has happened. Well, it does go on to say that they can offer to hold the next race, and that's what's happened as far as I can tell. There's no evidence to suggest that the trophy or the contest has been abandoned after one of these. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Interstingly this claimed Joe Kissinger "retired the trophy with three consecutive victories" although I thought for ages that it didn't quite match up, this shows a win in 1982. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC) I think the trophy could have been "retired" but as the rules say, it can be offered up once again by the winning NAC... But with regard to the results, I'm using the official list from the official website, no sign of Ki(tt/ss)inger there...! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Otherwise good list. Always nice to see something less mainstream and cookie-cutter. And I definately owed you this review (and a few more!) after all you've done for me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You mention Anderson and Ida's death. This wasn't in the Gordon Bennet Cup it was in the "Coupe Charles et Robert" (after Jacques Charles and the Robert brothers) – for the 200th two races were held that year.[10] That should probably be mentioned (the other race, that is). And the deaths were apparently why that race was never held again. Man alive, until I started this, I had no idea at all about the sheer number of these wacky races. I've removed the reference to Anderson and Ida (so now the Daily Telegraph better issue an apology for ripping the article off without attribution!!!) and I'm not sure the other race is really directly relevant here. It may start a trend of balloon-based lists though....! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Actually on further digging the distinction is subtle. 1983 newspapers articles ([11][12]) described it as part of the "Gordon Bennett Internation Balloon Race". Also, out of curiousity which Telegraph article (I like to keep track of these as an error I accedientally put in an article recently got published by "relaible source" The Guardian. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC) I think whatever this race was it was part of the Gordon Bennett event and should be included somehow. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC) But even the official results don't include Anderson and Ida... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC) And some sources are published "before" the race was run... But overwhelming evidence seems to support the reinclusion of the crash, in my opinion. So done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC) If you read the 1983 story in full it explains that the races took place simultaneously with the same rules. Basically it was a way to get around the rules of only two balloons per nation, giving 7 more racers. Newspapers at the time seemed to report it as an 18 balloon race.[13][14][15] Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC) I looked at those stories and tried to check that they're reliable (they're certainly floral/tabloidy in language), with no success. They nice and anecdotal. I've reinstated the para I removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry to drag this on. I reckon the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[16] and the The New York Times (which puts it in the title) [17] are pretty reliable. Anyway, I think the accident should be mentioned within a context of the Coupe Charles et Robert which allowed additional competitors to compete and was never held again after the deaths. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC) WRT 1979 re-incarnation, attributed to Thomas F. Heinsheimer: Winners: Double Eagle III, Ben Abruzzo and Maxie Anderson, 617 miles, Long Beach CA and it was sponsered by a Bennet connection, International Herald Tribune. It seems to take the Bennet name in sources e.g. BritannicaToledo Blade but I've seen it called "the ‘alternative’ Gordon Bennett Balloon Race"[18] I found some official FAI sources describing this which hopefully covers it nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Looking at Google news it occured again with "private sponsor" on April 26, 1980 in LA (from Mile Square Regional Park?) where Ben Abruzzo and Rocky Aoki won with 1347 miles[19] Per above, another unofficial race. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC) That looks like the 1981 result, not the 1980 race. I couldn't get much out the first Google link bu the second was the 1982 Toledo Blade link which referred to Abruzzo and Aoki winning "last year"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Ah yes my mistake. Don't underestimate the power of Google news on this event. Here you go. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Great, added, thanks. I'm usually pretty good with Google News, obviously having a bad day of it... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Rosie O'Grady piltoed by Joe Kissinger and Charles Knapp won at 884 mi. this Per above, this wasn't official, according to the FAI, good spot though. I'm not sure I should be including unofficial runnings (and their statistics) in the official list of winners. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Controversial winner who altighted from his balloon worth a mention?[20] That's interesting, but on my screen the source is a bit mangled, and I can't quite work out if the balloon carried on with just his co-pilot onboard or not? I may look for another source... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC) There was also a Gordon Bennett Trophy for an aeroplane race[21] (see also?) I see that. I've added it to the dab and this page, but it's a redlink and I'm not sure if that's a good idea for See also? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC) I think this is like the semi-professional Anglo-Italian Cup era or actually, even better, the WWII List of French Open men's singles champions. Basically, at the time it was considered to be the GBC and retrospective action was taken. If you don't include the winners in the table (which is okay by me) I'd have a paragraph to cover Heinsheimer, the 79–82 winners, and the battle over rights that ensued. Lack of sources no-longer seems to a problem (you could also mention these are no-longer/not regarded as official results). Good compromise? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, a fair compromise. I certainly don't want to include them in the table as they simply aren't official winners, but it seems like a reasonable thing to talk about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC) The details are mostly there but I think we can include all the locations, distances, times, (dates?), balloon names, (co)pilots etc. for the unofficial ones. Some of it is there but a few aren't and I'm pretty sure I've seen almost all this information somewhere that I've linked. If you struggle let me know and I'll see what I can do. I think that paragraph should end with a piece about the conflict between FAI and Heinsheimer. Also, "With sponsorship from the International Herald Tribune (reviving a connection to Bennett himself)" is uncited. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC) The sponsorship thing, I thought you said that earlier on! I'll remove it. As for the others, I'm not sure it's strictly necessary to get all the detail of everything for every unofficial race, especially as I'm not creating a nasty little table for it. The prose is better suited with a bit of variety. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Capped above comments not because everything is resolved but because it almpst is and I'm stuggling to follow it myself and it is easier to restate issues. With regard to the rules thing, I have some issues. There are the current rules but should you note their development. From our previous discussions and that 1983 story report only two teams were eligible per nation then and was when some tracking change came in which led to the necessity to have an English speaker. I also think that the part about winning NAC hosy next two year must be very new (especially when comparing locations and previous winners). Added max teams change, added previous rule on incumbent winners' obligation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC) "gain the copyright over the name "Gordon Bennett" and run the event" - needs rephrasing as the name Gordon Bennett is also linked to other sport competitions and I don't think Heisenheimer was trying to get rights over those too. Actually, this is causing more grief than it's worth. I added it in on your suggestion, just to have it tagged as {{dubious}} by another editor because most likely it was trademark, not copyright. I'm using the reference as I found it. Perhaps I should remove it altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Actually this interests me more. It appears Heisenheimer ran a "Gordon Bennett International Balloon Race" in 1984 in the USA. It was also run by Heisenheimer in 1986, in 1988, in 1989. My guess is the FAI doesn't tell the whole truth. This will explain discrepancies such as Kittinger having four unknown wins in the capped cmts. There seemed to be a Central Europe vs USA divide in the 1980s. I saw a few subscription mentions of an American hosted "Gordon Bennett" in the very early 1990s but it was obviously resolved by 1993 ([22]). Unofficial section needs a bit more I think (I know this is probably frustrating but I don't think this should be ignored). The 1983 FIA source says the law suit was still pending (C6 p6). Are there any that actually state an outcome. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, this is becoming a little frustrating as none of this actually relates to the official running of the Cup. However, I'm in for a penny, as you note. I can't and won't go into assuming the FAI "doesn't tell the whole truth". If that's the case then I guess we should close the FLC down as most of its references are sourced from them. The 1983 FAI source said that FAI was granted copyright over the name. While the Google News searches are good, a number of them seem to indicate a general "ignorance" when it comes to stating what is what. I could add a single sentence suggesting that other (more "other") unofficial (well, "reported") Gordon Bennett Cup races have been held... but beyond that, I'm losing the will. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I've added a further paragraph with your additional references. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Looks good. Also I missed the paragraph on the trademark from the 1983 minutes (I was to into the 1982 minutes in the para above - must be losing the will to review!). I think that addition is good. Just spent some time struggling to search patents/trademarks and it looks like this was the claim rejected in 1983 after being "published for opposition. Not sure if that is any help or helps clarify a current position. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Besides being another source for what's already summarised as a sideline to the main list, I think this wouldn't add a great deal more. In fact, I now get the feeling that the whole "joy" of the race, its simplicity, history etc has been overwhelmed by the modern-day nastiness if anything. Bitter-sweet, and mildly ironic considering what happened this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC) If I'm being anal about citing then 2010 should probably have that cite in every column and date, starting point, country, balloon name (probably the XLS sheet) on headings. Either that or use a general reference. Actually can I be fairly picky here as it is a fairly easy change. Unless there is a reason to, can you use http://www.coupegordonbennett.org/history/results (current ref 24) to cite headings where possible (as it's plain HTML) and then the spreadsheet for stuff not covered by that. I think that should be okay but you'll know better than me. Done, general ref added. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Be consistent with the format field linked or not and ALL CAPS or not - I prefer the former, but only require consistency :) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Infobox needs updating per 2010 Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC) If it is too much effort that is fine but for visual appeal I quite like to ofset the spacing of stars and references with sort keys and {{0}}. If you are interested and want code to copy, my current FLC has it ;) I'm not sure what you mean, I'm delighted with the way this list looks (in Safari, of course!). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I see it now. Seems incredibly complicated markup to just move that * over a bit. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Yes but it looks better, especially for the references (not so much the *) but in for a penny... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Oh and the Ulrich refs have fore/surnames mixed up I think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Support - this may be the last request I get from TRM for a review! However, he's had to put up with me being fairly picky and, I believe, we have now reached a stage which better reflects the true histroy. I'm glad the legal battle and unsactioned unofficial era is now covered but am sorry if I have taken away from the simplistic joy of the race to you or any readers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• For the benefit of those afraid to click "show", Rambo's Revenge's review has been second to none, unflinching in asking the same question until I answer it, negotiating over detail, analysing fact, not to mention heading off to find resources to help me improve the list, and I'm the first to admit that I had no idea it was going to be this way. However, I think as a result of this (and the other reviews here), we already have the world's best singular resource on this subject. So well done everyone, and thanks to RR for the excruciating review (!)... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Is there a reason why the infobox only lists 1 person as the most recent winner when the list shows 2 people as the the winning crew? I tried to help you update, but did not when I notice this discrepancy.—Chris!_c/t 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure but it is probably the pilot (the table lists co-pilots too if you read the key) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's the pilot with seven wins, who has had different co-pilots. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, that makes sense. Sorry for not reading carefully.—Chris!_c/t 20:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments – I already gave a review on the talk page, so half (or more) of the battle is already done. Only a couple of new things to report:

• "to host the trophy. The trophy...". Try not to have this kind of repetition, if possible.
• There's a note D in the table, but it's not showing up in the notes section. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Got both of these I think, thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Very, very nice. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments No red links in the See also section. Agreed, gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Ref 6 needs some form of work/publisher Done, added. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Ref 10; "Ulrich, Hohmann Sr." Shouldn't this be "Ulrich Sr., Hohmann"? Yessum. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Ref 12 needs the location, lots of Bulletins, after all. Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Ref 14, same thing. Ditto ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "interrupted by World War I and in 1931" Try 'interrupted by World War I from 1914–1919, and again in 1931.' Don't like, as this implies the 1931 break was interrupted as a result of WWI. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Stupid question. Should the names of the balloons by italicised as ships are? Not stupid, no clear precedent, so I'm keeping it as-is right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "On September 30, the USA retrieve crew suggested" Retrieval? Changed (although that's what the source said) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Since Austria won six in a row (And France later three), why didn't they keep the trophy? This has been discussed above - the rules say the "could" keep the trophy but would have to start a new contest up, which must have happened. There's nothing specific about it in any source I can find...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 2008, shouldn't the country be given as United Kingdom, not Great Britain? No, GBR is the "country", not UK. UK includes Northern Ireland, (i.e. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - it's a hornet's nest though, I have a "British" passport despite being English and living in the UK. You tell me what I'm supposed to do...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 20:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Much obliged Courcelles.. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I would probably go through and italicise the balloon names, but no big deal. Courcelles 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Your wish is my command. I found some limited advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text_formatting)#Italic face, it didn't mention balloons but I guess they are analagous to ships, so italics done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [23].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FLC criteria. It is based upon existing FL List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Glenn McGrath. Harrias ^talk 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

*Pity image is of Beefy batting. Anyway, make it bigger, so I can see the moustache. Aye, I'm just glad to have an image to use at all though! Made it bigger for you too. Perhaps make OBE and ICC clear before you abbreviate them? Done. Windies is overlinked in the lead. Done. Consider splitting the key into two columns. Done. Note 1 could use a reference. Done. Date ranges in references should still comply with WP:DASH. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! Harrias talk 19:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC) "As of July 2010..." soon to be October... I don't like this phrasing at all, any objection to simply remove the "as of..." completely? As this is a FL, it should be kept up to date anyway, and its not something that's going to get surpassed rapidly and frequently. Maybe we need a solution which is list-wide, like the "Statistics correct as of ..." statements we sometimes see. You're right that FLs should be up to date but often, they're not. For the moment I'd say change it to October, add a note to the top of the list that says "Stats correct.." and that should do it. Luckily for Beefy there's no-one too close to his individual records (in this list at least) so it'll be fine, but maybe we need a "universal" solution... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC) What would be the purpose of the "Stats correct.." at the top of the list? For the list stats? Because they're not (in this case) going to change, so I don't see the need in that case? Harrias talk 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) No, you're right, the stats won't change, but Beefy's position as "England's fourth highest wicket-taker" and "sixth overall in all-time Test five-wicket haul takers" should be timeframed... (in my opinion...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC) How about removing the "As of.." and placing a note (in the style of "note 1") saying "Statistics correct as of 30 September 2010 (or 2010-09-30)? Harrias talk 22:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Bought, sealed, delivered, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Right, how's that? I put 'records' instead of 'statistics' as it seemed a more accurate reflection.Harrias talk 22:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments He's a Knight Bachelor, right? Link knighted to Knight Bachelor in "and was knighted for his services to cricket and charity work in 2007.", then. Done. "He made his international debut for England in August 1976 in a One Day International (ODI) against the West Indies." This is nitpicky, but since ODI's are on, well, one day, I'd give the exact date here. Done. Here's what's going to be my most contentious comment... explain to the cricket dunce why five wickets is worthy of a list, instead of.. say, four? In many ways I suppose it's an arbitrary point at which it is considered the bowler has done well. No different to a century being so for a batsman, after all, what really makes 100 so much better than 99? But, these are the points at which it is considered an achievement (at least in the modern game: in pre-Second World War cricket I've never seen much import placed upon it, with ten wickets in a match being used as an indicator instead). However, with covered pitches and other factors which have swung the game more in favour of the batsmen, 10 wickets is a much more rare occurrence, and five wickets in an innings has taken on much greater importance. This probably doesn't answer the question well enough, and you probably just wanted a small note in the article, but you've got my ramblings instead! Yeah, I do think it needs some explanation in the list, kind of like the Opening Day FLC running now had to explain in the list why starting on Opening Day meant anything. Courcelles 07:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, if this is based on the Glenn McGrath list, there's a rather neat introduction to why a five-for is notable. A very good job, if I do say so myself...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Stole phrase directly from Glenn McGrath list, thanks! Harrias talk 11:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC) "Date – Date the match was held. Starting date of the match for Test matches." But everything listed here is a test match, so this could handle a reword. Done. Courcelles 01:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Responded to comments. Harrias talk 06:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

*Quick comments Please could you make the numeric columns centre-aligned rather than crammed up against the LH edge of the cell. I will do, assuming no other editor has any objection to it. Done.Harrias talk 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Is there a reason why the WI Cricket Board flag isn't used? The WI Cricket Board flag is not free use. Stupid of me, I saw it in List of Test cricket triple centuries, but didn't realise how long ago that list went through FLC Why does the list include Economy but not Maidens? I think economy is a better indicator of the bowling that the number of maidens. Personally. What doesn't help is that I'd intended to write "but not Maidens or Bowling Average", sorry about that... If we were talking ODIs, I'd agree that economy was more relevant, but we're not. A bowler's analysis is still given as O-M-R-W, and lists of bowlers are still (for Test cricket, anyway) ordered on bowling average. In the 1970s/80s, when Botham was playing, economy wasn't really a concept applied to Test cricket. Wisden didn't record it, and the only mention in the Daily Telegraph's book of the 1981 Ashes series (ISBN 0901684716), which reproduces each day's match report from the newspaper and also Bill Frindall's scorecards, is at the end, in a list of each team's bowlers, which after O-M-R-W-Ave-BB-5w-10w, has two economy-related columns, balls/wicket and runs/100 balls (and the headings are written out in full, not abbreviated like the standard stuff, to be sure the reader understands). I'd suggest that including maidens and calculating the bowling average for each 5-wicket haul might provide a better overall indicator of the bowling, and a less anachronistic one, than runs/over economy alone. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Well argued. I agree with your comments, but before making any change, I'd like to invite The Rambling Man, as the primary contributor to the Wasim Akram and Glenn McGrath lists to comment. Not so that I can say "well they don't have it, why should I?" But rather because I feel if this change is made in this list, it should also be made in those (and Muralitharan, though the primary contributor from that has retired). Harrias talk 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I'm only popping by and won't be back for a few days, but my initial instinct is that we all use Cricinfo for our main stats, and don't synthesise others for the purpose of these best-of lists. I'm tired and probably have missed the point, but I'll get back to you on Monday/Tuesday if that's the case. In general, while stats may have been calculated/published subtly different in the past, I think we probably should go with the current and compare apples with apples. Bare and legitimate economy stats should be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Having read TRM's comments, and thought about this more myself, I don't really favour the inclusion of maidens or bowling average in the table. Bowling average is not generally a statistic applied to a single match, being used across a number of matches instead. Maidens, while possibly a relevant statistic, don't necessarily tell the whole story. Given that the other FLs of this type don't include it, and that no particular consensus has been reached by the three of us, I'm going to leave it out for the time being. However, I will bring the conversation up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket and see what the consensus is there. Harrias talk 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC) On further consideration, you're right about bowling average. I'd also agree that maidens don't tell the whole story, but neither does economy. Together, they possibly give a broader picture of the bowling performance than does either alone. And as cricinfo still records maidens, even for ODIs, no-one could consider their inclusion as in any way synthetic or not "legitimate", and I vaguely wonder why whoever first wrote one of these lists decided to leave them out. Though I accept entirely that there's no consensus here to put them in, and that this isn't the place to continue the debate :-) Please feel free to strike this thread, or put it under the yellow cap with my other comments, once you've read this. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Harrias talk 17:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Three straight sentences in the first paragraph start with "He". A little more variety would be nice. The first use would be a good place to start, since what comes beforehand isn't directly related to Botham. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Done, have altered the first and third of that sequence. Harrias ^talk 22:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support – Note that I fixed a grammatical issue that likely related to the fix which was made. Other than that now-addressed item, everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| . MOS has changed a lot since then. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Thank you for the constructive criticism. Oh wait, no, it wasn't that at all.
2. I've looked at WP:MOS and I see nothing that says I have to do this. Although I agree that it is covered in Help:Table.
3. As far as I can tell, I've now fixed it, do you still oppose? If not, wouldn't a comment, rather than an opposition have made more sense initially?
4. Thanks for the civility.Harrias ^talk 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

yes I'm sorry it should have been comment and I should have linked you to the MOS page at WP:ACCESS#Data tables. I didnt mean to cause confusion on what is a well written article -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [24].

---

Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it now has ten items and is therefore eligible, and the NHL awards FT is going to be delisted unless this list gets to FL. Please bear in mind that what I know about ice hockey consists pretty much entirely of the fact that they fight a lot and someone called Wayne Gretzky was pretty good once (I only decided to have a go at this FLC so as to save a FT), so be gentle with me when raising concerns :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs), the main contributor, has been consulted and is OK with this nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support – I made a tweak to the article regarding NHL, but it's a nice article, which despite being a short list covers the topic (in my opinion) excellently. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

*Infobox - should Goaltender be capitalised if it's supposed to be a run-on from "Awarded to the..."? " joined the MBNA America Bank" in what capacity? "won the award in the first season of its existence" maybe "won the inaugural award"? "cancelled" this could be wrong but I thought USEng would make that "canceled"? Note - this is more about references than notes, isn't it? Ref 15 has an odd retrieve date from the others...! Just checking, where's the clear reference for each of the "still active" players? The ref against each line includes the player's "current status"..... Ref 3 needs a spaced en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC) All addressed other than as above, thanks as ever for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Win # - this is usually dealt with in these sorts of lists with a (2), (3) etc after the player name rather than dedicate a whole column to it, particularly when only one player can claim a (2). You still need a key for this... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Couldn't think of a good way to word it in key form, so just put it in the table....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. A bunch of NBA/NFL/NHL award tables use this and I can't remember what they say in the key. But no stress. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support For a short list, I think this suitably covers the topic. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support above improvements have taken place and as stated despite it's length it covers the topic--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support – A small one, but it does meet the standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Question why isn't there anything on the idea of how the prize originated? This is a recent award and therefore such info ought to be available easily. Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, no discussions are ever leaked to the public. It's sort of a "Surprise! Here's a new award, the Mark Messier Leadership Award" or "We just renamed the Lester B. Pearson award to the Ted Lindsay Award. No big deal, we didn't have to tell you." I'm not sure if it was the same thing in 1999 or whenever. Or maybe I just don't follow hockey news enough. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 23:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The article already notes that MBNA decided to create the award in honour of Crozier, I couldn't find anything more in-depth than that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

retracted comment -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [25].

---

Hugo Award for Best Fanzine

Nominator(s): PresN 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Back again, with the Hugo Award for Best Novel Novella Novelette Short Story Related Work Professional Magazine Semiprozine Fanzine, the category for fan, or non-professional, magazines. As always, comments from previous FLCs have been incorporated into this list. This looks to be my last one for a while as well as the last magazine Hugo award article- I've been really busy in real life, and I've run out of the buffer I'd built up. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 02:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Personally, I find this passage, "Specifically, it must not meet at least two of the following criteria: ... and that announced itself to be a semiprozine." to be rather confusing. I wonder if recasting it as "it must meet four of the following..." would be clearer? "Locus has won 8 times out of 13 nominations" Italics on Locus "As editor of Locus Charles N. Brown" Ditto "Entries with a blue background have won the award;" Well.. not quite. The blue is only for the year the publication won, correct? Shouldn't the renames sort together? You know what comes now, my ref nitpicking! Location/publisher for refs 1, 2, 3, 7. Location for 11. Courcelles 05:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Done. --PresN 17:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 02:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dan Dassow (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a comment. Comment - PresN, it looks like your final Hugo related list should pass through review quickly. I found very few problems with the list after a thorough review. I have two minor nit picks. I will support the promotion to FL once these are addressed. I'm confused by the phrase at the beginning of the second paragraph, "Specifically, it must meet one or zero of the following criteria ...". Shouldn't that be "Specifically, it must meet one or more of the following criteria ..."? No, I've tried to clear it up in the article, tell me if it works. Originally there were only the fanzine and professional magazine categories. When the WSFS created the "Semiprozine" category, they defined the border between a "fan"zine and a "semipro"zine with five criteria- if you meet 2 or more of the 5 criteria, you're a semiprozine; 1 or 0, and you're a fanzine. Therefore, the only formal definition of what a fanzine is is that it does not meet 2 or more of the semiprozine criteria. There are no red links. Whoops, winners now all linked. There are two dead links according to webchecklinks. Both links return the message, "Sorry nothing found". Ref 60: http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2004-hugo-awards/ Ref 61: http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/ Fixed and fixed. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Alright, addressed your points. --PresN 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Issues are resolved to my satisfaction. --Dan Dassow (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Infobox - the "won for" parameter, I always think this should read as a sentence, so start uncapitalised and end with a full stop. Unless you really feel stringly about this I disagree. The "awarded for" and the description are two separte columns, and are not a sentence. None of the other rows in the box work as a sentence. No, it's my personal preference so I can't disagree with your approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I think it may be worth linking "fanzine" to the non-Sci-fi related version, as some non-experts would never have heard of the term. Sure, done. Any reason why no 1958 award was made? Not sure. They didn't have any formalized rules around the awards back then, so each worldcon decided which categories to include. That year they only did Professional magazines; it's possible that they tried to do fanzines as well but didn't get enough nominations, but if so no one wrote that down somewhere. Fair enough, I hate it when these lists (including most, if not all of my noms) have "unexplained years", hence the question. If there's no evidence then so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC) "The award was first presented in 1955" vs "During the 58 nomination years" - taking account of 1958, I'm not sure how this works out? 55, 56, 57, 59 = 4; 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's = 54, 2010 = 55, and the three retro years = 58. Okay, so you're counting the retro years both as normal years and retro years? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC) In the context of that paragraph (the counting part) I'm not counting them as one or the other- I'm using "nomination years", with no distinction made between whether the year was a regular one or a retro one. Your comment implied that they were being double-counted. Yes, it's the double-accounting that I'm worried about. Still think it could be confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Alright, tweaked it to "During the 58 nomination years, including Retro Hugo years, ..." 1981 - Starship, sorting by Work, appears out of order. And Speculation in reverse Work order seems out of order too. Per Courcelles above, the magazines that got renamed are sorted by their first name, to keep them together. Perhaps a note could be used. Otherwise this really could be confusing. And given two reasonably experienced reviewers have fallen foul of it, it seems likely to catch out the drive-by reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Note added, but it's only one editor- Courcelles was the one who told me to do it in the first place. With you. Courcelles recommended the rename, I got confused, right? A note would therefore please all the people, all the time...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Not keen on the last of the external links, not convinced it's suitable for us, are those fanzines printed legitimately? Whoops, forget to check the external links. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Replied in-line. --PresN 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Replied again. --PresN 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Looking at the list and seeing all of the resolved comments, I think that it passes FL criteria. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ummm... what? The page you linked to is about how to make a table with Wikicode. It's not a guideline or even a suggestion, it's a help manual. I actually don't think I've ever seen a wikitable that used "scope="col"" or whatever, and it's certainly not a requirement. --PresN 19:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies that's my fault. I should have directed you to WP:ACCESS#Data table. It is part of MoS but because people are not that aware of it there is some opposition to it. So again sorry if it was confusing. I linked to the help page because it shows how wikitables should be programmed. They are being slowly implemented e.g. Rihanna discography -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So... Basically one/a few people came up with a way to code wikitables that works out to better html (A good thing), and with no real discussion they then by fiat put it in the MOS. And now I'm supposed to spend a few hours rewriting the tables in all of my FLs in order to get the exact same visual output? While even you, who seems to be the only supporter of it in these FLCs that I see, admits that as soon as people actually found out about it there was opposition? I'm not feeling well right now so I might be a bit rude here, but I think I'll pass on this. Go back to WP:ACCESS and tell them to get a bot to run through all of the hundreds of thousands of tables on WP, rather than making people do manual drudge work on a few hundred FLs. --PresN 22:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Manual of Style Issues you said that you were going to retract your comments at all of the FLCs, so I'm just going to assume that you forgot this one. --PresN 23:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [26].

---

Grammy Award for Best Bluegrass Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all FL criteria and resembles the other Grammy-related featured lists I have produced (see profile for a complete list). As always, a huge thank you to reviewers for taking the time to look over the list and offer suggestions if needed. Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=f0gOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5n4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6904,613679&dq is dead. Ucucha 21:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just saw this myself (bot update on watchlist). However, this may be a temporary problem, as I noticed several other pages on my watchlist were updated with the "dead link" template. All of them involve Google News links, so either there is a temporary glitch with Google News links, or by coincidence several links have "died" very recently (I access many of these links often since they can be repeated on the other Grammy-related lists I work on). I will be sure to keep an eye on the pages recently updated by the bot. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Well, the link is still dead, so I went ahead and replaced it with another reference. Hopefully the problem will correct itself, because a bunch of articles on my watchlist were just marked by the same bot for dead links. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha 18:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 02:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "From 1990 to 1991 the name of the category was changed to Best Bluegrass Recording, and in 1990 the award was reserved for singles rather than albums. Since 1992, the award has been presented under the category Best Bluegrass Album. Beginning in 1993, award recipients often included the producers, engineers, and/or mixers associated with the nominated work in addition to the recording artists. In 1995 and 1997, producers of compilation albums were the only award recipients." Wow, that's a lot of text that needs sourced there. All of the information in that paragraph can be verified by the single General source. When viewing the list of recipients on the Grammy Awards site, you will see the award name changes and the additional recipients apart from the artists. However, if you feel the General source should also be used as a specific source at the end of the paragraph, I'd be happy to add it. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Yeah, this needs doing. Pulling this information out of that general source isn't the easiest thing in the world to do. A source directly saying all this would be even better. Courcelles 01:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC) I added the Grammy Award site as a reference to the most specific claim in the paragraph. The other claims can be verified by visiting the same source, by simply looking at the table, or by visiting the source in the Ref column for that particular ceremony. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC) As of 2010, Alison Krauss and Ricky Skaggs and Kentucky Thunder share the record" This needs something to indicate the last two items are a singular unit. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I have to do it. Refs 3 and 11 need the publisher. Ah! I thought I was way ahead of you on this one, but you found reference inconsistencies nonetheless. Well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 05:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks, as always, for your suggestions. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 02:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments (way, way minor) "From 1990 to 1991 " Prefer "In 1990 and 1991..." Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC) "the name of the category was changed to " -> "the category was renamed" (tighter) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Just a quick check, every member of the Various artists originate from the US? Wanted to be clear that your "The award has been presented to artists or groups originating from the United States each year to date" was actually definitely true! Well, I am not sure that every participating musician on the compilations are American, but the award recipients (Jerry Douglas, Tut Taylor, Todd Phillips) are. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure, it may give undue weight, but when I read that "Steve Martin" had won it in 2010, I immediately assumed it wasn't comedian Steve Martin. Maybe, just maybe, worth a sneaky mention in the lead in the guise of "...most recent winner was..."? Done. Once a new winner is announced for the 2011 awards, I'd be happy to update Martin's caption to include "comedian". --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 4 could have page=W7 added. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 6 is page 6B. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Perhaps check other Google newspaper references to add this additional info. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you much! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support no worries from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - all looks good to me. You're doing well with the Grammy lists, you can't have more than another 297 to go ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| Also the use of lots of small text fails the principles of WP:ACCESS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware there are requirements for table construction. Aren't there different table formats used throughout Wikipedia? Also, the smaller text prevents significant line wrapping and signifies that entries are nominees but not winners. Both the table and the smaller text are consistent with other Grammy-related featured lists. I am always happy to comply with Wikipedia rules, but could I get feedback from another reviewer or a FL director before making changes? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK on second thoughts the small text could be seen to serve a purpose. But the wikitable code stuff requires a definite update. There are different formats used but now according to WP:Wikitable there is only one approved format which cannot be compromised as it is the only format which passes WP:MOS. Of course other people can comment. I brought it up as I am a member of project WP:ACCESS and I've noticed that a lot of people still haven't realised that changes have been made hence this is the best way for us to get the message out. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... I am not too familiar with table construction (I tend to find one that works for me then copy it over to other articles I am working on), but I will take a look at the link you provided and see if I can correct the table. Assuming we can settle on a new format with works for all, I will copy the table format over to the other Grammy-related FLs I have worked on. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. WP:Wikitable is not WP:MOS. It's a help page. Please define exactly what part of MOS this list fails. Be very precise so we can assess whether it needs to be fixed, and whether it has knock-on effects to other FLCs. The best way to "get the message out" would have been to alert the FLC contributors at WT:FLC that there was an issue, not suddenly "fail"/"oppose" a dozen lists within 20 minutes with comments that don't appear to be (a) valid or (b) part of MOS. We really don't need anything else to dissuade contributors at FLC – this "moving goalposts" as a result of a supposed MOS change is extremely unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about this concern has spread to several pages. I am trying to follow the conversation, but it is proving to be somewhat difficult. I hope that FLC nominators will be notified as to whether or not changes need to be made once a decision is reached (and that enough time will be given to make the changes if any are required). Just posting my thoughts since I feel this nomination is in a bit of a state of limbo, as is the other Grammy list currently undergoing review at FLC. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [27].

---

List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players

Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets FL criteria. There was a sorting issue a couple of weeks ago but it all looks fine now after I included {{Sort}} in the rows which weren't sorting correctly. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links. The external link to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/plymouth-argyle/1964-1965/results returned a "Page not found" message a minute ago, but is now working fine. Ucucha 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why it happens but the site has always been working whenever I've visited it. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - can't see any issues. One suggestion though - since you have appearances as sub as a separate column, is it worth adding a note to the effect that substitutes were not introduced until the 1960s? Just in case people are wondering how come none of the players before then were ever used as a sub.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'll see what I can do later when I have time to sit down and focus, got to head out in a minute. Thanks for the suggestion. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Have now added a sentence about the introduction of substitutes to note C. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Who was the player who took part in the World Cup?

Added the player in question.

• In reference 22, spell out FIFA.

Done.

• What makes http://www.neilbrown.newcastlefans.com/ a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The websites primary source is "The Premier and Football League Player's Records" series of books by Barry Hugman. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments - super mild mind you... Is there a good link for "professional club"? The reference to Danes? It states that the club became a limited company on 8 January 1903 and were elected to the Southern League for the beginning of the 1903–04. I've moved it back to the date to confirm it since the season the club joined the league is common knowledge. " and promotion to the second tier of English football " just struck me but before this point, you haven't mentioned what tier they were in/elected to. I've had a tinker, any better? Replaced tier with division. I'd love it if divisional names are returned to their original form one day, some people refer to League One as the First Division now which is hilarious, but in the world we live in I doubt it. Not sure ref [20] covers "having made 21 appearances for Northern Ireland during his Argyle career". Added a link to his profile on the Irish Football Association website. Still waiting for the SFA to add a profile for Jamie Mackie! If it were me, I'd add context to Rory Fallon's World Cup appearance, i.e. when and for whom? Done. FIFA used as an abbreviation in the key, but not explained. *think non-expert*. Added that FIFA is the sports governing body, I assume that is what you mean? Note T needs a . Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Very kind of you saying "super mild", I'm surprised you're not fed up with the amount of Argyle content yet! Argyle 4 Lifetalk 04:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support in a very good state. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments In the lead, could you link "caretaker". Done. Could you clarify somewhere that the international column is for all caps/goals, not just those won when a Plymouth player. It's a little confusing that the lead talks of Capaldi being their most capped player, yet players with more caps appear in the list. Expanded note D. Wouldn't have thought the Republic of Ireland flag was right for Sam Kirkwood. He was born in Belfast before Ireland was divided, returned to Belfast after his English football career, and AFAIK never played for either international team. Not sure what would be correct, though. Good point. Saint Patrick's Flag instead? Moses Russell's image caption would make more sense if it wasn't compressed quite so much. Expanded. Should Paul Connolly's caption read "in his last season"? or tweak it to say "Paul Connolly scored his first Argyle goal in his last season at Home Park.", which is no longer than the original. Done. Aljofree caption should hyphenate under-18. Done. Nice to see my photo of the great Alex Govan put to good use :-) We could do with someone of his class on the wing right now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for all of your help in getting it to this point. The number of player articles you did in a short space of time was brilliant. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 11:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Appears to meet criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a new one to me, I must say. First, the table in this list uses column headers, but doesn't use row headers, so I can't see why ! scope="row"| is relevant. I've looked at the page you link to, and see the method described, but I don't see anything to indicate that page to be part of the Manual of Style. Please could you point out exactly where in the MoS it requires this method to be used. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sure its WP:ACCESS#Data table. I didnt know so many people were unaware of the changes so I apologise if its not been made clear. Its a strongly recommended improvement. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [28].

---

List of Best in Show winners of Crufts

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to now be the most complete information on this subject available. Most lists of this type only include the Best in Show information and do not include the earlier Best Champion title. In addition, the official history of crufts only list best champion from 1906 whereas I discovered (only today while doing a tidy up) that the first time was actually given out in 1905.

The article has gone through a peer review which had somewhat derailed the idea of nominating this for a FL as there was substantial missing information of which I had no access to. However, the Kennel Club (UK) recently posted the schedules and catalogues of Crufts up until 2007 which has managed to fill in the gaps and show that there was no best champion title after 1912.

I've included images in the first table but not in the second following on from the FL comments when I nominated List of Best in Show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, the reason for the lack of images in the second table is simply the lack of commons licensed images avaliable for those years.

I should note that the terms Cruft's and Crufts are somewhat interchangable - it was Cruft's until the mid fifties and afterwards was used only as Crufts. Miyagawa (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but dead external links to http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/digital_editions/Page0%60_73ee8170-96fb-41b6-96e8-4470c36f0f16_49962230-9b40-4279-934b-b340695f3eb0.aspx and http://www.crufts.org.uk/files/kclub-crufts/DFS%20Crufts%20Interesting%20Facts.pdf Ucucha 19:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed the first external link and removed the second as it was only to reference the most successful breed which can be seen from the rest of the article.Miyagawa (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments (nice to see another niche list) A shame there's no lead image. Had a read of the policy on using fair use images on list articles and then went rooting through the historic dog books I have. Found a picture of H.S. Lloyd, the most successful owner along with the first dog that won best in show twice. I've added it as the lead image along with a fair use rationale. Miyagawa (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC) You've linked Championship (dog) to both "champion" and "Ch." - I find this this a touch confusing. Delinked Ch. Miyagawa (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Especially when it says "The first winner of Best Champion was the Pomeranian Ch. The Sable Mite.[2]" To an outsider, this is a grammar error... Changed to "The first winner of Best Champion was Ch. The Sable Mite, a Pomeranian." Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC) "owned by H. S. Lloyd. " just "by Lloyd" would suffice. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC) What is Sh Ch.? Added additional note to explain. Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC) "First awarded in 1905, the award was..." homophonic. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC) " on it's introduction" grammar fail. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Similarly to above, what is "Sh Ch/Aust Ch"? Added a note. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC) You have a "Group" category in the second table but I have no idea what that means. Added a wikilink to Breed Groups (dog) in the header of the table.Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC) As far as I knew, the Second World War ended in mid-1945, so why no contest in 1946 or 1947? Needs explanation. Expanded the explanation for those years. There was a change of ownership during the second world war which delayed the first post war show. Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I think the table could be sortable and that'd be useful. Right now there's a bunch of artificial rowspans which makes the table look odd in any case. As there weren't any significant runs of breeds or groups unlike at Westminster, I've made both the main tables sortable. Also split the prefixes away from the main names so that they too can be sorted. Miyagawa (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC) What's Nord Ch.? Added a note. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC) What makes http://ukterriers.moonfruit.com/#/crufts-terrier-group/4527808177 reliable? Looking for an alternative source. Miyagawa (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Couldn't find anything reliable to replace, so have removed the line that the cite was attached to and will restore once the terrier group results are available for that year by some other means. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as ever, a treat to have non-"standard" lists here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• There's a space between the initials of H. S. Lloyd in the lead, but not in the photo caption or list. I'm pretty sure the space should be there.
• For the winners without a prefix, I'd suggest inserting a dash of some type (probably a large em dash). That would look more attractive than just blank space. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 13:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I've corrected the initials and inserted the dashes. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - There is an inconsistency in the dates with the references. Afro (Talk) 18:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, missed that. All dates should be in the same format. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Support - I see no other problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 19:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry doesn't matter at the moment. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Added the column header tags anyway, looks better for it. Miyagawa (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [29].

---

List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Another chart, this one is not the most famous list of UK number-ones in the 1960s but it was the most widely followed of the decade. Confused, then read the list. Thanks in advance for all comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Feels a bit weird to say it but shouldn't it be "popular music" (and linked) in the lead rather than just "pop music"? Done "The Beatles had eighteen number-one singles on the NME chart, one of which never topped the Record Retailer chart." odd caption. Perhaps missing an "only" before the "one" to make it properly logical? Done British vs United Kingdom. Not sure if this is a can of worms but.... From United Kingdom: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain)..." Think it's okay as is, I'm from the United Kingdom but I'm British (there is no United Kingdomish to my knowledge). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Worth linking Guinness? To? This was my problem. Guinness is just about the stout (not the company that did World Records etc.) however linking to Diego seems odd. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC) "sixteen songs failed to reach number one with Record Retailer but achieved the feat with" reads a little odd to me, like achieving the feat could be misconstrued as being to fail to reach number one. Done Sorting by Single name I get ( first which is a little odd! Sorted! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC) In the key, you have BRMB in italics but in the lead you don't. Done. Italicised was mistaken, due to italicised NME and the like. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC) "duration of the number-ones" odd turn of phrase, you don't list how "long" the number-ones are, just how long they were number one... if you get my drift! What makes "davemcaleer.com" a WP:RS? It is Dave McAleer, look at the Author section. Pretty sure it qualifies as SPS. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, I believe I've addressed or responded to each comment. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments (a couple more) "began life" do we need life? Removed "began... began..." repetitive. Reworded Perhaps worth linking Guinness as it's quite unusual. "was the first single to have a number one" why not "first single to be number one"? Done "Kenny Rogers first number-one" apostrophe needed here. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I've done all those with the exception of the Guinness one. You asked this in your first comments. Can you re-read my response and get back to me with a suggested link if you think it needs it. Thanks again, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Okay, I remember now! It was a couple of weeks ago, and at least I'm consistent (on this occasion...) I think it's okay, as you say it's not quite the right link after all. If you don't consider British Hit Singles & Albums to be a relevant pipe either, then leave it unlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I think piping as Guinness' British Hit Singles & Albums is not the best, espececially, when the article title is present verbatum. I could remove the "Guinness'" but it is there because the citation refers to the book as the "Guinness Book of Hit Singles" (and I think the corporate affiliation is important because that is how I at least, probably others recognise the book). So I'd prefer it to remain present. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I see no problem with this list. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 10:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| Also there's uncessary redlinks. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

MOS mentions no such think. Note that is in the Help space not the Wikipedia space as a guideline. This is something dreamed up as an WP:ACCESS idealism (reminds me of alt text) and is clearly not feasible for complicated syntax tables like this. This has repeated headings too which cannot to my knowledge be handeled properly. Also have your read WP:REDLINK? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually a little more thought and less haste to reject would be nice here. WP:Wikitable is the approved code for wikitables. WP:ACCESS is part of the manual of style so its not something 'we' dreamed up. Then changes I am asking to be made (of which I will facilitate help with examples) are necessary because they make things accessible. The whole point of accessbility is it improves an article's readibility by calibrating wikitables for Screen Reading and Assistive Browser software. Such changes are necessary so that users hard of sight, color blind users and users of no sight can still access/read/use articles. It is not an idealism rather it is consideration for those who are less able than you or I. This is hardly complicated syntax compared to discographies. But then if WP:DISCOGSTYLE can comply why can't lists like this? There is no massive ask here. For some more background on the situation see WP:ACCESS and this. I urge you to keep an open mind and actually consider what's being asked instead of judging a book by its cover. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Retracted comments for now... its fairer since I would like to see a mass change that I am making notes on the featured list talk page instead. Sorry for the disruption caused. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [30].

---

Mariah Carey albums discography

Nominator(s): PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to meet all FLC criteria. Thank you everyone who takes the time to review the page and participate. Thanks!:)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments no dab links, no dead external links.

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Do the details columns need to be so wide, as they force the rows to be quite high, and the certifications cannot fit the country and cert on the same line? The 'Box sets' section is unreferenced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I added references to both box sets as you asked, however, I don't understand the issue regarding the columns, they do all fit in one line.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I suppose its just my computer :). Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Support looks good Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Max24 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose No mention of other two studio albums: Emotions and Rainbow. The article says that Merry Christmas has become one of the biggest selling holiday albums of all time but it links to Bestselling Christmas/holiday albums in the United States. It is not the same. The table includes charts from 9 countries. It should include sales/certifications from these countries only. The link to the French charts does not include all the peak positions, so some of them are unsourced. The link to the Australian charts does not include all the peak positions, leaving few unsourced. Allmusic link includes peak positions in Canada since 1997. If positions before 1997 are taken from RPM, there should be a direct link to the magazine issue with the peak position. Also few albums released after 1997 are not included in Allmusic, so they are not sourced.--Max24 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC) These are all fixed, so please re-assess your opinion.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Peter, I'm glad you have fixed some of the things I mentioned, but not all of them. Here are the details: There are still certifications from countries not included in the chart table: Europe (there's no European Top 100 chart in the table), Brazil, South Korea and Ireland. According to WP:DISCOGSTYLE, a limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested, using any combination of country, component, or competing charts. You have added Japan just now, which is eleventh chart. The Japan peak positions are unsourced. There's no link to Australian peak positions outside Top50: The Ballads and The Remixes. Canada: the table says Emotions peaked at number 5 but the source says number 6. The table says Music Box peaked at number 1 but the source says number 2. The table says Merry Christmas peaked at number 25 but the source says number 26. There is no link for peaks for: MTV Unplugged, Charmbracelet, Ballads.--Max24 (talk)20:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC) I fixed almost everything. The Japanese peaks are sourced, view the profile pages in the Oricon source, you'll see them. As for the peakes for those 3 in Canada and those 2 in Australia, I'm a bit lost. I can't find those. Care to help? :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC) I do care, so here it is: Change the Japanese link to this. It links directly to the albums peak positions. Look for the Australian peaks here. Canada: MTV Unplugged is in RPM charts (she debuted there in June 1992, as I remember). As for Charmbracelet and The Ballads, I've found official source here saying that Charmbracelet debuted at #30. And the site that we can't use here mariah-charts.com/chartdata/Canada.htm, says that Charmbracelet peaked at number 30 and stayed 4 weeks in Top50. I can't find The Ballads on billboard.com, billboard.biz or allmusic, or on any other sites. In that case Charmbracelet should be corrected to #30 and The Ballads removed till we get any confirmation. It wasn't released that long ago, maybe you can find a source. Good luck.--Max24 (talk)23:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Hey Max, thanks for the help. Its all fixed! :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 03:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Oh Peter, who's the bigger Mariah fan, me or You? :) The Remixes peak is here. You can also use this source for Music Box 11x Platinum certification (read carefully the source). The Ballads peak is here. MTV Unplugged peaked at #6 in Canada source. The Ballads peak is still in the article and it didn't chart in Canada. Add this Charmbracelet source to the article. .--Max24 (talk)08:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Hehehe, I'm starting to wonder that myself! Either that or you have connections at the ARIA and CRIA ;). Anyway, thanks for the help and I now believe everything to have been solved. :). BTW, I added the Charmbracelet thing already before, check again :D--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC) LoveSongs is just a re-release of The Ballads. It shouldn't be included as a separate album in the table. The Ballads peaked at #19 in Japan, not #20. Add The Remixes peak position in Japan - #95. Add Germany to The Remixes and put "—". Compilations Chart in France: - the peak for Gratest Hits is #3, not #24. Also add the peak for The Ballads - #39. Add Canada to The Remixes and put "—". Change the infodisc source to this. The current one doesn't show Mariah chart runs (no chance for a direct link unfortunatelly). MTV Unplugged - add French, New Zealand and Dutch certifications. Add Dutch certifications for all albums (NVPI website works fine).--Max24 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Done!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Be careful with your edits: Netherlands links to Madonna album in NVPI. Fixed the source to searchable database. Wrong certification for Ones in the Netherlands. Missing certification for Rainbow in the Netherlands. Add the certifications column to The Remixes and leave it empty (like it is in the case of The Ballads). Now that Love Songs is removed, remove also the note "charted in conjunction". I think that albums should be in order Infobox is showing, so Extended plays should be in the article before The Remixes. Merry Christmas in the last sentence in the lead shouldn't be linked. It's already linked above. In the lead there is: 12 studio albums, 5 compilation albums, 2 compilation EP and 1 live album. In the infobox there is: 12 studio albums, 4 compilation albums, 2 Extendeed plays and 1 Remix album. And in the article there is: 12 studio albums, 4 compilations, 1 remix album, and 2 extended plays. It should be the same in all 3 parts. Cassette doesn't need to be capitalised. In sources Billboard should be in italics and it should be Billboard, not Billboard magazine. And there are also few newspapers - they should be in italics.--Max24 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Hey Max, so yeah good catches, its all fixed! :D--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 05:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Hi, I see just one more thing, the lead says: "two compilation EPs". MTV Unplugged is a live album, not a compilation. The easiest way would be just to change it to "two extended plays". It would match the infobox and the article below. However, MTV Unplugged is more a live album. It charted everywhere on album charts and was certified as an album. Wouldn't it be better to make it a live album and not EP (and change it like that in the lead, infobox and article)? What do you think?--Max24 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Hi, so I guess it is a live album, I mean the whole album was recorded at a live show, so yea I guess. I agree sorta, I'll change it.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 18:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I have made some changes, now it is better. I support the article and I advice to do one last thing: if countries in the chart table are: AUS, CAN, FRA, GER, JAP, all countries in the sales/certifications should be the same and not: AU, CA, FR, DE, JP. Be consistent.--Max24 (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support.--Max24 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 20:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Candyo32 (talk contribs)

I'll give my support, there is just two concerns I would like to comment on. Since this is up to be an FL, considering that Carey is such a worldwide artist, I would think that another country should be used instead of the US R&B chart. In no way is this consensus or policy, but in my opinon, the R&B chart is included for artists who do not have international charting and/or have not made ten different charts. This doesn't have to be done, I was just wondering. If you disagree, I'll still support it. However one thing that does need to be taken care of is that Carey's image needs WP:ALTTEXT. Candyo32 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Alt text is not a requirement of featured content any more. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Hey guys, thanks for the commments. Well, I'm not sure if I agree. While it is true, but I can't think of another suitable country. I mean Madonna's has 9 and Celine's has 10 but has 2 for Belgium (they are both FL). And those 3 have simlar sales, so there you go :).--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I didn't know that Alt text was no longer a requirement for FC. And the chart thing is fine, it was just a recommendation. But may I ask why there are two letter abbrevations for the countries instead of three? Also if you did want to switch out the R&B, I'm sure Ireland would be pretty applicable. Candyo32 03:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC) @Candy I switched US R&B for Switzerland, and changed them to 3 letter abb where applicable. I believe that completes everything.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Candyo32 02:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Minor Comments - Ref 38, 41, 43, 73, 75 language needs stating, is there a reason why 56, 69, 71 is a Google Translate? it just strikes me as odd. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 10:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Support - I see no major issues with article. Afro (Talk) 10:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• fail, since the time of nomination the manual of style for wikipedia has changed and now includes WP:ACCESS. To meet the new standards all discographies must meet the new approved standards at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. And considering that FLs are supposed to examplify the best work on wikipedia this list article fails the new MoS guidelines. I'm point this out on every candidate so please don't feel that I'm singling any thing out in particular. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Retracted comments for now... its fairer since I would like to see a mass change that I am making notes on the featured list talk page instead. Sorry for the disruption caused. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:38, 11 October 2010 [31].

---

Celine Dion albums discography

Nominator(s): max24 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria.

Resolved comment from Petergriffin9901 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose until certain criteria are met. There is a huge break in timeline, you do not mention anything, except the names of "Unison" and "Celine Dion", and you don't even mention "Miracle", "One Heart" or "Taking Chances". This a Bias point of view, because your only giving notice to her accomplishments and successes. Why not mention all the other albums? The fact that they were commercial and critical disappointments does not make them exempt from mention.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 18:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--Max24 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support My issues were resolved.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues from –Chase (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: "becoming one of the best selling albums of all time" → "becoming two of the best-selling albums of all time" "after two-year break" → "after a two-year break" "And in March 2003" sentences shouldn't start with "and". Countries should be in alphabetical order, excluding home country - UK and US need to be moved to the end. Why is the article titled "Celine Dion albums discography" yet she is referred to as "Céline Dion" in the lead and infobox? Consistency, please. Fix these issues and I'll gladly support. –Chase (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--Max24 (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support –Chase (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comment from Ruslik (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comment. The leading section contains a lot of numbers of album copies sold. It would good if they were also added to the tables. Ruslik_Zero 14:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--Max24 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Further comments: In March 2002, Dion was presented with an award ...' How is this award called? Who gave it to her? This information is important. According to Sony Music Entertainment, Dion has sold over 200 million albums, worldwide Please, specify date. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--Max24 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Ruslik_Zero 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - lead needs overhaul, serious English-speaking copyedit required. Serious reference problems. Surprised and disappointed that two contributors support this in its current state I'm afraid. "over 3 million" three million. "followed by Celine Dion in " would be nicer to be "followed by her eponymous album in"... "one of her six albums certified diamond" - "one of six of her albums to be certified diamond" (and look to link certification as well) " includng United Kingdom," the United Kingdom. "nearly 9 million copies" - nine million. Check all other "less than ten" millions in the lead please. "were major success for" successes? "all over the world" doubt it. More likely "in many countries around the world" or, better still, be specific how many. "S'il suffisait d'aimer " = worth noting this is French language, and according to our own article, the second-best-selling French language album in history. You need to link "holiday album" because that's very US-centric. "late 1999" believe that should be hyphenated. "with the very successful album, " you probably don't need "very successful" when you then go on to say it sold 12 million copies. "the opening of A New Day..." - explain what this is. "During five year run" missing a "the" here? "4× platinum" prose in the lead please, none of this 4x. The first seven albums didn't chart in any territory. Where's the reference that (a) they existed and (b) they were released when you say they were and in those particular formats? Same for first Live album. And first five compilation albums. And "Complete Best" and "Ultimate Box". You use Platinum in the table but platinum in the lead. Be consistent with the capitalisation o certifications. Cassette doesn't need to be capitalised. What's a SACD? Compare ref 3 and ref 18 for the way you denote the author. Be consistent please. Ref 26 ISO dates are incorrectly formatted - should be YYYY-MM-DD, not DD-MM-YYYY. Ref 52, BPI is probably the publisher, not the work. Similar comment for 60 and 61. Check all others. Ref 61 looks like it's French so add that to the ref. So does 91. Check all others. Actually, there seem to be loads of these. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed. SACD is linked by the A New Day Has Come album. --Max24 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:38, 11 October 2010 [32].

---

List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers

Nominator(s): Rlendog, Wizardman 15:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all features list criteria. I thought I'd take a break from draft lists and look through some other ones when I saw that this list was already about 90% ready for FLC. I did the other 10% and here we are. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but dead external links to http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1902/VCHA01902tm through http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1909/VCHA01909tm and http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/components/hofers/HallofFamersList.html Ucucha 16:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

  Retrosheet ones fixed. The baseball hall of fame site seems to be down right now, so I'll try replacing it tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Other one now fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• So what??? can somebody explain to me why do these articles exist here on wikipedia? This is such an in-universe article, with essentially zero outside relevance. It is a statistics (and in baseball the more statistics the better) that nobody outside of the sport sees any relevance. Let's make a comparison to soccer, and let's pick the team that is most probably the most well-known/familiar in the US: Manchester United. Why would anybody who is not a mega-fan care about the List of captains in the first match of the season of Manchester United? So what if they are the MVP of the team in the first day of the season? What does this show? Starting pitchers in the payoff or the final would be fine lists, but this is just plain stupid. I will go ahead and AfD this, and do expect a ton of baseball fans to probably snowball it. Nergaal (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As a note, the AfD discussion that Nergaal has started can be found here. Nomader ^(Talk) 06:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for the following major reasons:

• the article does not explain well the importance of the of being the starting pitcher on the starting day to readers not familiar with the terminology
• there is no indication of any "aftermath" of the choices; in other words yes, they were chosen, but how well did they do? were they chosen as MVPs for the season, or did they get any recognition for their status later in the season? Or the bet did not pay up for the team in the end? The only mention is with the five times they reached the series, but what happened in the other 100+ cases?
• "decision" should be switched to outcome since nobody took the decision to assign W or L decision should be clearly explained as it appears to be a notable statistics
• 2nd lead paragraph does not fit well within the scope of the title of the article

Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• To respond to your comments, I don't think the list should tell us about all the players' careers. The list notes exceptional circumstances in the lead, such as which pitchers were banned because of the Black Sox Scandal and which pitchers pitched during a world series season– I could maybe see noting Cy Young Award winners of a certain year (i.e. if someone was the starting pitcher in 1967 and then won the Cy Young that year), but that should be incorporated into the table and is only a minor addition. Otherwise, if the reader wants to know more about a particular player's career, they can open that player's article.
• The second paragraph should stay as it tells the reader where the starting pitchers pitched at home. I think that's relevant enough to merit inclusion in the lead.
• No decision is wikilinked on its first appearance, so the explanation is adequate. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have (hopefully) addressed the first point, adding something about the significance about being the opening day pitcher. Point two I feel would make the lead too tangential, though I could see if any won the Cy Young Award that year; I wouldn't go beyond that. Point four I think fits, since showing records away and at home adds an extra layer to the significance of pitching on opening day (though it's difficult to explain). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "decision" is a major statistics but it is not explained. Considering how notable the statistics is, it is most likely deserving a note in the lead. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

*Obviously this won't be able to pass until the AfD is sorted out, so that should probably be taken care of. If the article is kept, here are some comments about it. The AfD will (most likely) close in 6 days while the FLC runs for at least 10 days (9 days from now, but it'll probably take two weeks or more). I believe the AfD can be ignored at this point and the reviewing continue in the interim. Sandman888 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I made that comment when nobody had yet commented on the AfD-- I figured if the article was deleted, then obviously it would be a problem for the list to attain FL status as it would no longer exist. No worries, I plan to carry out a review no matter what the current consensus was at that AfD. Nomader (Talk) 03:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Why do you list the acronym for Major League Baseball when it's never again referred to as "MLB" in the lead or the list? "The played at South Side Park" ---> "They played at South Side Park" You should probably link to the Black Sox Scandal when you mention the throwing of the 1919 World Series. I only had time for a passing glance, and I'll add more later when I get the chance. Nomader (Talk) 04:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC) An additional comment-- it might be better if the list explain what Opening Day is to those who aren't familiar with it. Maybe something towards the beginning of the lead, saying "Opening Day is the first game in a new baseball season", or something to the like in order to reign in confusion from those who aren't familiar with the sport. Nomader (Talk) 06:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Also, I'd add in a post that explains the significance of the opening day pitcher. Nomader (Talk) 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Done sans the last point; looks like the AfD is finding that last point so I'll add that in shortly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC) You've explained why Opening Day is noteworthy, but not why being a starting pitcher on Opening Day is noteworthy. I hope other baseball editors will add their thoughts too. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Agreed– the list is about Opening Day starting pitchers but doesn't mention anywhere why being a pitcher on Opening Day is any more special than being a pitcher on any other day of the season. I'd probably put one or two sentences into the first paragraph of the lead about why its notable. Nomader (Talk) 06:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Final note addressed re: significance. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been addressed and I feel that the changes have also addressed Nergaal's concerns above. As such, I feel that I can support at this time– well done, Wizardman. Nomader ^(Talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments It's a personal preference but I would merge the first two sentences, as it reads a little clunkily right now. "Opening Day is when the first game of the new baseball season is played" this reads awkwardly to me. I agree it's important to specify what this means to us non-experts, but it would be slightly better if it was something like "The first game of the new baseball season is played on Opening Day..." "or having the most Opening Day starts" making the most? "Opening Day starts" is repeated several times in the third paragraph. Could you reword one or two of them, maybe "started Opening Day"? or "were Opening Day starting pitchers..."? "s in throwing the 1919 World Series" is repeated verbatim in two consecutive sentences, would prefer more elegant prose here. "in Toronto's history" in Toronto's or Blue Jays'? "by a score of 9–5" do we need "by a score of"? And perhaps just "Blue Jays won the game 9–5" because it's clear it was against the White Sox. Consider making the key span two columns. What is this "decision"? The lead makes no mention of it. In the key, last three, worthwhile making it clear, White Sox advanced..., White Sox were American League champions, White Sox were World Series Champions, because the table is about individuals, not the whole team. Final Score ->Final score. Image widths seem all a little different from each other... Final score column sorts oddly, 0–1 three times, then 0–12, then 0–2... Is it stadium, ballpark or location? Ref 14 has a couple of spare periods. Ref 15 is missing publisher and any other info that could be available. In fact, that reference, could you show me how it's reliable? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC) In progress. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The first game of the new baseball season is played on Opening Day." Yes, but Opening Day varies depending on which team it is. The teams don't all start on the same day. The sentence should reflect this in some way; perhaps "of a team's new baseball season" would work?
• "is considered an honor, and is given to...". The whole sentence reads awkwardly because of this. "an honor, which is given to..." would be a suitable fix.
• "Williams was also the Opening Day started in 1920." "started" → "starter". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  Done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support No complaints from me. Courcelles 10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:38, 11 October 2010 [33].

---

1993 College Baseball All-America Team

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar in format to the 1991 FL and 1992 FLC that seems to be about to be FL that was just promoted. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 14:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Oppose. 'Accomplishments' section is written rather chaotically. The first paragraph says that a few players were selected by all three selectors and lists some of their other achievements. The second paragraph lists all players selected by all three selectors thus repeating information from the first paragraph. The third paragraph lists some other achievements of the selected players including players already mentioned in the first paragraph. I think that the entire section should rewritten. It should begin with the second paragraph. The first paragraph should be merged with the third (with information duplicating the second paragraph removed) and put after the second. The section should be written in an orderly fashion without jumping back and forth from one player to another (and back to the first). Ruslik_Zero 15:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. I think I made some changes to the 1992 list that I mirrored with this list. I have to go back and look at what I have done to all three. My internet access is a bit limited for the next few days because I am traveling on family matters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I have done some rearranging. I don't think merging the college accomplishment section with the pro section would be right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Kieschnick was named player of the year by all three selectors. This sentence still repeats the first paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
          • This was just an example. Varitek was honored by all three selectors ... also repeats the first paragraph. Also what 'in' is doing in the following sentence? putouts in during the 2002 Major League Baseball season. The second section actually needs a copy-edit by an editor who is not its auhtor. Ruslik_Zero 18:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Varitek is not redundant because it says he was also honored by all three in other years. I will add the word also for clarity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Spell out NAIA. I missed these somehow. Sorry for the late response.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Accomplishments: How many would "X Olympians" be? removed. I don't see any in this class.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Varitek's full name isn't given on first use; perhaps this is a result of earlier edits. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC) De-capitalize "Champion" in "World Series Champion"? O.K. but left 2001 World Series Championship team--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC) "he led national league catchers in putouts". Two words need capitalizing here. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Add "the" in "with fewest bases on balls per 9 innings"? Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) "Inaugural" should also be de-capitalized. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Spell out NCAA in the general reference and ref 6. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC) O.K. (here and 91 & 92)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. I was waiting to see what would become of Ruslik's opposition, which is no longer active. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: "The 1993 All-American class featured 3 Major League Baseball All-Stars, one Major League Baseball record holder and 3 World Series champions. As of 2010[update] Jason Varitek remained active. A total of 8 players were selected by all three NCAA-sanctioned selectors:" numbers under ten are written out. Only issue I found. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support, all looks good to me. Harrias ^talk 22:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:38, 11 October 2010 [34].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Spain

Nominator(s): Grsz¹¹ 04:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is meets all of the featured list criteria:

1 & 2. Prose and Lead - It contains a prose lead section that explains the World Heritage Site program in general, as well as specific details of Spain's involvement and sites.

3. Comprehensiveness - It contains all 42 sites currently on the list, as well as a list of tenative inclusions. Each listing has an image and a brief description of the site.

4. Structure - Relevant columns of the table are sortable, and {{sort}} has been used to aid where needed.

5. Style - No color needed, but the list contains images.

6. Stability - Is not an issue.

I can address any concerns that are brought up here. Grsz¹¹ 04:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 14:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Quick comments Sorting of the years doesn't work. It sorts the info as text so it is all messed up. When sorting by period, "Prehistoric Rock-Art Sites in the Côa Valley and Siega Verde" and "Rock Art of the Mediterranean Basin on the Iberian Peninsula" seem misplaced Diacratics should sort as normal letters, i.e. Ávila should sort as Avila. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Those blank Loaction cells should probably have an — (—) in them. Just something to consider. Can't vouch for its accuracy but what do you think of this concept? Also, looking at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Geography and places, quite a few seem to include geocordinates. Would these be beneficial here too? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I don't know, I'm not a fan of the map. I think it's so bunched up it isn't helpful. Anybody else want to chime in? Grsz11 22:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I think a map is helpful. At least I have an idea where these sites are located.—Chris!c/t 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC) The map is very cramped. After a certain number of sites, Wikipedia just can't really handle names on maps. Rather than have a map on Wikipedia, why not link to Google or Bing? It worked for List of Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester. Nev1 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I have added the map (apparantly as Nev was commenting) and will let others comment on it. As an aside, I also added images under the Tentative List section. Grsz11 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Question. Where do the geocoordinates (for the map) come from and is it worth including them in the table. Also, I agree the map and names is a bit cluttered, maybe a key something along these lines would work better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC) To clarify, by "along these lines" I mean the idea of numbering labels and names downs the side not the clickable aspect. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC) I moved the map to its own section, I think that gives it a little more space. Grsz11 15:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Okay, well if you do that why not uncramp the labels and make it bigger? Think map is a good addition. Can you vouch for the co-ordinates being correct? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Yep, UNESCO gives minute/second coordinates, which have been converted to decimal for the map. Grsz11 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Great, is it worth adding them to the table like some other FLs do or not? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC) In my opinion, no. I feel it would add too much to an already full table. I think with the map showing locations, coordinates aren't needed. Just my opinion though. Grsz11 19:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC) That's fine. Not sure if coordinates for the map actually require sourcing for the map (not sure if there is precedent or how it would be done). Only thing I can suggest is a sentence stating coordinates come from the individual sites' UNESCO page. Not sure what you/others think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Easy enough, so I added a reference at the end of the caption to Spain's UNESCO page. Grsz11 20:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Nice touch. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Other comment Never "8th session": Either eighth session or 8th Session if it is some partial of an official name Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I think I got the only instance. The Committee does use numbers for the sessions. Grsz11 22:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I haven't actually checked that all the data is correct, but I will assume you can C&P. As I cannot see any other problems with this list so will give it by support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mild oppose (e/c) "at the 8th session" ->eighth? "Besides the initial three years of Spain's inclusion (at sessions 8 through 10)" reads awkwardly to me. Any way we can rephrase this? "Spain has had 42 total sites" I'd be happy with "Spain has 42 total sites" unless of course some have gone missing from the inscription, in which case this should be noted... It may be obvious but I'd like to see something after "Location" like "Town or city of the site". Is it UNESCO date or UNESCO data? If you have a key telling me what 'Description is supposed to be then at least say something! I think sorting is messed up because of the "Route of Santiago de Compostela" row (where you have a colspan) - once this is done I'll test the rest of the sorting. In "Sites by autonomous community", the en/em-dash should sort (or even be) a zero. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC) (By the way, the template which links to a European UNESCO list, has Spain with just 41 sites). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Comment 8th is used by the source, as in the 8th Session of the World Heritage Committee, a noun rather than adjective. Done. Done. Done. Done. Done. I was having issues using colspan and {{sort}}. I removed the colspan where it was used, and that seems to have resolved any sorting issues. Done. I fixed the Europe list, it wasn't updated for 2010. Grsz11 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I will re-review this list in due course, now the colspan has been fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The list, in my opinion, fully satisfies the FL criteria. (I hope sorting will be fixed.) Ruslik_Zero 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Are there any remaining issues with sorting? I removed the colspan on the 4 sites in more than one community, leaving the Location column empty. I believe that resolved thos issues. Grsz¹¹ 16:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per my comments here and here. An all-round excellent list. Nev1 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Looks very good, just a couple of questions: In "€600,000", the euro-sign overlaps with the "6" on my screen. Is this a general problem and can it be fixed? I didn't have a problem with it, but spaced it out anyways. Grsz11 22:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC) How does the last paragraph of the intro relate to "World Heritage Sites in Spain"? It seems to relate rather to "World Heritage Sites NOT in Spain". As for me, it could be removed. This concerns the World Heritage program in Spain. Not particularly about the sites of Spain, but I feel it's relevant enough to include. Grsz11 22:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC) OK. bamse (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Is "Palaeolithic-Prehistoric-Upper Paleolithic" the proper order? They aren't particularly definite dates. But, It should roughly be Prehistoric (atleast these sites), Paleo, Upper. I've changed it. Thanks. Grsz11 22:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I'd prefer the "UNESCO data" column to sort after inscription year, which is more meaningful to the reader than the UNESCO reference number. (Never understood why this number appears in Template:Infobox World Heritage Site either.) I made the sort key the year. Would you prefer to arrange by year in the default list as well? Grsz11 15:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks. You might want to put a note in the itemized list before the table saying that this column sorts by year (and not reference number which appears first). Is there any default ordering to this table? It appears rather random. I think it would make sense to have some kind of default order. I don't really care by which column. bamse (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC) The default order of the list is by reference number. I made a note that it sorts by year. Grsz11 16:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Ah, ok, that's fine then. bamse (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC) In the "Sites by autonomous community" table, are the "shared sites" included in the "number of sites" or not. Looking at the Aragon entry apparently they are not, but maybe a footnote or sentence could explain that upfront. I made a note explaining. Made the first column "exclusive sites" meaning just in that community. Grsz11 22:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC) For uniformity, shouldn't it be "NUMBER OF shared sites" in the header? Fixed together with previous item. bamse (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I was told in one of my FLCs, that in itemized lists like the one just before the main table, every line should end with the same punctuation mark (or none at all). Removed all. Grsz11 15:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC) "tenative"->"tentative"? (several) Think I got them all. I frequently have lapses in spelling. Grsz11 15:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC) bamse (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support as all comments have been addressed. bamse (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have not done a full review, but I agree it looks well worthy of being a FL.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:38, 11 October 2010 [35].

---

List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 10:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria, and follows a similar format to current FLs such as List of South Africa women ODI cricketers. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments good work Lead image could be expanded, and caption shouldn't take a full stop. What sort of size do you reckon? Removed the caption. No suggestions, just big enough to nicely fit a 800px wide screen (I guess) without spilling over to the main list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC) "When the ban was lifted," a nice way of putting it? Did the Taliban really "lift the ban"? Uhmmm, yes? How else would you put it? Really? The Taliban themselves lifted the ban? (Sorry for my ignorance...) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC) According to the source I had, yeah. Thought it was the one cited, but it clearly isn't. I'll have to find it again! Forgot to sign my replies last time, bad me! Harrias talk 20:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Added in a reference now. Harrias talk 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "A One Day International" A One? Shouldn't it be an? "He has passed 100 on more occasions than any of his compatriots, and his score of 118, made against Canada..." Passed a 100... what? Runs, I'm assuming. Ref 6 needs publisher, and the correct location. (The location of this paper is always London, not where the reporter happened to be). Ref 4 needs location. Ref 7 needs publisher and location Fix those and I'll gladly support. Courcelles 18:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed refs and changed to "100 runs". And no, "an One" would be very poor English indeed. Harrias talk 19:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Names in the table are sorting by first name; FLs typically sort by last name. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Aye, because, as is typical with the Pakistan cricket team, their names are written in full on cricket scorecards, rather than providing initials, leaving me unsure whether they should be sorted by first or last name. (See here for example.) Harrias ^talk 04:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Also, where CricketArchive sorts players by surname for England (for example: [here]), Afghan players are sorted by the first name: [here]. Harrias ^talk 07:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support – That's a convincing enough argument for me, and I don't have any other issues with the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TonyTheTiger TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

*One innings should be singular. Not in cricket terminology. Nev1 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC) What is a county second XI teams Provided a link to Second XI Championship, which I think explains it sufficiently. fifth-placed play-off sounds ungrammatical and like it should be fifth-place play-off Done What is an ODI wickets--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC) It's explained at the start of the list that an ODI is a One Day International. ODI wickets are wickets taken in One Day Internationals. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC) No one who, like me, does not know cricket is going to get that connection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Really? It doesn't seem painfully obvious that an ODI wicket is a wicket taken in an ODI? I'll leave this up to Harrias, although I disagree. Nev1 (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Rephrased to "has claimed more wickets in ODI matches", which hopefully make it clearer? Thanks for your eyes on this TonyTheTiger, as I said, I like to get some non-cricketing eyes for exactly these reasons! Harrias talk 16:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Is there a link for the term wicket?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Linked. Harrias talk 06:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I have resolved those to which Nev hasn't responded, feel free to query further if you feel it is unclear. Harrias talk 15:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Issues resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I've updated the table and lead following the conclusion of the Afghanistan – Kenya series. Harrias ^talk 16:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Support my comments were addressed earlier and I can see no issues holding this back. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:05, 6 October 2010 [36].

---

Keeper of the Archives

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 22:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, having got Registrar of the University of Oxford out of the way and promoted, here's another for all you crazy fans of Philip Bliss. Only 380 years of history on this one, unlike the 550 years of the last one, but this project did once again require a brand-new main article, with several subsidiary articles for the archivists (including a GA for Brian Twyne). No mention of Peterhouse, Cambridge (so TRM is bound to oppose!) but I can offer you a friend of Lewis Carroll (bizarrely suspected of being Jack the Ripper in tandem with Carroll - so bizarre that I don't mention it in this list, to avoid giving a fringe theory undue weight), a sex scandal and a mallard enthusiast. Not many images, I'm afraid, but only one or two more have possible images and it would be a waste of white space to add them to the side of the table. I will try and find out the educational details of the current job-holder, who is probably not notable enough for an article (ironically because he's a professional archivist rather than a career academic, like his predecessors); otherwise, the list is complete. Enjoy, review! Bencherlite^Talk 22:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Now added Simon Bailey's university of origin. Bencherlite^Talk 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments "although the university's records pre-date this" so what? You haven't said that the Keeper was around from the foundation of the University so this isn't really surprising... or am I missing something? Or, are you saying there should have been a Keeper because the University had records before 1634? Hmm, trying to think of a way to explain that the university had archives before 1634 but didn't have a "Keeper of the Archives" until then. Removed "although" - any better? Perhaps link "press" here, just in case? Changed it to "cupboard", which I think is accurate looking at the photo and the dictionary as to the meaning of "press" in this context Bodleian Library is overlinked. Removed Of Bencherlite, they said "he loves his parentheses" - " (in office 1909–1927) " would be better in prose without the parentheses in my opinion (from 1909 to 1927)... OK "Some but not all of the holders " doesn't some imply not all? Gaargh - I lifted that from the last FL, Registrar of the University of Oxford! Poole appears to have been elected to the post. I'm not sure if I saw that the post was elected in the lead? It was but isn't now. I'll see if I can find when the last election was; expanded the lead anyway with reference to the juicy wording of the 1634 statutes (which were rather rude about the locals!) Yeah, not a bad effort! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks. BencherliteTalk 17:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support (grudgingly, of course...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks (grudging, of course...) Bencherlite^Talk 12:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Ref 15 needs the same subscription required tag as the other ODNB refs. Ditto ref 18 Refs 29, 30, 32, and 33 need the publisher/location. There are tons of newspapers called "The Times" in normal speech. And that's where I am on this one. Nitpicking references. Not bad, not bad at all. Courcelles 03:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC) All done. I've switched to {{cite news}} from {{cite newspaper The Times}} in order to get the "location" parameter, at the expense of the issue number and column (which "cite news" doesn't support); but, frankly, the date and page are the important things required in order to be able to find the article, and they're kept. Thanks for your review. BencherliteTalk 12:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Could you explain, either in a key or elsewhere, what "College as Keeper of the Archives" refers to? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Does this edit help? Bencherlite^Talk 09:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Very much, thanks! Now I can easily Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I found no serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:05, 6 October 2010 [37].

---

List of Governors of Idaho

Nominator(s): Bgwhite and Golbez

Another Governor's list that is coming down the pipe. Idaho follows the recently made FL List of Governors of Florida. Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 05:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments These are mostly about just the infobox and the list itself– prose isn't my strong suit so I'll let someone else take a look at the lead and the other paragraphs. From the quick glance I took at it, it's a nice list, well done. John P. Hoyt was only appointed, but does not have a note as to why he did not take his post like the others. Are there any sources to explain the discrepancy? Done Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Jim Risch is listed as "Jim Risch" in the table, and he's named as "James Risch" in his picture's caption-- you should choose one and stick to it. Done Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC) In the infobox the F in "four years" should be capitalized. Done Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC) For George F. Moore and J. H. Hutchinson, it mentions in the notes that they were part of a fusion ticket-- were they serving consecutively or simultaneously? Consecutively. Governor served two terms and each Lieutenant Governor served one term. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Can you source John N. Irwin being the Governor of the Arizona Territory? I figure if all the others are cited that one might as well be for consistency. Nomader (Talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Grrrrr... I missed that one. Done Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Note 17 contains a bare URL reference, which should be cited in footnote form (if it's kept against Golbez's comments). Note 17 was removed via request by Golbez Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC) This is a minor point, but I think that Idaho should be wikilinked to somewhere in the article, maybe in the lead? I wanted to read about Idaho while I was browsing the list and realized at no point does the article link to the state's page until the infobox at the bottom. Nomader (Talk) 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Not sure that's minor, it was a huge oversight frankly. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. You've adequately addressed my concerns, and I have no doubt that you'll get around to The Rambling Man's notes as well. It's a nice list, well done. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments I've added prose to the 'other high offices' section. Please check it out. I've also rejiggered some referencing. I agree with you in that I also prefer NGA/Bioguide refs. However, in the case of cabinet secretaries, I also like to add a ref to the to the Department they headed.... The Department being primary and NGA/Bioguide secondary in these cases. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC) How did Thomas M. Bowen leave office a month before he took office? Grrr, wrote it in my notes wrong. I'll be up at the University this Friday and will look at the book again. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Done, I had the dates reversed. Bgwhite (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC) We need sourcing on the fusion tickets in notes 14-16. Done Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Do we really need note 17? Constitutionally, the governor's term ended/began on January 2, 1905 (the second monday in January), regardless of when they actually took power. I say omit it entirely. Removed Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Should we include Gossett as having resigned to take a seat in the Senate? I mean, technically, he did it so that he would be appointed, rather than a sure thing... in the past, when someone resigned to run for a seat that he later won, I've omitted that as "resigned to take" since it wasn't a sure thing yet. But this is more sure than that. :P I mean, I guess I'm saying include it, I'm just justifying it out loud or something. I say keep. Gives the reason why he resigned. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC) --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I can support, being conommed by Bgwhite, but I support it. :) --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Link Idaho first time round. Done. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) "David W. Ballard had the longest term of almost four years" while the list says April 10, 1866 to July 1870, which is well over four years. Bennett also appears to have had a term of over four years. Changed 'almost' to 'over'. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) I think the lead seems to miss out how the governors are appointed. It states it's done by the president; what more is needed? --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) For those who took office but later resigned etc, why do you just have "resigned" rather than actually fill in the "Left office" column? The notes can handle the fact they resigned or whatever, surely? I get the fact that Hoyt never took office at all (so no start/end dates at all) but the others seem to have real start/end dates which should be here. Four separate governors were appointed but never took office, not just Hoyt. The intro has been corrected. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) You relink Idaho Territory but not Union. Why not? admitted to the Union linked. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) "Since then, it has..." it could be Union or Idaho here. Not sure I agree, but added 'the state'. "president pro tempore of" suspect you could use some italics here to emphasise the fact that pro tempore is Latin. Done. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Should "speaker of the state house of representatives" be capitalised? I don't think so; we capitalize titles. Their title is probably Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives. It's not Speaker of the State House of Representatives, I figure. Could change 'state' to Idaho to fix this. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) In the key you have "(Official numbering)[note 10]" but what does it relate to? The small numbers by each party, indicating how many of each party have been governor. It's a needed distinction because some states don't count repeat governors, and sometimes we have to use an unofficial numbering (looking at you, Florida) to account for a discrepancy between official and the number in the list. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) You relink Lt Governors in the second table but you don't relink Appointed by's in the first. True, linking. [34][7] numerical order is preferred. Even when one is more relevant than the other? If 34 were the better reference, and 7 just supported it? (nonetheless, swapped) --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Some notes end with a period, some don't. Consistency please. The general rule has been, full sentences get a full stop, fragments do not. But I agree, it's generally better to use periods. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Spare period in ref 22. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) "In addition, two people who were appointed... " is this referenced? Nope. Should be. Can't do at the moment. Bgwhite? :) --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Done Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC) All dates but four are individually referenced in this table. Why those four? Good question. Bgwhite? --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Will get 3 of 4 tomorrow. The 4th, George Shoup, doesn't need a reference as Idaho became a state on that day. Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Ok Done. Check the notes created to see if they are alright and make sense. On a side note, it is always interesting to visit Special Collections at the University library. Today had a person researching how the Book of Mormon and Bible came from Egypt as part of a history of visiting aliens. Bgwhite (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 07:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "Idaho Territory was created from Dakota Territory, Nebraska Territory, and Washington Territory on March 4, 1863. Initially, the territory included all of modern-day Idaho and Montana, and most of Wyoming. On May 26, 1864, Montana Territory was split from Idaho Territory, and most of the Wyoming portion was reassigned to Dakota Territory. The portion east of the 111th meridian was split off as part of the new Wyoming Territory on July 25, 1868, giving Idaho Territory its final borders." All of this is fairly well known among U.S. historians... but it still needs citing in this article. Will get to shortly. --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Looks like the reference was deleted at one point. Added it back in. Bgwhite (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC) "the president pro tempore of the state senate is next in line, and then the speaker of the state house of representatives" Some capital letters and wikilinks to the actual bodies (I know we have articles somewhere for the House and the Senate of Idaho) would be good here. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 33 has a publication date available. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) For the NYT refs, it is "The New York Times", not "New York Times" Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 36 needs location and publisher It has a publisher, added location. Unless you mean 35, which doesn't need a location. --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Several of the notes need referenced. 1, 14, 20, 24, and 26 contain information not in or reasonably derived from the table. All of those are referenced by the general references (primarily the NGA), just as the table is. If they were not, I would have sourced them specifically. Since some of them are used multiple times, that would require multiple identical footnotes. Is this a needed thing? I mean, you could say that you have to hunt a general reference to find them; on the other hand, that's the case for every other piece of information in the table. --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 06:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Yep, the notes should be able to stand on their own-- the reader shouldn't need to go back and look at the table to find the references. I'd add them into the notes even if many of the references will be the same as they are in the table. Nomader (Talk) 17:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) What he said. Courcelles 00:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Bgwhite (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 07:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments. The list is very close to becoming featured but there are a few problems: Idaho Territory had 16 territorial governors appointed from its organization in 1863 until the formation of the state of Idaho in 1890, who were appointed by the President of the United States. This is a convoluted sentence. 'appointed' is repeated twice and the last clause can be merged with the first. The state's first governor, William H. Wallace He was not a state's governor. He was a governor of the territory. Can the lead include information about how many governors have belonged to each party? Fixed all three comments. Bgwhite (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Ruslik_Zero 16:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Ruslik_Zero 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:05, 6 October 2010 [38].

---

Bryan Adams discography

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled across some Bryan Adams article this week, when i saw how bad shape--TIAYN (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC) their were in, i wasn't able to leave them alone. So i've done some work here and there. If this nomination is successful, i'll nominate his singles discography and videography lists to FL to. This is my second FL candidate, my first was List of leaders of the Soviet Union. Thanks for your time. --TIAYN (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments - looks good, just a few problems to deal with: (Done) But it wasn't until Cuts Like a Knife Adams got his breakthrough. Seems to have an informal tone and is slightly POV. Maybe Cuts Like a Knife was Adams' first internationally successful work. The entire lead needs a copy-edit, especially the addition of a few commas. (Working): That may take some time because i need to find some help first. --TIAYN (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC) (Done) Per MOS:DISCOG, a maximum of ten chart listings are recommended (Done) Is there any point in having the four charts in the 'Soundtracks' section where no soundtrack charted? (Done) The Hung Medien references (ie citations 10–18) are credited as being published by the chart companies; this is not true. For example, the New Zealand ref should be {{cite web|url=http://www.charts.org.nz/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Bryan%20Adams |title=Bryan Adams |publisher=Hung Medien. charts.org.nz |accessdate=today}} Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose I see no reason why this, Bryan Adams singles discography and Bryan Adams videography are different articles. See the excellent FL David Bowie discography for an artist who has released more albums and singles and videos than Bryan Adams, yet has only one discography article. 114.143.169.4 (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL..So you oppose becasue of layout?? or because there split???.... is there any real reason you oppose besides your personal preferences.. like references, invalid content, grammar, etc... Perhaps you should make your decision on content and not just style...there are many styles out there.Moxy (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the statement made above. --TIAYN (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments I thinks it's okay to break Adams' disography into two articles, although it could just as well be placed in one. Perhaps a poll could be taken and develop a "rule of thumb" to go by on future discographies (i.e. an artist like Elvis Presley probably should have two). As for the intro to this one: "In the beginning of the 2000s, Room Service became Adams first album since ..." — Room Service is listed as a 2004 release; does anyone really consider this the "beginning of the 2000s"? Jimknut (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• (Done): Something else that needs fixing (other than the grammer)? --TIAYN (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (Done) "five compilation albums (one awaiting release)" is that five inclusive or exclusive of the one awaiting release? (Done) " In 1978 Adams signed a recording contract with A&M Records. After the success ..." merge the first mini-sentence with the following. (Done) "at number sixty-nine on" no real reason not to say "number 69" is there? (Done) "and was not certified" then why mention it? Why not leave it until he did get a certified release, and then link "certified" to something appropriate about musical sales certification. (Done) "da. But it wasn't until " per MOS, avoid contractions -> "it was not until" (Done) "Adams' got his first internationally" yuck, "got" is horrible. (Done) Who are CRIA and RIAA? You don't link, expand or explain. (Done) "sold 8 million copies " -> eight million. (Done) "hit singles such as "Run to You"" no need for "such as" here. (Done) "which contained the theme song for the 1991 film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." can't believe you don't link that song here. (Done) " would go on to sell" why not just "went on to sell"? (Done) "the charts in nine countries six-time platinum and five-time platinum in Canada and the United States respectively" poorly phrased, needs rephrasing, at the very least a comma after countries. (Done) "title, 18 til I Die. 18 til I Die was" instant repeat of album name reads poorly. (Done) "The album managed to sell over 5 million copies " - reads poorly again, and 5->five. Suggest a copyedit from native English speaker. (Done) "released his eight studio " ->eighth (Done) What's "IFPI Europe."? (Done) "and would eventually sell over two "-> "and sold over two..." I've fixed this the best way i could; I'll try finding a native speaker who will be willing to help me. --TIAYN (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC) No more. There's a lot to do here, and as I said, this needs a careful view from a native English speaker to reorganise the emphasis of a lot of clauses, check grammar, spelling etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good! Can an IP even be counted in this vote? I think this is only for registered users so disregard him completely.--PeterGriffin • Talk 17:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose,

-What is the reason why the certification column in wikitable of albums is divided in two. being separated by regions?. Should be on a single meaning that certifications are global, and therefore there is no reason to separate ... for example see: Kelly Rowland discography, Moreover, most of discographies is so.

To not make a huge gap between the writing in the title sections and its colums... (may be a bad explanation).. But its staying this way, the certification table does not need to be the same, and mustn't. --TIAYN (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

-(DONE) The level 3, in section 1.4 should be amended of "Compilations" to "Compilation albums", so that they may use the links to "((Infobox Artist Discography))", also be placed if they are just compilations, greatest hits or other type, in the table, must be shown below the release information, label and ... Greatest hits or compilation. --200.121.59.43 (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from jimknut (talk · contribs) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Some suggested changes: Intro: (Done) “… and released his self-titled debut album, Bryan Adams in 1980” → … and released his self-titled debut album in 1980 (Done) “Adams followed the debut album with the sophomore release You Want It You Got It (1981).” → Adams followed his debut album with You Want It You Got It (1981). (“sophomore” sounds cheesy, plus the previous sentences established Adams’ debut album so I think most people can figure out that the next one is his second) (Done) “Reckless was released as his fourth studio album in 1984. The album sold eight million copies worldwide and featured the hit singles "Run to You", "Heaven" and "Summer of '69".” → Reckless (1984), his fourth studio album, sold eight million copies worldwide and featured the hit singles "Run to You", "Heaven" and "Summer of '69". (Done) “In 1987, he released Into the Fire which reached platinum status in the United States and triple-platinum in Canada.” → Comma after Into the Fire (Done) “Adams entered the 1990s with the release of the album Waking Up the Neighbours (1991), which contained the theme song "(Everything I Do) I Do It for You" for the 1991 film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.” → Adams entered the 1990s with the release of Waking Up the Neighbours (1991), which contained "(Everything I Do) I Do It for You", the theme song for the film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. (Since this is an album discography we don’t need to have the world “album” listed that often; the year 1991 need only be listed once) (Done) “Waking Up the Neighbours went on to sell 15 million units worldwide.” → The album went on to sell 15 million units worldwide (Here is where you can say “The album” as the previous sentence established which particular album we’re talking about.) (Done) “He also released his first greatest hits compilation, So Far So Good in 1993” → Comma after So Far So Good. (Done) “He released his seventh studio album, 18 til I Die (1996) which was certified platinum in the United States. It sold five million copies worldwide.” → His seventh studio album, 18 til I Die, was released in 1996. It sold five million copies worldwide and was certified platinum in the United States. (Done) “MTV Unplugged, an acoustic live album was released in 1997 and reached the top ten in many countries while selling two million copies in Europe.” → MTV Unplugged, an acoustic live album released in 1997, reached the top ten in [exact number] countries while selling two million copies in Europe. (Done) “In 1998, Adams released his eighth studio album On a Day Like Today, which was certified two-times platinum by the CRIA and platinum by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) — Europe.” → Adams' eighth studio album, On a Day Like Today (1998), was certified double-platinum by the CRIA and platinum by the IFPI Platinum Europe Awards. (Done) “His second compilation album, The Best of Me released in 1999,” → His second compilation album, The Best of Me (1999), (Done) “… made a big impact on the European albums chart and sold two million copies there” → Cheesy: How big is “big”? Suggestion: State that it went platinum/double-platinum. (Done) “In the beginning of the 2000s, with Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron (2002) Adams' was able to regain some of his lost audience in the US.” → Rewrite this. The first part (“In the beginning of the 2000s”) can be dropped, apostrophe after Adams is not needed, “United States” should be spelled out, and nothing prior to this sentence has suggested that Adams lost some of his audience in that country. (Done) “Room Service (2004) became Adams second album since You Want It You Got It, the first being On a Day Like Today, to peak within the top 200 on the Billboard 200; selling only 44,000 copies in the United States” → Room Service (2004) peaked at number 134 on the Billboard 200 and sold only 44,000 copies in the United States. (Done) “It topped the album charts of Germany and Switzerland.” → However, it topped the album charts in Germany and Switzerland. (Done) “Anthology (2005), became Adams' third greatest hits compilation” → Adams' third greatest hits compilation, Anthology, was released in 2005. (Done) “11 became Adams tenth studio album and peaked within the top 100 on the Billboard 200 and became Adams third number-one album in Canada.” → 11 (2008), Adams’ tenth studio album, peaked at number 80 on the Billboard 200 and became his third number-one album in Canada. (Done) “However, it did not achieve any certifications in Canada nor the United Kingdom, but has sold over half-a-million units worldwide.” → Although it did not receive any certifications in Canada or the United Kingdom, the album sold over half-a-million units worldwide. (Done) “He has according to the RIAA 17 million certified albums.[6] Internationally, Adams has sold something in between 65[7] to a number close to 100 million records and singles worldwide.” → According to the RIAA, Adams’ album sales have been certified at 17 million copies[6] while internationally he has sold between 65[7] and 100 million records and singles worldwide. (Change the footnote so it links to the actual page [i.e. page 2] of the RIAA site.) Soundtracks: (Done) "Soundtracks" → Soundtrack (singular, not plural, as there is only one album listed [unless, of course, you add the Colour Me Kubrick album into the section] ; in the infobox “soundtracks” is okay as that is the default spelling) (Done) "—" denotes releases that did not chart.” → No need for this statement as the album charted in all the countries listed (unless you add Colour Me Kubrick). Rarities: (Done) What makes them rare? This needs to be explained are deleted. Why can’t the first album be added to the compilation section and the second under soundtracks? (This is where they are listed in the main article about Adams.) I hope my suggestions help. After they are address I will consider offering support for the article. — Jimknut (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Looks good to me. One last suggestion: Adams apparently appears as a guest singer on an album called Pavorotti and Friends 2. I believe this should be added into the discography (perhaps under a new section [?]). — Jimknut (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've decided not to include, because it is not his album. He makes an appearance on it, nothing else. The album belongs in the Pavorotti discography article. --TIAYN (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose Discogs just work better and are more useful when they're on one page. Neither is all that long, so the information should be presented together, as currently written, this list fails 3b. Courcelles 14:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Here's the definition of a discography: "The exact information included varies depending on the type and scope of the discography, but a discography entry for a specific recording will often list such details as the names of the artists involved, the time and place of the recording, the title of the piece performed, release dates, chart positions, and sales figures" [39] Here's a thought. Explain without the profanity why two articles works better than one? And try not posting on my talk apge demanding I do something. I know full well how to use a watchlist. Courcelles 16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC) There are 20-albums in the list, and seeing that he is not retiring any time soon, more albums will probably be released... And as saidd previously, a discography is "The exact information included varies depending on the type and scope of the discography, but a discography entry for a specific recording will often list such details as the names of the artists involved, the time and place of the recording, the title of the piece performed, release dates, chart positions, and sales figures" [40], just a for some reason biasly saying that is list can't become a FL because it's not the way you want it, there seems however, not be any other existing problems with the article. My point is, I have no right to oppose all discography articles which don't seperate albums and singles discographies, that would be POV by my side and be unconstructive to WP:FL process. But for some weird reason, you, an administrator is doing this. Personal feelings aside, is there anything else that is wrong with this list? --TIAYN (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC) See, here's the thing, though. In the music business, albums and singles go together; each album usually spawns some number of singles. On this list, there's no way to connect each single with the album that it is from. There's just more elegance and usability in covering all of this on a single list, a list that wouldn't be excessively long. As the IP used the example, I'll keep with it, David Bowie discography, which is actually a good deal longer than Adams, yet fits easily on one article. Combined, it is far longer than the three lists being used to present the same information for Adams. This isn't arbitrary, the FL criteria actually require using as few lists as possible with the "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." clause. I'm not sure why you decided to split these in the first place—they were perfectly fine together until 6 weeks ago—but opposing for that is entirely legitimate and within the criteria. Opposing because a discog was not split would be without any grounding in the same. (For the record, this list is only 27Kb long. Combined they would be right around 70 once combined into a single lede, well within size guidelines.) Courcelles 21:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC) I'll merge the singles, not the videography article. See: Madonna discography, it is split between three different articles, all of which are FL's. --TIAYN (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC) A good compromise. I'll give you my typical citation and grammar nitpicking in the morning, but that should be all from me. (NB: Note that the size of Madonna's album discog is about twice what this one was, and only 8K smaller than Adams' entire discog before the split.) Courcelles 05:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Right, I realise this has dragged on but I'm glad the single and album discogs have been merged, it was silly to have them seperate IMO. On the videography, could it also be included. Two of the seven videos are already covered here under Live albums so I would question if the five albums and the videos could be included here (I doubt you'd make a decent list out of the videography as it stands, but feel free to prove me wrong if it stays!)

I'm going to prove you wrong!. --TIAYN (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you do (prove me wrong). (If you don't find this possible I hope you would at least welcome a a proper, more specific, merge discussion) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Other comments:
• (DONE) Live video ... the cell with "EU: 2× Platinum[33]" in it breaks onto two lines "EU:" and then "2x..." on another. Can this be fixed as it looks odd.
• (DONE) The same thing happens in "Compilation albums" with anything that went multi-platinum.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think i've fixed, but i didn't really understand the problem to be truthfull. --TIAYN (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It didn't work unfortunately so I've had a play. This works for me, can you (or anyone else) see anything problematic with what I did? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me... but of course, I couldn't see the problem either. --TIAYN (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 04:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments (DONE) Ref 5 has a publication date and needs a publisher (DONE) Ref 1 does... nothing for me. Check it, please. (DONE) ref 9 needs location and publisher (DONE) Ref 7 needs publisher (DONE) Ref 6... find a new way to do this. Right now, it reads as if Billboard publishes Reuters, which isn't right. (DONE) Ref 10 has a publication date. (DONE) For the Records and Archives Canada refs, the dates need to be moved out of the title and into a separate date field. There's quite a few of them. Refs 36 and 37, what makes them reliable? Tidy up the refs, and I'll be happy with this. Courcelles 02:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Well eil.com is a internet shop and i'm pretty sure that they won't lie about something so basic such as it was released to Japan-only. So that pretty much covers that one up, the Soundtrack Collector i'm a bit unsure of, but it doesn't include any let's say controversial information about the album, It only says its a rare soundtrack which is well proven when you search for the album on the internet. --TIAYN (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm not up-to-date on MOS:DISCOG, nor do I even try to be, but this meets the FL criteria. Courcelles 04:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:51, 1 October 2010 [41].

---

1972 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes... another Olympics medal table. Surprisingly, before the expansion I didn't think I could produce such a large and comprehensive lead section for this medal table list. I'm quite content with the way this list developed. Well, you know the drill. Thanks in advance for all comments/suggestions! Parutakupiu (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't like the very long intro. I strongly suggest splitting it into a proper one (i.e. summarizing succinctly the medal table) and a separate section in the article on the "firsts" or notable wins. Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree it's on the edge—or past already—of becoming a long lead. I'll work on that. What do you think that second section should be actually called? "Highlights", "Notable wins"? I want to be as accurate as possible without introducing s POV on the title. Parutakupiu (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not complaining but I predict that if I divide things as you suggest, the intro will become significantly shorter than the following section... but it's just a prediction, and I'm still trying to change the puzzle here. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, I think I managed to address your suggestion. The new sections look more balanced in terms of content than what I'd initially expect. What do you think? Parutakupiu (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I like it much more now. But it still has a small issue with the lead. For example "Spanish Francisco Fernández Ochoa prevailed in the alpine skiing's men's slalom, thus becoming their country's first Winter Olympic champions" is in the lead but not in the highlights section. It is fine if the lead is shorter while the highlights is longer because the lead is supposed to summarize what's in the entire article. Also "For the first time in its history, a delegation from Finland concluded its participation at the Winter Olympics without taking home any gold medals.[6] The Republic of China and the Philippines sent athletes to the Winter Olympics for the first time, but failed to win any medals" goes better into the highlights section. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Addressed all your points except the one regarding the debuting NOCs, which I think belongs in the intro but cannot be developed much more than that so that it's mentioned again in the highlights. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Question to reviewers: Is "Highlights" appropriate for the section title? What do you think of "Highlights and notable contributions" or just "Notable contributions"? Or another completely different? Parutakupiu (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Images clash on my 13" Macbook, forcing the Schenk image (and all text) into a tiny column. That might be a consequence of stacking the images. I do that because it doesn't mess with the section editing links, but on the other hand it messes up the page layout in different resolutions. Should I unstack them? Parutakupiu (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Is that detail on the medal indicative of what it was won for (Margit Schumann and her luge?) If so, definitely worth a mention in the caption, especially if medals were cast dependent on the discipline. You're right. It's worth the mention. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Forgive my ignorance but what's a "normal hill event"? There are two ski jumping events according to the jumping distance: normal and large hill. Their distance has been steadily increased with the years. In 1972 a "normal hill" was a run length of 70 meters, while a "large hill" was 90 meters. Note added. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "Karen Magnussen's silver in the figure skating's singles competition summed up Canada's weakest performance" I guess you mean "summed up" in the literal sense, but colloquially this would mean "was a symptom of", if you catch my drift. Rephrased. See what you think, please. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "It would take 26 years " I never like these "it would be" kind of prose things, when we already know what happens, so maybe "it took 26 years..."? Tense changed. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "By default, the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes from a NOC have won." reads really awkwardly to me. Rephrased. Will apply on other lists. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your review! Parutakupiu (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• "while Spanish Francisco Fernandez Ochoa prevailed...". I think a better form for this would be either "Spain's Francisco Fernandez Ochoa" or "Francisco Fernandez Ochoa of Spain". One of them would also work for the Polish ski jumper mentioned just before this.
  • Corrected. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Reference 9 doesn't need an English indication since that language is what we generally assume for external links. If it had been Japanese-language, then it would require such a disclaimer. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "Seventeen NOCs won at least one medal and 14 of them collected at least one gold." Don't mix formats of words and numerals. Corrected. Well spotted. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC) "in the case of Spain, it was its very first medal at this event." In an Olympic context, "event" usually means one specific competition, not one celebration of the Games, or-as used here-one season. This confusion between the usage of event continues in the next section. Courcelles 15:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Removed "at this event". I think one can understand that it's the first medal at the Winter Games, no? Parutakupiu (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support was planning on staying out, but this list looks the way I would expect a FL to look. While I did not check MOS issues, I think other users did go through; so I am going to support. One think that I hope the editors would add is to create an world image with all the NOCs winning medals and also labeling those that did participate (instead of the bronze medal image). Something like File:2008 Summer Olympics medal map.png. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That is a great suggestion, and I'm annoyed I didn't think of that earlier. That should fix the issue of finding lead images for Winter Games where there aren't medal images available. I will do that ASAP. Thanks for your support. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I suggest using green also for the NOC that did participate but did not win medals. You should probably remove the bronze entry and instead add the legend for the blue color. And it might be nice to keep the medal images, but at the bottom of the article. Nergaal (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Given that we have an image of a medal, is showing readers where Spain is located really all that useful? I seem to recall we've discussed the utility (or lack thereof) of these maps before, but I can't put my finger on where. (Perhaps around the Vancouver tables coming through here?) Courcelles 04:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
        • So... Keep map? Don't keep map? Parutakupiu (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

Comments – "For Canada, it was its weakest result in 36 years, when its athletes..." – Not keen on this phrasing, the three 'it's in the sentence are a bit clumsy, and the second is mostly redundant. Why not rephrase to "It was Canada's weakest result in 36 years, when their athletes..."? Rephrased. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC) "Hosting the Olympic Winter Games for the first time,[1] Japan's record in this event consisted.." – 'event' for me means an individual sport, not the whole thing. Maybe replace it with "Japan's record in the games consisted.." (maybe capitalise Games, I'm not sure) Removed "in this event". Parutakupiu (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC) "...guaranteed a medal sweep..." – Can you either link to an article explaining what is meant be a 'medal sweep', or explain it with a note here. Is it really necessary? Isn't it a common expression? Parutakupiu (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC) "...thus becoming their country's first Winter Olympic champions." – Pretty sure that this is the wrong form of the possessive. They are two different countries, so I would recommend "...thus becoming their respective countries' first Winter Olympic champions." Corrected. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC) As above for 'podium sweeps'. Other than these pretty picky prose issues, it's a good article, and once these have been resolved I'll happily lend my support. Harrias talk 09:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Harrias ^talk 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments:

1. This was Canada's weakest result in 36 years, when its athletes also brought home a single silver medal from the 1936 Winter Olympics. This is a convoluted sentence. I suggest something like "The Canada's result was the weakest in 36 years since 1936 Winter Olympics, when its athletes brought home a single silver medal".

   Replaced "in 36 years" with "since 1936 Winter Olympics", thus moving it from the end of the sentence. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

2. I agree that you should explain what "a medal sweep" means. In Sapporo, Yukio Kasaya (gold), Akitsugu Konno (silver), and Seiji Aochi (bronze) guaranteed a medal sweep for the host team in the ski jumping's normal hill (70 m) event, and gave Japan its first-ever gold medal at the Winter Games. is also a somewhat convoluted sentence.

   I'm not going to add an explanation for what a medal or podium sweep is, so I replaced the expression with adequate prose with similar meaning. Also rephrased the whole sentence to make it look less intricate. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

3. with both doubles teams finishing in the top three Does this mean men's and women's teams?

   Actually, in doubles there was only men competing, but I rephrased the whole sentence to make it more clear. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

   It still unclear that there was only men competing. Ruslik_Zero 11:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

   Attempt no. 2. Officially, it's a mixed event but only male pairs have entered it. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

4. Two-time world figure skating champion Ondrej Nepela added the Olympic men's singles title to his career and guaranteed Czechoslovakia's second and last Winter Olympics gold medal. It is unclear whether this second gold medal was (i) the second and last for Czechoslovakia at Sapporo games (ii) the second and last for Czechoslovakia in the figure skating overall (iii) the second and last for Czechoslovakia in Winter Olimpics. See also the caption.

   I tried to make that more clear, but don't know if I succeeded. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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