Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2010

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:24, 28 October 2010 [1].

---

List of national parks of Pakistan

Nominator(s): Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a detailed and comprehensive list which can be helpful to readers. I am also interested in finding other editors who may be able to improve the list if further needed. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 'Dab' means 'disambiguation' right? Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 18:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't this list be at National Parks of Pakistan, instead of that being a redirect to here? Courcelles 18:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't mind but it is for the sake of {{Asia topic|List of national parks of}}. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 18:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No, almost all other NP lists have list of in the title. Reywas92^Talk 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Does have potential for FL but still needs some work (see below) bamse (talk)

• The intro needs a copy-edit by a native speaker (not me).

• You could also mention shortly what kind of landscapes are protected.
  • Such info is not specifically mentioned in any of the reports I have found on internet. We could consider adding a little description in another column like List of national parks of the United States and List of national parks of Sweden, both featured. Farjad0322 (talk)
    • Yes, something like in the US or Swedish list looks good. I am not sure if we can have pictures of all (or most) national parks, but a "Description" column would be very nice to have. The district, province and coordinates column could be combined in one column (like in this list) to gain some space. bamse (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • See my sandbox...Farjad0322 (talk)
    • Looks promising. Looking forward to see it in the real article. BTW, I'd remove all "width=..." from the table and let the browser decide the widths automatically. For me the "established" column is too wide, which would be fixed by this. Also, you might want to make the "Location" column sortable (by district name). bamse (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Map looks good. If possible and/or useful, I'd rather use the color (region) key to distinguish national parks of different habitat (desert, mountains, forests). Which region the park is located in does not seem all that interesting (at least to me).
  • There is no proper criteria for habitat. But we could consider tracing in which vicinity of these ecoregions, the national parks are located in. This might take time because I have found no sources so far. Habitat/biome/ecoregion is not a requirement if you view other featured national park lists. Farjad0322 (talk)
    • Habitat was maybe the wrong word. Ecoregions is what I meant. Comparison with other featured lists is always tricky since they might have become FL when expectations were lower. In any case, this somehow connects with the previous item ("Description" column). Whether to transfer this information from the description column to the map or not is up to you. bamse (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

*Due to more awareness about their importance in conservation of biodiversity, 13 national parks have been established during the time period from 1993 to 2009. needs a reference. Done, but I had to change the year 2009 to 2005, hence the number is 10 instead of 13. Report does not mention the 3 new parks established in 2009, probably because report came out earlier than that. There are two other sources which discuss Biodiversity Action Plan of Pakistan, 2000. Farjad0322 (talk) Intro has some very short paragraphs which should be expanded or merged. Done. Farjad0322 (talk) The definition of inclusion criteria (i.e. what a National Park of Pakistan is) is described in the second paragraph. I suspect that there is some law which could/should be mentioned by name. Not done yet. See paragraph 2 on page 9 of this source. It mentions number of stuff e.g. "Modern Protected Areas legislation was enacted at the provincial level through a variety of acts and ordinances, from the Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance in 1972, to the Islamabad (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance in 1979 (Rao,1984)...". Will that work...? Farjad0322 (talk) Sounds good. bamse (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Farjad0322 (talk) Not too fond of "????" in the table. Is it really impossible to find out the year of establishment? In any case I'd replace "????" with something like {{center|—}} Done. Farjad0322 (talk) Not sure (and personally I don't care much), but some people (and the rules) might require imperial units for the areas in the table. According to other lists (here, here and here) there is no common units. Each list uses its own, which is bad because there should be a use of common unit for fair comparison. Farjad0322 (talk) Not sure what you mean. All the lists you linked to have both, acres and ha. Since you added the missing acres, this is done.bamse (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Farjad0322 (talk) If a national park is located in more than one district, which one do you mention first? I suggest to either order them alphabetically or by area (first the district with the largest portion of the respective national park, etc). Done. Alphabetical order always solve problems like these. Farjad0322 (talk) The "IUCN category" column needs an explanation. Either put a footnote in the header (explaining "NA", "V",...) or write an introductory paragraph above the table (explaining the meaning of all table columns) or link the header to an explanation of the abbreviations (if possible). Same for "WDPA profile". It is not clear what those numbers are. I don't think we even require a category anymore. Other lists don't mention the categories because it is up to the government of the country to decide which area to be declared a national park, not IUCN. I have removed them from the list but they are reserved in my sandbox. Farjad0322 (talk) Done. Farjad0322 (talk) Sorting of the "area" column does not work. Done. Thanks to List of national parks of Sweden, problem is solved. List of national parks of the United States still has this problem. Farjad0322 (talk) References need publisher information. Done, I guess. Farjad0322 (talk) Indeed present, but what makes wildlifeofpakistan.com a RS? bamse (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Done. I can't remember why I put that unreliable source there in the first place while I had better ones. Farjad0322 (talk) You could get rid of the "See also" section as either article is linked to through the templates at the bottom. Done. Farjad0322 (talk)

Comments:

• Per above, suggest a good copyedit of the lead.
• "As of 2009... " is this still accurate, being 75% of the way through 2010?
  • The most recent resources we have are only upto 2009. Government wont release any new reports of 2010 until 2010 actually comes to an end. 2009 is more accurate. Farjad0322
• I think you should have a lead image, and the map should be in a section of its own.
  • I tried it. If only Pakistan did not so many concentrated parks in the north, it would have been easier to do so. List of national parks of Sweden has a lead image but thats because the parks are not so close to each other and labels are easily put in places. In this list (of Pakistan), I have to use numbers instead of labels to minimize confusion. Farjad0322
• Why is area of Kala Chitta missing?
  • There have been annual reports released by government on this area because it is relatively new (created in 2009). I may be able to get its area from Ministry of Environment in a week or more. But then again references can be from printed media only or primary resources like websites of managing organizations. Farjad0322
• Why is established year of K2 and Ayub missing?
  • I am still trying hard to find the year of Ayub NP. K2 NP is the most confusing NP of all. I may come to the decision of removing K2 NP from the list, from the following facts: (1) It is only recognized by the IUCN but not by government of Pakistan. Government considers it a part of Central Karakoram NP. (2) K2 Park has absolutely no major references except IUCN has a profile of it in WDPA Database. (3) The total area of Central Karakoram NP at IUCN website is (way) lower than its area at reports from Government. That is probably because, IUCN have (without any particular reason) split K2 NP from CK NP. The area that is mentioned in the list currently, is from the reports from Government. (4) Government says K2 mountain is located in CK NP and not in K2 NP. Farjad0322
• "Pictures" section is awkward. I'd prefer to see those images in the table in the relevant lines. Or down the side of the table. Just not a "gallery".
  • We won't be able to do that without putting description column for which I have to do a lot of work. See my sandbox...Farjad0322
• "click on a 'mark' to open the article of respective national park" needs work. Region key uses colour only which I guess isn't very useful per WP:ACCESS. Title of map is "National Parks of Pakistan", title of list is "List of national parks of Pakistan", where are we with the capitalisation?
  • I will fix the whole map template in one big edit once all issues of the article are resolved. Bamse was suggesting using the color keys for indicating habitat types instead of regions. So we will change this once all habitats are confirmed in the decription column I am working on at my sandbox. Farjad0322

• IUCN is overlinked and should be expanded before it's abbreviated.
  • Not done but done in my sandbox. Farjad0322
• "Due to more awareness about their importance..." -> "Due to increased awareness of the importance"...?
  • Not done but done in my sandbox. Farjad0322
• "3,435,011.9" not sure there's a good reason to have it down to that level of accuracy. If it was me, I'd maybe shorten that conversion down to, say, 3,435,000.
  • Not done but done in my sandbox. Farjad0322
• Ref 6 needs an accessdate. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Not done but done in my sandbox. Farjad0322
    • I'm mildly confused. Are you going to fix these "in my sandbox" in the real list? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I am fixing these in my sandbox (i.e. User:Farjad0322/Sandbox 2) and once everything is ready we would paste the whole article from sandbox to the original article. Sadly there are very very few sources on the internet. Description boxes are not becoming a success. All my hard work might go to waste... Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 17:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the update. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
      • What is "concurrent constitution"? I do not think it is a good idea to make edits in the sandbox, because if I or some other reviewer makes any changes, they will be lost after you paste the sandbox to the article. In addition, what version should I review: one in the article or in sandbox? Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Retracted comment -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What is the status of the various unresolved concerns? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:24, 28 October 2010 [2].

---

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand)

Nominator(s): Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have spent a few months on it now. I nominated List of number-one singles in 2009 (New Zealand) for FLC, but people thought it was too narrow and didn't meet WP:SAL. So here I am, with the whole decade's worth. You may have periods of nostalgia, and periods of awful cringing when going through the list, but I do believe it is of high quality. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

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

Capped comments I've found the refs for the "Number-one single of the year", I now realise it they are the first of the songs run at number one but not sure its obvious. Perhaps either put them in the key (top) or notes (bottom). Placed in notes They should be connected to the key/table somehow. See Wikipedia:FOOTNOTES#Advanced. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC) How are they now? I also added a note about songs of NZ origin Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC) On a related note, do we need the same information in the key at the top and notes at the bottom? Removed bottom notes Are these dates the "week beginning" or "week ending" dates? Perhaps make a note of that. Added to lead You mention the compiling period Mon-Sun and release date of Mon. That doesn't relate to the table though (directly). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Header now says 'Week ending' Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Use {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} for references please, it'll make them smaller and put into multi-columns Done In the "By song" section we sort names by surname. Rectify this please ({{sortname}}) Done You may have done this for the artist in the section "By artist" but not in "By song". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Whoops. Done Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Why are the date bold, looks a bit odd (it isn't the most important info) Unbolded Think the blue is a bit garish and in your face (the green is just okay). Any chance of toning it down a bit. Sure. Aesthetics is not a strong point for me, unfortunately. Can you suggest a different colour? If you would like me to change the green I am happy to do so. How does it look now? Any reason you use [3] (some Hung Medien site) and not [4] (The Official Chart website)??? When I first started work on this, I didn't realise that it is possible to link to an individual chart from the RIANZ site. Hung Medien is reliable, and is used to source peak positions for WP articles on songs, albums and individual artists' discographies. It is also a secondary source. Actually a secondary source is one that interprets or analyses a primary source. This does neither, it mirrors the primary source so IMO is inferior to the RIANZ sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC) OK. I can change all the refs, but it may take a while. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I have changed the first few for the chart page from the official RIANZ site. If you have any problems with the formatting, can you please raise them now before I change the rest of them too? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC) All done "The first chart was published on 25 March 1966." cite? [5] is the most reliable-looking online source I could find. Actually 11 March was first (I changed prose accordingly). If you don't find this of a high enough standard, I can go to the library and try to hunt down a book. Adabow (talk · contribs) 11:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Tracked down Scapolo's book, so have cited that "A total of 171 singles topped the chart in the 2000s, including 21 by New Zealand artists." cite? (not sure I'd be comfortable with counting to verify this) "bumped" - awful colloquial language how is "took"? Not much better. How about combining the two sentences so it reads continuously along the lines of On [date] [song] replaced [song2] at the top of the chart and become the 500th #1 in NZ history (but obviously in proper prose). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Done Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC) "This became the 500th number-one single" cite? Done Could "By artist" be sortable? Done In that section could, for visual appeal, you could offset the notes A and B so the numbers stay right in the middle (see what I've done in list linked below) Done Okay, but you'll also have to use the span stuff too because the sorting of "Total weeks at number one" is not messed up. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Done Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously I have some form of bias as I've written quite a few decade lists (List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK) et al. and I believe I was also one of those who persuaded you to go from a year format to a decade format. The following comments are all things that differ from "my (not necessarily correct) style" of decade list. Personally, I think my way has advantages but others may disagree. Therefore I'll put them down as my opinion which I hope you and other reviewers can expand on and (dis)/agree with.
  • This is a list of number-one singles, is the album any more relevant than label, say.
    • Not sure, it was the norm before I improved these lists. What do others think?
  • Is there a particular reason for having multiple rows for singles, instead of an extra column saying weeks 2, for example.
    • This gives readers a visual impression of how long a song was at number one. Also having one row would mean stuffing multiple references into one cell
      • Not if you use a different source. In fact that 500 and something refs is a bit Wikipedia:Citation overkill when a book such as this would cover about 300 of them (more if there is a newer edition of the book). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I'll try to go to the library some time this week. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I found the book at the library, but it is not-for-loan. I photocopied a few pages for the lead, but the individual songs I didn't get. I'll continue to use the RIANZ site refs.
  • The current rowspan also means you lose any possible sortability.
    • I don't think sortability is an important feature in a chronological list.
      • I'd have thought grouping all number ones by one artist together was fairly beneficial. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

*"Before 18 April 2004, the chart week was from Sunday to Saturday, with the chart published on Sunday." cite needed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done

• Sort "longest run" by weeks not song?

• Done Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd welcome comment outside opinion of the format (colspan, not sortable vs otherwise). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Also

• http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_facts.asp says the sales are "compiled based on a 75:25 split between physical / digital singles" &ndash' worth mentioning and since when?

• sigh* the RIANZ seems to keep changing the ratio. I think its sorted now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• No the split is still between airplay and sales like but before but the sales are split 75,25. So its basically 50% airplay, 37.5% physical sales, 12.5% downloads. Well that's how I interpret what they've said. Do you agree? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• The page reads "based on a 75:25 split between physical / digital singles sales figures and radio play information". So 75% was sales (regardless of format), and 25% is airplay. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe I was the one that misinterpreted. Couldn't read the site as interestingly they seem to have changed the page to remove that bit (go to the page and paste in "javascript:alert(document.lastModified)" to the address bar. Google cached doesn't have it but searching the quote still brings up the RIANZ website (although the content is gone) but this has it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I emailed the RIANZ and I was told that the ratio changed to 100% sales this month, which is why the 75/25 info is no longer on that page. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've capped some comments but I still have concerns. The format and, IMO, excessive citations causes a huge load time. I'd welcome comments from other users on comparisons between formats. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I say that I am not opposed to removing the parent albums, and if others would like that done too I am more than happy to remove them. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments (e/c) First instinct is that the lead looks a little stringy (i.e. lots of short paras) and could use an image to suck me in.... I think there's a suitable link for singles chart (or at least, music chart). linked Black Eyed Peas is actually The Black Eyed Peas. Fixed "This is the most weeks at number one by a New Zealand artist, " - ever? In this decade? Just clarify. clarified by inserting 'ever' Perhaps say "New Zealander" rather than continually repeat "New Zealand artist"? Done for second of three occurrences " bumped "Hips Don't Lie" by Shakira and Wyclef Jean off the number-one spot." not keen on "bumped". How is "took" 500th - not sure how MOS treats these raised "th" things. Fixed per MOS:NUM#Typography Last para of lead is unreferenced. Done Not keen on the Week being bold. Fixed What's the "single of the year"? In every instance of this being said it it preceded by "number-one...". Is this not clear enough? I have also a list of the annual charts in a 'See also' section. Vengaboys caption seems to have a spare ] Fixed Some captions which are complete sentences have full stops, others don't (e.g. Guy Sebastian's). Fixed Sometimes you relink artists/songs within a subsection and sometimes you don't, I'd be consistent. I have tried to link songs once, and artists and albums once per year (eg The Black Eyed Peas had "Where Is the Love?" in 2003, and they and Elephunk are linked again in 2004). If I have become inconsistent by this anywhere then please point it out! By song is sortable but By artist isn't. Any good reason? Sorted 'by artist' as well Pink & Timberlake's images are huge compared to the others. Oh, and Kesha's. Shrunk to 140px What makes ref 240 different from all the other RIANZ refs? Its by RIANZ as opposed to Hung Medien, see my comment above. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Good answer. So I asked the same question as you, but in a subtly different manner! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC) See comment(s) above Not sure you should have a red-linked category. Removed The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Done some of comments above, but I have to go now. I will get through them later. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC) OK, I think I have addressed everything now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the oppose still active? If not I'll give this a review asap. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd welcome comments from uninvolved parties as it is mainly over format now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: I'd like the references center-aligned; it just looks nicer that way instead of all on the left. Sorry, I'm not too familiar with this. How would I do this? Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I know how to do it for the whole table, but not for the individual columns. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC) There's a lot of variation between when numbers are and aren't spelled out. I'm not a mosnum expert so I'm not going to touch it, but others may be concerned by that. I have spelt all numbers <100 in words, all those 100+ in digits. The one exception (start of second paragraph) is for consistency. I changed a 'top 40' to 'top forty'. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I'm getting nitpicky, but perhaps a different color should be used for noting songs of NZ origin; on a skim I keep thinking it's a table break when it's not. You can ignore this one if you want. Now a pale yellow Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Still have a couple reservations, albeit not enough to oppose. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Do you have any specific opinion on this format compared to List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK) (do say if you think my oppose is unfounded)? Oh, and by the way I think |align=center|<ref>... is what you were looking for to align refs. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • So there's no way to align a whole column to the center? Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Not to my knowledge (and I'll be pretty annoyed if there is as I've spent lots of time aligning cells individually). You can set a default text alignment for a row or table though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • My various draft pick lists have everything center-aligned (you can look to see if you can use that format change on yours); it's done right at the start of the table. As a result, because of the table's splits at a few points, I'm not sure how well it would work. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, I've done that. I think it looks better now too, in the centre. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
        • No only the references should be centered, not the whole thing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
          • OK, done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

It specifically fails on the WP:ACCESS#Data tables part of MOS. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The MOS there says "Priority: high (A accessibility level)" which isn't even grammatically correct. If the MOS hasn't got it's grammar right... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, "A accessibility" is explained elsewhere. Well, this is all very unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it means 'A' standard interms of improving accessibility. Do you know what this is turning into a bloodbath when its merely a friendly attempt to improve articles. I am sorry for bringing this into disruptive. I'm striking my comments and will instead discuss the overall issues on the talk page for featured list articles. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons. In basic remove the color or add symbols to the cells you haven't done. In a quick find on my browser I come up with 105 results of references which don't have the proper citation template, I wouuld take a guess that these would be most of the RIANZ references. Afro (Talk) 20:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• All coloured rows have a symbol next to the song title (please point out any that I have missed). Some of the references do not use {{cite web}} because if they did it would cause a template overload. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just a question, is it possible to find references which cover two or more of the rows? Afro (Talk) 15:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Possible, but difficult. I have found one book, but it is not for loan. It is organised by artist, not chronologically, and would take a lot of time to get through. There is also the option of using http://charts.org.nz/ (Hung Medien site), which can list all chart entries for a song. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no real problem with the list. Afro (Talk) 21:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• After reviewing the criteria, it does appear to fail WP:REF which I do cite "Citations in Wikipedia articles should be internally consistent.", so I feel I should Oppose this till the citation problem is fixed. Afro (Talk) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

They are internally consistent - the only difference is the code. They are correctly formatted, and the appearance of the citations is the same throughout. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying comment: I'm off on a wikibreak until Thurs so I feel I should clarify my position in case it is unclear. I still oppose this nomination. The list is good but the large size and lack of reference templates make it unwieldy; cut this down by using a book of number-ones or something. Personally I think rowspans should be avoided and a sortable format like the UK#1 lists should be used as it is more consise and adaptable to a readers needs. Any director is, of course, free to ignore my oppose if they think it is unreasonable. I'll revisit when I come back (if this is still open). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:15, 28 October 2010 [6].

---

Santana discography

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

hello,

Peer reviews: here and here ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Nominator created this page but didn't transclude the candidacy, it was transcluded by another user 22 October. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick-fail

This list is nowhere near featured standard. Examples:

• User hasn't addressed issues from peer review such as "Unofficial albums". Nominator stated at peer review stating "i dont know" and they are "from the template" (presumably {{Santana}})

well i don't know what it is, its from the template, should i delete it know or what?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Collaboration albums" section – all unreferenced

well why should i add references? in the main article its already stating that santana contribute there.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Guest appearances in videos" section has "???" in some director cells

yes i couldn't find any informations-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

can i replace the "???" with "unknown" in italic?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Guest appearances in songs" seems completely unreferenced. All information must be verifiable.

is amazon a good reference or not? if it so i will do it-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Singles (by country)" section – all unreferenced

again: for what? what references? what should it brief?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Singles Certification" section – sales unreferenced

doing-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

done i just deleted the sales column, i think its acceptable know-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As such I suggesting this is quick-fail oppose closed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply in one statement. Everything needs to be verifiable in this list. I suggest your read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to learn which citations are allowed in Wikipedia. You cannot just copy something from another template or Wikipedia article it needs references here. Currently this list massively fails the featured list criteria as it doesn't meet "the requirements for all Wikipedia content" especially, in this case, "verifiability, citations, reliable sources". However you cannot just remove information that is not referenced because to pass FL a list must "comprehensively cover the defined scope" which means include all the major relevent information. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you rambo, i am goin to do that, if you want you can have a look there-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Informations clearly missing with no explanation why, some information isn't referenced where it could be challenged (eg Directors), the references are messy, there is no content included in the video section, these are just a few of the problems I've noticed. Afro (Talk) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean with references are messy?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

what content should it be? its here-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

well usually the references and books are separated which is what I meant by it looking messy plus 36-42 are notes not references. and I would've thought if the Videos section were to be included there would be a description of some kind but instead (lets stay on the actual article which is up for nomination) its the equivalent of a see also section. Afro (Talk) 19:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much, you helped me alot :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What you should do is base the list off a recently featured list for example Bryan Adams discography, then comeback and nominate the list in a couple of weeks/months whenever it fully meets the FLC. Afro (Talk) 16:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

wow what a superb discography, thanks for that, its the first discography i see, that the singles have got references. Cheers :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—the link to Food For Thought leads to a disambiguation page. No dead external links. And could you please get a slightly less colorful signature? Ucucha 23:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you, and no i won't change my sig :D-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I only read the lead, but it is not written to a professional standard. It contains basic grammatical and punctuation errors. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • since I'm not a giant in english, I will try to find the mistakes-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead is not well-written or developed. Santana had a big hit and has released many albums, the lead should discuss in depth allot of their success and or criticism. I would suggest at least 3 full paragraphs.--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead is extremely short considering what Santana has released. It is also full of technical errors. On reading the opening, I am confused as to whether this is the discography of Mr Santana or his band (or both?). Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • both, because he is just the guitarist of the band, he wrote only a few songs.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - lead is poorly written. Most of "Guest appearances in songs" is unsourced and most of the entries in that table omit the pretty basic info of who the album was actually by. Most of "singles" is also unsourced. Asterisks in the Germany column under "singles" are not explained. Unfortunately not of FL quality at the present time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 11:21, 22 October 2010 [7].

---

Moons of Neptune

Nominator(s): Ruslik_Zero 17:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the last list of giant planets moons that is not features. It currently satisfies FL criteria, in my opinion. Ruslik_Zero 17:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comments about the table: (1) how come there is no discoverer entry? (2) shouldn't retrograde moons have negative orbital periods? (3) how come triton is not labeled separately as it is in hydrostatic equilibrium? (4) there is a light shade of gray used in the table that does not have a legend. Nergaal (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  I added discovery column. Retrograde moons have inclination greater than 90° (see note 6). Triton is only one large moon, and it can not really be mixed up with any other. So, labeling is not necessary. I added the second key. Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  How come the other moons list (moons of Saturn) have retrograde periods as negative values? Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Orbital by definition is a positive value. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Voyager 2 recovered Larissa" I know what it means but it should be explained what revocered means in astronomy

Recovered means recovered and nothing more. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• and has five embedded bright arcs what is an arc here?

According to Webster' it means a continuous portion (as of a circle or ellipse) of a curved line. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• At about 400 km, in what? average diameter?

Width. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Its largest crater, Pharos, is more than 150 km in diameter. this sounds super cool. How much is the crater compared to the total surface, percentagewise?

I see absolutely nothing funny here. The sentence is pretty normal. If you know how to calculate the surface area of an irregular body you can do this. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• probably complex organic compounds needs a ref right near it since it sounds like speculation

  It is the second known moon in the Solar System to have a substantial atmosphere, you mean only two are known, or was the second one discovered to have an atmosphere?

Of course, there are only two moons in the Solar System. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• has a high geometrical albedo of more than 70%. The Bond albedo is even higher, I think there needs to be some explanatory note on how the two are different.

I am ready to add a note 10 kb in size—it is not possible to explain this in any shorter text. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Neptune has the largest Hill sphere in the solar system Of curiosity, what is the record for a known moon for the percentage of the Hill radius?

Do not understand what you means here. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• It is possible that because of this great perturbation, the satellite system of Neptune does not follow the 1/10,000 ratio of mass between the parent planet versus all its moons seen in all other gas giants this sounds poorly. I get the idea but should be rephrased.

Perfectly normal sentence. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• is the most lopsided of any group of satellites in the Solar System how about Earth's? (theoretically Earth could have another moon of 10 millimeters in diameter)

So, I will probably add to the Earth's article that Earth's system of satellites is the most lopsided in the Solar System. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• binary. binary what?

It is a noun. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Irregular (captured) moons are marked by color it should be stated at the beginning of the irregular moons section that irregular means implies that it is probably captured.

  I am not sure the discoverer column needs more than one or two authors. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that this column is needed at all. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose since none of the raised problems have been addressed. Nergaal (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption needs to meet MOS, so "three days" not "3 days". Could link "Solar System" in the lead. "38 K (−235.2 °C)." if using {{convert}} maybe switch on the linking so non-experts get to learn what K is? "The largest among them is Proteus" this reads a little bit Shakespearean, maybe "The largest of them is..."? Don't overlink prograde or retrograde in the lead. "luminosity did dip for" - would prefer "luminosity dipped for" "(the second satellite, Nereid, was not discovered until 1949)" you've already said this. "See also Name conflicts of solar system objects." this should be a {{see also}} at the top of this section. Avoid squashing text between images as is happening on my screen in the Characteristics section. Consider converting from km to miles throughout. "200 km in size" this is very ambiguous. Do you mean diameter? "Animated 3D model of Proteus" - 3D-> three-dimensional Do you really think we need to link "rock"? "bright (dark) spots " this is self-contradictory to non-experts so it needs more. "(see diagram)" we don't do this in an online encyclopedia really. Is this in USEng or UKEng? (grey vs circularized...) What does bold mean in the table? Remove spaces between headings and notes, although if you use linebreaks that's okay. Mass doesn't sort correctly in Safari. Why aren't decimal places consistent? E.g., Eccentricity of Triton is 0.0 while Galatea is 0.0001? Foreign language references need to use language= parameter. All web refs should use the accessdate= parameter. Ref 27, for instance, needs to be subdivided into title=, url= etc, not just a single link as you have it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I fixed everything except the following: I do not think that km should be converted to mi as other similar articles do not convert. I do think that 'rock' needs to be link as this is a geological term. Ruslik_Zero 19:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Using faintly different shades of gray to communicate information is A Bad Thing, not just for those with accessibility issues but also those with crappy monitors. :P Also, Triton is sufficient spherical, I think, that you don't really need to list the three dimensions. --Golbez (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  Really crappy monitors is a rarity now. (What do you mean? EGA monitor?) In any case they can use key. Of course, I can change shades of grey to colors. As to Triton, it is not a perfect sphere and the information is available, so, I specified it. Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  Well, actually, my monitor at home is far from crappy - it's excellent and huge. However, it's so huge that colors look different if they're at the top or the bottom of the screen, due to the widely different viewing angle. I haven't tested this on my home monitor but I'm guessing that the grays will look sufficiently confused on it. But I'm a little happier now that you've added a key, which I believe was missing for the light gray ones before.

  As for Triton, okay, it's not a perfect sphere, it varies by .15% - but based on the rest of your table, that's implying - even if you don't intend it to - that II and IX through XIII are perfectly round, which I strongly doubt. Your footnote does a weak job of justifying it, saying "and the dimensions have been measured well enough"; I think that if you're going to be that precise with Triton, you need to make it abundantly clear that the figures for the others are blatantly imprecise. Maybe even just a tilde, or footnotes for each saying "Only one dimension of these moons is known to any degree" or something. Don't rely on a footnote in the column head to explain the edge cases.

  Finally, just out of curiosity, is there any particular sorting you applied to the names in the Discoverer column? --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  The order of names is as in the cited source. I changed shades of grey to colors. I added tildes to outer moons sizes. Ruslik_Zero 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:12, 22 October 2010 [8].

---

No Angels discography

Nominator(s): AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've done lots of work to improve it and I think it meets the criteria and is up to a high standard.AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I've only done a quick check of references, so this isn't anything thorough about the list itself. I'll try to come back at a later date and do a better review.
• What makes Amazon a reliable source? Is their content verified by its staff?
• Reference 15 cites the German Wikipedia at a mirror site.
• What makes mvdbase.com as seen in reference 16 reliable?
• What makes clipland.com as seen in reference 17 reliable? Nomader ^(Talk) 20:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Have Nomader's concerns been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've added references to their DVD "the best of no angels" which states all of their video directors from the years of 2001-2003, and the CD "destiny reloaded" which states the directors for the videos from the years of 2007-2008. I also have "welcome to the dance" which states that Ole Zieseman is the director of "One Life", however, you never said anything was wrong with that source. AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose No bold links per WP:MOSBOLD please. "best selling" hyphenate. Ref 1 looks German to me, so please use language= parameter. And what makes it reliable? Link "certified" to something appropriate. "including Eurythmics cover" -> "including a cover of Eurythmics'".. "Second album," Perhaps "The band's second album" or "Their second album"... I think there's a good link to greatest hits somewhere on Wikipedia. preceders -> predecessors? General: Get a native English speaker to copyedit the lead please. Is it "Something about Us" or "Something About Us"? And Now ... Us! has a space before and after the ellipsis. Where are "Colour Collection" and "Very Best of No Angels" referenced since they didn't chart anywhere? Box set isn't referenced. "Mousse T" is "Mousse T." Video albums isn't referenced. Last "other appearance" isn't referenced. Ref 20 -> german ->German. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I can do all of this tomorrow, as I'm busy right now, honest! And "Now... Us!" actually doesn't have a space between the "now" and ellipsis. I have the CD, and their website also says "Now... Us!". Furthermore, I am a native speaker of English, so i don't know if that was an insult or something. Haha AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, good news. One the "Now ... Us!" matter, our own article begs to differ with your opinion, we need to fix the discrepancy. As for native English, my apologies, no insult intended, I just think the lead could use a good copyedit from, perhaps, an uninvolved party. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, it does need fixing :) and haha, ok. AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I've done most of it now, but i had to remove "a little better everyday" from other appearances, and "No angels" from video albums, as i couldn't find any reliable sources AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - User:AtomicMarcusKitten, the nominator, has been blocked indefinitely. Another user may wish to address any further comments. –Chase (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I left a comment regarding his blockage on the Discography WikiProject talk page. Ref 6, 26 needs a language parameter. Ref 17, 22 has no publisher. Not sure what the policy is but Ref 8 requires me to register to get the info. Afro (Talk) 07:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Registration-required websites are generally allowed as long as the site is a reliable source. It's similar to an offline - often accepted in good faith. –Chase (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Since no real work has been done in a week on the list I'm gonna oppose this FLC. Afro (Talk) 14:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• fail, since the time of nomination the manual of style for wikipedia has changed and now includes WP:ACCESS. To meet the new standards all discographies must meet the new approved standards at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. And considering that FLs are supposed to examplify the best work on wikipedia this list article fails the new MoS guidelines. I'm point this out on every candidate so please don't feel that I'm singling any thing out in particular.-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Forget for now... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 17:35, 11 October 2010 [9].

---

List of top 12 singles in 1952 (UK)

Nominator(s): 03md 00:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I originally got it peer reviewed a couple of months ago and it received some good comments. I hope that the list is up to scratch. 03md 00:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no links to dab pages, but the external links to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/company_history.php, http://www.theofficialcharts.com/history_first-chart.php, and http://www.theofficialcharts.com/history_first-top20.php are dead. Ucucha 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sorted I think. 03md 23:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Big Oppose – not 3. Comprehensive or accurate

• I have my notably (Wikipedia:NOTSTATS) reservations about this. We would certainly delete an article that was just a chart for a given week. It is certainly an interesting concept, but is completely unfeasible for later years (in fact I don't think 1955 would be do-able).
• That aside, there are 12 singles with a entered date of 9 November. However, I know (and you've said in the lead) the first Top 12 had 15 entries so you are missing three.
• If "Feet Up" peaked #2 on 16 November, then there must have been something at #2 the week before (cos nothing climbed to #1)

• "You Belong to Me" by Jo Stafford was at #2 the previous week but the song peaked at number 1 in 1953.

• There were two NEs for 16/11 but Lanza wasn't one (she charted in week 1)

• Done.

• Day charted week before

• Done.

• You're missing a NE for the 30th

Done.

• There was 1 NE on 6/12

Done.

• 2 NEs missing for 14/12 (the top 12 had 17 entries that week)

Done.

• Basically, either you've missed a lot out and messed up a bit or your source/sources are flawed.
• Hit "Peak" sort three times and you'll see it messes up.

• Fixed. 03md 23:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• You have "Peak reached" for 15 November and 16 November, that's a short chart week!

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Regarding the review, the "missing" new entries are included here at the bottom of the article as they peaked in 1953. Should I keep it like this or would it be better to include them on the main table and add a key?

• Quick response (i'll revisit properly later). I think the 53 table should be integrated with the other. It's confusing as is, and many of the 53 ones become in a different table just because they charted in December. Basically, IMO merging them would be a good idea. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the reason it is a top 12 is because the concept of "Top 10" was not introduced until later. I have created articles for more recent years that have just encompassed a top 10, but it wasn't feasible to leave out songs charting at 11 and 12 on the early years of the chart.

Can you recommend any more sources that could be added to the article? Thanks. 03md 23:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• [10] or [11] are good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the status of this. Although there have been some improvements there are lots of things that make me still oppose. A few examples:

• What is the point in note D (Jo reached T12 twice in 52 anyway)
• Sorting of both dates columns doesn't account for years.
• Sorting of Peak isn't numerical (1, 10, 11, 12, 2 ...)
• Additionally, how can you put references in for the above books I gave you. You clearly not read them (so haven't verified the lists information from them, meaning they aren't references)
• As a query, I note three different IP edits here. Is it you logged out or someone else. I have nothing against anons editing but like to know (especially for FLC changes) who is accountable.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 17:34, 11 October 2010 [12].

---

Usher discography

Nominator(s): Rayman95 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured list because I feel that it meets the featured list criteria. Rayman95 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose There are a few sources used in his album sales that I feel are inappropriate to use in an FLC.

1. People.com as much as you may like it, is a tabloid magazine/website, which is not reliable for sales. You are using it for two things.

   Comment - People is not an unreliable source. –Chase (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

   Comment 2 It most certainly is unreliable. It is a tabloid magazine like it or not, therefore it is not reliable. For sales we can only use official sources like an official website, record label or industy related source. People fits none of the above mentioned criteria.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

   I also believe People is reliable, is a celebrity magazine not considered a tabloid like The National Enquirer or The Sun. It's published by Time Inc, which is part of Time Warner, it obviously have an editorial oversight and both the magazine and the publisher are notable and mentioned on other third party sources. Using the record label or the artist's website will be inapropiate since those are primary sources. Frcm1988 (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

   Hi there Frcm. I see what yoour saying, and I would agree to using it for maybe other things in a bio, but I just can't see using it for sales in a FL article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

   What exactly makes it an unreliable source for sales? –Chase (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

2. "Famouspeople.com" is not reliable. Firstly, it doesn't load at all for me, it comes up as a dead-link, secondly, I'm familiar with the source, and it is not reliable for FLC use.
3. Usher world does not mention anything regarding the sales for "Here I stand"

This is from a quick glance, so I suggest a thorough look at the sourcing etc.

If this is fixed, and I find no more errors, I will be happy to support.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking more looks at the article, and what Lakeshade pointed out, this article is not in any way ready for FLC.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose -

Refs:

1. WP:OVERLINK left and right.
2. Inconsistent datings, eg: August 15, 2010. and 2009-11-15. Choose one or the other.
3. You use aCharts, this is not allowed per WP:CHARTSCHART. "Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives"
4. No usage of "En-dash", your using simple "-" dash.
5. WP:OR and WP:V issues. Music video sections parts are not sourced. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Article:

1. "Peak chart positions" under singles and "Peak chart positions" albums have different chartings. They need to be the same.

   Comment - WP:DISCOGSTYLE does not require this. –Chase (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

2. "Peak chart positions" need to be in alphabetical order.

Lead:

1. WP:ORDINAL violations.
2. Prose is choppy and needs a copy edit.

• Comment—the links to compilations, My World, Poetic Justice, and Victory (album) lead to dab pages; no dead external links. Ucucha 23:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Per everything CK Lakeshade said. No acharts, unsourced parts, WP:OR is in action, and prose is not of good quality. Candyo32 20:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose

• Lead is extremely too long.
• Peaks should be in alphabetical order.
• US should not have periods when being used with acronyms of other countries, per WP:MOS.
• Several music videos lacking sources, not to mention, music videos generally aren't from albums like singles are.
• aCharts generally should only be used as a convenience link - try a licensed archive.

–Chase (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 17:33, 11 October 2010 [13].

---

List of FC Barcelona managers

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the last, and by far the hardest, of the Barcelona lists. The first question will probably be why there isn't any stats on the page. Well they are no longer available. First they were found on LFP.es, then a copy of that was at historico.sportec.es but that died a month ago. A stats-table, with dead refs, can be seen on the talkpage. Have fun. Sandman888 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• TBD? Are you missing a name? --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah Barrow was the first full-time manager, but they still played football. What should I write, N/A? Sandman888 (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You certainly need to say something other than "to be determined" with no reasoning why. Also, the prose states that Barcelona started in 1899, but the list only starts at 1902. --Golbez (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • In football's early days teams were often selected by committee, similar to the way that international cricket teams are selected nowadays. Obviously we would need a source to say anything of the sort, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Barrow was the first manager. --WFC-- 14:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Query - did you check the Wayback Machine to see if those dead links have been archived? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah none of the machine got em. They werent searchable on google either, I guess they were hidden somehow. Sandman888 (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. You're right that this is the hard one. In my opinion, there's more work involved in the managers list than the players, seasons and possibly stats'n'records put together, especially given the quality of recent candidates.

• Prose. The Man City and Man Utd managers lists, promoted almost simultaneously nearly 3 years ago, set rather a high standard in quality which those who've followed have been expected to try and emulate. Each of those has a lengthy and informative managerial history section as well as a basic lead. Probably the briefest prose section of managers lists promoted since those is that at Oxford United, and that only lists from 1949 when they first appointed a professional manager.
• Stats. In my opinion at least, it needs some. I've had a look at the Old table on the talk page and the links to each manager's stats on historico.sportec.es do seem to be there? Unless there's something I'm failing to understand.
  • Oh my now they work. However the page seems to be technically unreliable, working and then not working for the rest of the month, what to do? Sandman888 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Use them and put a request in at the Wayback Machine to have the page(s) archived? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't see such a function on their homepage or in their FAQ. Oh and webcite returns with "The caching attempt failed for the following reason: The given URL contained a no-cache tag. WebCite respects the author's request to not have their web page cached." Hence the ungoogleability and no wayback. This renders archiving impossible. Next step? Sandman888 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Bugger, that makes it tough. So I guess paper references are the only full-time solution... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Well the thing is there is no "Definite history of Barcelona" or whatever they're called. Spain is just not a stats-country like UK is: there's no mention anywhere of a book of "barcelona statistics" or "estadisticos". And might I add, the FC Barcelona museum hasn't any neither. The only thing left is to write to the "Centre del documentation" of Barcelona and ask them to compile a list of stats. They respectfully declined. Sandman888 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nominator asked if I'd express an opinion about stats. My views are simple, I think. Without stats, the list is incomplete. Some of the LFP originals of the sportec.es pages are available on the Wayback Machine (replace historico.sportec.es in the URL by www.lfp.es/historico/primera), but both versions appear to be complete only from the 1943-44 season onwards. They aren't all in the archive, but there are enough to convince me that the sportec pages are genuine mirrors of the dead LFP subsite and as such reliable. And the sportec pages have always been there when I've tried to access them; perhaps they were just suffering some temporary downtime.

I've always struggled with the idea that Spain doesn't do football stats, and judging by the number and variety of works on sale on this site, it appears that in fact they do. In particular, the book Diccionari del Barca (ISBN 9788441201262), described there as Excellent who's who featuring every player that ever played for FC Barcelona. Hard-back, 414 pages. Career-statistics. Although that outline only mentions players, this page (in Catalan) says it covers players, trainers, management and with many statistical tables and data. Not having seen the book itself, I wouldn't know whether it does include manager stats, but from the descriptions, it certainly looks like it might. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Ah that certainly helps! I hereby retract my earlier statements and withdraw nom as shipping is 2-3 weeks. Sandman888 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• The newspaper archive citations should be formatted as you would with any newspaper article, i.e. {{cite news |title=title of newspaper article, not of webpage |language= |trans_title= |first/last=(if any author) |newspaper=name of newspaper |date=publication date |page=page number (seeing as the archives are scans, we do have the page number) |url=... }} Wish English newspapers had free online searchable scans.
• Need to explain who picked the team before Mr Barrow's appointment, and then whatever/whoever it is, committee, directors, needs to appear instead of TBD in the table.
• In the old table, Jack Dumby links to Richard Kohn, a man apparently of many names
• Surely Campionat de Catalunia should be spelt with a "y"
• I know English-language sources are preferable, but El Mundo Deportivo writing about manager X succeeding manager Y when it happened would be better than sources like #63, which just says "Barcelona will replace coach Frank Rijkaard with former team captain Pep Guardiola at the end of the season", which isn't a source for them actually doing it. Incidentally, the date of that one is 8 May, not 5 August
• Citations should include authors where the item cited has one

hope some of this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Drive-by: I see little value in providing a full review at the moment, because there are two huge sticking points. As far as the stats go, my view is that a reliable source that we know exists but isn't accessible 100% of the time is a less desirable but on occasion valid source, provided that it does not vanish for good. If we are entirely convinced that it's the only possible way of sourcing the stats, my opinion is that we should use it in preference to going without. On the other hand, I see the unresolved matter of how the club was run between 1899 and 1917 as a big deal. As I said above, there's a good chance that for some or all of that time teams were selected by committee. But unlike the stats, I'm unable to convince myself that the information on who picked the team isn't out there. --WFC-- 14:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• To add to my point on the stats: provided that we are satisfied that it is impossible to source them alternatively, it would be valid to argue to leave them out. Although I hold it strongly, my opinion that it would be better to include than exclude the stats is nonetheless precisely that: an opinion. --WFC-- 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

**Could reviewers please indicate whether A: "Stats, but technically unreliable" or B:"reliable" is preferred? Sandman888 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC) With respect, while I understand what you're trying to ask, as written that's a somewhat skewed question. Nobody is disputing that when live it's what we class as a reliable source. The question is whether, at a given time, it is vital that the user can directly access the data. My view is that the fact that the accuracy and reliability of the source is being audited right here is a factor. —WFC— 12:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I made the question symmetrical wrt cost and benefit. So this page acts like a guarantee for the reliability? I just don't want any hassle when (if) it goes offline again in the near future. Like during a FT candidacy. Sandman888 (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Nice work with the question. —WFC— 13:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Could reviewers please indicate whether A: "Stats, but technically unreliable" or B:"No stats, but technically reliable" is preferred? Sandman888 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll go A, for the reasons explained above. As for FT, I believe that all they're concerned with is whether the topic is complete, and if it is complete, whether all of the articles are GAs, FAs or FLs as appropriate. Someone could in theory take this (or anything else) to FLRC, but assuming consensus is reached properly here, a move of that sort on one specific point would likely be deemed a disruptive and bad-faith move. —WFC— 13:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Let me be the first (only?) one to go with B in the debate above. If a list's content is unverifiable for whatever reason, it shouldn't be featured. It's a shame because I think the old table is much nicer than what's currently in the list, but if the stats can't be sourced, the table doesn't have anything to stand on.
• TBD is short for To Be Decided/Determined. I don't think the club's early period should have this designation since their management was decided at the time; we just don't seem to know exactly how. How about "Unknown"? That's what the truth is, after all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:09, 11 October 2010 [14].

---

List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list is close to featured standard. This is my first time back here in over a year so I may not be up to date with certain criteria and conventions but I think there are not that many problems. Anyway let's see what you think NapHit (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments. This list lacks many things to be even close to featured quality. I don't like to oppose nominations from the start, but there's some work to be done: The lead needs heavy copyediting. There are words missing and some sentences could be better constructed and mingled with each other. I can help you on that, if you wish. Since it's hard to pinpoint you to every thing that I feel could be improved, my preference would be to draft my own version of the lead and show it to you, so you can see if there's anything that could be used from it. that's fine with me, would be interesting to see your take on it NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Check my sandbox. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Ye it's better than mine I've put it in now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) You can resize the lead image up to 300px. I usually do that if the image is not to vertical and if there's enough space below it; done but it looks excessively large to me NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, because the image is too vertical, as I said. Anyway, 300px is the maximum recommended. Try 250px. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Much better at 250px NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) In the key, there's no need for the "Year" parameter, I think it's quite understandable from the list; removed NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not so sure if italics is enough to highlight the winner in two-legged finals... What about using boldface simultaneously? changed it to bold which does look a lot better NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Nowhere before you explain the "points system" used to find the winner up to 1968... Explained it in the lead now NapHit (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I also copyedited that paragraph in my draft version. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Only 1967 does not have its own article. Too bad to see just that one red link. created the article NapHit (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I suppose in 1977 and 1979 it was the European runner-up that played right? You should add notes on that as well; Yep missed those two, this is fixed NapHit (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I think the names of the countries of the participating clubs should be spelled out next to their flag, instead of the three-letter code; changed NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC) In the "Results by clubs" table, there's a typo in the 1971 red link (which should fix it to a blue link); fixed NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Peñarol was twice runner-up but where's the runner-up years in that list? added NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Fix the [[Olympic Stadium (Tokyo)|National Stadium]] links to [[National Olympic Stadium (Tokyo)|National Stadium]]. Also, link directly [[International Stadium Yokohama]] since the article is named like that. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC) done NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Typo in 1973 row (Juvenuts); fixed NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) I don't see the usefulness in sorting "Score" in the single match finals; It is quite useful, it lets the user sort by biggest win and smallest win this is something that I think many people would be interested in knowing so I think it should remain sortable NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) It sorts by most (or least) goals scored by the winner club, but it doesn't sort by (biggest or smallest) margin of victory as it considers a 3–2 win "better" than a 3–0. If you can find a way to fix this, great; if not, I won't be stubborn about it. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Ok, think I've got it sorting properly, see what you make of it NapHit (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I sorted the complete set of scores: 1st: goal difference; 2nd: goals scored. You fine with this? Parutakupiu (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Yep looks good to me NapHit (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Uruguay has two runner-up places (Peñarol in 1960 and 1987) and not one as its stated in "Results by country", which should give 21 runner-up places for CoNMEBOL. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Amended NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Another comment: the key does not need to be a section per se; place it as the first sub-section of "Winners". Parutakupiu (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Good work on improving this list. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Lead image seems a little too large for me. resized NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "ran from 1960 till 2004" maybe "ran inclusively between 1960 and 2004"? new lead so it's been worded differently now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "The competition was organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL, it was contested between the winners of the European Cup and the Copa Libertadores" perhaps explain UEFA is European, CONMEBOL is South American? I've spelled out the abbreviations so this should eliminate the problem NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "From the competition's establishment in 1960 to 1979 it was" some commas here, so "From the competition's establishment. in 1960, to 1979 it was" lead's changed so hopefully this has been fixed NapHit (talk) "champions from all of the confederations" you need a note here to explain exactly which confederations you're referring to. Don't think you really need to link "Italian" to Italy. Perhaps a more appropriate footballing link could be found, or just don't link it. unlinked NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Same with Brazil and Argentina. unlinked NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Avoid bold links, per MOS. changed this to colours now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Score sorts very oddly in "Single match finals" table, well it does in Safari. ye it was the code that was aligning the scores with asteriks, so I've removed this sorts fine now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "Results by clubs" - Nacional and Flamengo's lines look incomplete (missing a vertical line). added the lines NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Results by confed - 42 in total for CONMEBOL, 43 in total for UEFA. How? silly mistake to make, fixed now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - team names are not consistent - "Bayern München" and "Bayern Munich" are both used -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed NapHit (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that you also have both "Atlético de Madrid" and "Atlético Madrid"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Right you are, amended now NapHit (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support didn't find anything at fault. Perhaps "Results by clubs" should be w/o flagicons. Sandman888 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• FIFA should be spelled out in the lead.

done NapHit (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note 6 could use a reference. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Added a reference and it's also covered by the general ref. NapHit (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "(Spain), and Milan (Italy) hold the record" Don't pipe away the A.C. in A.C. Milan. There is, after all, another quite well known team in Milano. Don't think this is necessary as the other team are known as Internazionale, while A.C. Milan are generally referred to as Milan, so I don't think this is causing any confusion. NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Did this myself. Too ambiguous to a non-fan. Courcelles 05:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC) "2 points each; Internazionale won playoff 1–0 at Santiago Bernabéu ‡" I know enough to know this is a stadium and not a city, well, only because I once stayed off Line 10 of Madrid's Metro. Short version... Wikilink the stadia that hosted the play-offs. done NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Check your flags, the Spanish flag used is the modern one, adopted in 1981. Before that, and the older flags should be used. fixed NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 1968; why break format and use ENG instead of England? Must of missed that oen when I was changing them to full names NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 1986; this should be using the flag of the Socialist Republic of Romania, not the plain tricolour. Yep changed NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't a team with 3 wins and 4 runners-ups sort above a team with three wins and two, one, or zero runner's up? probably but I'm not sure how you would be able to fix this problem NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Neither am I. Courcelles 05:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Thinking about it I don't think a team with 4 runners-up should sort above a team with zero, as the team with zero has the better record as they've never lost a final, so I think they it was sorting was fine. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Same problem in the Results by country section. see above The results by confederation section would be better in prose in the lede, and not a two-line table. I know where your coming from but I think the information is better represented in a table NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC) And, well... it's not. Leave the table if you must, but this really needs to be mentioned in a sentence in the lede. Courcelles 05:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 02:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Removed the table the info is now in the lede. NapHit (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support if only because Intercontinental Cup (football) should be viewed as it eventually should be, and not the sorry state it currently is in. Courcelles 20:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

* Is linking the years in the By team section a bit excessive? I don't think so the reader would have to navigate to the by year table, plus aren't links supposed to be in place if a table is sortable? NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. But linking isn't compulsory though, even in sortable tables; just if you do link, you have to link every occurrence Surprised there's no link anywhere to the competition's subsite on UEFA.com So was I, they removed it a while ago, as they used to have that and the cup winners' cup one as well, but that has also vanished, the link is ok though, so I don't think it's a concern. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC) On the runner-up sorting, you can use {{sort}} to use hidden sortkeys, so you can force the thing to sort in whatever order you like. Here, I've used a sortkey for the winners column of the form 0x0y, where x is how many won and y is how many r-u. As I said above, surely a team that has not been runner-up should come first in a the table as they have a better record than a tea that has won the same amount but been beaten 4 times as well? The way this table sorts would imply otherwise which I think is incorrect. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC) You could just as well argue that a team having qualified 7 times had a better record than one with 3 :-) but which way up you sort it is up to you, assuming you can justify it. I thought you were asking above how to actually do the sorting. As it stood when I posted, once the table was out of order, it wouldn't sort back into "your" order anymore than into "mine". Sorry if I misunderstood. Also, if you keeping pressing the sort button on the Years runner-up column, it gets itself into some very strange orders. Yep, for som reason it was sorting according to the runners-up and winners column, I've made the columns unsortable as I you can only sort the first win and fixing this problem is too much hassle which I don't have time to fix. NapHit (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC) And there are some winning teams missing from the By team table. Don't why they were removed, anyway there back in now. NapHit (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry I've come so late to this list, and I'm not going to improve my popularity rating any. But I've got to oppose per WP:WIAFL section 3b content fork. Apart from an incomplete column of attendance figures in the main tables, and a runners-up column in the By team/By country tables, this list is basically the same article as its parent Intercontinental Cup (football). I'd suggest improving that article similarly to how you've done here, and then submitting it as the featured list candidate, but other people might have different views.

I can see why your saying this, as the main article is rather slim on prose, but I think that article could be improved, there is a lot of history organisation and records that could be incorporated as prose, and I don't think it would suffice as a list. For starters I could remove some of the tables and add a bit of prose to the winners section, that would make it less of a content fork in my eyes, as that article has potential for much more content. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how much you've been following the discussion going on currently about this section of the criteria. Personally, I don't really know where we stand at the moment. But assuming 3b is still part of the FL criteria, it says: "it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". The thing is, this list does largely recreate material from another article, and it's clear that it could reasonably be included as part of a related article, because most of it's still in one. Anyway, it's up to the FL directors as to whether this is an actionable oppose or not; maybe it isn't, in the current state of flux. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Have other reviewers been asked to comment on the 3b issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The one thing I'm going to say is that if the main article was brought here with improvements, it would likely be opposed for having the potential to be more of an article than a list (someone would probably say to take it to GAN). I don't know how to feel about this one. I can certainly see why 3b is being raised, but at the same time, does the main article benefit from having all of these tables? Of course, my FAC-reviewing background leads me to prefer prose over tables in non-list pages. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree as precedence have it otherwise. We have the Balon d'Or, some freedom prize by the IRC etc, list of buildings of Jefferson college (the corresponding Oxford list is GA) which should be articles but are list, and featured lists. Sandman888 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Some other comments:

• Don't need flags in By team section, or really in By country, the name should be enough

removed from by team section, the flag comes with the country templates like the one in the code here: {{ENG}}, so I think their fine to be honest, as long as the names of the country follows the flag I see no problem

depends whether you think they're informative or decorative: not sure myself if a tiny stripey picture adds much to my understanding of the words Paraguay or Yugoslavia

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with Struway. I have no idea how consensus interprets 3.b but here's my take: if it is a content fork that could be avoided per WP:AVOIDSPLIT it fails 3.b. Now the parent article may have the potential for more, but that is irrelevant; a summary style spin-off is only valid if the parent article is already long enough to justify a split. Not potentially long enough (everything is potentially long enough). Sandman888 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment on 3b criterium issue — I have lent my support to this list and it would be stupid for me to take it back, since I was somehow aware of this 3b issue. The solution has been pointed out: turning the parent page into a more developed, prose-rich and less table-ish article, thus potentiating this list as an acceptable article spinout. The thing is: does Intercontinental Cup (football) meet currently that status? No. Does that help this nomination? Not really. Just remember that if this list is not promoted, it's not by its own demerit, but because it's a subsidiary page of an under-developed article. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support this is not a content fork (at least not more than say Olympic medal tables). The parent article does not need tables with so many entries (I would prefer just a list of winners, no results or finalists there) and should be instead focused on prose, with emphasis on history, notability/prestige, and demise. Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• 3b comment. In my opinion this is one of the frailties of 3b because it is a subjective decision. At the moment (it should not be spun out, i.e. removed from the main article) because you end up with a stubby main article and a larger sublist. I don't think an article/list should ever be pre-emptively spun off because of what might happen to the main article - surely that is also WP:CRYSTAL. Expand the main article then spin-out if necessary. Maybe I'm an idealist but that's how I work. Otherwise you get a bunch of discogs or award pages with nothing on the subject themselves. I think there must exist some responsibiltiy on associated pages. Take List of The West Wing episodes, I could easily make seven fairly average season articles and then make said article into a fairly "easy" FL without ep. summaries because they could be developed within the season articles. Of cause they could be developed, but if they haven't been then am I not cheating a bit. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose because of 3b concern. This is basically the same article as Intercontinental Cup (football). Goodraise 19:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:59, 6 October 2010 [15].

---

List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members

Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC) and WereWolf 12:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because it appears consistent with the featured list criteria, is not subject to substantial changes in the future, is comparable to other featured band member lists (List of Nine Inch Nails band members, List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, List of Slipknot band members, and List of Megadeth band members), and WereWolf and I will work on this page to make improvements as necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—The link to Zeitgeist (album) leads to a dab page; the external link to http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=c10135f0-c1bc-425c-961a-fd93076178af is not dead, even though it returns a 404 and is marked "dead link". Ucucha 01:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. WereWolf (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Ucucha 13:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• The intro is way too short. Nergaal (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I tried to extend it a little. Tell me if it will suffice or if it needs more detail/expanding. WereWolf (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose = serious lead issues.

• No, the lead, at one para, is still too short. You mention two members of the band out a total of eight possible - this is hardly summary style.
• "with Billy Corgan the only" no need to repeat his first name.
• "from its inception" repeats "its inception" far too quickly.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I used the format from List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members (a list that I brought up to featured status) to remove the lead, and remove the Membership history section from the article. I honestly prefer this over anything else. WereWolf (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• So, to clarify, you've copied-and-pasted a bunch of paragraphs from The Smashing Pumpkins article here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, but I did the same thing for the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, and that's a featured list. This list does give more information regarding every member of the band. For example, Gingger Shankar, Gabrial McNair, Kristopher Pooley, and Stephen Bradley aren't mentioned in the main article. Here, they have an entire table acknowledging their temporary membership and contribution to the band. Shankar and Pooley didn't have pictures before this list. Also, the list is comprehensive, and enables a reader to understand the band's membership more easily. Even The A.V. Club acknowledges that the membership history of The Smashing Pumpkins is "increasingly protracted and confusing". [16] This list does meet criteria 3.b, and is comparable with all of the other featured band members lists. WereWolf (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, well I'm not at all comfortable with the fact you simply copied the lead of another article and pasted it in here. I'll leave my oppose open and see what other reviewers think. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• What do you want me to do? Write an entirely new lead? The main article is a featured article; why re-event the wheel when it's perfectly fine? WereWolf (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with repeated leads. I'll leave it to others to decide... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I, too, have problem with the copy-and-paste lead, which is also way too detailed. I think the section should be shortened to an overview about the band and its members.—Chris!_c/t 04:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is the lead the first paragraph in your opinion? And it's not exactly copied and pasted. It's not word for word... WereWolf (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 19:00, 3 October 2010 [17].

---

List of Bonanza episodes

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Bonanza was a long running and extremely popular television series that warrants a good episode list. I believe this article now has the potential to become a Featured List. — Jimknut (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – I haven't read a word of this list but I feel confident enough to oppose already

• I think this should be at peer review as you left one open for less than 24 hrs
• What makes http://ponderosascenery.homestead.com/scenes3.html a reliable source?
• What makes http://www.bonanzaworld.net a reliable source?
• What makes http://www.tvhistory.tv/ a reliable source?
• The publisher "Bonanza Ventures, Inc., and NBC, Inc. 2002–2010." is completely ficticious. Bonanza World is not published by NBC!
• Don't use "№" or "#". See MOS:NUMBERSIGN

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:48, 1 October 2010 [18].

---

List of Formula One polesitters

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is close to the featured standard. NapHit (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Do I really need more coffee, or does this list not ever tell us what a "polesitter" actually is? Courcelles 16:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Some comments...
  • The opening graf goes into too much detail, I think. We don't need to know what 'formula' means. We don't need to know about the championship. Simply establish what Formula 1 is and why it's important (the first sentence accomplishes that).
  • The next graf needs to make it clear that this is the current qualifying style. Maybe as simple as "Drivers currently have to compete..."
  • Likewise, you say "previously a driver was only allowed a single lap", that wasn't always the case, the way this is written it sounds as if there have only been two systems. Don't specify one over the others, that's not really necessary. I would at least drop the sentence after 'previously' and expand the sentence to sound better, like maybe saying how long the current knockout system has been in place.
  • You need to explain what pole position is (first row, in front) and why it's important.
  • Telling us how many races have been won from pole out of the total number of races would be very useful in communicating the importance of pole.
  • People probably won't be happy about using only bold to signify current drivers.
  • There's a stray "USA" in the country column.
  • Might want to add "=" to the ranks of tied drivers.
  • You might want to populate the "Last Pole" column for the people with only one, so that it sorts properly.
  • Personally, I think the Notes column should be changed to Sources. You aren't linking to footnotes.
  • Speaking of the notes column... good lord. You don't need to 1) link to the same thing 80 times, especially 2) with 80 different references. Give us a single general reference and you can probably drop the entire column. Seriously. Anyone who isn't included in the general ref, just put a reference next to their name rather than devoting a column to it.
  • I'm not sure the external links are necessary, as they have nothing specifically to do with pole positions. If people want to find a link to F1 or the FIA, they can go to their articles.
  • Side note: Heh, until last weekend, Schumacher had a *50 pole* lead over Alonso. Just damn.
  • As it is now, oppose. --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've had a go at these comments, think it's in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose from KV5

I was edit-conflicted in providing this review.

• The lead is supposed to be a summary of the list. You mention things in the lead, like driver age, which do not occur in the list, and things that are in the list, like active drivers, most poles, drivers to win championships, etc. are not in the lead.
• Do not use bold as an indicator in the table per MOS:BOLD, change to italics or use a symbol.
• "traditionally contest qualifying" - awkward wording
• "pole-position" - this should be pole position (remove hyphen) and link on first occurrence
• "contested by all the drivers" - how many is "all"? Is this 20 drivers or 2,000?
• "20 minutes session" should be 20-minute session, as this is a compound adjective
• "15 minutes session" - same
  • 10 minute session" - same
• "seven slowest card" - eh?
• "Historically there have been a number of different qualifying systems, previously each driver was only allowed a single lap to set their qualifying time" - run-on sentence with grammar issues. Suggest the following:

• Historically, there have been a number of different qualifying systems; previously, each driver was only allowed a single lap to set his qualifying time.

• Additionally, if there were "a number of qualifying systems", then why is only one explained here?
• The "Notes" are not notes, but references. Change.
• The date at the top of the first list is sufficient; remove the second. Also, remove the unnecessary sentence fragment above the list by country.

All in all, there are too many problems with this list for me to consider supporting at this time. Once these are corrected, I can give a more detailed review. — KV5 • Talk • 16:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

addressed your comments KV5 NapHit (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment: Switching bold for italics doesn't fix a thing. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed it all to colours now, didn't realise you couldn't use italics either NapHit (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

@Golbez: How do you figure? MOS:BOLD says "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." Whereas bold is specifically prohibited, italicization is not. — KV5 • Talk • 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, really? I was under the impression any text styling by itself was not allowed for accessibility purposes (i.e. signifying data solely through styling). It appears I was wrong, screenreaders seem aware of italics. So, uh, NapHit, sorry, but also, colors alone? Bad. :P The whole point of accessibility is not to rely on beautification alone, you have to have some symbol. But apparently italics counts? Huh. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh the colours have all got symbols next to them should have made that clearer, so I think the issue is sorted NapHit (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me either with italics or the symbols as is. — KV5 • Talk • 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears people don't re-read the guidelines that often. From MOS:BOLD: Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases: "Emphasis in tables" so bold is perfectly acceptable. Luckily. Sandman888 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's not being used for emphasis, it's being used to communicate information, which, I believe, goes against accessibility issues. (Also, what would be an example of this emphasis in tables?) --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

An example of emphasis (or indicator) would be to denote top-scorers in bold in a list of players. In short, using bold is bad in articles but irrelevant in tables. And no, bold does not go against accessibility issues. Concerns of WP:BOLD stems from before the current "emphasis in tables" bit was added. Sandman888 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think this discussion was enough to support your addition to the MOS of "Emphasis in tables". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Rambo. — KV5 • Talk • 21:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment

• Sorting is knackered. Press the "Rank" button three times to see what I mean. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ouch; that was caused by my suggestion of adding "=". Now the Javascript doesn't realize it's a numeric field, so it's sorting alphabetically. Do you think they should take out the =, or go through and annoyingly add manual sorting to each cell? --Golbez (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Problems with Finnish names too. — KV5 • Talk • 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Probably manual sorting each cell. Sorry, I know that's not what you wanted to hear. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding the manual sort causes the figures with the "=" in it causes the template to link to the number I put in the sort function without including the "=", look at the diffs if you're not sure what I mean, any suggestions? Preferably I would like to do away with the "=" but what does everyone else think?. Finnish name problem is now fixed. NapHit (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That is because that is how {{sort}} is designed (no links). You probably need {{Nts}}; I don't think doing {{Ntsh}} or <span style="display:none">...</span> for just the instances with = will work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Ntsh}} was the one I needed it's fixed now. NapHit (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorting is now fixed. Unfortunately I don't have time to review this in full so I'll just strike my comment. Best of luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

comment

I think that the driver name should be in the first column as that is what the readers are after, not the nationality of the driver, it would look at lot better if they were swapped around.

I don't think this is necessary, at the end of the day they can still sort by name it's not like it's inconvenient for the country to be in front of the name, plus I feel it does not look right to have the country after the name, for me it does not signify the nationality of the person as clear as the other way around. NapHit (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

also vettel is =23rd in the standings and montoya is also but has one more pole than him. error.

Fixed this

oppose at the moment if these furfilled or good response will change to neutral or support.02blythed (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the country being first being in mind what you have said, therefore I support the nomination 02blythed (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

Comments from WFC As someone who gave F1's biggest featured list an extensive facelift, I understand what a pain this will be. But I really strongly feel that the names should come first. This certainly will be a pain, I really don't see the point in the names coming before the country, for me it makes more the nationality of the driver more ambiguous, at the end of the day the rader can clearly see the names, so I don't understand what difference it makes if they come first. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) The difference is that this isn't a list of countries that have achieved pole position. Given that we have flags for nationality but not name, I'd say if anything it's the names that are "more ambiguous". --WFC-- 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC) I've relented and the names are now before the driver's country. NapHit (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Given that the tables are sortable, I don't quite understand the point of the rank columns. I'm sure if I was updating I'd be cursing every time Vettel or Kubica set a Pole. This is especially true of "By nationality"; let the reader decide whether Brazil or America are second, Italy or Germany are third, or indeed whether they would like to rank them at all. I think this information is very useful, as the list is a ranking, not to give the rankings would be foolish in my opinion, you wouldn't leave the rankings out of a league table would you? So I'd rather the rank column stay. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) I guess it's fine in the main table. But I do think it should be removed from the by nationality table, where there are two plausible ways of measuring it. Although at a glance the number of pole positions seems the obvious way to rank, as a Brit I'm more likely to say that "we've had more drivers on pole than any other country" than "drivers from my country have finished on pole more often than drivers from anywhere else". --WFC-- 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Removed the rankl column from the nationality table NapHit (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC) No need for a see-also section; we have an overwhelming template which publicises all remotely relevant articles for us. removed NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Removing the columns in the reflist would provide scope to do something along these lines. done NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) I also think there is scope for images in the "By nationality" section. It should be possible to get pictures of Schumacher, Senna and Clark on the page at least. I say Clark over Prost because Britain tops "By nationality" on both measures, and because Prost, Senna and Schumacher all raced in the early 1990s. added images of senna and clark. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Ideally the detail on the different qualifying systems used should be expanded. I accept this may prove unfeasible though. I won't be able to reference the different systems so I'd say it would be best to lave it out. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) This flatly contradicts what Golbez said, but I think the first paragraph should be re-extended to mirror the list of drivers. Although admittedly personal taste, I doubt that anyone would oppose a list solely for a bit too much context. By contrast, under the current criteria it would be valid to oppose for a bit too little. I agree with this and have added some of the first paragraph from the drivers list. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) In the third paragraph, it might be worth mentioning the total number of pole positions, before going into the specifics. I can't find a reference for the figure, so unfortunately I'm going to have to leave it out. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't it be the same as the number of races? Someone has to start first. --WFC-- 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Hope those help. Regards, --WFC-- 00:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Further comments I should note that I am close to supporting.

• I've given the lead a mini-copyedit and done some reorganisation. Apart from my next bullet point, I'm happy that the lead now meets the FL criteria, but that is not to say that it cannot be improved further.
• I recognise that there's a hint of bias here, but something should be added to the lead to cover the "By nationality" section. I'll leave how it's done open-ended, but something is necessary so that the lead can be considered a summary of all major parts of the body.
• The general reference is only accurate up to the end of 2009. Is there a second reference that we can use that just covers 2010? At the start of next season we could then presumably remove the 2010 reference, and add an equivalent for 2011.
• On that note, any chance of restoring the Clark image to the aforementioned section? Moving Senna's image to the lead has really improved the presentation at the top, and on balance he belongs there. But taking Clark out altogether has left a really noticeable area of whitespace.
• Shamelessly off-topic. I noticed that you've had a look at {{Football season start}}. Would you like me to work on it over the coming days so that other clubs (such as Liverpool, or indeed foreign clubs) can make good use of it?

--WFC-- 11:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• drive-by: what does the country column signify? Sandman888 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Country :) In F1 everyone represents the country of their passport (which is actually a very sensible criterion when you think about it). As with football there is the occasional controversy, but it's far better defined than football, as the FIA finds the nationality of the driver out directly from the driver, rather than us relying on completely external sources. --WFC-- 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well in football we use the historical countries. West Germany for the first German perhaps? Sandman888 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now at least two more things should be added before this would be ok: 1) for very many years the pole winner got a point; mention it; 2) since it is said there is an advantage to being the pole winner, it should be listed exactly in how many of these times the pole winner ended up winning the race (i.e. add one more column). Nergaal (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I question whether sources would exist for that statistic. I may be wrong though. If it is done, it would need to be the number of wins from pole. An alternative statistic (one that I believe could be reliably sourced in the lead) would be the overall number of races won from pole, expressed in numbers and/or as a percentage of total races. --WFC-- 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree; we don't need each driver's wins from pole, simply the overall statistic of how many polesitters have won their race. That's more telling than any individual rating. --Golbez (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Where was this taken from: List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Double_.28pole_.26_win_in_same_race.29? Ignore the other one as I confused it with the fastest lap bonus given in the 50s. Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
      • This looks like it is good enough: http://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/divers/pole-victoire.aspx. Nergaal (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Other things missing: explicitly stating the number of people that have achieved a pole position(93); Senna holds the record for consecutive poles (8 while Prost and Schumacher have 7; Mansell has the record in a year (14; Schumacher got poles in 13 consecutive years; six drivers got a pole in their first race; Senna and Schumacher have got 8 poles in a GP/circuit. Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I really think you only need the first statistic the other ones are not as notable, added the number of polesitters and their wins I think that is sufficient. NapHit (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Still opposing: essentially all my suggestions have been dismissed and since I put more work in finding those refs than the editors on dismissing my suggestions I won't bother expanding. Nergaal (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of wikipedia is to improve articles within a consensus, I'm not saying we have reached a consensus here, but to say you suggestions have been dismissed is ridiculous, they've been debated and reviewers have come to the conclusion that some should not be included, some were taken on board, for instance; the number of polesitters is now explicitly mentioned, so is how many times they have won from pole. These are the two most important statistics as they highlight the importance of pole position, I'm not sure the other statistics (although interesting) should be placed in the lead, bombarding the reader with a plethora of stats which are not exactly relevant to the table would not be right in my opinion. Thank you for the source as well, it has been a great help. NapHit (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "to determine the drivers positions on the starting grid." "drivers" → "drivers'". Subtle change, I know, but grammatically it's needed.

Done

• Remove comma after "at the end of which".

Done

• No need for two links to the 2010 Singapore Grand Prix in the lead.

done

• What makes F1 complete a reliable source?
• Also, what makes StatsF1 reliable? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

These two sources are the only ones I could find I think there fairly reliable they get updated often and the whole information is not available elsewhere unfortunately. NapHit (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:48, 1 October 2010 [19].

---

Family Guy (season 1)

Nominator(s): Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i belive it meets the criteria, had a PR before nomination. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• This is a very cursory review of the FLC candidate. I will try to review it further tomorrow.
• In "Brian: Portrait of a Dog"
  • Link to dog show goes to an disamguous page. I suspect you intend Conformation show.
  • Is it Brian or Brain? You have it spelled both ways for this episode.
    • Both Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• There are quite a few Checklink problems: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Family_Guy_(season_1) .
  • Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I looks like you caught most of these. One remains. Ref 43 Family Guy — Volume 1: DVD Review (info) [ign.com] http://dvd.ign.com/articles/390/390195p1.html redirects to http://uk.dvd.ign.com/articles/390/390195p1.html --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Reference 19: Is corrupt - "Template:Cite web".
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

--Dan Dassow (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• This article needs to be copy edited for run on sentences and excessive use of passive sentences. For instance:
  • "His supportive wife Lois pleads for him not to drink; although Peter claims to comply with her request, he deliberately disobeys her at the party due to encouragement from Quagmire and their friend Cleveland Brown, and acquires a hangover." is an example of a run-on sentence. This sentence should be split into two sentences.
  • "Family Guy was developed out of MacFarlane's thesis film The Life of Larry," is passive.
  • "MacFarlane developed Family Guy out of his thesis film The Life of Larry," uses active voice.
• Information stated about one episode, does not need to be repeated for following episodes. For instance there is no need to repeat the information about why Peter lost his job in the description of the second episode.
  • "Peter applies for welfare in order to support his family's well-being after losing his job as Happy-Go-Lucky Toy Factory safety inspector via a hangover which he obtained at a stag party hosted by Quagmire."

--Dan Dassow (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I belive the 3 of them are done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Note: What I had commented on before are examples that we should avoid: run-on sentences, excessive use of passive voice and repeating information. I believe these are the some of the writing issues that Rambo's Revenge is referencing. I will not have a time to do a copy edit on the article until this weekend. I intended to make you aware of problems in the interim. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Part I:

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

*Why doesn't this use the standard navbox heading colour. Colours are not decorative and we use standard colours for accesibility and consistency. This goes for the unnecessarily coloured Family Guy navbox too. I really see no need it is yellow and it is simple and accesible, like many other shows that have it. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Here are some MoS arguments Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes): "designed ... such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format." Colour is a format. WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative" and "There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles" Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Just to be clear your comment is about the navbox at the end of the artical which says family guy becuase it is blue. Pedro J. the rookie 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC) My comment is about two things. 1) The colour of the banner that says "Family Guy season 1" which should not be coloured, and {{Family Guy}} where there is also not justification from deviating from standard colouring. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC) What dose this have to do with the artrical, the review is to get it to FL and the template is not about it if you have a problem please commente it here, becuase i cannot change that as it will be reverted becuase it is not about the artical. Pedro J. the rookie 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC) It has plenty to do with the article. It is the header of the maininfobox (top right had corner)! Any way I've done that and the navbox (without yet being reverted). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) "between January 31, 1999 to May 16, 1999": between A and B, or from A to B, not the current hybrid. Done. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) "given the green light" - bit colloquial Done. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) The pale yellow line break is quite difficult to see and looks strange, to me at least. That would be more personal opinion. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) It is, however the contrast is so close to white (behind plot summaries) and it is not obvious that the table has finished (right at the end) because there is no line apart from the very pale yellow. I'm sure others would agree. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC) What would recomend change it?, if thats the case what color?. Pedro J. the rookie 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Changed. Pedro J. the rookie 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Okay I tweaked a bit, hope that's okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) A stray full stop after an air-date Done. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Pilot air date needs ref Done. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) ...and so does its prod. code. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Despite indication to the contrary, only prod. codes 1ACX01, 1ACX04 and 1ACX05 are actually referenced. Done. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Why have you left Ref 8 present on the episode codes it doesn't reference? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Pedro J. the rookie 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I don't understand why a prod code needs more than one ref. Just choose the best for each. Also if something isn't easy to find, removing it is not the right plan. It then fails 3a. Comprehesiveness. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) No references for DVD release dates. Done. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) So it was released in Region 4 before I asked for a reference and now it isn't!? Forgive my lack of WP:AGF but I think you need to do some actual looking (Google is pretty powerful) or try some of the places other FLs use to source Region 4 release dates. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Already checked another editor checked, and the result is the same it was realesed but no page says when so it ends up being N/A. Pedro J. the rookie 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Your lethargy towards these suggestions is concerning. I followed my own advice and it took me no more than 5 minutes [20]. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Plot summaries are a bit long. WP:PLOTSUM suggests ~100 words (200 max) for summaries in episode lists. Done. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Some are still over 200. Each episode has its own article where the plot can be summaries. The episodes are only 20-23 mins long. When they are compared to Lost (season 1), The O.C. (season 1) (~42 mins) and The Simpsons (season 3) (~22 mins) FLs the summaries are still much (2 times?) too long. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF, i checked it yesterday, and not counting the links all have 200 words ro less. Pedro J. the rookie 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC) This isn't other stuff and that is not true. I count 235 words in ep2. This is not some whim this is for copyright reasons: "Information about copyright fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I belive it is done. Pedro J. the rookie 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I notice you once had episode ratings. I think this should be included with the episode lists like The O.C. (season 1). I see no need since the info is already in the reception section. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) No, for all the episodes. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Not all of the episodes had ratings. Pedro J. the rookie 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Of course it "had ratings" (in fact all shows at whatever time have ratings). As a prime time episode the figures will have been published in something like Variety, Mediaweek or an equivalent. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Thats not the case they do not have those ratings family guy was a new show some episodes have rateings that have been realesed some do not. Pedro J. the rookie 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC) What Pedro is attempting to say is that the ratings information is not available. The episodes aired in 1999, and a majority of shows with episodes more than a decade old do not have information with regards to ratings, because they have not been published by any reliable sources whatsoever. ABC Medianet has recently been an essential tool in providing ratings information, but even that website, if I remember correctly, only dates back to 2003. Many, many attempts have been made to locate ratings for the first three seasons of Family Guy, but unfortunately all attempts have been unsuccessful. I'd welcome any attempt to locate the ratings information which you have requested, Rambo, but it is simply unavailable. Gage (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Variety etc. might have it. They can be hard to root out but will most likely be there somewhere. I won't oppose on this basis though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) MOS:HASH: "Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings." Please pooint out were it is. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Table heading. It is not representing a number, it is a colum, as it is explaind in the Key. Pedro J. the rookie 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Okay then there would be no problem with replacing it with a † or something? Except, subconsciously it is represent numbers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Recurring cast members and guest stars for the season included...: read this section through. References are not a substitute for punctuation marks! Done. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) "led to MacFarlane being hired by the company.[23][ ""]. . Retrieved .</ref> In 1996, " Done. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I haven't bothered checking the ep summaries as I think they need re-writing (shortening) anyway. All less than 200 words. Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) They are almost all exactly 200. I realise you may think I'm over-insistent on this but I think fair-use considerations are taken seriously. I quickly knocked this up as an example, but you could modify episode 7 from "Chris is kicked out of the Youth Scouts after accidentally running over the troop leader at a soapbox derby. Although he truthfully hates being in the scouts and prefers drawing, he fears telling Peter, who learns of Chris' eviction and decides to travel with the family to Youth Scout headquarters in Manhattan to get Chris readmitted. The family stops at a Native American casino as Peter needs to use the bathroom, but Lois quickly becomes addicted to gambling and loses the family car. Peter, however, devises a plan that involves posing as an Indian, as each member of the Native tribe receives a share of the casino's profit. The doubtful Indian elders demand that he go on a vision quest to prove his heritage. Chris accompanies Peter into the wilderness, hoping to tell him that he only wants to draw instead of being in the Scouts. Delirious from hunger, Peter begins talking to anthropomorphic trees and sees a vision of his spiritual guide, the Fonz. He finally listens to Chris's complaints and realizes his son is a talented artist. They return to the casino and reclaim their car." to "Chris is evicted from the Youth Scouts when he runs over the troop leader. Although Chris dislikes scouts and prefers drawing, he fears telling Peter. When Peter learns of Chris’ eviction, he drives the family to the scout headquarters in Manhattan to get Chris readmitted. They stop for the bathroom at a Native American casino and Lois becomes a gambling addict and loses the family car. As each Native receives a share of the casino profits, Peter poses as an Indian but is sent on a vision quest to prove his heritage. Chris accompanies Peter to explain that he only wants to draw. Delirious from hunger, Peter begins taking to anthropomorphic trees and has a vision of his spiritual guide, the Fonz. Peter realizes his son’s talent for drawing and they return to the casino and reclaim the car." This way you lose 60 words, and I beleive something similar could be done for each episode. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Done, each one is at least 167 or lower. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Rambo could you please slash the comments that have been resolved like you did on your first comments. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Part II: The above was getting clunky and hard to follow so I'll start again.

• I don't understand why a prod code needs more than one ref (three is ridiculus). Just choose the best for each.
  • Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• If something isn't easy to find, removing it is not the right plan. It then fails 3a. Comprehesiveness.
  • You have to nderstand that the episode is barley recognized, not even the season guide shows it as an episode it aired, and hen the first offical episode was the same plot bu a bit extended. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Pilot episopde removed as it is not considerd a season episode. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Float the picture in Development to the right. For me (quite a wide screen) it hangs down into the Production section and indents the new heading and text which looks odd.
  • Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Why have you removed the DVD table? If you look in my comments (now capped) I even found a cite for the Region 4 release. I suggest you use it.
  • Reviewer Ophios commented that it should be changed and put on prose, at the end it is the same thing. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I requested that he replace the table with prose per upcoming MOS guidelines. Ωphois 23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
      • One way or another I think you should use the Region 4 release date I gave you. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 50 doesn't give any ratings. According to the headers it % change. As for a rank of 33, that needs context. That is probably for prime time TV shows, you'd need to find out. If it was programs Super Bowl et al would be up there.
  • Done. 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• No ref for 40.2 rating in Super Bowl.
  • Removed as that information is not relavent to the artical. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• "crops No.&nsbp;1 in "Stewie"
  • Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm concerned there are no reviews from the site. People may look back on a succesful series in a more favourable light. I think it is important to be completely WP:NPOV and have something from the time. There will have been something in print: Variety, USA Today or even local papers. Often archives on newspaper websites don't go back that far but LexisNexis or ProQuest go much further back and should be able to help.
  • This will take its time but i will keep looking. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Summaries need a good univolved run from a copyeditor (examples from first ep):
  • "airline pilot friend Glenn Quagmire to" -> airline pilot friend, Glenn Quagmire, to
  • "Although Peter claims to comply with her request, he deliberately disobeys her at the party due to encouragement from Quagmire and their friend Cleveland Brown, and acquires a hangover." missing comma. Believe it should be he deliberately disobeys her at the party' due to.
  • "his subsequent firing. After being fired for negligence,"
  • while working as a Happy-Go-Lucky Toy Factory safety inspector
    • Will try to find a CE. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
      • CE finished. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Much happier now due to copyedit (thanks Dank). In future, though, please try to get this done before FLC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• One more: The FUR for the non-free image is not good enough. It is a boilerplate FUR for a film. If you read through it, there are many parts that don't make sense. These are supposed to be individual. Also, could you do the same for the image on the existing season FL. I know this is strictly out of the remit of this FLC, but featured work is often mimmicked and sometimes taken as gospel in how seasons should be structured so I think in that respect we have a responsibility here to set the correct example. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think i fixed the first season image, i will do the FL later today. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 05:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

*I only had time to generally glance over the list, so this review unfortunately won't be too extensive. I'll try to come back and add more to it later. The pilot episode's general information (like director, writer, and the production code) isn't referenced, although the other episodes are. You should go ahead and add citations to the pilot's information as well to be consistent. I belive it is done, could not find refrence for production code so put it as N/A. Pedro J. the rookie 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Per Rambo's Revenge above, I think that particular color of yellow is a bit hard to make out. I'd go with a darker, more defined color if you could. Nomader (Talk) 00:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Changed, now it is darker and more notable yellow, hope that works. Pedro J. the rookie 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Why does List of Family Guy DVDs state that season 1 was released on DVD in Region 4 when above you say that it wasn't released there in your comments to Rambo's Revenge? Le me clarify, it was obiously realesed in that region, but we cannot find any sources that says what exact time was it, and the DVDs artical dose not contain it either so to that matter and criteria if no source can say it exactlly when it was realased it is considered N/A. 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Could you say "Released" instead? N/A could imply that it wasn't released at all in the region. Nomader (Talk) 22:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Done Pedro J. the rookie 23:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC) In the lead, you mention that "Other assessments were that the season was "extremely witty and darkly hilarious", and was "unfortunately" canceled." However, it only cites one sentence. Couldn't you just say "Critic Aaron Beierle felt that..." at the beginning of the sentence instead? Prose is my weak point so feel free to not heed my advice here. Is that what you meant. Pedro J. the rookie 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Yep. Nomader (Talk) 22:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Once you've addressed these two other concerns and Rambo's concerns above, I'll be willing to support. Nomader ^(Talk) 01:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As soon as Rambos's responds to my comments and we can disscuss things i will finish his concerns. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment by DragonZero Not much to say, I think its pretty good already. Episodes 4 and 7 have remnants of incomplete sentences. ("They" in episode 4 and that single "S" hanging in episode 7.) I belive it is done, think so. Pedro J. the rookie 03:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Episode 4, "the burning basement however they, Stewie reverses time just as Peter is having an epiphany about how he treats Lois." Grammar mistake. Episode 7, become unstable s, and finds him in the streets, the "S" is still there. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Pedro J. the rookie 15:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I bold-ed the quoted part of episode 4 with the loose they in the above. Its still there. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Not any more. Pedro J. the rookie 05:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC) References are a bit inconsistent. They switch between date formats, it would look nicer if they followed the format most common in the article. This is so much easier with the script- takes about 5 seconds- I just did this one for y'all. Courcelles 02:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Thank i apriciate it. Pedro J. the rookie 03:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• And following the comments of Rambo, I'll be staying neutral until his suggestions are solved. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment there are redirects that need to be fixed like Cartoon Network (United States) which redirects to Cartoon Network, Larry shorts redirects to The Life of Larry and Larry & Steve and What a Cartoon! which redirects to The Cartoon Cartoon Show. JJ98 (Talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
• Per upcoming MOS guidelines, DVD information should be presented in prose and not in tables.
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Why is the episode number column represented by "†"? It would make more sense for it to be "#" or "No."
  • Changed. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• The production section says, "Season one also saw the introduction of several recurring characters, including Peter's employer Jonathan Weed, and police chief Joe Swanson." It is the first season, so of course characters will be introduced. Listing new characters is irrelevant to the production section unless production-related info is then provided.
  • Done Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• What makes The TV Critic a reliable source?
  • In his "ABOUT" section you can see that at least major news networks in the UK consult with him. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• The final paragraph of the reception section is a mess and needs to be fixed. It reads, "The first season of Family Guy aired during the 1998–99 United States television season; the season premiere "Death Has a Shadow" aired after Super Bowl XXXIII on January 31, 1999 and achieved a total of 22.01 million viewers, attributed mostly to the large audience received by the Super Bowl, which it itself received a rating of 40.2 by Nielsen ratings, while the season finale "Brian: Portrait of a Dog" earned a total of 12.8 million viewers; the season finished with a ranking of 33 in the Nielsen ratings."
  • I had to eliminate some information so i really not sure if i corrected it or just made it worst can you tell me. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That information has been changed alot so i do npt now if you still have a problem with it. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• The Development section is redundant, in my opinion. It is already present on the main page and the pilot episode's article. This list should cover elements more relevant to the season, not the series.
  • I would not think so but i will remove it if you insist. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I say this because the development section covers the shaping of the series itself. This list is supposed to cover the makings of the season. Ωphois 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• There is no source for the release of the Region 4 DVD. I would suggest citing this. Although it doesn't have a release date, it at least verifies that it was released. Ωphois 06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• The refs need to be cleaned up some. There is inconsistency in italicization, and some are just lower-case titles jumbled together. Ωphois 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You mean that some titles like the TV critic is ictalized. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. And IGN is italicized sometimes, and sometimes isn't italicized. The italicization of websites is not consistent, either. You italicized TV by the Numbers and IGN sometimes, but didn't do so for EzyDVD or Yahoo! TV. Ωphois 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Cleaned them up. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Still is inconsistent. Ωphois 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
          • • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• What makes this a reliable source? Ωphois 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It is owned by Yahoo inc, GeoCities. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is a problem with Entertainment Weekly. It's the fact that you are trusting it is from. It is GeoCites userpage and "knifeman" (i.e. Joe Bloggs) is saying it is from EW. There is nothing stopping me uploading a similar page but if I wanted to be malicious I could have changed the numbers around. I'm not saying that is what has happened, I'm saying is it reliable? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That is a good point, it really is and i have no idea to really prove that its reliable, as it was stated it is hard to find the ratings of theas episods so i am really not sure, do any of you have opinions about it. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • IN that point i would remove the source, so you agree with me. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
        • • It would probably be best to remove it then. Ωphois 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• The reception section says, "In 2009, IGN named Stewie's plan to freeze broccoli crops number 1 in their "Stewie's Top 10 Most Diobolical Evil Plans"." What episode is this referring to? Ωphois 23:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Episodes are supposed to be in quotes, not italics. Ωphois 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the lead reads, "The season received positive praise from critics, who called it "groundbreaking".[1] Critic Aaron Beierle felt that the season was "extremely witty and darkly hilarious", and was "unfortunately" canceled.[2] Season one contains some of the series' most acclaimed episodes, including "I Never Met the Dead Man" and "Brian: Portrait of a Dog".[1][3] The Volume One DVD box set was released in Region 2 on November 12, 2001 and in Region 1 on April 15, 2003. All seven of the season's episodes are included in the volume. The second season's twenty-one episodes were also included in the volume. The series has since been released in syndication."
  • Pretty much only one source is used for the critical response. More opinions should be given, although it should be more general and not "So and so felt this way..."
    • I am looking for a quote of that. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • what refrence would that be. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • For one, you said that critics called the season "groundbreaking", but only cited one source for that. And the next sentence is about one specific critic (Aaron Beierle)'s opinion. The last sentence reads, "Season one contains some of the series' most acclaimed episodes, including..." This, too, just cites one source. You can't say that something is critically acclaimed based on one person's opinion. The lead's section on reception should be a general summary. Look through the reviews and find statements that are common to multiple critics. Ωphois 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "The second season's twenty-one episodes were also included in the volume." should not be mentioned in the lead.
    • Done --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What is your source that the season is now in syndication? Ωphois 23:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • General statements in the lead such as "The season received praise from critics." do not need to be cited, as it is later cited in the reception section. You still have not provided any other references to support the claim that the two episodes in the lead are the "most acclaimed episodes". The reception part of the lead needs to be expanded. Ωphois 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the comments by DVD Talk for a review of the first two season, and are aimed at the series itself. I don't feel this is relevant to the season 1 article. Ωphois 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Is that better. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—a dead external link to http://www.campustimes.org/mike-henry-of-family-guy-talks-voices-gags-and-instinct-1.743902; no dab links. Ucucha 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions. I'm copyediting per a request at WP:GOCE.

• "however, both he and Brian are arrested by security guards": I'm not following, did he drop the money as planned? When was he arrested? - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• What's a weather device? Do you mean a device to control the weather? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "cardboard cutout near his head": do you mean in front of his face? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "the power outage": I thought it was a cable outage. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "prompting Peter to run off with William Shatner": I'm guessing this is not a sexual liaison; can you rephrase? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "highly dangerous "toys",": the quote marks around "toys" mean that they weren't really toys; okay, what were they? - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • They were toys but there where also knifes, poision, etc. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "Peter attempts to make it up to her": what is she upset about, and what does she ask him to do? - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It says why he is upset, and it was his own idea. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "Peter accidentally loses the reservation for Stewie's first birthday, and must create a new party.": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "Peter retrieves Meg before the rest of the cult members drink it.": I don't understand from this whether some, all or none of the cult members drank the punch. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "so that his friends can come to visit": can come or will come? What prohibits them from coming if he doesn't have a bar in the basement? - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done
• "until she is put to sing.": ? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "Peter becomes jealous so he invites their wives to drag them out": ? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, that whole section needs to be rewritten; I don't know what you're saying. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "As part of the planning process, the Family Guy writing staff collaborated on which ideas and characters to use for each episode.": Is there anything here that the reader couldn't guess for themselves?
• "Diobolical": was the misspelling intentional? - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• "however, during the court case, after Brian fails to please the court": I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've done my best with most of the episode summaries but I don't know whether they will make sense to most readers; I'd appreciate it if another copyeditor could give them a whack. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your help did some fixes based on your commentes. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I did enough work on this one that I'm not objective about the language, and so I'm not comfortable supporting or opposing. I believe it still needs some work, and it would be helpful if someone else could compare Pedro's last edit with my work. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose because of prose ... but we're close. Pedro had solid responses to my comments about the first part of the article, and I went back and did Episodes 4-6, but Pedro reverted all my changes to Episode 7 and following, re-inserting a bunch of mistakes, and didn't respond to my comments on those bits. There's really not much left to do, but I can't do it since I'm getting reverted; could someone look at Episode 7 and following, please? - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Did not meam to revert you, done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done with Episode 7; nothing has changed below that, yet. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It wasn't done, but I finished it up. Striking my oppose; OTOH, since I was only looking at some of the prose issues, I can't support. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose

The infobox image gives it's FUR as "To illustrate a DVD release of the full season discussed, and identify the season in the article." That fails the non free criteria by a country mile. I even know where you copied it from—I've seen the exact wording before—and that article got through FAC with a deficient image review. Either rebuilding the FUR from the ground up or removal of the image is necessary.

• Is that better. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Better, though I'm not really certain any of these are justified. Before I nitpick the prose, can you answer my other question? Courcelles 05:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The other image is fine.

Is the pilot part of this season or not? Some note somewhere regarding it's relationship with the rest of the episodes would be nice.

It is not really a season one episode since it has of my knolge only aired once and has been included on o9ther DVDs. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got lots more comments, but I'm so tired I'm barely seeing straight. More tomorrow. Courcelles 04:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have all previous reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Question why does Family Guy (season 5) appear to be at a much higher standard? There is little description for the DVD release, and very little in the reception and production sections especially for the debuting season of the show. Nergaal (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Though I agree with you about the production and reception sections, I requested that the DVD section be reduced. Presenting every single minute detail is not necessary, and appears better when in prose. As well, upcoming MOS guidelines will require prose instead of a table. Ωphois 21:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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