Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FL candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). One of the FL directors, either Dabomb87 or The Rambling Man—or their delegate Giants2008—determines the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least 10 days—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. Nominations, when possible, will be removed on Tuesdays and Saturdays, before User:GimmeBot's scheduled run at 00:00 UTC Wednesday and Sunday mornings. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – closing instructions – #wikipedia-en-FL

Shortcut: WP:FLC Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list log Former featured lists Removal candidates log Toolbox Checklinks Dablinks

Nomination procedure Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that Peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page). To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award

Nominator(s): Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The second-to-last topic in WP:BASEBALL's featured topic drives for award. I have two concerns with the article. The first is the tie for the 1979 NL award; I was trying to use colspan, but according to Help:Sorting, that doesn't work. Additionally, I'm not sure if the lead is long enough, but I can expand it if need be. I hope this doesn't die due to a lack of reviews. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

;Comments from KV5 "first commissioner of MLB" - first MLB commissioner Done. "at two difference positions" - different Fixed. Suggest either removing "year in baseball" links in prose since they duplicate information in the tables. Also, {{by}} links throughout should be changed to {{mlby}}, since the Major League Baseball season pages provide more context. I can't find anymore "year in baseball links" in the prose; I fixed them just after I initiated this, so you might have seen the old version. Also, changed the {{by}} templates using AWB. "in the Majors" - in Major League Baseball Done. "widely disliked Ty Cobb" - widely-disliked; it's a compound adjective here Done. For the 1979 issue, I would put Don Baylor in one cell as shown, then leave the other blank with centered em-dashes. Done, put the dashes in the second cell. There are a lot of active National League players who aren't marked as "active". Not sure how I missed those; maybe as a Mets fan I'd just like to think Howard and Rollins are retired. Remove fixed image widths to allow users' preferences to set the size of the thumbnails based on their resolution (except the lead image). Removed. Remove the section links from the header of the navbox so that it's obvious that they link to this article (link should bold out on this article). Done. Team links in the table should, I believe, go to the franchise, not to history pages, to be consistent with all of the other articles in the series. I did it this way because I feel it would be more useful to the reader to be able to read about the team the winners played for, not the current incarnation of the franchise, some of which don't have history sections. An example is Oakland Athletics, which has nothing in the History section, so a link there from "Philadelphia Athletics" wouldn't be very useful. If you still think so, I'll change it though. I think that's more a weakness of those particular articles rather than this one, so I still think they should go to the franchise pages. I'll drop a note on the talk page of the Athletics page so that maybe some editors who visit/edit that page regularly can talk about incorporating some history into the main page. Or maybe I'll just do it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Ok, changed them.

Great work, Mm40! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now we just need Starx to finish WS champs. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• *shakes fist at uppity teens ruining his lawn* Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Ruth and Foxx images are lacking alt text.

• You caught me just as I was adding more images and finishing alt text.

• There are 4 disambig links that the FLC tool will show you (Bob Elliot, bunt, Larry Doyle, Texas Rangers).

• That's odd, they weren't there this morning. Fixed.

• I think the lead could use expansion. Precisely how many did each of those IF positions win? Foxx was the first to win multiples. DEFINITELY mention the 1979 shared award. Etc, etc, etc.

• Done, is that enough? Now three decent-sized paragraphs.

• "The award's only tie occurred in 1979 when Keith Hernandez and Willie Stargell both received 216 points." - in which league? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Specified. By the way, can your resolved comments be considered a support? Mm40 (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've taken to waiting for most comments to be resolved before stating a support. There have been some instances where I've supported lists after finding 3 or 4 mistakes only to come back and find that other reviewers have found 25 or 30 things that I missed. Since the resolution of comments is given more weight than a declaration of support anyway, I usually wait to see the comments that other users make, and if they are resolved as well, before supporting or opposing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Also, the League Award needs quite a bit more citing. The rule about one-win-per-player is completely uncited.

• The entire section is cited to Gammons and Palmer; if you can find some more sources, I'd gladly incorporate them.

How does it look now. I realize there are a few missing symbols, I'm adding them now. Mm40 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All the above issues resolved. Mm40 (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The only problem I have is that all of the content is under a single header. As the title says the list is about award winners, it is unnecessary to have a header saying the entire article is about award winners. Make the current subsections top-level sections. Reywas92^Talk 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of international cricket centuries by Marcus Trescothick

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Another list of cricket centuries, primarily modelled on that of Ricky Ponting. The first one for an English player. Would appreciate any comments, criticisms and improvements. Harrias (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport Any remaining tweaks will undoubtedly be picked up. SGGH ^ping! 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "the only occasion on which he has made a double century" could be "his only double century"
    • Done: changed as suggested.
  • "His 14 Test centuries have been scored at 11 grounds, with nine of the centuries being scored in England and the five remaining centuries all scored at different grounds. He has made a century in both innings of a Test match on one occasion, against the West Indies in 2004 at Edgbaston. He has been dismissed twice after scoring 90 but failing to go on to score a century, against India in 2001 and Australia in 2005.[5]" Overuse of "century" particularly at the beginning, and the second use of "ground" could be changed to "venue".
    • Done: changed as suggested.
  • "Trescothick's 12 ODI centuries are the most scored by an English cricketer, four more than the next, Graham Gooch"... "the next..." what? "The next" would fit in better I feel if the sentence had been "Trescothick's 12 ODI centuries is the highest tally" but would be better to remove the "next" part.
    • Not changed yet, I have similar issues when writing it, but I'm unsure as to whether it would make sense if it isn't clarified that Gooch has the next most centuries. Just couldn't work out suitable wording.
  • the lead overall is slightly bullet-point-esque.
    • Again, not changed yet, I appreciate your point here and will have a look at it properly to work through, I'm not always the most fluid writer! Any help here would be appreciated.
  • A few other prose issues and grammar.
    • As with the previous point really.
  • "Test" column is a bit misleading IMO without "th" or "st" to illustrate you mean which Test in the series. Though I suspect you have done this because it is what Ponting's list does.
    • I'm not sure how much clearer having 'th' and 'st' would make it personally? Would invite other opinions on this.
      • Done: fixed with Chamal's suggestion (x/x), see below. Harrias (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Place the cricket archive link in the external links
    • Done: changed as suggested.
  • Is the cricket records box needed? I've always been inclined to include only nav-boxes in the articles they have in them.
    • All the other lists of this type have this box. That doesn't make it right, but for consistency until a discussion/concensus is made, I'll leave it there.

Good stuff, I'll check back with the FLC has proceeded further. SGGH ^ping! 11:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I've fixed those that I'm immediately able to, and left a few other to think and mull over! Harrias (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "Trescothick failed to score a century in his three Twenty20 Internationals" makes it sound like it's a failure on his part IMO, which isn't really fair on old Marcus since only one player has yet managed that. Maybe a reword?
  • I originally had 'and did not make a century in any of them,' but this was changed by Aaroncrick to the current wording. I agree with what you say, but also feel that my original wording was a bit clunky, I'll try and find a middle ground.
• Is it really necessary to mention his domestic T20 century? This is not uncommon, and a lot of international players have done that. Why single out that one when his other first class centuries are not mentioned?
  • It was only due to the fact that he'd only played three T20Is, I can remove it if you think that's best.
• The template {{cr}} doesn't display the Irish cricket flag since it's non-free. But Template:Country data Ireland says not to use the template without a flag variant specified. You could use the normal Irish flag, or drop the flag altogether and just give the link.
  • Done: changed as suggested.
• You could indicate the matches where he was selected man of the match, though it's not really a big deal.
  • I'll have a look through and see how many there were and if it adds anything to the article.
• For the "Test" column, you could use the format used in Gilchrist, Jayasuriya lists etc. The latest centuries lists have used this, and is less confusing than just the number I think.
  • Done: changed as suggested.
• The lead could do with a copyedit, but you've said you're already working on that.
• The 100 he made against Bangladesh in 2005 is the third fastest ODI century by an English batsman [1]. Doesn't he hold any other world/English records? Mention those in the lead.
  • Done: I've just bolted it on at the moment, as the lead needs a copyedit anyway!

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've integrated it and tinkered a little. SGGH ^ping! 12:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to a number of your points, the Test column x/x is a good format, I'll go through and do that soon. Harrias (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Now done Test column. Harrias (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment You should not have two keys that say the exact same things. Please remove the second one, and also check that other century FLs are not also repetitive. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of universities in London

Nominator(s): Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets FL criteria and deserves featured status. Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This list was a recent featured list candidate. The nomination failed due to a lack of reviewers. All comments of the previous nomination have been addressed and the list has virtually not changed since then. I nominate it again because I think that it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Hoping for more reviewers this time. bamse (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Very informative and well written list. My only concern is the following sentence: All of these are counted double in this table. All of these five paintings are mentioned just one time in the table. Ruslik_Zero 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and edits. Not sure if I understand the problem. There are five National Treasures which date to more than one period (In fact all of these five date to two periods.) In the "Age/National Treasures" table the sum in the "National Treasure" column is 163 which is equal to 153 (single period National Treasures) plus five (two-period National Treasures) which are counted double. So 153 + 2*5=163. I added the following sentence to the footnote to clarify: "For instance, the National Treasure "Portraits of Seven Shingon Patriarchs" appears twice in this table: under "Tang Dynasty" and under "Heian period"." bamse (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – On a second look at this list, the only problem I saw was the clarification tag, and steps have been taken to address this. This is normally where I would support the list's promotion, but I am a temporary delegate and must abstain as long as there's a possibility that I could close this. I might be back to my regular reiewer role before this FLC ends; if I am, I intend to offer support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent effort. I don't have any problems here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comments from WFCforLife I didn't review this first time around because it's really not my area of expertise, but I'm sad to see that this didn't get passed. I may live to regret this, but a note to the directors. If an article fails its first FLC purely because of lack of interest (i.e. the director feels it could have passed with a couple of reviews, but was obliged not to promote), I'll review anything the second time if made aware of the second nom.

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

:*"The 158 entries in the list consist of the following: 90 are hanging scrolls; 38 are hand scrolls or emakimono; 20 are byōbu folding screens or paintings on sliding doors (fusuma); and three are albums." This does not tally to 158. Indeed. I added "four are murals" and "Two items, the portrait of Kichijōten and Illustrated Biography of Prince Shōtoku do not fall in any of these categories." and re-counted the byōbu/fusuma which are 21 (not 20). Now it adds up to 158. "20 are byōbu folding screens or paintings on sliding doors (fusuma)" Is there a reason that one term is in brackets but not the other? I've got no preference on formatting, but as far as I can tell byōbu and fusama should be used in the same way. Fixed. Both without brackets now. "The greatest number of National Treasure paintings are located in Kyoto with 50, and Tokyo with 46, and more than half of the Tokyo paintings are located in the Tokyo National Museum." While they are wikilinked, it's not obvious at a glance if we are talking about the prefectures or the cities. Because specific statistics are being used, the distinction is important. Perhaps something along the lines of: "The city containing the greatest number of National Treasure paintings is Kyoto with 50, followed by Tokyo with 46. More than half..." Rewritten as you suggested. On a related note, is Tokyo national museum mentioned because it is the building with the most treasures? Added: "which is the structure housing the most painting National Treasures." Perhaps wikilink the "Prefecture" heading to Prefecture#Japanese_sense_of_prefecture. It would be inaccurate to change the word, and cumbersome to add a footnote, but nonetheless some readers may not understand the term. Wikilinking seems a good compromise. I wikilinked it to Prefectures of Japan which is the main article referred to under Prefecture#Japanese_sense_of_prefecture. Most of the redlinks don't bother me. There is clearly scope for articles to be created for these in the future, and it's therefore correct that they are linked to. But what makes Kawabata Kinenkai notable? Unlinked Kawabata. I can't fault the table itself, that's absolutely wonderful. Hope these help for now, WFCforLife (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I addressed all of them.bamse (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the lead, it's very well-written.

Not speaking Japanese, it's difficult for me to express opinions on most of the references. The best quality sources are going to be Japanese, and therefore we should use them. What I would ask is that at least one of the |publisher= or |author= fields is filled in for each reference, so that a non-speaker can ascertain where the information is coming from. There are a few references with a Japanese title, followed by (in Japanese) and retrieved on yyyy-mm-dd, which isn't really enough information. WFCforLife (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that as soon as I am back to a computer with Japanese fonts; likely either today or tomorrow.bamse (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of DART Light Rail stations

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FLC criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FLC on similar topics (List of St. Louis MetroLink stations, List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations and List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations). Patriarca12 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Images need alt text

Alt text added to all images.

• In the refs, keep the date format consistent in both published date and retrieved date.

Corrected.

• The image description page for the map says a part of it is incorrect. Can you check and fix if this is true? It'd be best if you could add a reference there to an official map.

I revised the map to correct the duplicate station indicated in the description page and amended the Green Line Stations that are now open.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text is pretty much the same as the image caption now. It should describe the image, since it's there for someone who can't see the image. For example, the alt text for File:White Rock Station .jpg could be something like "Two people are standing next to a small tree and a waste container, on a platform beside a partially visible white and yellow train". ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• If you're going to force image sizes for maps, put them at minimum 300px.

Resized.

• Several of the sentences are rather long; in particular the first, the last in the second paragraph and the last in the third paragraph.

I reworded several to cut down the length of several sentences.

• Instead of wikilinking 'U.S. state of...', just write 'Texas, United States', with 'United States' unlinked.

Done.

• In the lead, I would like to see more about the stations—perhaps by expanding the total length. Information that could be included are if there are any 'hubs' or similar in the system, the busiest stations ect. Another aspect that could be discussed is the amenities, facilities and architecture of the stations. Are they mere tram stops, or full stations? Is there a common design, or are they vastly different? Also, the information in the third paragraph is much more vital to the scope of this article, and should be moved further to the top, perhaps even as the second sentence.

Relocated suggested paragraph and added additional paragraph providing for additional information on station design.

• Pearl is overlinked.

Delinked.

• It is not obvious that 'Dallas Love Field' is an airport.

Clarified.

• In the key, 'transfer' should not be capitalized, similarly 'completion' in the second table.

Done.

• Although it is possible to say 'terminal station', the phrase 'terminal' by itself can have another meaning. It would be better to use the terms 'termini' (plural of 'terminus') or 'terminal stations'.

Done.

• References should be center-aligned in the tables.

Done.

• 'St. Paul' and 'Spring Valley' are in the wrong order.

Corrected.

• 'Orange Line' is overlinked in the body of 'stations under construction'.

Delinked.

• There seems to be a statement in the body of 'stations under construction' that lack sources.

Additional sources added.

• Use 'and' instead of a slash in 'deferred/ghost'.

Done.

• Image licenses and external links turn out all right. Could you move the three appropriate images to the Commons, please.
  • I am not familiar enough with how to do this. I will work on it...
• Ref 13 should use the {{"'}} template, but since this is being created by a cite template, there isn't much that can be done about that.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Again, thank you for your comments and taking the time to take a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] George Orwell bibliography

Nominator(s): The Illusional Ministry (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• Support but possible conflict of interest, as I made most of this list. I had always intended on submitting it after I got a hold of Davison's volumes to round out the list of publications, but I suppose it can go through the procedure now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Support

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

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

Comments

• Images need WP:ALT text. If the infobox doesn't support it then it should be modified accordingly.

Not done I have asked someone to add this parameter and I have Y Done it myself by adding text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• We no longer start our lists "The following ...." etc. Have a look at the current FLC List of works of William Gibson for some ideas on what we'd expect to see as an intro to this type of list. For a list of this magnitude, we'd certainly be looking for more than one short paragraph.

Not done I'm just bad at these, I guess I'll have to rely on someone else to add this or give it some serious consideration later. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, needs serious consideration for this FLC to be successful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm not saying you're wrong (you aren't), I'm just saying that I cannot do this right now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• What are "op/eds"?

Op-ed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• "probably best remembered" according to whom? This kind of claim could use a few citations otherwise it reads like your opinion.

Done I figured the next sentence would substantiate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• "by 1989" - we're now a few days short of 2010 - can we get an update?

Not done I would certainly like one, but I don't have it. Do you know of a resource (site or book) that lists book sales? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but it's not really my problem. You should be looking around for something that's more up to date than two decades ago. Or otherwise rephrase it to make it seem useable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay No, it's not "your problem" I was just asking for help. If you can't help me, that's fine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Update with the sales figure from The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell, from 2007, which claims "almost 50 million copies sold". Instead of the old 40. The Ministry (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Notable essays include:" what makes them more notable than other essays that didn't make the cut? Could this list not be comprehensive?

Not done This list would include over 300 essays (as included later in the article.) Some of his essays are better-known than others (as one would imagine), and some of them have been published independently. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line is, you've said "notable essays include" without any reference to what is notable. Either include them all, or clearly define what inclusion criteria you've applied to your own subset of essays which you consider to be more notable than other essays Orwell wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not done but worth doing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• "in 2000–2002" - between 2000 and 2002.

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• "criticizing" - presumably we'd expect this list to be written in BritEng so "criticising"

Done It is in British English, see Talk:George Orwell bibliography. I'm glad that you checked this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 3 missing a comma before the ISBN.

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• What makes Orwell.ru a WP:RS?

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 10 is malformed.

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The table is mammoth. I'll look at it once these comments are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, refs 13 and 15 need accessdates, publisher details etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

[edit] List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list, with proper references and I think it meets all the other criteria required for review. Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the lead could be expanded a touch. You have only two major sections to the list so writing a paragraph summarising the recipients in the lead (i.e. how many, where, why etc) shouldn't be too hard.
• "received the Medal of Honor. José Nísperos was the first person of Asian descent to receive the Medal," - receive the medal is a little repetitive here.

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• "and he received his for " replace with "after" and then replace the next "after" with "following" perhaps? A little more succinct?
• Trinidad's date of action is 1915 but your intro to this section says fighting continued until 1913... I'm confused. The heading mentions peacetime but the lead to this table doesn't make it clear.
• Not sure you need to link conflict to war.

Not sure what you mean here, could you clarify?--Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• World War II is overlinked.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Worth mentioning that only two officers were awarded this in WWII?
• Unit doesn't sort correctly - I'd expect 7th before 100th for instance. I'd look at the {{SortKey}} template.
• Not 100% on my alt text but should they all reflect that the people in the images are Asian American?
• Sortable table - link each link every time. Check platoon. There could be others.

Could you clarify this a little too, im confused. --Kumioko (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Don't think you need to link United States in the Korean war section.

Done--Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• "armistice (ceasefire agreement) " - you've linked armistice so no need for the parenthetical hint.

Done--Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Don't mix date formats in the references. Either all ISO or all human-readable.

Done--Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Montserrat national football team results

Nominator(s): -- BigDom 11:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria. The list provides a comprehensive and complete history of the results of the Montserrat national football team. Look forward to all of your comments, thanks in advance for your time. -- BigDom 11:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment the key section should come before the actual list and should be in table form. "In the "Score" column, Monserrat's score is shown first." should be a footnote—Chris!_c/t 19:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Have put the key first and used a footnote, but from previous experience at FL I'm afraid I don't agree about having the key in table format so I've not done that. -- BigDom 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Many FLs have the key in table format in case you didn't notice. But I guess that is just personal preference, so feel free to leave that alone.—Chris!_c/t 18:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant in my own experience here, I haven't had to put any keys in a table format. Like you say, it's just personal preference so I may as well leave it as it is. -- BigDom 23:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments - nice to see a niche list here! No image? Not even something vaguely Montserrat-ian? Hmm, I haven't found any uncopyrighted ones up to now, but I'll keep looking. Have left a Photo request on the list's talk page. -- BigDom "football on the island is governed by the Montserrat Football Association " - surely not all football? Perhaps official competitive football? Changed -- BigDom "They are affiliated..." singular "association", plural "they are"...? Changed to singular -- BigDom "has to date" can we be more specific? Changed to "as of December 2009" -- BigDom "The side lost their..." you've just mentioned Anguilla, be careful we don't run the risk of confusion over which "side" you're referring to. Changed to "Montserrat" -- BigDom "for another three" perhaps "for a further three"? Done -- BigDom You could link "lowest-ranked" to the FIFA rankings article. There's already a link to that article in the same paragraph, so didn't want to overlink. -- BigDom Per above, you use "to date" and "most recent" quite a bit, it'd be handy to have a timeframe on this. Have put a timeframe on them all -- BigDom "won just two" I think use of "just" is vaguely POV, I'd stick to the bare facts. Removed "just" -- BigDom "record high rank of #196.[6]" - record-high, and perhaps it'd be useful to put this into context as you haven't previously stated what bottom of the rankings is in numerical terms (i.e. #200? #250?). Changed and done -- BigDom "1996–" would prefer "1996–present"? Done -- BigDom GF I count 15, not 16 in your summary table. Also make GA 112, but it is getting late.. Ahh, the GF and GA were right, but I'd left a team out of the table. It's right now -- BigDom FIFA needs linking in the references for our non-footballing readers. Done -- BigDom The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, have addressed them accordingly. -- BigDom 18:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• next seven matches, before → next seven matches before

• Done -- BigDom

• What does becoming a FIFA member have to do with the volcano?

• Split into two sentences -- BigDom

• The friendly match, between the two lowest-ranked teams in the world, ended → The friendly match between the two lowest-ranked teams in the world ended

• Done -- BigDom

• Is is necessary to say "As a full FIFA member", or can it just say "FIFA"? Was it only a partial member before?

• Removed "full" -- BigDom

• I think record tables tend to be WLD rather than WDL.
  • The nominator is from the UK, and in the UK (and in fact pretty much everywhere outside the USA) sports tables are always shown in the WDL format -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've always seen tables as WDL so I guess this one's just personal preference -- BigDom
• Notes A, B, C, D, and E are redundant to the lead or unnecessary because they can easily be inferred from the table.

• Removed them -- BigDom

Nice list overall. Reywas92^Talk 03:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tips, I have addressed them all now. -- BigDom 08:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pussycat Dolls discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i have been working on improving the article, its formatting, sourcing, prose etc and i believe that it is of good quality. have also had the article peer reviewed and actioned any suggestions Mister sparky (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks solid. I made a few super-minor edits of my own, but other than that, this looks great. No complaints; happy to immediately support its nom. Nice work! Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick question I'm looking at "Promotional singles", all of which is sourced to ref [3]. I looked at ref [3]. I can't see any of this section referenced by this. Can you explain? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC) forgot about those! positions couldn't be sourced by allmusic or billboard so removed and added notes. Mister sparky (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Comments "Debut single.." reads a little odd to me starting the sentence this way. Their debut single? changed Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "...number one in a number of countries..." I always dislike "in a number of" because to me it's totally redundant... changed Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "The album peaked at number five on the US Billboard 200[4] and within the top ten of the majority of countries in which it was released and it was certified..." x and y and z... too many clauses for me. changed Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Your 3x in the lead uses a different x from the rest of the list. missed that one! Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) I'd prefer to see references in numerical order (you have, for instance, a [4][1][2] and an [8][7]). changed, it does look better. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Snoop is overlinked in the lead. removed the second. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Just me, but the alt text seems a little weak, you could describe, for instance, what they're wearing. added a brief description Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Exclusive release - where is this cited? added Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Should that be "featuring Missy Elliot" rather than "with"? all of the say "with" for consistency. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Promotional singles now completely unreferenced? added Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Same for Video album. added Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) What makes Kloss and Lee more significant than Kahn (i.e. redlink vs no link)? joseph kahn is linked two cells above. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy Legend Award

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FL criteria. I welcome all comments. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Perhaps a touch radical but since you have almost a complete set of images, how about embedding them in the table rather than the (rather nasty, in my opinion) gallery? I did similar for the Crafoord Prize. Added images to table. Consider using the Award infobox. Added. "to recording artist " - to a recording artist? Plus, do you really mean this? Are the Bee Gees an "artist"? Changed to "recording artists". "were issued in 1990, to recipients Andrew Lloyd Webber" - why not just "were awarded in 1990, to Andrew..."? Done. "inuagrated" - typo. Fixed. "The next year, in 1992," perhaps I missed something but the next year would be 1991... Correct. Fixed. "prestigious award" who says it's prestigious? Dropped "prestigious". Your lead says awards were made in 1995 but the table doesn't. Changed to 1994, and tweaked the sentence in reference to the award being issued intermittently. 15 musicians? I'd say 14 solo musicians and one band... Changed to "14 solo musicians and one band have received the Grammy Legend Award". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Pyrrhus16 17:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• were issued in 1990, to → were issued in 1990 to

• Done.

• The next year, in 1991, four more → The next year four more

• Done.

A very short list withour much information, but I think you've got everything and it looks nice. Reywas92^Talk 03:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Pyrrhus16 19:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Interpol discography

Nominator(s): ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards of other featured lists, as well as the criteria neccessary to be featured. So here goes. ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments A few things catch my eye right off the bat:

• 23 chart positions? Really? MOS:DISCOG recommends a limit of 10. 23 is not only an indiscriminate amount of information, it's also bordering on fandom, in my opinion.
  • Done - Dropped to ten chart positions.
• Some general references would be helpful, a la The Prodigy discography.
  • Done - Added general references.
• "Download only single" is neither a title nor a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized nor italicized.
  • Removed capitals, italics.
• Why are the live eps seperated from the other eps?
  • Since they have more than one live ep, I thought to separate them, but I've since joined the two groups.
• Not sure if the recording for Mammoth qualifies as a music video per se.
  • It's listed on the band's official website in their "Video" section, and it was used on various music channels as the promotional video.
• Discographies should only include previously unreleased material. It appears that many of the track listed in compilations were released previously (on the albums), so I'd recommend taking those out. There's no need to list every compilation/commercial/movie trailer a song of their's has shown up in if that song had already been released.
  • I realised it would be unneccessary to include every time any song was included on some sort of compilation, so included songs which were not stand-alone singles, but which were included in third-party formats. A similar style is used in Bloc Party's discography, another featured list, and the section's lead mentions this.
  • See below.

Drewcifer (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Replies by ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Cannibaloki (talk · contribs)

• Add alternative text and caption for the image on the infobox.
  • Done.
• "Interlude" is not a song from Turn On the Bright Lights?
  • Done - "Interlude" was released as a bonus track to the above album in Japan and Mexico only, yes, but prior to this it had not been available in the UK. I've added a note to clarify that.
• "Doug Aitken/Adam Levite" Add a comma instead of a slash.
  • Done - this formatting was used in the source, but I have changed regardless.
• "Recorded live at London's Astoria, February 7, 2007" is the director of "Mammoth"? Also, why the sentence is in italics?
  • It was explained above that the video is a live performance which was used as a promotional video. The sentence is in italics to show it is not a director, what formatting do you think is a better idea?
• "Listed are songs that were not released by Interpol as stand-alone singles, but which were included in third-party formats." What?
  • It would be more useful to the candidacy review as a whole if you could explain your point more in future. If you mean an explanation. the sentence simply means that "This is a list of songs which the band have not released as singles (see single (music)), but have been released by a third-party (ie, on a compilation release, in a manner not controlled by the band). This line is used in Bloc Party discography, a fellow featured list.

Cannibaloki 03:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Replies by ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to issues with "Compilations"

After looking through various discographies found in FL-Class Discography articles, I noticed that a similar manner of displaying songs found on other releases is used in Nirvana discography, here titled "Other appearances". I have retitled the section in this discography accordingly. Please see there for the rationale for its inclusion. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Copenhagen Metro stations

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This list of the stations of the Copenhagen Metro fits into a growing number of metro station lists. I feel the article now meets the FL criteria, but if there are any comments or feedback, I am more than happy to look into it and amend the article as needed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You probably need to change the Line column from using images to using text. Accessibility and all that. Also, at least in the future stations table, you list two stations as being termini... which they are, but you don't specify for which line. --Golbez (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. Concerning the termini, it says in the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Line M3 will operate the full circle, while M4 will only operate the eastern half." This should imply that M3 does not have any termini, and that any termini of the City Circle Line would belong to M4. In my opinion this is sufficient, especially since there is a map to the right that shows the circle. I am also a little unsure how to incorporate the more detailed information and where you want it. Concerning the icons, they will either show up as an image or they will show up with the alt-text (M1, M2, M3 and M4). Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images used in Line column do not need alt text per this guideline because they are purely decorative; also, what does S in the first table stands for? I assume that is for the S-train.—Chris!_c/t 02:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The info in the Line column is not otherwise available, so those images' alt text ("M1", "M2") should be fine as-is; without the alt text, the visually impaired reader of a table row won't know the row's line. Eubulides (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The 'S' was just a stray letter that must have been put in by mistake—it is now removed. The icons are not purely decorative, so they still need alt texts. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought they are purely decorative.—Chris!_c/t 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I have found no problems, except that you may want to move 'min' to the caption of the fifth column of the first table. Ruslik_Zero 15:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. I have removed 'min' from the list and added a two-word specification of the time scale in the key. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain

Nominator(s): ResMar 20:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Some comments after a very quick glance (mainly on sorting):

• Sorting the first table breaks formatting (intermediate colspan headers).

Uh...I don't know what to do with that. It's pretty important information, what island it is on. ResMar 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be its own column. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Island column now exists and the columns have been removed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice. ResMar 02:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• How do the "coordinate" columns sort?

It sorts by coord, but then again it's pretty redundant considering it's in that order already, ok I'll remove it. ResMar 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• The sorting should still exist. If the list is sorted by coordinate to begin with, it's going to have to be able to get back to that point somewhow. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And added right back again. ResMar 02:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. So it sorts by latitude. I just wondered about the usefulness of sorting by coordinates. Since it appears that going north is like (roughly, not always exactly) going west along the seamount chain it is probably useful.bamse (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorting of the age column is broken at least in the first table. I get this order: 4.9 million - 1 million - 4 million.

Shoot. Sorting problems. Exactly what I expected...sigh. ResMar 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Still an issue, I can fix it via hidden sortkeys but for a lot of them there is an overlapping range of values in age, any suggestions? ResMar 02:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it should probably sort by the lowest number. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably depends on what the ranges in the age column represent (Should be explained in the text somewhere!). Are they ranges of activity or ranges in uncertainty of age determination. If the former i would sort by the oldest age, if the latter I would sort by the average of the two numbers. bamse (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Uncertaincy in age. ResMar 14:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest sorting by the average of the lower and upper age limit. bamse (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 18:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? For me none of the three tables sorts correctly in the age column.bamse (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone over it again and added sortkeys to two of the table sections...should work fine now. ResMar 15:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost. 2nd and 3rd table are fine. In the first table, the Waiʻanae Range (3.7–3.9 million years) is sorted as oldest, which it is not. It's probably up to personal preference, but I would have used the years themselves as sortkeys (instead of 0001, 0002,...). Makes possible extensions of the table easier and requires less thinking when creating the sort keys.bamse (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, missed this one. Sorry :) Um no in fact using the ages is partially why it doesn't want to work, it puts "70 years" back of "700,000", for example (dunno why). Easiler to work with numbers, less fidling to make it work. Plus I'm sure I can handle it, I'm a <not> whiz with math xD. ...but seriously, it's easier to use number because it is less prone to breaking. ResMar 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason behind it is because the sortkeys require all significant digits. For example, to sort 70 before 70,000, you would have to have the sortkey for 70 be "00070", to account for all sigdigs. I will take a look at it and see if I can't accomplished this. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why it doesn't want to sort properly though, everything is in order, it has a key of 13 between 14 (above) and 12 (2 above), but doesn't want to go right... oO Do you know what the issue is? ResMar 00:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the sortkeys I added have fixed the issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• In the second table you might want "Last Eruption"->"Type".

Done. ResMar 23:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• What does the "Back to Top" in the last table do?

Removed. ResMar 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Add alt text to the image.

There are two images in the article. The lead image has alt text, and the one in the template does not require it because it is for purely decorational purposes. ResMar 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I added "alt=" to what I believe is the alt text of that image. Please check.

bamse (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

One more quick comment: I was told in one of my FLC, that featured lists don't start like: "This is a list of..." anymore, so you should probably change the start.bamse (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 01:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is six paragraphs long. Should be four or less per WP:LEAD. --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This was a concern of mine too but I think that for this article it can be a little long; its not as simple as awards and nominations, so it needs a 1-para introduction. In addition, the first paragraph just states what the article is. The next paragraph on ages, that can be removed, but the last 3 paras on how the chain is divided is vital information. ResMar 14:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok reduced to 4 paras. I blended paras 1 and 2 and kicked the para on age. ResMar 14:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

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

• Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils)

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

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

[edit] List of Case Closed episodes (season 17)

Nominator(s): DragonZero (talk · contribs) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. I realize that my grammar has a lot of issues and this being a mystery episode list can be confusing so all criticisms appreciated. I have a lot of time to fix up the mistakes. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments The image does not have a proper WP:ALT. FUR looks line. (how would someone who is blind and unfamiliar with the series know what "Conan Edogawa" looks like. The Alt should be generic. The summary of ep 494 is too long (over 300 words and longer than all the rest). The rest of them seem fine, at under 200 words each on a quick check. A copyedit really should be done before an FLC is started. A few points from the lead that I noticed:

• "In Japan, the series is titled Meitantei Conan (名探偵 コナン?, Detective Conan) but was changed due to legal issues with the title Detective Conan" - was changed where? when? by who? not very clear. Also, the kanji/romaji seems unnecessary. Since it is licensed in English, what about the English release?
  • Fixed it. Well I just know that episodes 104 and up are not licensed by Funimation, so I left it blank.
• it states it is based on the manga, but not which part? Can it be limited to chapters X-Y or does it jump around too much to say much more than based on?
  • I could probably limit it between two volumes, but it might seem like original research.
• "The episodes' plot covers the adventures of teenage detective Shinichi Kudo who was turned into a child by a poison called APTX 4869. He continues to be a detective under the alias Conan Edogawa. The episode plot covers the FBI's confrontation with the Black Organization, a mysterious Criminal Syndicase and is then followed by Conan's usual adventures." - episode plot said twice. Suggested alternative: "The series focuses on the adventures of teenage detective Shinichi Kudo who was turned into a child by a poison called APTX 4869, but continues working as a detective under the alias Conan Edogawa. At the start of the season, he works with the FBI as they confrontation with the criminal syndicate, the Black Organization, before the episodes return to a more episodic formula."
  • Thank you
• "Episodes 491 to 523 were later collected into ten DVD compilations by Shogakukan. They were released between September 26, 2008 and August 28, 2009 in Japan" - makes it sound like only a partial release was done, yet it seems like that is the entire season. Why not just say, "The thirty-episodes were released in Japan across ten DVD volumes by Shogakukan between September 26, 2008 and August 28, 2009." should probably also note that the episodes were not released in the same order they aired.
  • I think I fixed it.

Did not check the episode summaries grammar. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna videography

Nominator(s): --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this embodies the videography of American recording artist Madonna completely and is a complete list of her releases, including their notability and controversies surrounding it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Comment. That's a huge lead! Here are my objections: "The year 1995 saw the release of "Bedtime Story" from the same album. At the time of its release, the music video for the song was the most expensive video to be ever made, with production cost of $2 million." That can't be right. "Express Yourself" cost $5 mil. and it was the most expensive at its time. Also, "Bedtime Story" is said to have cost 5 mil too: here. Corrected. The reference I used was obviously wrong then. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) "Madonna wore leotard in the video and had her hair in curls. This look was carried in the music videos for the other singles from the album namely, "Sorry", "Get Together" and "Jump"." Not true. She did not wear a leotard in "Get Together" or "Jump" and definately not curls in the latter, as she had a blond bob wig. Didn't she wore a leotard in the alternate version of Get Together eh? Oh well, removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Oh, I guess I forgot about that one, my bad. You can add it back if you want. Why not mention that "Die Another Day" is second most expensive video in history? Mentioned. Can't believe I missed it :) --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) There is no source for Mary Lambert as the director of "Like a Virgin" and "Material Girl". That's all from me. Mentioned the reference. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Should these issues be adressed, I will gladly support. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support - The information seems complete and sources look good.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Festive comments

• Infobox image caption...
  • En-dash needed for range.
  • "Her tours are accompanied by vivid visuals as seen in the performance." - not really needed at all.
• Infobox should say "Concert tour videos" not just "Concert tours" because they're not the same.
• " It faced negative reaction..." - it received a negative reaction?
• "sex without marriage" presume you mean "sex outside marriage"?
• "Her other notable videos..." who says these are more notable than any other videos she released that year?
• "applauding Madonna's bravery and media mastery while others took the brazenness of the video negatively" - these sound like quotations, "bravery and media mastery" certainly isn't encyclopedic, it's really fancruft...!
• "a celebration of sex". - ref please.
• "best selling" "a four times" - hyphens?
• Don't think you need to link protege.
• "a walk through memories" walkthrough is either one word or hyphenated. And do you mean "of" memories?
• "Original video portrayed..." was there a subsequent video then?
• "do a number of S&M inspird dance" avoid "do", link S&M and spell inspired with an e!
• "posh hotel" posh is a little colloquial for me.
• "where Madonna defeat him" - defeats?
• Concert tours should use en-dashes per our WP:DASH.
• 1993-1999 -> en-dash please.
• Be consistent. Either link platinum all the time or just the first time.
• Check refs for correct use of hyphens/dashes as well.
• General: just seems that it needs a thorough copyedit by a native English speaker.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Corrected isssues and gave a thorough checkthrough. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria, and I have improved the list based on feedback received during a peer review session. Thanks! Another Believer _(Talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment from nominator: This list should be up to par as far as reference formatting, disambig links, external links, and alt text go. A few things I am uncertain of myself:

1. Is "Historical context" an appropriate section title, or would something subject-related like "History of cannabis use" be better, with "Pre-prohibition" and "Post-prohibition" subheadings (or something along those lines)?
2. Also, I cannot find birth years for two of the politicians. How should I make this clear in the blank cells?
3. This list is specific enough that I am not sure it belongs in either of the templates currently displayed at the bottom of the list ('cannabis resources' and 'legality of cannabis in the United States'). Should the templates be removed?

Thanks so much for the suggestions and feedback, and for taking the time to review this list. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

• No Disambiguous pages, external links look fine, article seems well written with a good lead and a clean and organized table. Alt text seems clear, I checked it through AWB and removed a couple of date related links but nothing major. In summery other than my skepticism of the encyclopedic value of the article I think it looks good and support. In regards to the 2 cells missing dates due to the politicians being living I would put a dash in the cell as in List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients.--Kumioko (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the problem with the blank cells is not that the politicians are living, but that I cannot find the years of birth. I am sure other reviewers will have additional ideas as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of New York Mets first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I plan on creating this series of lists soon (for the Wikicup) and want to get the style down pat to make the process easier. This is built in the style of List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks, a featured list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 6 dablinks. Grah, tried to catch most of these manually, should've checked the tool. Thanks, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) You have some redlinks and some "blacklinks" for players and schools... is there a difference? Not really. The players I left blacklinked because the vast majority are guys who never made the majors and (particularly for the older ones) are unlikely to ever meet notability standards. I suppose the difference is the school could gain the notability to warrant an article, but I'll delink for now. Gonna leave Randy Sterling redlinked, however, as he does technically pass WP:ATHLETE having played (briefly) in the majors (similar to that article you created which I often cite when discussing WP:ATHLETE, Drew Carpenter). Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) The schools should still be redlinked, as I believe all high schools are considered inherently notable. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) The thing is I can't really. Many have very generic names, and the precise style for disambig'ed schools isn't consistent enough to where I could point to the proper spot for the article anyways. Plus, it's a very common practice to leave redlinks blacklisted when they are in large quantity (to avoid looking incomplete, I assume). See List of unreleased Michael Jackson material (I'd say a Michael Jackson song is more notable than some random high school) or List of tallest buildings in Oakland, California, to pull 2 recently featured examples. And both of those have "blacklinks" on material which is actually an entry on the list, not simply a fact about an entry as a school is. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Also not sure high schools are inherently notable. They seem to fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which mentions that it includes "educational institutions", barring coverage from 2ndary sources. The line is coverage in secondary sources, which is an article-by-article standard, not an inherent one. Plus the "chains and franchises" note seems to indirectly get at this point. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Lead image needs alt text, and no period on caption because it's not a complete sentence. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "one of only two first overall picks along with Brien Taylor to never play in the major leagues" - some kind of separation is needed for the phrase "along with Brien Taylor", either parentheses, spaced en-dashes, or unspaced em-dashes. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Otherwise well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I figured I'd needle you, the Phillies fan, by basing the Mets list off the Phillies list. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Doesn't bother me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Darn, wanted to make use of that storied Mets–Phillies rivalry. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 19:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC) It's only storied because I made it a GA :-p. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "played in the 1986 World Series for the Mets' 1986 championship team." No need to repeat 1986 like this. Perhaps try "second championship team"?

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Major issue: most of the yearly Baseball-Reference links are redirecting to a page listing the number one overall picks. The 1965 link has a slightly different address than the rest, and is the only one that goes to the correct place for me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll fix that shortly, they changed around the precise coding for the address to get to the right page. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• There, that should be all done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Inner Hebrides

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is now complete and ready to match the existing Scottish island FLs such as List of Outer Hebrides. Ben MacDui 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "the Hebrides as a whole were a strong " vs "Inner Hebrides is a chain" - plural vs singular. Can you check this for consistency? The problem here is that the word would seem to be both singular and plural. Thus the "Inner Hebrides is a chain" is correct in that "Inner Hebrides" is the noun for an archipelago. However I can also say that "there are many Hebrides" meaning many individual islands plural. The only way to make this consistent is to make everything plural e.g. "Inner Hebrides are a chain". I can and will do this, but I think it rather goes against common spoken usage. Ben MacDui 10:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Now done. I think it may be helpful to link loch. Done If a highest point isn't named, I would suggest you use an en-dash. Commenced Done "This is a list of uninhabited Inner Hebrides with an area greater than 30 hectares..." nasty - why not "There are x uninhabited Inner Hebrides with an area..."? Simply because the list wasn't completed until recently. Now fixed if my addition is correct. " Eilean Dubh (2)" - is it really called this? The same as the one in Loch Linnhe? This may be misleading. It means that there are two "Eilean Dubhs" here. The Gaels have a propensity to name lochs with outrageous names such as "Loch Dun na Buail'-uachdraich" and "Loch Druidibeag" but for some reason run out of steam with small islands. "much less well-known" sorry to be picky but you're making an assertion and not referencing it in this case. Well I could try explaining that I had never even heard of these latter little rocks until I spotted them with a magnifying glass recently, but I fear you would be unimpressed. Difficult to know where to look for a reference for their obscurity. Maybe I will add them to the table instead... re-written without obscurity Finavon (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments. I will attend to them asap, although you have caught me at a busy moment and it may be Saturday before I get the time to look at them all. Ben MacDui 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) As ever, no stress. Glad you appreciate the comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Initial comments above. Ben MacDui 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC) All items above now fixed or commented on. Ben MacDui 11:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Typically we avoid bold links.
• Especially as you link Inner Hebrides in the next para as well.

The lead is fixed I think.

There are emboldened links in the "Smaller islets and skerries" section too. This isn't generally necessary in the other lists as they are all archipelagos distant from the shore so the "main island" the skerries surround is always linked higher up. Here the links are useful pointers to the general area. It would be a pity to unlink them and I'm tempted to suggest that this is a case of IAR, but I am open to suggestions.

Well, I suggest we see what the rest of the community think about it... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree the emboldened group names are appropriately linked. An alternative would be to repeat the group name and link that - would probably look worse. Finavon (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Bamse

Looks very good. Just a couple of comments/questions:

• In reference 9 ("Haswell-Smith (2004) p. 206 save those indicated with a separate footnote."): which "footnotes" are meant here?

Done

Thanks.

• According to the "Uninhabited islands" section, last paragraph, there are "difficulties of definition". Which definition is used for this list?

This is explained in the lead and in Note 1 - I could add an extra note if you think it would be helpful. Ben MacDui 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for pointing me to the explanation. I don't think it is necessary to add anything.

• The "Group" column of the tables: Are these commonly used names/groups/categories or only in this list? Are there wikipedia articles to link to?

Done - recognised group name or main island in group used; where these are not known, the location (eg Loch ...) is used. wikilinks added. Finavon (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Last inhabited" column: What does "post 1931" and "post 1841" tell? I'd rather expect upper limits like "pre ..." or "before ...". Post 1931 could mean that it was inhabited until yesterday.

These will usually be the last 10-year census that showed a population. It is likely to be the best available information. Finavon (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done a little more research and the dates have been amended to avoid this usage. Ben MacDui 13:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.

• "...in the possession of Clan Stewart of Appin at this time...": Is there a "the" missing?

Normal usage would be without the definite article.

OK.

• "In addition to be a hazard to navigation...": To be or not to be: "be"->"being"?

Fixed.

Thanks.

• What is a "continuing list"?

Removed

Thanks.

• The paragraph starting with "Various Gaelic names are used repeatedly..." should be moved up as it relates not only to the "Smaller islets and skerries" as far as I can see.

Done - Moved up, may need to be in an introductory section - not the lead. Finavon (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd move it up even further, either to the lead or a separate "Names" section.

Done

• I am not sure how the "Small archipelagos" section fits in. It gives the impression that these are islands in addition to the "Inhabited/uninhabited islands" and "Smaller islets and skerries", but as far as I understand these groups include both, inhabited and uninhabited islands. It would be better to wikilink the groups in the table and to convert the information in the "location" column into prose.

Done

Thanks.

• I'd reduce the number of "See also" articles to those that are directly related to the Inner Hebrides. "North Sea islands" links to "North Sea#Islands" which does not currently exist.

Done

Thanks.

• Why is "General references" small while "Notes" and "Citations" are bold?

Done

Thanks.

• The "Settlements and Places of Interest in the Outer Hebrides (Na h-Eileanan Siar)" navigation box should be removed or replaced with its Inner Hebrides version.

Removed - there is no alternative

Thanks.

• Also the "Prehistoric Western Isles" template appears to have only sites on the Outer Hebrides and should be therefore removed.

Done. Apologies - these two templates were absurd leftovers. Ben MacDui 12:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

• I removed Category:Inner Hebrides since Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides is already in that category. Feel free to revert if that was a stupid idea.

Not an inconceivable idea but as Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides is now buried in Category:Landforms of the Inner Hebrides I've undone this. Ben MacDui 12:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

bamse (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK.

Some further replies: Ben MacDui 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I think these are all attended to now. Ben MacDui 13:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for attending to the comments. Just one more thing. I noticed a couple of fullstops after non-sentences which I think should be removed: captions "The Clachan Bridge...", "Eilean Mor...", "The lighthouse at Carraig...", "Looking north from ...". The same problem with some of the references, e.g. "Estimate from Ordnance Survey maps." But I am not that sure what the MOS says about those.

I'm not sure whether some of the captions are really sentences or not but I have removed the periods. I think the references are OK - so long as they are consistent. The system is that there is no period on a closing page number but there is for a sentence or phrase. It's easy to change of course. Ben MacDui 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

'Comments by Reywas92'Support

• The years in the Last inhabited column should not be linked.

Done

• Notes 2 and 6 could be merged.

Done

Very nice overall. Reywas92^Talk 03:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done and thanks for your comments. Ben MacDui 13:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Before I can support I have a couple of comments below. Other than that the alt text looks good and the article seems well written with a good lead and clean and organized tables. I checked it through AWB and there was nothing significant there.

• There is 1 disambiguous page for Lismore

Took me a while to find it hiding on a template. Now fixed.

• many of the references seem to lack proper formatting--

Could you be more specific?

Kumioko (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I also think that the last section of the lead that appears to be notes in determining what is defined as an island be removed from the lead and linked as a note. I think this info detracts from the content of the article itself..but thats just my opinion.

Done

Other than that it looks good.--Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship

Nominator(s):--WillC 09:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the criteria. I am currently working on two topics (Topic 1 and Topic 2) on all of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling's championships. That being any that have been defended there at least once; not just TNA owned titles, any from any promotion over the seven years TNA has been around that I have evidence occurred. This title was defended in TNA twice and acknowledged by the promotion, so it falls under that area. This and probably one more, unless I discover another that was defended in TNA at a house show or something, is all I have left that I plan to take here. The rest can go to GAN. That is just the first, the second is about all champions in TNA, which also involves this one. As such, I rewrote this article entirely to get it to FL standards. All comments will be taken care of as soon as possible. Thank you to all who take the time out to review.--WillC 09:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments The wrestling project is really good at pumping out these Tag Team GAs and championship lists! Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • And you'll be surprised there is only about 5 people expanding those articles. The ones who come to mind right now are ThinkBlue, MJP, GaryColemanFan, NiciVampireHeart, and myself. Not saying those are the only ones, but the only ones I see at the moment. Nikki311 expands some articles now and then, but haven't seen any tag team articles from her though. They all do a great job. I feel it is an honor to work alongside them.--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead image could use some work, IMO. First off the image itself is very dark, if you can find any better pic I would go with it. Also the alt text is very vague. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thought it made sense and was the only one I could find. However, went looking after you posted this and found one of Jushin Liger. Added it and is a very nice one. Hopefully it will fit your standards.--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Heh, yes it's fine. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead sentence on the "days of reign" record makes separate sentences of Gedo and Jado holding the record as a team and individually, but the next sentence on defenses uses one sentence broken by a comma. I would use a consistent style. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• They hold almost every record I do believe, I was running out of ways to make it flow better. But I fixed this I do believe.--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Kewl. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Gedo and Jado Jado are tied" I assume you meant to say Jado just once? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The Motor City Machineguns (Alex Shelley and Chris Sabin), a Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) tag team, defeated reigning champions" Should that be "then-reigning"? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• How many defenses did the Motor City Machineguns have? At first it says "three successful defenses," but then only describes the 2 TNA ones. I understand you're writing this for a TNA topic, but the subject for this list still the IWGP so I would mention all 3 defenses if you mention any. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't add that for the TNA topic, mainly for DYK and history purposes. History was the first thought and then the idea of a DYK sold me on adding it. The main point was they defended it in TNA. When a Japanese title gets defended in an American promotion it is usually a big deal since it happens rarely. Hell, just a title getting defended in a different promotion is rare. Actually I didn't just expand this for the TNA Topic, there is only two more active New Japan Titles that are not FL, this being one. Thought to get this one and the last one done as well. It worked with the topic so it was a double win.--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Gotcha

• Also, would shift the "current champions" sentence to after all this stuff about the Machineguns, to make it really clear who the champs are. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Side question, but are "No Limit" or "Apollo 55" notable enough for at least stubby articles as a tag team? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would say No Limit are since they have worked in two major promotions (TNA and NJPW) plus several lower promotions. However, there is the problem of Japanese history not getting featured that well in the reliable English sources that are available. Apollo 55, I don't know. Doubtful that they are notable at this time. There are few indy tag teams notable in the US. Japanese stuff is about on the level of an indy material. Not much is known, so not sure.--WillC 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Cool. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Last question: Do you have any more info on the creation of the title? You mention the inaugural winners, but in my limited time watching wrestling I've never seen a new championship introduced (other than the Diva's championship which was just kind of a replacement for what was already there). Got any sourceable info on that tournament Shinjiro Otani and Takaiwa Tatsuhito Takaiwa won? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll check somemore, but I never found any brackets while I was looking. I'll check around a bit more and hopefully find somemore.--WillC 04:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I maybe missing something but do we have a link here to tag team wrestling anywhere, if such a thing exists?
  • Tag team, linked in first sentence and the main pro wrestling article also speaks of tag team wrestling.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "weight-limit to the title " - limit for the title?
  • Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "won via the result " - would prefer "won as a result of a ".
  • Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "(the most of any team)" perhaps make this a clause after an unspaced em-dash as it's probably important enough to sit outside parentheses..
  • Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• " with 15. At 15," - needs work on this prose.
  • Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "26 wrestlers, which made up 19 different teams" - who made up 19 teams?
  • The different combinations of the 26 wrestlers.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• TNA Impact!.[5] - avoid those double periods.
  • Impact! includes the "!". I moved the sentence around so it is no longer a problem.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "they had their second" - they made their...?
  • Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Don't use PPV without explaining it.
  • Done, thought I already had.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Try using {{SortKey}} so the vacated "reign" sorts as a zero, otherwise you can't actually get the max in each col at the top when re-sorting. Plus it's chronologically out of order too.
  • Will try to do that.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "The championship is vacated ..." was vacated.
  • Done--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "NJPW.co." - do you mean njpw.co.jp?
  • Done, never thought of the jp.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Gen references shouldn't have spaced en-dashes, just un-space them.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Removed endashes but traded with a regular dash to keep the names right.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Jushin Liger and Minoru are currently tied for the record of most reigns by an individual wrestlers". Make the last work singular.
  • Done--WillC 07:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• "with two being held by TNA due to an agreement with NJPW." This is one of those sentence structures that I'm not crazy about. How about "; two were held by TNA...".
  • Done--WillC 07:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• The Date column in the table is completely empty. If the information isn't avaliable, use dashes like you do elsewhere in the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. The date columns is filled with numbers.--WillC 07:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, date column is fine to me. Small question, should "Reign" be a sortable column? I guess it's useful to sort by reign and then by name so you get the multi-reign guys in order of their reign (though that could be done with dates as well). I ask because other than that use it seems to not do all that much, since there isn't any real commonality because "first reign" guys that I can tell. Meh, it doesn't hurt anything the way it is. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure, wasn't a big part of the format discussion done months ago.--WillC 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hartford Dark Blues all-time roster

Nominator(s): Neonblak ^talk - 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standard for FL. Of course, if the reviewers notice any corrections, or grammar, that needs changing, I will rectify them quickly. Neonblak ^talk - 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 The captions are very dry and don't really add much to the readers' understanding of the article. The images also need alt text. No need to bold "Hartford Dark Blues" in the lead, as it's not the title. "which then moved" - and moved Link first instance of captain to Captain (sports) ", and played their" - ; they played their" "second place finishes" - second-place De-space and superscript the § signs. I don't think the spaces in the cells of players with multiple positions are necessary. In the reference section: The titles are incorrect; Retrosheet's page titles are simply the player's name. They don't say "[name]'s career statistics". Dates like "01 December" shouldn't have leading zeroes; either "1 December" or "December 1" is appropriate. What makes BaseballLibrary.com reliable? Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC) On the reliability of BaseballLibrary.com, that was discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard and resolved favorably based on a comment from Sports Illustrated. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Good enough for me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Great suggestions, I implemented most of them, but have a few questions/comments. 1) I created the "Notes" section to give a short bit of information on the player, and I think these are slightly better written than the last two FLs I was able to get passed. Are you suggesting leaving the spot blank for players who have no interesting information to give. I could be wrong, and I don't speak for anyone else but me, but I find the idea of a straight table-listing of players quite dry. Not at all; I was referring only to the image captions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for clearing that up. I have made the captions just say who they are, and their fielding position, if you think there should be more, please let me know.Neonblak talk - 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2) Since it was suggested in either peer review or FL nom, I find the spaces between the players' fielding position better looking; again, my view. Honestly, I like the way it looks too, but that suggestion was per MOS:SLASH. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC) I look at the MOS for slashes, it only states that unspaced slashes may be used, so unless this is a deal breaker, I prefer to keep it the way it is being used here. I have, though, used the non-breaking spaces per the same MOS.Neonblak talk - 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 3) I removed the "0" in front of the "02" in the ref date as you suggested, however, by using the "cite" reference button, it is automatically generated.

• Comment: Articles should be created for the redlinks. Wizardman 05:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If possible, yes, but it's not essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Not essential yes, but since all of them were able to be created I would have preferred it. Giants' issues are fixed and the image problem doesn't seem too big to me, it's pretty obvious they're public domain (at least pd-us), so Support. Wizardman 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Don't know if it's just me but "and one in " would read better for me if it said "and for one in"? Make that image larger if the resolution supports it. " the other veteran players" - you didn't say Lip was a veteran... "in earned run average the two previous " - in... or for... the two previous? "did increase the team's good fortune" - you're suggesting the team changes made the team luckier to me. Perhaps just be a little more factual - after the team changes, results improved? "With stable hitting, behind veterans ..." sorry, but what do you mean by "behind" here? Fifth part of the key says "indicates", none of the rest of the key does that. Seasons doesn't appear to sort for me. Ref 1 needs an en-dash instead of a hyphen. Perhaps discussed before, what makes retrosheet a reliable source? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) All good suggestions, and I have made the changes you proposed, including the size of the pic in lead. Now about Retrosheet. It is a website that contains the most up-to-date information regarding statistics, derived from the actual box-scores from every game played from 1871 to present. The is derived the box-scores that are kept on record at the Baseball Hall of Fame. Members of SABR run the website, and are decicated to providing the most accurate statistics available, as well as locating birth, death, and burial information on each player, manager, umpire, etc. who have appeared in a major league game. From my experience, Retrosheet is the best resource for statistics, name, birth, and death information.Neonblak talk - 17:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Also see User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet#Baseball. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The Hartford Dark Blues was a short-lived Major League Baseball franchise in the 1870s, which was based for three years in Hartford, Connecticut and for one in Brooklyn, New York." I was always under the impression that plural team nicknames should have "were" following them, not "was".

Well, I used "was" in these cases due the the "Hartford Dark Blues" being a singular entity, but it never has sounded right to me because the plural nature of the name. I can go with either/or.Neonblak ^talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tom Carey note: "and among the league's shortstops three times." Feels like something is missing. Among the league's what?

re-worded, hopefully this version is more clear.Neonblak ^talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Bob Ferguson note: "Ferguson played third base and was their player-manager for the franchise's final three seasons." I would remove "their" as an unneeded extra word.

Fixed.Neonblak ^talk - 06:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Terry Larkin note: Dash needed for 29-25.

Fixed.Neonblak ^talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Jack Manning note: "Manning time with Hartford consisted of one game." "Manning" → "Manning's".

Fixed.Neonblak ^talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Move the external link to after the references.

Fixed.Neonblak ^talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Photos: Most of the images lack proof that they were published before 1923 (as claimed for public domain status), not merely created. The only one I'm sure about is the Jack Burdock baseball card, which is fine.
• In the alt text, proper names shouldn't be given since they cannot be verified just by looking at the image.
• Minor point, but the access dates in the references are in date-month-year format, which is normally associated with articles that aren't related to the United States. For U.S.-related pages, month-day-year is normally used.

Fixed.Neonblak ^talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made the smaller changes you have suggested, I look into the photo situation, and try to figure out the alt text better.Neonblak ^talk - 06:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Tommy Bond picture is part of the A.G. Spalding collection on the New York Public Library, picture being part his Spaldings personal collection of photos he had gathered throughout his baseball career. He died in 1915. So although no date of the photo is specifically given, I can deduce that the photo of the person is correct, and was published before 1923. But, if it needs better proof, then I will need to remove it and find a suitable replacement. The Ferguson photo is similar, in that, his name is on the photo, photo was taken in Chicago, he is wearing the White Stockings uniform, so it is likely that the photo was published in or around 1878, the only season he played for the Stockings.Neonblak ^talk - 06:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the alt=text for the photos. Now for the photos themselves, I left a comment above on that, if that is not suitable, please let me know.Neonblak ^talk - 04:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Saw media

Nominator(s): —User:GroundZ3R0 002_c/t 23:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating List of Saw media as per the new featured list criteria and that I based the article formatting and style off of List of Metal Gear media, another featured list with similar multimedia scope. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments On the first use of Lions Gate, I'd use the full title we have here on Wikipedia, i.e. Lions Gate Entertainment. Image needs alt text. That caption - shouldn't "mediums" be "media" per the list title? "Saw, while starting as a film series, Saw has evolved to encompass..." - read that again...! "and other unique forms such as a roller coaster " - is this really unique to Saw? Can you prove it? "adding in international sales and revenue" - adding in -> including? "This is comprised of over 28 million.." -> "This comprises over 28 million..." "The series debuted in 2004 with Saw, the first film was met with much financial success[3], which allowed a sequel, Saw II...": Full stop after Saw and then capital The if you keep it phrased this way. Move the ref behind the comma. At the time, it was the sequel, not "a" sequel. You say "exactly" a year later but you've only specified 2004 in the text... "were all released a year after the previous film, with each being released in theaters" - released x2 repetitive. The lead focuses almost entirely on the films - you should discuss in a bit more detail the other media. How should I do that? It seems fairly balanced but I'm not entirely sure how I would fix it. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC) On reflection, it's not too bad. I wouldn't worry too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) " Future products and follow-ups to current products are in production, possibly to release with future Saw films." - sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me, especially without a citation. Check for spaced hyphens here where either unspaced en-dashes or spaced em-dashes (per WP:DASH) should be used. I have no idea how this fits into this article, could you explain this to me? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC) If you check the information on releases, you get "October 29, 2004 - Theatrical release" (a hyphen) and "October 18, 2005 – Uncut Edition DVD[9]" (an en-dash). At the very least you need to be consistent, and if you check WP:DASH, you'll see how our MOS recommends you use dashes/hyphens etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Okay I changed everything to spaced em dashes (—), is this better? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) "$87 million USD[13]" - why not link $ to USD and remove USD altogether? October 07->October 7. Is "Roller Coaster" really capitalised like that? I capitalized every media piece including "Comic Book, Video Game, and Internet Browser Game", so should all of these be changed? If so, how? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Yeah, generally only proper nouns get capitalized. That means "video game" instead of "Video Game", for example (the last one would be "Internet browser game", Internet is a proper noun and always gets capitalized. TJ Spyke 22:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I don't think you need to link just about every word in "Live action horror maze". Would live action horror maze work? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC) It's just a little confusing - a number of blue links in a row... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) " etc." - never keen on this, especially in an encyclopedic article. 1:18:07 vs 01:04:32 - be consistent with leading zeros. And then you have 64:01 which is actually 1:04:01... be consistent with the format. What does "variable" mean in the duration? The song, Hello Zepp, has multiple mixes that are all different lengths which makes the length undefined or "variable" unless we can decide that the very first mix is the one that counts for this in which case it would be 2:57. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Perhaps a note then? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I wrote it as a reference. Check ref 50(or somewhere near there), is this good? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. Look out for the (MOS) incorrect use of hyphens in the reference titles. Please explain I'm not sure what you are getting at. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "Saw V (2008) - Movie Details" for instance. Again, read WP:DASH for how this should be formatted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Ref 9 has an odd ]. Not sure you need so many external links. Since this is about the series as a whole, I also don't think you need specific series links either. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Does this list violates criterion 3b? It seems to me that this list can logically be merged to Saw (franchise).—Chris!_c/t 02:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think merging it would create a monster. The franchise article is large as it is, without adding in all of this detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I tend to agree. I think that the Saw franchise will continue in the future, so the main article will probably be even longer.—Chris!_c/t 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, even as it is now it's pretty lengthy and there is simply too many media pieces to conveniently mention everything. As of now, the major media pieces have mentions on the franchise page and it is labeled with the "Main article: List of Saw media" tag, plenty sufficient. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Big comment Unless I'm mistaken, IMDb is not a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources reads: "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." They make an exception for WGA-provided credits, but I would try to replace those cites (particularly for the comic book, which is unaided by another source currently. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Wikipedia's policy, I think an exception could be made for this since it is the only source available for the comic, other than YouTube (the Animated Comic was uploaded on YouTube). I mean we know the comic exist, that's verified. It contradicting the Saw IV storyline, that's also verified. I think the author added IMDb because Wikipedia requires sources for verification. I don't know what else could be added in place of IMDb, nothing? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: Ok I added the official Saw; Rebirth site (via archive.com) I hope that is good enough? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Quick comments –
• I was about to ask you why the VH1 reality show wasn't included, but just saw it under other films. My question then becomes why this isn't listed among other media instead. This is the format used in List of The Legend of Zelda media.
• "Saw has evolved to encompass numerous media forms including video games, comics, as well as mazes and a roller coaster." In a case where there are only two elements before "as well as", I would go with "video games and comics", eliminating a comma.
• Capitalize friday in the second paragraph?
• The success of the films have inspired...". "have" → "has".
• "as well as a seventh film, entitled Saw VII." This is the second time this film is mentioned in the lead. Perhaps try "as well as Saw VII"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Black Eyed Peas discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because in the last FLC discussion there were alot of problems with the article that have now been addressed and more time has passed so there is now more information and article is longer. Mister sparky (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Quick drive-by comment - in the "other appearances" section, is it really necessary to have a notes column stating that the song was from the soundtrack of film X when the column immediately to the left lists the album the song's on as being the soundtrack to film X......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Any plans to respond to this point I raised nearly two weeks ago, even if only to tell me to get lost? :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

hey, oops! sorry i missed that one! its just how ive seen the table set out in other articles and sometimes the column is necessary. i agree that it probably isnt this time. oh and i'd never tell you to get lost :p Mister sparky (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on a single-sentence opening paragraph. merged Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Here's a thing. Is it "the Black Eyed Peas" or just "Black Eyed Peas"? the bands name is "black eyed peas", but the sentence flows better and sounds more grammatically correct saying "the black eyed peas" i thought... Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "Although the album got a four-star review.." - "got" - not nice. Perhaps, received? changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "to chart lowly in " - lowly? subjective, I'd be more precise. altered Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) sixty-seven, eighteen -> 67, 18 numbers are written in words in the rest of the lead, so keeping as words for consistency. Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "the band released their third album" - is band singular or plural? "its third album"? changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "two in Canada" - "number two in Canada" changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "It quickly became their most successful album in the US by reaching number one." - define "quickly"? removed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "it the bands first" - I may be wrong but I would have thought that should be "band's" changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "It held onto the top spot for twelve weeks and was knocked off the top spot by the album's second single" - top spot is reused to quickly, and we've possibly lost track of what "It" is from the previous sentence. altered Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "This also replaced "Boom Boom Pow" at the top of the charts in Canada and Australia, as well as also peaking at number one all over the world." - also reused too much. changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "Third single "Meet Me Halfway", has peaked at number one in Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom and has reached the top ten in several other countries, including the US." - unreferenced, and not grammatically correct to start the sentence that way. changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Three of the EPs are unreferenced. added Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) How did "Shut Up" not chart in the US and still make Gold certification? it didn't chart on the hot 100, but the riaa says its certified gold. Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Video albums unreferenced. added Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) As is other appearances. added Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your comments! :) Mister sparky (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I noticed the IRE cell in the Singles section looks different than the others. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

no idea how just that 1 cell ended up a different font size... fixed now tho Mister sparky (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Two more comments - there is a single listed as charting in 2010, when we are still only in 2009, and the second video album is mistitled, it should be Live from Sydney to Vegas (no "Las") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

fixed :) Mister sparky (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk · contribs). Ugh, not another discography! =p General No disambiguation links and ALT text is ok, but reference 35 is a dead link Lead "it only managed to chart lowly in" you should only use "only managed" with exact chart positions; I suggest "it charted lowly in" changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) "its highest peak position in New Zealand" I think "peak" is redundant and can be removed changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) "released it's third album" should have "its" not "it's"; the incorrect word means "it is" missed that one, changed 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Link "certified" to List of music recording sales certifications? added Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) You don't use the abbreviation "RIAA" elsewhere, so remove it from the lead good point, removed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Numerically order the references after the sentence ending "and number three in the United Kingdom." changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Need a comma after "the band's first US number-one hit" the next word is "and", you can't have a comma before "and" Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) "and was knocked off the number-one position by the album's second single, "I Gotta Feeling"" can be reworded "until being replaced by the album's second single, "I Gotta Feeling"" changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) "has peaked at number one in Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom and has reached the" repeats "has" twice; take out the second one changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Numerically order the references at the end of the lead changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Tables The link on "Certifications" redirects to the link for "sales threshold". Do with it what you want corrected link Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The last certification for The E.N.D. uses a different "x" changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The titles of the last three items in Extended plays link to specific sections which don't exist in the linked article the sub-sections of the linked articles changed. fixed now Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I would add a non-breaking space for I Gotta Feeling's release date so the year doesn't go to the next line i know what you mean, but don't know how to do it... Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Under Singles, why is there a large gray line between the two 2000 releases? Under Singles, why is there a large gray line between the NZ and SWI charts? Under Singles, why is there a large gray line between "Shut Up" and "Hey Mama"? don't understand what you mean by these 3... unless you mean the grey lines that have to be there that separates the releases rows and columns? Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I think Universal Island and Universal Music should be linked to something changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Should "DVD" be linked? changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) What do all the large gray lines in the Music videos table mean same as above Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Both directors boxes with Syndrome and Nabil Elderkin should read "Nabil Elderkin/Syndrome" for consistency changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Sergio Mendes needs the accent added Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) References All three general references should have YYYY-MM-DD access dates forgot about those, changed now Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) References 1, 51, 52 and need periods between Allmusic and Macrovision added Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Why doesn't reference 22 have Macrovision listed after Allmusic? forgot that one Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Remove the extra spaces before the periods in refs 43–48 changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Ref 42 needs a period between MTV and Viacom added Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your work on the article; averaging over 1,000 hits per day, it's probably one of the most viewed discographies. I'll be happy to support once there issues are dealt with. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Oklahoma State Cowboys head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets all the criteria.—NMajdan•talk 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't see anything in the article about OSU's former name and moniker. When most of the people listed in the article were head coach, they were coaching the Oklahoma A&M Aggies. This sentence: The team has had 22 head coaches since organized football began in 1901 with the nickname Cowboys. makes it sound like the team has been the Cowboys since its inception in 1901. For almost 25 years, the team was exclusively the Aggies and for almost the same length of time, the team was called both the Aggies and Cowboys. NThomas (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Great suggestion. I didn't even think of that. I will add a little bit about the previous school name and nickname.—NMajdan•talk 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The changes look great. Good work. NThomas (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support from NThomas (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is a little short for our "finest work". I would like more information on the coaches rather than just the bare stats which I can see in the table. There must be something richer we can bring the lead.
  • I modeled this list after List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches which passed FLC recently (which you also reviewed). I'm not sure what else you're looking for.—NMajdan•talk
    • Whether I reviewed it or not is irrelevant. All I'm saying is that this lead seems to be a re-hash of the stats and absolutely nothing more. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Per WP:LEAD, the lead "serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Frankly, I do not see how the lead violates this. Expanding the lead may involve going beyond the scope of the article/list which is not the intention of the lead. For a list of this size, one healthy paragraph is enough to satisfy MoS requirements.—NMajdan•talk 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, I'm fully aware of WP:LEAD thanks, but you also need to attempt to write engaging prose. The lead is not engaging. Of course, that's just my opinion, but there you have it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Lead image doesn't need a period.
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk
• For me, Term doesn't sort correctly.
  • How so? Looks fine to me. It sorts by the beginning year.—NMajdan•talk
    • Okay, so if I press the up/down arrow next to Term, I get the following results at the top: 1972, 1907–1908, 2005–present, 1906. So something's not working right for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overall it just has that "slim" feel.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• More specifics would be appreciated.—NMajdan•talk 15:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - "The Cowboys have (plural) played in more than 1,000 games during its (single) 108 seasons" - needs fixing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk

Comments –

• There's one longish paragraph in the lead, and one very short one. This might well be contributing to the feeling above that the list is slim. If some content from the first paragraph is moved to the second paragraph, the balance would be better.
• The lead could state what conference the Cowboys play in, and the conference(s) they used to be in. This is relevant to the list and should beef up the lead by a couple of sentences.
• Most of the featured coach lists state in the lead who the team's first coach was. That could be added here as well.
• Other featured coach lists give the actual statistics in the lead for things like winning percentage and win totals. Would be another useful addition here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Changes made.—NMajdan•talk 16:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Did any of the coaches win a National Coach of the Year Award or a Conference Coach of the Year award. If so, I think that would be worth mentioning and/or integrating into the list. But that is just my opinion and if that is not needed, then the list looks good to me. Remember (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

None won any National coaching award. Don't know about Conference as those are usually hard to trace down.—NMajdan•talk 16:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte Bobcats all-time roster

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 01:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it fulfills the FL criteria. I am not the major contributor, but have permission from contributor to nominate.[2][3] —Chris!_c/t 01:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments With 59 elements, I see no benefit in subdividing alphabetically whatsoever, it makes a nonsense of the sortability of the tables in any case. Well, since the franchise is still pretty new, not many players have played, so subdividing alphabetically seems useless right now. But as the list grows to 200+ items, I think subdividing alphabetically will be useful. For example, see other all-time roster lists.—Chris!c/t 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I absolutely agree with this. I would even have a problem with breaking up those longer lists. It would be nice to sort the whole list by various schools, numbers, etc.—NMajdan•talk List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft has nearly 350 entries and maintains sortability, FWIW.—NMajdan•talk 14:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Yep, one list, no subdivides please. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) No images? There are images of individual players, but would it gives a particular player more weight if his image is used over another?—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) See Worcester Worcesters all-time roster. I agree images would make this pop more. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I don't think a particular player would be have more weight if a caption clearly justified why his picture is showed in the article over the others, for example: Gerald Wallace as the longest serving Bobcats, Emeka Okafor as the only Bobcats who won a NBA Rookie of the Year Award, Alexis Ajinça as the first foreign-born drafted by the Bobcats, Primož Brezec as the first foreign-born Bobcats, all other players who have been included in the NBA All-Rookie Team, etc. Also you miss Wálter Herrmann selection to the All-Rookie Second Team in 2007. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Agreed. These are great examples of how to use images in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I'm not "wowwed" by the lead. I know the team and the players appear to have not achieved a great deal but there seems to be a focus on that fact... I know it is quite boring, but since "the team and the players appear to have not achieved a great deal", there is really not much for me to add.—Chris!c/t 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) You have G, F, C in your key, what about PG, PF, SG, SF? Just use G, F, C based on refs.—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I don't get it. If you have a key, it needs to cover all the abbreviations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) What I meant is that I didn't use PG, PF, SG, SF in the list anymore because they aren't verified by the refs.—Chris!c/t 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I still see a SG. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Fixed—Chris!c/t 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Not sure the heading colour scheme aids accessibility. That is the team color. I agree that it has nothing to do with accessibility, so should I remove then?—Chris!c/t 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I don't think the present colour scheme is helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Removed—Chris!c/t 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) "present" seems to mess with the sorting of columns it appears in. Fixed, I think—Chris!c/t 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments The second sentence seems a bit too wordy - too many commas. Can it be clarified or broken up? Assuming you mean the 3rd sentence, done—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) fifty-nine past and current players Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a situation where you would simply say 59? Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) who has appeared have appeared. Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 3 column references is generally discouraged. I recommend changing to 2 columns. Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Merely a suggestion, might be worthwhile in the long run to archive your sources using WebCitation. It will prevent link rot and hopefully spare you or someone else some work if those links die. (Mainly for the non-basketball-reference.com link.) —NMajdan•talk 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Élan Béarnais Pau-Orthez be sorted with the E's?—NMajdan•talk 14:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• I think the table would be much stronger and more interesting if some basic statistics were included. Items like points, rebounds and assists per game would make great use of the sorting, and a few facts from these categories could also help spice up the lead.
• What is citing the part about the Hornets relocating to New Orleans?
• "The Bobcats are the only team to have never advanced into the playoffs." This is true regarding the 30 current teams, but there are defunct teams that never made a playoff appearance. The reference confirms this.
• "with Alexis Ajinca, drafted in 2008, being the first foreign-born player to be drafted by the Bobcats." The "with... being" structure isn't great, and "drafted" is used in a repetitive way. How about "; Alexis Ajinca, drafted in 2008, was the first foreign-born player to be selected by the Bobcats."
• Looking at my sentence proposal above, it still might be confusing to non-NBA fans who don't know what the NBA Draft is. In addition to improving the structure, I'd like to see a specific mention of the NBA Draft for clarity's sake.
• In the table headings, decapitalize Club as a non-proper noun. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done all—Chris!_c/t 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Question Why is Raja Bell listed as 2009-2010, and others are listed as 2009-present? Also some players are listed as having joined the team in 2010. --Pgp688 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is based on the source. And it listed the year as the last year for a season. Since Bell was traded in November 2009, which is the 2009/10 season, the year is listed as 2010. I will add a note about this.—Chris!_c/t 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of civil parishes in Somerset

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all the parishes, supported by suitable references (using WebCite where the county council has removed the relevant documents) & with pictures in all cases where appropriately licensed images are available. It has received a peer review & the issues identified have been addressed. — Rod ^talk 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment "This is a list of civil parishes in the ceremonial county of Somerset, England." Needs to be changed since FLs no longer start like this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.— Rod ^talk 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "the ceremonial county" then followed by just "the county" do these refer to the same thing? The ceremonial county is no longer used for administrative purposes since unitary authorities were introduced (1996) but is still commonly used in conversation, descriptive and "ceremonial" purposes. The ceremonial counties are generally used on wikipedia as discussed by WP:UKGEO. The wording of this section is the same as Grade I listed buildings in Somerset & I'm struggling to find a better/clearer way of describing it.— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Prose is rather turgid to start with "The x of Somerset this, the Y of Somerset that..." User:Malleus Fatuorum is much better at elegant prose than I am.— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) break-up is hyphenated. Done— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) What does yellow/pink indicate in the lead image? Done— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) It needs WP:ALT text. Done— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Infobox says Taunton Deane is a Borough but lead says it's just a district. What does (Borough) mean? Done Historical royal charter - but I've removed it as not relevant here— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 2nd para of lead is unreferenced. Done— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Needs a note for when these populations were counted. Done based on United Kingdom Census 2001— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Why talk about settlements which aren't in this list? Not quite sure what you mean? If it is Bath & Taunton which are unparished it would not be unreasonable for someone to come to this list for info about them - therefore an explanation that they are unparished seems reasonable.— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Lead says Greinton has a population of 54 while list says 71. Check all others. My error 71 according to the council's data Why is "Civil Parish" in the list completely capitalised? Done— Rod talk 16:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC) History and Current position headings are wrong level. Done— Rod talk 15:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Personally, I would centrally align the population col as right now it looks pretty odd. Is there an easy way to do this?— Rod talk 15:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC) You could use the {{center}} template? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) This works fine for a single row - I was looking for a way to do this for a column in one go.— Rod talk 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Well I'm no expert but I've never managed to find a way of doing that I'm afraid... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC) If this is a requirement for support I'm going to need some more time.— Rod talk 16:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Done. It would be nice if a wikitable syntax expert found a way of doing this but in the meantime I've done it manually using the template you suggested.— Rod talk 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Any reason to split these tables? Couldn't you just have the headings in another column? My idea in doing this is to enable readers to sort and compare within a particular district. Selwood has no image - add an en-dash for blank cells rather than just leave them with the reader thinking "I wonder if something's supposed to be there?" Same for Seavington St Mary, etc. Done— Rod talk 16:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Any reason why North Somerset columns different widths from the other tables? Wouldn't be a problem if you merged the tables... Done— Rod talk Ditto for Sedgemoor. Done - I've set them all to width=90% — Rod talk 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Don't mix date formats within the references. Done— Rod talk 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Check year and page ranges use an en-dash in the references, not a hyphen. I have attempted to do this - but I have never understood this one so I've probably got it wrong Refs 81 to 100 have no work/publisher and no accessdate and/or publishing dates. Done — Rod talk 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Am I a bad person if I want a map? :) --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sure you are not a bad person.. but if you want a map you can click on the "Map of all coordinates from Google" or "Map of all coordinates from Bing" (top right below the infobox) you can see them all plotted. I don't have the skills or software to create a map with all the parishes plotted myself.— Rod ^talk 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• But no borders? ;) As I said, I'm a bad person. That works fine. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support looks really good to me, an excellent achievement! Harrias (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Quick comments –
• The box of coordinate links is cutting off "square" in "in an area of 740 square kilometers" on my computer. Maybe it's just me, but I'd be interested to see if anyone else is experiencing this.

• I can't see this on my screen - it may relate to browsers/screen resolution - interested in the comments of others.— Rod ^talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• History: "and were generally identical to ecclesiastical parishes,,". The double comma should be fixed.

• Done— Rod ^talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• More double punctuation: "with the abolition of the Poor Law system in 1930 the parishes had only a nominal existence.."

• Done— Rod ^talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Don't understand the table lead-in: "The part of the city of Bath which were parts of Bath County Borough are unparishes."? Should some of the plural bits here be changed to singular? Maybe that's why I'm having trouble reading it.

• Reworded - hope this is better?— Rod ^talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reference 3 should have regular hyphens for the access date, not dashes of any sort. A couple of the other cites need similar fixes.

• I've found & fixed some of these but have never understood this rule so may have missed some.— Rod ^talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• In ref 21, move the publisher out of the title.

• Done— Rod ^talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Publisher needed for refs 57 and 93. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done— Rod ^talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Response - thanks for your comments, with the exception of the "box cutting off sqaure" problem above, hopefully these have now been addressed.— Rod ^talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Pickford filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Mary Pickford ranks as one of the most important and influencial pioneers of cinema, and therefore warrants an outstanding filmography. I have arranged the list in a structure simular to the Charlie Chaplin filmography, which is now a featured list.Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Last time I checked there were two dead links here. I found only one. It's now fixed. "she was possibly the best-known woman in the world" - I'm not convinced a single reference from an author who appears to be not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry is enough to completely substantiate this claim. Actually there is a Wikipedia entry on Eileen Whitfield, although it's only a stub. I took out this item, though, and added (in a blue quote box) a quote from Adela Rogers St. Johns. I trust you'll find her to be a more "heavy-weight" source. "began acting on stage in 1900. She began " - began ... began - repetitious. Changed the second "began" to "started". " that she award a contract" she was awarded a ...? Changed. Is there a 1929 Academy Awards article you could link to in the lead? Changed to direct link at the Academy Award's website. Same for the 75 awards? Same as above. "As of 1909 " - perhaps 2009? WHOOPS!!!! Changed. Would you consider any of the unlinked films to be prominent i.e. notable enough to be redlinked? Yes, but there would be a lot of redlinking. I think all of her features and some of the Biography shorts should have their own articles. However, I would prefer to shape up this list first and create articles for the films afterwards. "handled th distribution" the. Changed. Does an en-dash in Director mean unknown? Or no director at all? Unsure, needs a note. Changed to "(unknown)". United Artists sections - notes seem to be something different from the other tables. What exactly do you mean by "Mary Pickford–United Artists" for instance? I changed the notes to read "A Mary Pickford Production<br>Released by United Artists" or a variation of that. Page ranges in refs need en-dash, not hyphen, e.g. refs 1, 2,13, 18, 19, 21, 22 etc. Changed to en-dashes. Ref 11 has spare full stop. All refs have stops now. Year ranges in ref need en-dash too, e.g. ref 16. Changed. Are those "websites" actually "External links"? They are now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Care to ramble over it again, Rambling Man? Jimknut (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Watch out for spaced en-dashes per WP:DASH in the references and bibliography. I checked the en-dashes. They now look good to me. Accessdates for ref 1, shouldn't those be "References" rather than footnotes? An accessdate was added for ref 1. Jimknut (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support One thing, can we use the {{harvnb}} template for the book citaions? That way it is easy to link for a reader to a particular book. Otherwise a very comprehensive and informative list. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • {{harvnb}} added where appropriate. Jimknut (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Based on the same layout, style, etc as the Chaplin one, this is another fine workover. Excellent stuff! Lugnuts (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Biograph (1912–1913): "Except where noted all 26 films form this period are one-reelers." A typo is hiding in there.
  • Fixed.
• State rights (1913–1914): Is State meant to be capitalized? If not, you might want to de-capitalize the one instance here.
  • De-capitalized.
• Artcraft (1916–1918): "Pickford made 13 films for Artcraft release of which 11 survive complete." What purpose does "release" serve here? Is it part of the company's name?
  • "release" removed.
• "In 1945, she her third husband". Missing word here.
  • "and" added.
• References 17, 29 and 30 are missing publishers.
  • Publishers added.
• I'm not crazy about citing her America's Sweetheart nickname to a book cover on Amazon.com. If one of the books used in the references can be used to cite this fact, that would be better to ensure reliability. Also, I normally wouldn't be that thrilled about citing a personal Tripod page extensively, but it appears to be from a film expert, so it should just pass muster.
  • The book cover reference has remained but it's now supplement with a ref from the Whitfield bio. I'm not sure which Tripod page you're refering to. Hugh Munro Neely or Christel Schmidt? Mr. Neely is curator at the Mary Pickford Institute in Los Angeles. He has made many of Pickford's films available for release on DVD and has performed the musical accompaniment to most of them. He has also produced a documentary on Pickford (narrated and hosted by Whoopi Goldberg) and also many other documentaries about silent film stars (most of which have aired on Turner Classic Movies). I think we can safely consider him an expert. Christel Schmidt works for the Library of Congress and has been researching the films of Mary Pickford for over ten years. She was the curator of a Pickford exhibit that was presented throughout the United States in 2008. She also recently hosted a Los Angeles screening of Pickford Biograph shorts. I think we can safely consider her an expert as well.
• Found this in the reference section: "The Mary Pickford Institute for Film Eductation." Pretty sure that's another typo in the last word. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Corrected. Thanks for the help. Jimknut (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions

Nominator(s): BLUE_DOG^TN 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is up to the standards the two FL are in this topic List of US Open Men's Singles champions and List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions, which I think this is equal to them, and that is why I am nominating this to get to FL status. BLUE_DOG^TN 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

*Note [c] - put the references in numerical order. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "The men's singles was one of the two first events contested in 1905. " what was the other "event"? Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "because of a date change" you'll need to be more specific than that. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "all held the event" "have all held..." Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) First sentence second para has too many run-on clauses. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "season[4];" move ref after semi colon. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "since the first edition. Since the first championships" repetitive. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) " victories is co-held by Ken Rosewall " - perhaps "co-held by x men; Ken Rosewall .... with two each"? Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) In the lead image alt text, you haven't mentioned the fact it's a tennis racket he's holding. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Not sure "score in the final" should be linked to "winning a set". DisagreedBLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Ref 12 should be a note. Fixed.BLUEDOGTN 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "and 1986, which was because they wanted to move the tournament start to mid-January 1987 from the mid-December 1986 previously announced start date." Grammar is not great in this part, and it's unclear who "they" are. How about "and 1986 because (they) wanted to move the tournament start from mid-December 1986 to mid-January 1987."? Fixed Again Top and Bottom concernsBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) They are Tennis AustraliaBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) To ensure that the grammar checks out, I recommend making a change to "1986 because Tennis Australia...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) FixedBLUEDOGTN 03:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC) "The competition switched location every year...". Make "location" plural? FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "In the Australian Open, Andre Agassi holder of the most victories at four." Missing "is the" in the middle. FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "The most consecutive victories is held at two victories by the following tennis players". The second use of "victories" and only use of "tennis" are redundancies and can easily be removed without changing the sentence's meaning. FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) No need for multiple Andre Agassi links in the lead. FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) The Rod Laver photo is suspicious, as I doubt the site could have released the copyright. I would recommend removing this photo. FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) The Mats Wilander photo lacks evidence that it was published at least 20 years ago, as are the requirements this template has for PD in Argentina. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC) FixedBLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Removed all non-three time or more times wins champions pictures, and will do it to the other articles of the Wimb, US, RG(FO), and this one.BLUEDOGTN 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes the Rod Laver photo suspect? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ask User talk:Giants2008, which is the reason why I removed it, so you need to work with him/her on this issue.BLUE_DOG^TN 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't say that I'm the biggest image expert here, but I'll offer the best explanation I can. The photo page currently lists australianhistory.com as not only the source (which it is), but the author. Unless this is some type of official site, it strikes me as questionable whether the site holds the copyright to the photo, and whether it had the capability of releasing this into the public domain. I see that you (Fyunck) are the uploader, and I'm sure you want no issues with a photo you added to this site, but featured status requires that we be sure of an image's status. According to the note you left on my talk page, there are other websites that say this photo is PD. If there's a link that says this is PD, by all means please add it to the photo page. That way, this won't be an issue in the future. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Are the three notes in the first sentence really necessary? They seem more like a way to include vaguely relevant additional info than actual notes.

Yes they are needed big time because they are addendums to explain the complexities of the intro like it is called the Australian Open now but it was not always. Yes outdoor hard courts except for Laver Arena.BLUE_DOG^TN 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The intro must be able to stand on its own without the rest of the article WP:Lead Section.BLUE_DOG^TN 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of the lead, why do all the parenthetical years include "winner"? The context clearly implies those are the years the person won.

It was done that way before I got to these articles, and the Wimbledon got to FL status with them so I left it that way. I could change it if you want on all of the articles?

• Why do the years without a competition have to be color-coded with a dot? "None" and the footnote get the point across, so the dot and color look silly.

So people have visual problems and need the dot and the color coded is to distiguish them.BLUE_DOG^TN 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think note i would be better included in the lead.

Where would I put them? It is in the appropriate place in the article to my recollection.BLUE_DOG^TN 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Great list overall. Reywas92^Talk 02:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Family Guy (season 5)

Nominator(s): Pedro J. ^{the rookie}, GageSkidmore, Qst

I am nominating this for featured list because after it faild the first nomination i was ocupaded by another FLC but now i am able to give this nomination a lot of atention. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it hasn't changed at all since the previous nomination. Ωphois 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

it failed because it did not have enough reviewers--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Only somewhat true. It was unsuccessful because there was no consensus, among the reviewers who did look at the article, that this list should be promoted to FL. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The boxset is red, so the color for the infobox and the table should be red also.

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• No source for the second half of the second paragraph in "Production."

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Third paragraph in same section, source only confirms that Phineas and Ferb has been nominated for an Emmy. Everything else is unsourced.

Not much information about that i will look further--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• No source for the entire first paragraph in "Reception."

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• No source for last statement in the last paragraph of "Reception."

donre--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As requested. Article needs some improvements, especially in sourcing. Cheers, The Flash ^{talk} 16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Issues taken care of; article meets requirements in my eyes. The Flash ^{talk} 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support also - Per previous nomination, which should have passed. Gage (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nominators' supports are assumed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I point out that the reception section is extremely lacking. Many of the scant reviews it does have just say "such and such were great episodes" without giving any indication as to why they were great (which pretty much makes them useless, IMO). Anyways, again I will leave it up to Dabomb87. Ωphois 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And the prose in the production section could use some work. The info related to Brian's girlfriend is confusing in its current wording. Ωphois 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok i guessed youed say that ohpios but i will not object, will see if i can re-word it--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i think he did not see that--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that I will be on vacation for three weeks and there's a good chance that I will not be closing this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to now--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I was requested to review this list, which puzzles me a bit, since I do citation formatting over at FACs, and there's no requirement for consistent formatting of citations here, other than MOS. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  IGN is cited in multiple ways (3), it is a publisher, or a "newspaper" type title. Parents Television Council (of where? The world is larger than the US) is cited in 3 ways. BBC Three is incorrectly cited, BBC has multiple stations. Plus you'd need to make clear that they're programme guides, not the object itself. Same with the IGN objects with titles identical to the show. "^ "FAMILY GUY". The futon critic. Retrieved 2009-10-03." is unnecessarily duplicated given that you're using refnames, unless it relates to the different broadcasting dates, in which case you could say that in the cite, "Family Guy: [episode name] broadcast: broadcast date"... Speaking of MOS regarding titles in all caps. Generally, your citations are misnamed. Is Amazon referring to the object of FG season X, or to the advertising material and cataloguing information... But as I said, FLCs have a different criteria. Check your MOS for perfect details, this is simply what I'd point out at FAC if it were held to FAC standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – I was asked on my talk page to review this list, and so I come bearing comments. However, I am concerned about some of the repetitive phrasing I'm seeing after reviewing the first part of the page.

• Blind Ambition links to a disambiguation page.
• "before being released as a DVD box set and in repeat broadcasts." It says later in the article that there were two box sets, so why does this say one?
• "the first episode was 'Stewie Loves Lois' and the season's final episode 'Meet the Quagmires'." Missing "was" after "final episode".
• The quotes in the second paragraph of the lead should be cited. Normally content doesn't need to be cited in the lead if it is in the body, but it's better to be safe with quotes and very controversial statements.
• "Season five won one Annie Award at the 35th Annie Awards for storyboarding and was nominated for three other Annie Awards including for writing and voice acting." Very redundant use of Annie Awards; three times in one sentence is a bit much. Also don't like the "including for" part, which is not great grammar. How about "included those for"?
• Consecutive sentences start "Season fice" and "Season 5". Pick one and be consistent. Per WP:MOSNUM, I'd go with the first option.
• "There were 18 episodes produced for the season." This is repeating information from the second sentence of the article.
• "Thirteen of the total eighteen episodes are included in the volume." Another redundant word, this time "total". Removing it harms nothing; in fact, it makes the sentence tighter as a whole.
• Production: "As the fifth season began production, (long list of names) ... ,". Something is clearly missing from the end of this sentence.
• "before leaving the show to create his own series, entitled Phineas and Ferb, a series which has since been nominated for three Emmy Awards." Again, the struck words represent repetitive phrasing.

I'll come back to review more at a later time. Meanwhile, please consider finding an outside copy-editor to take a look at the page and clean it up. I'd hate to see a bunch of problems in the episode summaries, which are usually a problem spot for similar FLCs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Gage (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note before I make these comments that I left one unstruck above.

• "Other guest stars who made multiple appearances as recurring characters from previous seasons, comprised...". I don't think the comma should be there. It seems like a minor point, but I would quickly check for similar punctuation issues elsewhere to ensure the best possible writing.
• "The decision to end the fifth season before the 100th episode was made due to Fox executive's desire to show...". Move the apostrophe to after the last letter of "executives". Otherwise, it reads like it was one executive's call.
• The first paragraph of Reception contains an overload of "also"s. I don't think these add anything to the text, and believe they should be dropped. The previous section has a few as well, with varying degrees of necessity.
• In the quote from Gord Lacey, there is a hyphen in the text where we would normally have an en dash. I believe we are allowed to adjust a quote in this fashion, so it would be worth it to make this confirm with our style standards.
• Episode 1: "While attempting to receive one from the Dr. Elmer Hartman". Remove "the".
• Episode 3: "she demands that Peter and Lois to allow her to buy a car." Remove first "to".
• "Despite showing an interest in a station wagon, Peter uses her money to buy a military tank." This makes little sense. Did Meg show the interest?
• Episode 5: "so he requests Lois to do his work for him". Should this be similar to "so he requests that Lois do his work for him."? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Y Done and not sure where the 18 episodes is mentioned outside the lead and the DVD information. Gage (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Apprentice (U.S.) candidates

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 01:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria. I made similar lists for Big Brother, Project Runway and Dancing with the Stars, so I feel I know most of the issues that need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Make sure you use one date format in your references. You have a couple instances where you are using ISO. I prefer to always write dates out, such as "December 2, 2009". However, the {{Cite episode}} template requires ISO format, otherwise, the date will not show up at all. I suppose all dates throughout the article could be updated to ISO format for consistency, if required. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Done, thanks to Dabomb87, who converted all dates to YYYY-MM-DD format for consistency. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC) The list is not in the navbox at the bottom. I suggest adding it. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Overall, a very good list.—NMajdan•talk 17:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you much! I appreciate your time and suggestions. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Worth noting that Rivers wasn't just the oldest, but the oldest winner too? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Also worth noting the non-US competitors? There are only a couple aren't there? Well, there are several that were born in other countries, but their "hometown" is listed as their current U.S. residence. I don't see it as too relevant, but I can try to come up with something if needed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Don't relink names in the lead. Done. Didn't realize I had linked Joan Rivers twice. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) First general ref - don't mix ISO and human-readable date formats. Please see comment above for Nmajdan. As much as I hate ISO format, the cite episode template requires it, so I can change all other dates throughout article to ISO format for consistency, if needed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Not sure why a cite template requires a certain date format. In any case, I have made all of the ref dates follow the YYYY-MM-DD style. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Dabomb87. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Same in sixth general ref. Ditto. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Not directly relevant but the template could use en-dashes in the location pages. Sorry, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to here. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Never mind, I see now. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your feedback. Much appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment – Should Spring in "Spring 2010" be de-capitalized? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

According to MOS, season are lowercase "in almost all instances". Furthermore, "When personified, season names may function as proper nouns, and they should then be capitalized: I think Spring is showing her colors; Old Man Winter." I will go ahead and lowercased Spring, and keep in mind the new season will start soon so "spring" will be removed regardless. --Another Believer _(Talk) 08:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Donald Trump's "apprentice" → Donald Trump's apprentice

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• winner donating their → winners donating their or winner donating his or her

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think the highlighting of the winners is unnecessary because their Finish is always 1st.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• With only one person appearing twice, I don't think highlighting of her name is necessary.

Just thought I would point out that it was preferred over at List of Project Runway contestants. If you would still like the coloring removed, I'd be happy to. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for that list either; it's also redundant because it's listed in the lead. The previous point about winners and runners up also applies to that list.

Done. Removed coloring for Omarosa. I will not worry about the Project Runway list since that went through its own FL nomination process. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Notes III and IV should be combined because they say the same thing.

Not sure how to combine these. I tried, but was unable to. Also, I didn't know if (given the different sorting features) users might find it confusing which candidates were fired at the same time. Note III and Note IV both tell you specifically which candidates were fired at the same time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps you could add something else to the notes so they aren't identical. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. If you prefer different wording, just let me know! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job overall! Reywas92^Talk 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is part of a project to develop the Battle of the Nile and associated articles. This is a listing of the ships engaged, their commanders and the casualties each one suffered in the battle as best as can be determined by the sources. Please note that the ships are ordered by the position they took in the battle line and thus the tables are not intended to be sortable. Any comments and suggestions welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Very good list (and article).

1. The lead reads nicely, but I am not sure that it is clear what is included in the list (scope) after reading it. Could you add something to the effect that it is a list of participating ships and casualities.

   • I will work on this. I've had a go, let me know what you think.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

   Better. Not sure what the MOS says about italics, but fine for me.

2. Could you make the columns sortable?

   • As explained above, the table are arranged in the order of battle as per the title. This means that the ships are listed in the sequence they were deployed in during the battle. Making them sortable would dilute this effect. The lists are quite short in any case and I can't really see any benefit in making them sortable: what details would need sorting?

   It is good that the tables are arranged in the order of battle and I would not want to change it. What I suggest is to make them automagically sortable as per Help:Sorting which does not require much work for the editor and gives an added advantage for the reader (to see which ship suffered most/second most/... casualties and so on). Basically all columns except for "Notes" could be made sortable. The present order could be left as default order so nothing is lost.

   • I've had a go, but the header lines seem to disrupt the sorting.

   Possibly this could help, but I am not an expert in advanced sorting tables either. Alternatively headers like "Rear-Admiral Nelson's fleet", "Vice-Admiral Brueys' fleet" and "Line of battle" (Why two headers for the French fleet?) could be removed from the table and put in a short text just before the respective tables. Same for the colspans at the bottom of the table.

3. Did you consider marking ships that were destroyed somehow (by color for instance)? If it is useful you could also mark varying degrees of damage.

   • I could mark the destroyed ships, although note that the "Notes" column already does this by giving details on degrees of damage / causes of destruction. I'm loathe to highlight the ships based on the level of damage as this factor is relative and can vary quite widely - two heavily damaged ships can be damaged in completely different ways.

   Agreed about not marking damaged ships. I would mark the destroyed ships, since it is faster for the reader to see that only French ships were destroyed.

   • On reflection, I'm quite reluctant to do this. There were four French ships destroyed, but each was destroyed in very different circumstances, and grouping them together in this context seems quite forced. In addition, three French ships were destroyed by their captors three weeks after the battle as the damage they suffered was too severe for them to sail ever again. Three more ships were so badly damaged that they were unable to serve as frontline warships and were eventually scrapped. Thus highlighting the ships that were destroyed seems a bit like using a roller to paint a portrait: it irons out a lot of the detail (which is already included in the lead and the notes column).

   Good point. Done.

4. If there is only one number in the "Casualties" column of the French fleet, does it refer to those wounded (or killed or total)? You might want to add "0" like for the British list.

   • If there is one number, it is because the Killed/Wounded/Total boxes have been bypassed and so this is a total casualties figure (note how the boxes have been merged). The reason why the figure is not broken down further is that I have not been able to locate sources giving a more precise total. I'm not sure what you mean by the 0?

   If it is the total number, wouldn't it be more natural to put it into the "Total" column (and question marks in the "Killed/Wounded" columns)? (The numbers which are now centered appear as if they belong to the "Wounded" column, that's why I suggested to add "0" to the "killed" column...)

   • I can do this perhaps, although it looks pretty messy. What should I do about the "Heavy" and "Light" entries?

   I don't have any really good suggestion. (A footnote saying that these numbers are for total casualties?) Maybe another reviewer is more creative than me?

5. I am not sure if "Heavy" and "Light" are proper words to combine with "Casualties" (rather with losses)!?

   • They are standard terms in military history texts.

   OK, am not familiar with such texts.

6. Why did you choose to give precise numbers of casualties for the British fleet and a range for the French fleet? (even though note A says that there are various numbers in literature).

   • Because precise numbers exist for the British fleet (as given in the table) but they don't for the French. The footnote just gives a bit more detail into the range of figures available for both sides.

   I think I got it. Because William Laird Clowes is the only one who gives numbers for every ship. Correct?

bamse (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Correct, although William James gives totals for most of the British ships which are identical to Clowes' figures (he just doesn't present it in a table).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I will work on the first one you raised, and have given answers above explaining problems with enacting the others. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. 5. (and probably "6. as well) is done. I'd like to see "4." addressed since it is confusing (at least to me) without further explanation. Don't feel strongly about "3.", but "2." would be a good feature to have in my opinion. bamse (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"3." and "1." done. With "4." let's wait for other reviewers. If it is not confusing for them, it can be considered done. Just one more quick question: Why are the French ships rated according to the Rating system of the Royal Navy? Was there no French rating system at the time?bamse (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain whether the French had a formal rating system (although a possibly informal one is often hinted at in histories). Here it is used for comparative purposes. I could delink the rate column on that table if that would help? On a wider note, thankyou very much for your interest and comments, they have been very helpful. On the outstanding issues I'd like to wait for more input from a broader consensus before I do anything at this stage. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Following additional input below, I have clarified the heavy and light casualties sections - is this better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments - nice work. Caption needs no full stop as it's not a complete sentence. Quite right, done. Is it worth linking British fleet to something appropriate? Is there something appropriate (Royal Navy)? Same with French... probably not or you would have done it already...! Royal Navy and French Navy would be the links, but that would mean linking a title, which I am quite reluctant to do as it is frowned on and doesn't look very tidy. It's early for me today, but what do you mean by linking a title? I was implying you could link those two in the prose ("a British fleet and a French fleet"), not the section headings... The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Oh I see. Done Pedant's corner - is three month campaign hyphenated, e.g. should it be three-month campaign? Honestly I think it can go either way. I'll do it for you. "13 ships of the line and four frigates" here you could safely use "thirteen" so we don't mix smallish numbers and words. Thankyou - I've always preferred this format, but I've lost count of how many times I've been asked to strictly adhere to the rule of 1-9 in words and anything else in numerals. Discovered at 2pm on 1 August, then "rapid approach of nightfall" - I would have thought nightfall wasn't until around 10pm then? Clarified (hopefully) "Despite the death of the admiral," - worth reinforcing which admiral we're talking about? Named "as can best be established:" - personally I would say "as best as can be established" but that's just an opinion... Good call, changed Any link for "mizen mast" as I've never heard of it! The only link would be to mast Mast (sailing) - is that appropriate? It's not a big deal. I wondered if we had something specifically about a "mizen mast". I think the sailing mast link is okay but a little too general. Never mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Culloden's notes, first sentence ends in a full stop, second doesn't. Not quite sure of the rules here, but it looked a bit odd... I thought it was a sentence fragment (never sure how they work), but I have added it now. I think your symbol for KIA should be listed in a key because it's not 100% accessible for those who find it harder to see links... Done Mostert's years shouldn't be spaced. I can't find where you mean, can you be a little more specific? Sorry, in the bibliography, title of Mostert's book currently has spaced en-dash, needs to be unspaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Gotcha. Done. Thanks The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Thankyou very much, I think I have addressed all of your comments. Much appreciated!--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Would you also be able to comment on some of the points raised by Bamse above? We are interested in some addition thoughts on the issues from other users before any changes are implemented. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC) I'll see what I can do! The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Per bamse's comments: I don't think this necessarily needs to be sortable at all, and as you've pointed out, colspan's tend to throw it all out anyway. I hadn't noticed "Heavy" and "Light" and I do have a bit of an issue with that because it's not quantitative and I can't see what that means anywhere. I don't have a big problem with a single figure meaning overall casualties as long as you note it. You haven't referenced the casualties in the Orient, by the way... The Rambling Man (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for this - I have added the word "casualties" to the heavy and light entries in the table to better explain it and sourced the Orient casualties - is this better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the last FLC, I have added alt text, removed information not covered in the references, and improved the related articles. Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. It was in the templated map. Reywas92^Talk 00:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• James Whitcomb Riley House links to a disambig.
  • That was fixed above, but the tool hasn't updated it, unless it's hiding somewhere.
• ...Courthouse is an unusual combination.. I don't like the word "unsual". A bit too weasely.
  • Changed to "unique"
• Classocal revivial architecture Spelling.
  • Fixed
• 200-foot Shouldn't this be plural?
  • No, it's used as an adjective.
• 192-foot Again, plural?
  • No, again, it's used as an adjective.
• 210 feet Hyphenate like you did above.
  • No, it's not used as an adjective.
• Template:National Register of Historic Places doesn't have a link to this article.
  • It's not required to. That is standard to all NRHP articles.
• It was mentioned in a previous review that ref 14 doesn't specifically mention the construction date. This has not been fixed.
  • Changed.
• Again, a previous review mentioned that ref 7 for Angel Mounds doesn't define it as a regional center. I suggest you take another look at Nev1's comments in the previous FLC.
  • Changed. Reywas92^Talk 01:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I will continue my review when I feel the issues above as well as the issues from the previous FLC have been resolved.—NMajdan•talk 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments - nice illustrated list, but a few things for me... Four "Indiana"s in the opening two sentences - this could use some variation, e.g. "the state"? Done Weren't natives "early settlers" or do you settlers to mean Europeans here? Done You link Indiana a little later than you could. Done "They illustrate the state's industrial and architectural heritage, as well as battles, circuses, education, and several other topics" to me this reads that "They illustrate the states ... battles, circuses, education.." - do you mean that? or do you mean they also illustrate the state's battle heritage, circus heritage, education heritage? Just reads a little strangely to me... Well I wouldn't say we have a battle or education heritage. I'm not sure what to say. Don't think you need (a ship) in parentheses, you could just have ", a ship that was ..." Done Are the NHL criteria the same as the predetermined criteria you mention? Yes, I think so. Where do you mean? You use light-blue only for designating National Historic Landmark. Is this because you're assuming you don't need a symbol (per WP:ACCESS) by virtue of the fact you have only two categories and the other does have a symbol? Yes. Symbol (+dark blue) is NHLD and no symbol (+light blue) is just NHL. Why is Landmark name in bold? Removed Why abbreviate the date? The column is wide enough for a full month. Yes, but that depends on your computer size and it would take away from the other columns. Our Beaux-Arts on Wikipedia is hyphenated. Done "Classical Revival" or "Classical revival"? Revival You don't link modern architecture but you do link modern-style (to neoclassicism). Both linked "He would later be" could just be "He later became..." Done "The 500 is the largest single-day sporting event in the world" in what context? Attendance "and influenced future bank" - subsequent instead of future. Done "place for both Indians and whites " just a quick check, 'cos I'm a dumb European, do you still use "Indians" in this sense? Yes, both Indians and Native Americans are acceptable terms, though the latter is considered politically correct. "It is a fine example of Greek Revival style from architect Francis Costigan amd is now a museum" fine in whose opinion? And fix the "amd" typo. Done Since this list is sortable, I would have thought we should link things like Italianate in every instance as there's no guarantee which one appears first after a re-sort. Done Blank image cell for the quilter house, would be better off as an en-dash so it doesn't just look as if something's gone missing. Same for any others. Done I don't like the split off table of one former landmark. Perhaps this is the format used elsewhere but it looks odd to have a single-row sortable table. I would add it with a note in the descriptions column.\ I think it would be inapproprate to include inde it with the others, and other states have this. I removed the sortability. Okay, but at least make the column sizes the same widths as the previous table...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Done See also has History of Indiana which you already link to the in lead. Done Not directly relevant but the templates are different shades of blue. Why not make them the same, at least for the NHL/NHL in Indiana template? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Well the NHLs in IN one should be the same as the general NRHP one. I reordered to put the same colors together. Thanks for the help! Reywas92Talk 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• "approximately 1,687 " very precise for an approximation.
  • That is the total number, but more are always being added.
    • Well I would say 1,687 as of X. Because 1,687 simply isn't approximate, it's exact. Very precise indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll check with Doncram about a date.
      • Updated as of December 2009.
• Ordering of first column is odd, despite the note, and means you cannot (as far as I can tell) restore the list back to numerical order. Can you do it?
  • The number column is also sortable.
    • Yes, that's what I mean, the number column does not sort numerically so once you've sorted per something, you can never get the list back in numerical order. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't see what you mean. If I play with the sorting of the other columns and then go back to the number it's in the original numerical order.
        • Not in Safari. It sorts four ways. I would guess it's down to the symbols you're using. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure it would make a difference just by browser. It works for me, so I wouldn't how to fix it without taking out the important symbols. Reywas92^Talk 20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm surprised you think all browsers work the same way! (for instance this site seems to imply there could be various issues). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
              • You don't have to be rude about it. I would expect the sorting to be more of a Wikipedia thing. Could you please play with it? Obviously I would have no idea if it works for you unless I strip it down to just the numbers, which shouldn't be done. Reywas92^Talk 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
                • Sorry, if it appeared I was I being rude then forgive me. Just that being a Mac user we're often overlooked since we utterly never use "Internet Explorer". Sometimes the way "we" see the internet is different from everyone else. All I'm saying is that there seem to be issues. Don't forget, it's just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
                  • Which brings up a question. Is there an easy way to see how a page renders with different browsers? I know with Firefox and IE tab, I can easily look at those two browsers. But I don't know how to check Safari short of downloading it, which I am not inclined to do.—NMajdan•talk 01:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
                    • Well, since it's free and if you really wanted to address the cross-browser issues, then downloading it seems the easiest and most comprehensive way of doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Looks like you need to replace the {{NHLsm}} and {{NRHPlegend}} templates with something that sorts correctly. I'm also not a fan of how the latter links you to Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend, which is just another key/legend. Seems like that whole thing would violate WP:ACCESS.—NMajdan•talk 21:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
              • I've changed all to the NHRPlegend template. I'll keep testing the template to see if I get anywhere. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure whether NMajdan refers to some link to the Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend other than the one in a footnote phrase "defined here", from footnote explaining the first column. Given that the article has an explicit key section defining the only two colors used in this article, the "defined here" link to the NRHP colors legend is not needed though. The footnote explaining the first column is still needed, to explain the ordering is by first "significant" word and that the numbering should not be interpreted as something too highly significant. It seems the table is sorting properly by that number column now. By the way, the table can be sorted to its original order in any browser, I believe, by refreshing the page. But it is helpful to have the first column be sortable to provide that option of sorting explicitly. doncram (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Comments

• The article seems well developed on explaining the NHL designation process. For example the guidelines at Title 36, Part 65 are linked, although maybe with one extra step required to get to that (not sure if my linking here will work, either). The statements all seem accurate to me, except maybe there is a little bit of over-emphasis on the National Park Service staff making the recommendations. The guidelines anticipate that state officials and "other parties" other than National officials will make recommendations (which then the NPS would evaluate and come to its own recommendations about). The possibility that state officials or private owners will nominate a property for NHL designation should be admitted, as that does happen (or technically they may be "recommending" rather than "nominating" their property for NHL status, if "nominating" is technically to be reserved for referring to the National Park Service's step in the process, while "nominating" as an English language word is what they are in fact doing).
• Indiana is different than many other states in that none of its NHLs are also National Historic Sites, National Historical Parks, or other types of National Park Service units covering sites of historical importance. Indiana does have two non-NHL, NRHP-listed NPS units, the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park and the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, which should be at least mentioned in the article, IMO. The National Park Service does make a point of mentioning these two non-NHLs in its official list of NHLs (the mention is on page 114 of the nation-wide PDF list that is the first reference in this article, or on the same page of the Indiana-specific PDF list of NHLs that the NPS also provides, not linked from this article). I believe it is appropriate to follow their lead in the Wikipedia list-article about the Indiana NHLs. These two sites are comparable to a NHL and, if the sites were not NPS units, they probably would be designated as NHLs. There is no specific source I can point to right now about this, but places which are NPS units already often do not get NHL designation, presumably because there are no significant additional benefits in terms of tax incentives or otherwise, for a site that is already a NPS unit. The George Rogers Clark National Historical Park and the Lincoln boyhood memorials are the only other contenders, anyhow, besides the NHLs, for being among the most important historic sites in the state that are recognized by the Federal government. This list-article, mainly covering the NHLs, is improved by covering these 2 in addition, so that it covers all of the most highly recognized sites of national historical importance in the state. I personally would want to include location information including coordinates for these, so that the Google/Bing map links are more useful to readers, too. doncram (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe this was discussed in the previous FLC. With all due respect, I think that only NHLs should be listed on this List of NHLs. And, in fact, the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial is both a NMEM and NHL, but it is called Lincoln Boyhood Home. Reywas92^Talk 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I just did notice the Lincoln Boyhood Home is both an NHL and NMEM too, and I added NMEM color and a symbol to the Key and changed its entry to show that.
    • Yes, whether to separately list the non-NHL NPS historic places has been discussed some before; i have not revisited what was said in the previous FLC. Reywas92, I take it your view is that having a separate table for them (just the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park in this case) is not what you want. While I would prefer having that, and including location and coordinates info for it, as I believe that readers interested in NHLs in IN are well served by having that. It is a lesser step, though, to just include mention of the place in the text. Can we just do that, which is part of clarifying what the NHLs are, anyhow (they are among the most important nationally-recognized historic sites in the state, but there's at least one other roughly equivalent site). I'll try making an edit to add some mention somewhere, to have something specific to discuss. doncram (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I see in the first FLC, Reywas92, your view was "I wouldn't oppose a see also or a mention in the lead, but these do not belong in an NHL list". I tried adding a mention of the one NHP into the text. Is that okay? doncram (talk)
      • Looks fine to me. Thanks! But for Lincoln, it is both an NHLD and NMEM. How should that be marked with the colors? I think it should use the NHLD color because that is what the list is describing. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, the table is all NHLs/NHLDs, that is understood. Whether one is further a relatively rarer National Historic Site, National Memorial, etc. is usefully indicated by a color of that. That is how the wider system of NRHP lists is devised: in NRHP lists, all NRHPs are indeed NRHPs but we don't apply just NRHP blue color to every one, we have used different colors to indicate NHLs and NHLDs and NHSs etc amongst the mere NRHPs. For consistency with use of the colors in all other NRHP lists and all other NHL lists, this one should show the relatively rare NMEM color. doncram (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

About sourcing: the issue on sourcing opened in the first FLC, mostly in comments by Nev1, seems still open. There are facts stated in many of the descriptions which do not appear in the NHL summary webpages that are given as the sources. For example, specifics in the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza Historic District entry do not appear in its NHL summary webpage. As I stated in the closing minutes of the first FLC, I would support the descriptions being summaries of their corresponding articles as they are now, without representation that they are fully sourced from the NHL summary webpages (which is not accurate). I do want to support the FL candidacy of this article without requiring excessive footnoting, without requiring all the references that appear in each of the corresponding articles. But I would hope FL status be given with some more explicit understanding consensus of what's being done. doncram (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I had removed excess information not in the references so nearly everything should be covered by them. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So, to be clear for one example, the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza HD description mentions" it is 210 feet (64 m) tall" and that is not in the NHL summary webpage which is footnoted. I personally do not feel that the height is a controversial assertion requiring a separate footnote to the NRHP document, say. I assume the height is accurately/adequately sourced in the corresponding article about the HD. I think this is fine, but then I would prefer for a footnote to the title of the descriptions column be given that clarifies some non-controversial facts are sourced in the corresponding articles. I had composed and/or applied such a footnote in the NY NHL list-article. doncram (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• The main map image requires alt text.
• "There are 37 National Historic Landmarks in the state, which are located in 22 of the its 92 counties." Excess "the" in this sentence.
• I find the first paragraph of the lead to be slightly overlinked, in particular the battle, circus and education links back-to-back-to-back. These are common terms and don't require the links, especially when there are so many valuable links later in the lead.
• All caps should be removed from references 2 and 15. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • All done. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of awards and nominations received by William Gibson

Nominator(s):  Skomorokh  03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is to my knowledge a comprehensive and well-sourced collection of a highly notable author's awards and nominations. I believe the prose to give sufficient context to a reader unfamiliar with the author, while covering the most salient points of the topic, and written to a professional standard. Comments, suggestions and constructive criticism welcome.  Skomorokh  03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As good as the article on William Gibson and List of works of William Gibson which Skomorokh brought to FA and FL standard. Well done, again. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments:

1. Center the dashes in Notes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Make the table sortable in year, category and result.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ciao diaa, and thanks for the suggestions. I've made this change to add sortability to {{awards table2}}, the template used for tables in the article. I'm not sure how to make that column-specific. For centering the dashes, the only ways I can think of doing it are to have a default value in the template so that if nothing is entered, a centered dash appears, or alternatively to add <center></center> tags manually to the article. I'm not sure exactly how to implement the former, and the latter seems inelegant. Further suggestions welcome! Regards,  Skomorokh  11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps {{center}} is more elegant? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be, but it would have to be added about four dozen times, and I'm not sure the benefits (aesthetic?) are worth the effort or added complexity for future editors. I'm ambivalent on this one, it's not a big deal either way.  Skomorokh  01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Any reason why the totals for the awards/noms don't match those in the expanded table (3 and 44 vs 8 and 38)? Why is the background to the Arthur C Clarke award black in the expanded table in the lead? "which would prove the author's breakout work" grammatically incorrect - perhaps "which proved to be the author's breakout work"? "Gibson was a living inductee " reads oddly, perhaps "Gibson became a living inductee..."? On a not-too-wide setting (around 1200 pixels) I can't see all the letters in the Result column. This gets worse when I reduce the width further, and I see a similar issue with the Year column. If tables are sortable, we'd normally relink things each time as they are not guaranteed to appear top of the list if the table is resorted. It's not abundantly clear what you mean by a result of 2 or 3 - perhaps 2nd or 3rd? "and Gibson sat on the jury " just a personal thing, I'd say "while Gibson..." in that case... Same comment above for the positions in the poll. Plus you could use = instead of (tie)... I think the career honours section would work better as prose, as I find it a little odd to see him "winning" his nominated work of "Living inductee" into the Category of "Science Fiction Hall of Fame" - just feels a little "square peg, round hole"....! Ref 3 could use a work or publisher. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the very helpful comments, TRM! I'll answer in order below; hopefully it won't get too confusing. I've reworked the expanded table to include all awards and nominations except the polls, and used the same metric for the totals, so these should be consistent now. It's not black for me, but it is shaded slightly differently. The only difference between the treatment of that award and the others that I can see in the template used – {{Infobox writers awards}} – is that it is governed by #ifeq rather than #if. I don't understand why, but there is probably a purpose to it. Reworded as suggested Reworded as suggested There will always be too little or too much space for particular fields depending on the viewer's screen resolution, but I've tweaked the allocations now; let me know if it's any better. Is there a pixel width such templates should be optimised for? 800px? 1000px? Switched to cardinal numbers as suggested "While" to me denotes a temporal concurrence (as in "meanwhile" or "simultaneously"), but the events in question here took place years apart. I used "and" because it simply denotes concurrence, but I'm not sure it's the best or mos descriptive conjunction and am open to another suggestion. Cardinal numbers used as suggested. I think that "tie" as in "2nd (tie)", though something of an Americanism, is unambiguous whereas the meaning of "2nd (=)" or "=2nd" would not be as immediately obvious to me. You're right about the career honours section; the content did not fit the table headings at all. I've reworked it as prose per your suggestion; my only worry now is that it is looking a little scant for a standalone section and I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about that if expansion is not feasible. That was an import of a citation without the attached reference; all the info should be there now. Thanks again, and if you have any more problems, issues or suggestions, please keep 'em coming. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• The image needs better alt text than its title.
• In any tables that have book titles in both italics and quotation marks without italics, the book without italics sort first in the nominated work column, followed by the ones in italics. It would be better if a way could be found to get them to sort alphabetically together.
• I have several queries and concerns about the sources used (keep in mind that I have no knowledge of the subject) They may well be fine, but I feel it's better to ask now just to be safe.
  • Is reference 2 (randychase.com) supposed to be an online link to a published book? If not, it begs the question of why what appears to be somebody's personal website is a reliable source.
  • Reference 3 (Project Cyberpunk) is definitely a link to information from a book, but does it say that they have the right to republish?
  • Again, does the publisher of reference 5 (brmovie.com) have the right to republish this newspaper article (assuming it isn't some official site of the paper)? If not, it should be converted to an offline reference.
  • The publisher in reference 7 (The Independent) should be in italics since it is a printed publication.
  • What makes Worlds Without End a reliable source? It's crucial that this site be reliable because it is citing a few of the tables.
  • Reference 12 should have the Seattle Post-Intelligencer added to it, since that is where the link comes from. I imagine this should also be in italics, in addition to the newspaper already given. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks greatly for your comments Giants; I've had a go at addressing them so let's see where things stand:

• The alt text for the infobox image (File:William Gibson 60th birthday portrait.jpg) reads "The head and shoulders of a middle-aged balding bespectacled white man, looking into the distance." Is this sufficient? There may be a display issue with the infobox template itself, but that should not be difficult to fix.
• Your observation that italicised works and quoted works sort separately seems accurate from what I can tell. The italicised works are standalone works – published books, mostly, whereas the quoted works are short stories that for the most part have only been published in collections. I don't know of a way of having MediaWiki treat italics and quotes the same for the purposes of sorting, but the existing division (books and short stories sorted separately) is not an arbitrary one and I think it is tolerable if nothing better can be managed.
• Speaking to the references:
  • I've added the missing content (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, italics for The Independent).
  • I've replaced the randychase.com and Worlds Without End references (though I wouldn't give up either as reliable sources necessarily). The new refs are Burning Chrome (the introduction to a collection of the author's works), the Center for the Study of Science Fiction and New Scientist. I hope these pass muster (and that no errors or omissions have been introduced therein).
  • On the issue of links to copyrighted material hosted by third parties, namely Project Cyberpunk and brmovie.com, I have included them as an aid to the reader so that they can verify the content of the article for themselves. I would have thought the issue of rights to republication is an issue for the webhosts – surely the encyclopaedia is not liable or beyond fair use in merely linking to them?

Thanks again for your perceptive review, and look forward to seeing more. Regards,  Skomorokh  17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of members of the Council of Keble College, Oxford

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I ran out of lists to write about Jesus College, Oxford, and so have moved on to the next college alphabetically, as part of my plan for world domination. I've written articles for 15 of the 54 names on the list. 7 names are "blacklinks" because I don't see that they're sufficient notable for their own articles (e.g. never made it into Who's Who, didn't get an obituary in The Times) and I don't think that being a member of the Council without more is sufficiently notable to trump a lack of coverage about them. No dab links, all images have alt-text and are from Commons, only one external link. Have fun. Bencherlite^Talk 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from the right shade of blue.... Read that first sentence and tell me if you think it should end somewhere....! Yes, it was as long as one of John Keble's sermons. Reworded. Does Royal need to be capitalised? No It Did Not. I prefer refs to be ordered numerically, you have [4][2] at the moment. Ouch. "the meetings made him and his wife, Lavinia, tense." - a bit "factoid"y for me this, not particularly scintillating... Removed, remainder of sentence shifted into following para. "on a constitutional part with" - part or par? par "Finish" seems a little strange, wouldn't End be better, i.e. end of term? No big deal. End " who was a Student (i.e. Fellow) of" - don't understand this... Christ Church calls people who would be "Fellows" at any other college "Students", as well as calling students "students"; typical confusing nonsense from "the House". Reworded. Pellew note has a full stop, others don't (even those with seemingly similarly structured sentences)... Same for Lygon. Perhaps I'm missing something...? One was a mistake, one was a sentence. Reworded to eliminate full-stops. Ref 11 needs an en-dash, not a tilde. Poor eyesight I guess that bold in ref 2 is as a result of the template? {{cite book}} uses bold for the "volume" parameter, but it does look odd, so I've edited the citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Hope it's looking better now, and that the move is going well. BencherliteTalk 22:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Move is going fine, thanks, besides the lack of broadband... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I really have nothing to add: this is a fine list that covers an obscure but interesting topic comprehensively and well, that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Excellent work. (By coincedence, it seems likely that the black linked William Sackville-West is the father of the subject of an article I wrote a few years back: Charles Sackville-West, 4th Baron Sackville. I agree that he probably isn't notable, but I do enjoy these unexpected connections that Wikipedia can throw up).--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment – There are a lot of old images in this list, and I'm uncertain about the licensing in a couple of cases for the photos next to the table. Can we find someone more knowledgeable than myself on image licensing to check the photos? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose world domination but support article

• "and many were not otherwise linked to the university": does this mean that many had no link with the university prior to joining the council, or that aside from being an alumni of the college had no connection with the university? Other than that, the lead's good and answered all my questions (how the Council was selected, its role, etc).
• Was the Warden chosen from or by the council?

Unfortunately, I can't bring any specific knowledge to this review, the subject is completely new to me. I was looking for more to say (if only so the review wouldn't look painfully superficial!), but I think the article meets the FL criteria already. Well done on creating a great list. Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs in DJ Hero

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A change from my normal Guitar Hero soundtrack lists, the soundtrack for DJ Hero is quite different from the other games due to being mixes of two songs. For as much as I could do so, I stuck to the usual pattern the other GH songlists are in, though year of song release has been dropped (as technically, this would require 3 years to each row: song 1 and 2, and the mix year, and this is made difficult due to the number of mixes and remixes of the original songs that are present). Anything to help make this better, if possible, would be appreciated, but otherwise this is complete. Note that there is likely to be future DLC, but the table given is a good indication of how this information will be added when it is announced. MASEM (t) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article is miscategorized. It's not a game! It's a list of songs. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed; only classified under "Guitar Hero soundtracks" now per other GH lists. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Wikilink crossfade to Fade (audio engineering)#Crossfading. Fix one of your links to M.I.A. Any reason you're not wikilinking FreeStyleGames in the table? Per WP:LINK, each row in a table should stand on its own. Would it make sense to exclude the The when sorting? For example, "The Edge" would sort under the es. —NMajdan•talk 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed these all, including adding "The"-less sorting. Thanks. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Should this apply to artists as well? Also, is it The Black Eyed Peas or simply Black Eyed Peas? I believe the latter.—NMajdan•talk 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Caught those as well. In game, they are listed as "The Black-Eyed Peas" even though our article here on them is the-less, so I've pipelined along with sorting to avoid the single redirect. Also checked the mix artist column, but this was ok for the-less (on scratch perverts) --MASEM (t) 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments May seem trivial but you could try to add in a way of saying this is about being a disc jockey (DJ), then use the abbreviation DJ safely... "downloadable content will also feature" - perhaps "future downloadable..."? "arranged across 24 different setlists, arranged " - arranged x 2, not brilliant prose. Last sentence of on-disc soundtrack para is a little, well, verbose? Mix Artist->Mix artist. Which ref says that downloadable content will regularly be available in the future? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Fixed all the above. --MASEM (t) 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Remove extra period at the end of the first sentence in Downloadable content section.
• "due to the addition effort needed to create the mixes." Typo.
• "as previous downloadable for games like Guitar Hero allows players on these systems to select what individual tracks to purchase." Feels like a word is missing after "downloadable". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• "DJ vs Guitar" → DJ vs Guitar (twice)
• more-difficult → more difficult or harder

Good job! Reywas92^Talk 02:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Both fixed. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I am getting familiar with the FL process and I got List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft passed FL, I feel comfortable that this list also meets all the criteria for FL. However, I do expect some comments on the number of red links so let me address that in the nomination. I feel that this article passes critera 5a because there is a minimal proportion of red links for articles that I feel are notable. I feel that some of these players may not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia because while they were drafted to the NBA, many never played a game and would probably violate WP:ATHLETE. I also feel that this part of the criteria is flexible due to the fact that on several occassions, it was proposed it should be removed but no consenses was ever reached. I'm sure if the situation were reversed and someone was trying to add the criteria, no consensus would be reached on its addition and it would not be added.—NMajdan•talk 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Column heading "Player name" can simply be "player" Explain abbreviation "Rnd" in the key, or just spell out "Round" You have symbol in the key but they are not being used —Chris!c/t 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Also, I saw your change with the ellipses and was kind of baffled. Then, I read WP:ELLIPSIS. They really should consider removing the ellipsis character from the editing help section below the Save Changes/Show Preview buttons if that character is not recommended. Thanks for making the change.—NMajdan•talk 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Point 3 still not done.—Chris!c/t 21:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Ha. Definite oversight on my part. Third time's a charm.—NMajdan•talk 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Redlinks or not, it doesn't bother me. And the rule "a minimal proportion of red links" is really open to different interpretations. Anyway, I am comfortable supporting now. —Chris!_c/t 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – Unfortunately for this list, the criteria regarding red links makes no mention of notability; it simply says "a minimal proportion of red links", and I can't say that red for 24 of 51 entries (nearly half) is minimal. If the players aren't notable enough for articles, they should be delinked, as two of the entries already are. Haven't taken a close look at the rest yet, though I am unsure of the reliablity of reference 9 (McHenryCountySports.com). Also, there's no reason for the date in the one general reference to be linked. These are secondary in importance to the red link issue, though. I know it is controversial, but an FL criterion does exist (though it isn't my favorite) and should be respected until consensus shows otherwise. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Clicking the "About Us" link on the http://www.mchenrycountysports.com website takes you to http://www.nwherald.com/about_us/ indicating it is a sports-spinoff website of the Northwest Herald. Are you saying that delinking those that are not notable would resolve the red link issue?—NMajdan•talk 23:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC) That's exactly what I'm saying. The non-notable players would be those who didn't play in the NBA/WNBA. If any of the red-linked WNBA players played in the league, they should probably remain linked since they would be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. The female players by themselves would be minimal in terms of red links, so no worries there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC) If you haven't checked the article already, I went through my primary source and delinked those that had no stats in the NBA. Let me know how it looks. I will try to get some additional articles created for those that did play.—NMajdan•talk 04:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Happy to see that red links are no longer an issue, and am ready to take a closer look at the list as a whole. "while the women's basketball team has had nine players players drafted in the Women's National Basketball Association." Duplicated word in the middle. Done.—NMajdan•talk En dash for "win-loss record" twice. Done.—NMajdan•talk "Three former Sooner men have won a championship with their respective team." Make last word plural? Done.—NMajdan•talk The Jimmy McNatt photo is suspicious. It is highly doubtful that the supposed author took this picture 60 years ago. Removed.—NMajdan•talk Spell out WNBA in the references. Left as is. If you visit the references (assuming you are referring to 4 & 5), you will see at the bottom of the page that it is abbreviated the same I have abbreviated it.—NMajdan•talk Fair enough. One further related point: the bottom of the general reference from WNBA.com lists the publisher as WNBA Enterprises, LLC. For consistency's sake, sholdn't this be the same as the publisher in reference 4? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, it should. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk 21:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Reference 7 should have The Sporting News in italics (printed publication) and should mention the website (NBC Sports/MSNBC) somewhere. This would be an ideal spot for both work and publisher to be given. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the comments. Hopefully I have resolved them to your satisfaction.—NMajdan•talk 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "The University of Oklahoma men's basketball team has" - why not "The U of O men's basketball team, the Oklahoma Sooners, has..." so you can link Sooners rather than easter egg link men's basketball team? I'm torn on this. I don't feel I'm "easter egg"ing the link.—NMajdan•talk I was misled by the link. It looked like one whole link to me. I think you should just do away with the link to the OU article, and link to the basketball article, which is more specific. If readers really need to go to the main article about OU, they can click on the link in the basketball article. This is a linking concept known as "chain linking". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I like this idea. Done.—NMajdan•talk You could then split the first sentence to discuss the female drafts straight afterwards so as not to have a real mouthful opening sentence. Also not a fan of this change, but it was made. Let me know if you feel it is better.—NMajdan•talk You could note who drafted Griffin since it was such a big deal. Done.—NMajdan•talk Name the all-stars, since there are relatively few of them. Done.—NMajdan•talk Najera's alt text - I think you could safely add the description that he is "muscular" to assist those who need alt text. Done.—NMajdan•talk What's ABA? Done.—NMajdan•talk Pick doesn't sort correctly for me. Done.—NMajdan•talk What does en-dash in the Pick column mean? It appears that in the first couple of drafts, no particular order was documented or there simply was no order. I have not been able to find a source that details the early days of the draft and all sources I have found have left the pick number empty for these picks.—NMajdan•talk Alt text for Ms Dales - you could include what is behind her in the image? Done.—NMajdan•talk Notes 1 and 2 are the same, so just reuse one. Done.—NMajdan•talk Ref 6 could use an en-dash in the year range. Done.—NMajdan•talk The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

• "From 1967 until the ABA–NBA merger in 1976, the American Basketball Association (ABA) held it own draft." - How is this relevant to the article? --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This was added to answer the "What's ABA?" question in the review above.—NMajdan•talk
    • You replied "Done" to that question. That doesn't answer my question. Laugh out loud. I think including the ABA Drafts could be possisle. No point in not. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Could mention the first drafted Sooner from the NBA and WNBA Drafts in the lead.
  • I think this may be a bit extraneous. Especially considering the first Sooners in both drafts didn't have an exception, if any, professional career.—NMajdan•talk
• "# - Inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame" Remove, as the symbol is not used in any of the tables.
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk
• Could mention who is currently active in their respective leagues.
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk

--[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
*Comment: In the NBA Draft you have Round/Pick. In the WNBA draft you have Round/Pick/Overall. Make the two consistent. Wizardman 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for pointing that out. Oversight on my part.—NMajdan•talk 16:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • The University of Oklahoma men's basketball team has had 42 players drafted in the National Basketball Association (NBA). The women's basketball team has also had nine players drafted in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA). - These two sentences need to be reworded, the second sentence implies that men had 9 players drafted, which contradictory to the facts.
    • I don't see how the second sentence implies what you say at all. Seems very straight forward to me. Can you be more specific?—NMajdan•talk
  • Oklahoma had two players selected in both the latest NBA draft and latest WNBA draft. - Two players in total OR two players in each draft? Be specific.
    • Again, I feel that I am being specific. By saying "...two players selected in both...", I am saying that two players in both the NBA Draft and WNBA Draft.—NMajdan•talk
  • ...must be at least one year removed from the graduation of his high school class. - This is not applied to international players. Be more specific.
    • Right, that rule doesn't apply to international players but this is a list about an American university's draftees, so the international rule doesn't apply. Now, it does belong in the main yearly NBA Draft article.—NMajdan•talk
  • Also, all five non-playoff teams that participate in the draft lottery pick in the order of the lottery outcome with the remainder of the league selecting in reverse order of their win–loss record. - where are the commas? or some other punctuation marks? It's just hard to read.
    • Where would a comma go? The only place where one might go is after outcome but I don't think it is necessary.—NMajdan•talk
  • ...have completed her intercollegiate... - her or their? we're talking about "players", right?
    • Fixed.—NMajdan•talk
  • Can the image captions "draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious"? per WP:CAPTION
    • Fixed.—NMajdan•talk
  • Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables.
    • I've seen many other articles have center-aligned text. Can you link to the MOS guideline on this?—NMajdan•talk
  • The "key" section mentions that † marks NBA or WNBA champions, but it also marks the ABA champion, Don Sidle. This confusion needs to be avoided.
    • I mention the ABA and the ABA-NBA merger in the lead. Is that not enough?—NMajdan•talk
  • Why are some names not linked? I believe they're professional athletes and are notable enough to have a page here on Wikipedia some day. Do you feel they're not notable or afraid of the red links?
    • I covered this is my nomination intro.—NMajdan•talk

--Cheetah (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Obviously, I still have several questions regarding your suggestions, so I hope we can clear them up.—NMajdan•talk 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Rusby discography

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's of a comparable standard to existing featured discogs, and I think it would be nice to see one from the world of folk music. There's probably loads of things still wrong with it, but if you point 'em out, I'll fix 'em if I can :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

PS Before it is asked, I have looked hard and can find no evidence that she has charted anywhere except in the UK. Allmusic says that one of her albums charted on a minor Billboard chart, but this is not supported by Billboard themselves, who state "This album has never charted" against all her albums on their website. If people feel that the Allmusic info should be included anyway, I'll be happy to add it in, I'm not "up" on how accurate the info on Billboard's own site may or may not be..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Allmusic copies the chart information directly from Billboard, so you should include it. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Now included -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "... first release ... was released ..." just reads a little poorly for me. Don't use EP before you place (EP) after extended play. Never keen on small fonts, just makes the information less accessible. I assume that all the stuff which doesn't have specific in-line references is referenced by the two general references e.g. that in 1995 the eponymous album was released on CD and cassette? Ref 14 is really a note. The list is uncategorised. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments, all sorted now I think. Everything not specifically cited inline should be covered by the general refs. I don't personally think ref 14 is a note, it is the reference citing the information as to who the director of the DVD was, unfortunately the credits on the DVD itself is the only source I could find....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:*The All-Music cite for the sentence "In 1997 Rusby released her first solo album, Hourglass, and also joined the all-female folk group The Poozies, with whom she recorded one EP and one full-length album." cites the album and mentions The Poozies, but does not say when she joined. The "extended plays" need some more info, see Godsmack discography for example. The ref for the video album director isn't proper. I would just cite the DVD itself. I would archive the "Television" ref (#17) using WebCite. Just advice, but that looks like a link that could easily rot. Her template (I guess not really part of the article but worth fixing) should include her all her Collab albums under "Other albums" along with Heartlands, even if they don't have an article. I've done the same with the one musician I've written on, Alison Krauss discography and {{Alison Krauss}}. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Heh, actually checking that now I see someone has created several stub articles to fix most of the red links, but Home on the Highways: Band Picked Favorites is still there so my example holds. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• All addressed. Precise release dates for the EPs don't seem to be recorded anywhere so I've just had to reiterate the year. The WebCite thing didn't work. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Too bad, seems like a cool tool. Never used it myself. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Looks good. Here's a few suggestions/comments:

• The charts column in the Collaborative albums table is unnecessary, since none of those albums charted.
• In general there's a few chart positions columns with only one sub-column (UK). In these instances, there's no point in having the header (Peak Chart Positions) along with the sub-header (UK). Just one header is fine since there's only one column.
• The titles of the EPs aren't bolded like the titles of the other albums are.
• Year columns in general should be centered.
• I'd recommend merging repeating columns, such as Years and Album (mostly in the singles table).
• The Guest Appearances table should also include which track she appeared on. As it is, it looks like she was a guest appearance for the whole album.
  • Sources don't state that information, and for the ones I happen to own myself from the list, that level of info isn't even on the sleeve. We're not talking a case like a rapper where "Featuring Kate Rusby" would be plastered in big letters on the track listing on the back of the sleeve. The albums I own from the list do not pick out the additional musicians who are on each track, rather each album has one block listing of all the musicians on the album in tiny type inside the booklet which includes "Backing vocals: Kate Rusby", which could obviously mean anywhere from one track to all of them. I could of course listen to them and pick out the ones with her voice on, but that would be OR. I'll wait and see if you think this is a dealbreaker before I proceed with the other changes you've requested...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I see. Well, what I would recommend then is to be a specific as possible wherever it is possible. For those albums where it is completely vague - either based on the sources or the actual way in which she's credited on the release itself - just leave it vague. But surely some of the releases specify contributions on a per-track basis. The compilations especially. And taking a look at the wikipages of some of the other albums, a few of the pages themselves do specify which track she contributed to. Not sure if that's OR on those pages, but it's worth a look. In general you can only be as specific as the liner notes allow you to be, but if they allow you to be more specific then you should be. Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I've had a good look round and I can only reliably source the track(s) she is on for three of the fifteen albums. Some of the others may be sourcable from the sleeve notes but I don't own them or know anybody who does. Personally I think it would look really silly to put specific tracks against three albums and leave twelve as "unknown", so I'm not going to add it in. If this means the article can't be a FL well, so be it, such is life...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think you need to be so negative about it; I'm giving suggestions, not trying to derail the FLC. Hopefully you can see my point/problem with the current format, and hopefully we can come to some simple solution. My problem is that it seems to suggest Rusby's involvement is album-wide, which obviously isn't the case in some of the instances. So wherever possible, and wherever applicable, I think it would be clearer to include specific tracks. You could do something similar to the last table of Trent Reznor discography. Or, you could also just add in parenthesis the specific track where applicable rather than add a whole new column. Or, you could also just add some sort of asterisk type thing to those albums, with a legend below the table stating that those asterisked albums include contributions on only certain tracks. These all seem like reasonable and simple solutions, hopefully one of them works with you. Drewcifer (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I wasn't trying to be negative, or to suggest that you were being obstuctive, and I apologise most sincerely if I gave that impression. I was merely trying to convey the fact that, unlike some nominators I've seen at FLC and FAC in the past, I'm really not fussed if the article genuinely can't get promoted. I'll have a look at your suggestions, the sources I have, and see what I can do..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Info now found for all bar four three -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• There should be an external links section of some sort.

That's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support from Mm40 (talk). Just a few comments:

• "as part of a duo or group" was she ever in a duo? If not, "duo or" can be removed.
• There should be non-breaking spaces after the two mentions of "number" in the second paragraph.
• The link to the US World chart in the first table links to a section that doesn't exist.
• misspelling: "casette" for first collaborative album
• Link The Poozies in EP table?
• no full stop needed after "Recorded live at the Leeds City Varieties"
• In the music videos' table, I think the "(s)" can be dropped off of "Director(s)"
• Some references are missing periods; all should have them. Mm40 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for removal

[edit] All-NBA Team

Notified WikiProject National Basketball Association, WikiProject Awards and User:Chrishomingtang.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it seems to be far less user friendly, lacks in-line citations, and lacks illustrations in comparison to some other featured lists which I have visited.Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what part of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria did this list violate? The lead has in-line citations and illustrations are not required. So, I am not sure why you think this list should be removed.—Chris!_c/t 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WFCforLife far better stated what I was trying to get at.Barkeep49 (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife

• I don't think the table should be sortable, but "user friendly" certainly does fall under criteria 4. A compact TOC linking to the start of each year would help navigation, such as the one in Premier League Manager of the Month.
• Positions should be added, given that they are part of the selection criteria. This could be done in numbering format for the most efficient use of space (1 for point guard, 2 for shooting guard, etc), and would only need to be done once per row (i.e. point guards are always listed first, shooting guards are always listed second, etc). The key would need to be amended accordingly.
• May I suggest that the table is split into 1946-47 to 1954-1955, 1955-56 to 1987-1988, and 1988-89 onwards (same article, but three tables). This has no bearing on whether this meets the FLC standards, but indirectly I think it will be a huge help:

• On the assumption that the table isn't sortable and isn't going to be, it makes no difference to the user.
• It allows for paragraphs explaining the most obvious changes in slightly more detail, in the most appropriate places.
• Splitting the first ten seasons from the rest of the table makes it easier to create a standard format for positions, as explained above. For the first ten seasons you would probably have to create a different format, where a player's position is listed next to his name.
• While pictures are not required, it is generally understood that they should be there unless there is a good reason. At the moment there is a good reason- the width of the table. But splitting the table has other benefits, and a side-effect would be that we're getting rid of the obstacle on this front. From what I've seen of other lists there's no shortage of NBA pictures to choose from. By mixing and matching from various other lists and articles, you should get away with not having to write much of the alt text. Where alt text is missing, you can write alt text once and yet two articles will get the benefit!

• Bold shouldn't be used to signify MVPs. Consider using italics.
• "active" should be changed to either "have competed in the 2009–10 NBA season" or "are contracted to an NBA team for the 2009–2010 season".

There's quite a lot of basketball participation on FLC, so I believe that this can and will be saved. Feel free to drop me a note if you're stuck on anything though. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I can see the benefits of splitting the tables.—Chris!_c/t 05:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The table is split. Since all players are listed according to positions in the 2 forwards, 1 center and 2 guards order, so I don't see the point of adding an additional column. As for the TOC, images and all other issues, I will deal with that tomorrow.—Chris!_c/t 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Swedish football champions

Notified WikiProject Sweden, WikiProject Football and User:Johan Elisson.

This February 2006 promotion shows its age in a couple of key ways. First, more inline references are required for the text and footnotes, and I'm not knowledgeable on whether or not a couple of the provided general references are from reliable sources, not being up on my Swedish. The lead consists of exactly one sentence, before a longer History section; I see no reason that the two couldn't be merged to produce an appropriately sized lead. In addition, the image needs alt text and the tables could easily be made sortable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delist The issue of sourcing should be addressed first. Right now it's very hard to verify any information. --Cheetah (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per the two above. A lot of work needed. Wizardman 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comments

• Alt text and lead length been resolved.
• The lead however does need citing, and my Swedish won't suffice either.
• Of the general references, one is the Swedish Football Association, while the SFS is a professional publication. The other one seems superfluous to requirements and can probably be removed.
• The RSSSF will probably have something useful.
• Sorting seems straightforward (especially compared to my last couple of efforts). I will make the changes, once there is an indication here as to whether the four lists of champions should be merged or kept separate.

In summary, once the lead is cited and the visibly striking yet very easily dealt-with sorting problem resolved, I do not see a problem with this list. A few more pictures would be desirable, but I'm sure that can also be fairly easily resolved. In the interests of countering systemic bias, I've left a couple of carefully targetted notes on the Swedish wikipedia, in the hope that an English-speaking Swedish football fan will consider stepping in. I would ask that the directors consider waiting for another week before delisting this, as while the deficiencies are important, I think they are solveable (with the right linguistic skills) and that we should not give up through apathy. WFCforLife (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, there doesn't seem to be any interest in solving the problems that I can't remedy. If someone decides they want to take this up to FL standard in future, feel free to contact me for help or advise. WFCforLife (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Formula One drivers

Notified: WikiProject Formula One,