Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2009

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 12:08, 29 August 2009 [1].

---

List of Gold Glove Award winners at pitcher

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've finally finished it. The last few weeks have been so busy that I've fallen severely behind on this list, but now it's done. It should meet all the requirements, and is the final list in the proposed Gold Glove Award featured topic, which will be a subtopic of the MLB awards FT. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment The lead is unusually short. Did you forget to write a paragraph summarizing the list? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ack! Yes! Hold, please. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead is there now; refs forthcoming. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, done. Hit it! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support I somewhat wish full SB/CS data was listed and not just the %age (since 50% CS means something very different over 10 attempts versus 100), but definitely enough. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I honestly would like to put it in, but this table is at its maximum width without screwing up the visual aspects of the top row in a 1024x768 by squishing the table more. I appreciate your comments and support. Can I have a nap now? I will fire the missiles afterward... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• AHH MOTHERLAND! Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Resloved comments from Staxringold

Two minors comments though. First, have you considered including balks? Baseball-Reference tracks them (BK), and while they may be rare (so maybe don't need to list all the winning pichers who threw none in the lead, though the most in a winning season would be interesting) they are still significant given the limited number of ways a pitcher provides fielding value. Second, any consideration of mentioning how many GG winners also win the CYA that year? Doesn't matter as much with the pitcher GG, since the voters seem to like giving them to the same player for a long stretch, but often times you see a player having a good year get a random GG even if there's no particularly amazing fielding. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I haven't given any consideration to Cy Young/Gold Glove correlation, probably because it happens to be pretty commonplace. It isn't really rare enough to discuss. I could include balks; I can't believe I didn't think of that ahead of time. I try to cover all the standard bases with fielding here. I will look at putting them in as we go along here. It may take some time to get it together though, because it's not a copy and paste insert, and I can't do it all at once. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Yeah, the GG/CY thing was just a suggestion, but I really do think the article needs balks. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I actually feel bad doing this, I want the list to get featured to finish the topic, but changed to conditional support. Balk is necessary, and what about pickoff or any mention of the running game? It's a pretty heavily documented fact that pitchers are a big part of the running game (The Fielding Bible II showed how, for example, while Kenny Rogers and Greg Maddux were close in range-based-value from fielding Maddux gave almost all of it back from shoddy running game control). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Caught stealing is included with catchers because it's obviously necessary, but I don't think it's necessary to document something that Baseball-Reference doesn't even consider important enough to put on the main statistical page for each player per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Balks are done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Neat! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC) It's hardly indiscriminate. By citing caught stealing data only for catchers you are building in systemic bias to the project. I quote from The Fielding Bible: "Who has greater control of the running game in baseball, the pitcher or the catcher? Obviously the strength of the catcher's arm is a key, as is the quickness of his release and the accuracy of his throws. But the pitcher comes into play as well. How well does he hold the runner? How often does he make throws to first? How quick is his release to the plate? How good is his pickoff move and how often does he nab runners with that move? Do more or fewer runners run against him than other pitchers? Are more (or less) caught?" And later: "If you look at stolen base frequency, you see an even stronger control of the running game by pitchers. Fewer runners run on Pudge Rodriguez than other catchers. But the magnitude of the difference compared to pitchers is far smaller. Let's compare Pudge to Mike Piazza, who was known for his lack of arm strength. In their most extreme seasons Pudge allowed about half the number of SBA as Piazza. The difference between the most extreme pitchers is much larger. In 2008, for example, in about the same # of innings, Cliff Lee only allowed 3 SBA while Gavin Floyd allowed 42." The data is almost MORE necessary for Ps than it is for Cs. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC) And since when does the Fielding Bible determine our criteria for inclusion? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC) It doesn't but it's far and away not the only place to note the impact of pitchers on the running game. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc, etc. I understand it's annoying and tedious work, but why the resistance to two more columns of numbers? Again, that 2nd Fielding Bible quote really sums it up nicely. The most extremely successful catcher at preventing SBA in his best season compared to one of the most extremely bad in his worst season was only about 2x more successful. The most extremely successful pitcher in one, random season compared to the most extremely bad was 14x more successful (42 vs. 3). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Why the resistance? Because I'm fed up with this project and I'm tired of seeing it sitting in my sandbox. Because it is horribly tedious and I don't think it's at all necessary. Because it's NOT just two more columns of numbers; it's additional references for every single year! Because I see no reason to include even more excess in this table. Because I think it IS indiscriminate. Because we are NOT Baseball-Reference. That's why. And yes, I'm angry about it. I'm taking a break, so don't expect a response from me for a couple of hours. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I apologize, I did not mean to make anyone angry. But the list, as it stands now, tells anyone who reads it that pitchers influence fielding in the following ways: putouts, assists, double plays, errors, wild pitches, and balks. That's simply fundamentally untrue. Greg Maddux, the winningest GGer, is one of the worst pitchers in terms of controlling the running game for example. He has had 547 SB on 717 SB attempts, a very bad 76% success rate. Jim Kaat, #2 on the GG list, had 168/255 (68% success, not great but better). But of particular important is that Kaat allowed fewer attempts, even taking into account the innings difference. Well over a stolen base attempt per 9 innings for Maddux (1.3, roughly) versus less than half that many for Kaat (.51 per 9, roughly). And Maddux played in a higher-power-lower-running era to boot (so you'd expect FEWER steals on him if pitchers had no impact). That's hundreds upon hundreds of stolen bases that are completely unmentioned in this article about pitcher fielding. For what it's worth, I don't think you'd need to add more refs, the stats are simply deeper within the same player pages you already have cited, the existing refs are fine to me. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I see your point, I really do; however, the referencing issue won't suffice. If you absolutely insist, and other editors agree, that this has to be included, I have to re-reference everything. If you examine the references, the tables are not referenced to the player pages, where this info can be found on a subpage. They are referenced to the team season pages, which don't have any information about pickoffs. Additionally, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT wouldn't allow me to put essentially unreferenced info up there anyway. If I have to do it, I have to do it, but it's likely that it's going to take so much time that this FLC will either fail or have to be withdrawn and I'll have to re-nominate it later. This is the first free day I've had in about five weeks and I was lucky to get as much work done today as I did. replyKV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Give it a couple days, see what other voters say. If they agree, however, I'm done w/ work for the summer on Thursday (and really Tuesday/Wednesday I'll be largely free). At that time I can go through and help w/ referencing. Luckily, given the tendency to giving one guy GGs for long stretches, there are far fewer people to ref up. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Discovery. If we also include the team season pages from Retrosheet, they contain SB and CS (which can be used to calculate CS%) and pickoffs. So we can use those instead of the individual person pages at B-Ref, and Retrosheet is where the data is coming from anyway. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC) OK. I'm panting. That was a chore. It's done now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. My edit to make this page more WP:ACCESSIBLE to visually impaired readers by replacing the math-mode image "${\dfrac {CS}{SBA}}$" with the text "CS÷SBA" was reverted by Killervogel5 with the edit summary "this was already discussed in the FLC for the catcher's award, which passed". There must be some confusion here, as I found no mention of how to display the equation at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gold Glove Award winners at catcher/archive1. I assume there's some better explanation for the revert? If not, I suggest that the edit be reinstalled. Eubulides (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe it wasn't this catcher list; it may have been in one of the other featured lists in this topic. Regardless, the topic has been discussed before, and the list has passed. "CS÷SBA" doesn't really help either, because it's much smaller than the other. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I looked through every Gold Glove FLC, and there was no discussion of the equation. Many of those lists were promoted before the alt text issue emerged, anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I actually didn't mean the Gold Gloves, I meant the baseball awards as a whole. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since no other baseball award lists have passed FLC since the alt text requirement was instituted (or at least started being enforced), I think that's a moot point. Accessibility is important, and I would be happy to help amend the other lists as necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that it's important, but I'm getting awfully tired of seeing WP:ACCESS superseding the rest of the MOS. Like MOS:MATH and other things in MOS:NUM regarding formulae. Seems like we're turning into WP:PAPER. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that most likely the older discussion is obsolete now. Unfortunately I don't know exactly where the "baseball awards as a whole" discussion was; do you have a wikilink? I could read the discussion and check.
• As for MOS, I don't quite understand the importance of the style currently used. Currently, the article mentions CS and SBA one using unkerned texfont italics (which looks horrible) and once using kerned texfont roman (which looks OK, but why is it so important to use a font that differs from both the main text and the math-mode fraction?). Perhaps if I understand the style issues better I could suggest a better solution that is also accessible to the visually impaired.

Eubulides (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been quite a few baseball awards lists promoted. There is not one discussion. Honestly, I'm not going to argue with it. I'm so tired of looking at the Gold Glove lists. I don't want to see them anymore. I hate the use of the Unicode division sign, and I think it looks ugly, plus it's too small to read. And I am a sighted person who doesn't find the current usage ugly. But whatever. What about using {{frac}} or {{frac2}}? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reluctance to not re-discuss a topic that's been beaten to death, but from my point of view it's a bit frustrating to be told that the subject has been discussed, without being given any pointer to any part of that discussion. Anyway, if "÷" seems ugly to you, "/" is also fine, so I did that. Or if you'd prefer to use {{frac}} that'd be fine too, as far as WP:ACCESSIBILITY goes. There are many other solutions as well. We could even bring back the math mode picture so long as it has alt text (but we'd have to fix that ugly unkerned layout :-). Eubulides (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem putting alt text on the image; I just had no idea how. I viewed it with the {frac} template, and I like it, so I'll put that in the catcher's list too. Pleasure doing business with you! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Only minor issue I saw is a couple instances of out-of-order references in the lead. That aside, it's another great entry in the series, and I'm sure this and the math formatting will be taken care of. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a note to Giants2008's comment about reference order, I place the references in the order they are in because they verify facts in the order they are listed; this is so the references don't break up the prose any more than is necessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• CS% column needs fixing on first table. When sorted to find largest Kenny Rogers 100% is second bottom not top. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved, and barring any sudden issues on this list, congrats on your second baseball awards FT. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Greg Maddux has won the most Gold Glove Awards among pitchers and among all players in Major League Baseball history." It seems redundant to say "among pitchers" and then "among all players". A pitcher is a player, yes? Yes, but I thought it better to be specific and general here. I can go either way. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) In many cases, omitting redundancy ("many different options", "in order to") can make a sentence stronger. If you really want to retain the emphasis though, here's a less repetitive suggestion: "Greg Maddux has won the most Gold Glove Awards among all players, including pitchers, in Major League Baseball history." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC) "Maddux won five more awards from 2004 to 2008,[6] upon which he retired." Seems kind of clunky. Maybe "Maddux won five more awards from 2004 to 2008,[6] after which he retired." or "Maddux won Gold Gloves in his last five seasons (2004–08)." Much better, thanks. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) "Gold Glove-winning batterymates", in the See also section, redirects Fixed to a direct link. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) The image in the navbox needs alt text; otherwise alt text looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Alt text done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 12:08, 29 August 2009 [9].

---

CMLL World Women's Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  12:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We've had men, little men, duos and trios and now it's time for the Women. I am nominating this list for FLc because I believe it fulfills the criterias including the blue links (which it did not fullfill a week ago).  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  12:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Will

• Support: All seems fine.--WillC 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Resloved comments from Will

"The CMLL World Women's Championship (Campeonato Mundial Feminil de CMLL in Spanish) is the top professional wrestling championship for female wrestlers, promoted by the Mexican professional wrestling promotion Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL)." → "The CMLL World Women's Championship (Campeonato Mundial Feminil de CMLL in Spanish) is the top female professional wrestling championship promoted by the Mexican lucha libre promotion Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL)." Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) "Bull Nakano was the first CMLL World Women's Championship, winning a 12-women battle royal to win the title on June 12, 1992" So she was a "championship"? Wow just like Scott Steiner wanted to be the next World Heavyweight "Championship". Change to "Bull Nakano was the first CMLL World Women's Champion, after she won a 12-women battle royal on June 12, 1992" Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) "she's the 12th overall champion and the 10th person to hold the championship La Amapola is the second longest reigning champion with 638 days, only Reina Jubuki has held the title for a longer period of tile, 828 days." → "she's the 12th overall champion and the 10th person to hold the championship. Amapola holds the record for second longest reign with 638 days, while the longest is held by Reina Jubuki, at 828 days." Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) "Lady Apache has the most reigns of any wrestler, with three; she also has had the shortest title reign, at 90 days." Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I would prefer if the notes were complete sentences to flow better and make more sense.--WillC 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Several typos need fixing, including two full stops at the end of the lead, "Lady Apached" in one of the notes, "La Diabloica" in one of the footnotes, and "unknow" in the other one. Also the lead uses "she's", which is a bit informal and unencyclopedic...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay the typos are highly embarrasing. But what's wrong with "she's" when I've just mentioned her by name in the same sentence?  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  17:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is too conversational, "she is" should be used instead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a dork I thought it was the "she" part. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Support assuming the one remaining typo ("La Diabólcia" in footnote 2) is fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The championship has been in existence since 1992 and is one of two Women's championships currently recognized by CMLL" "has been in existence"-->has existed since. Also, why is "Women's" capitalized? Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) "the other being the " "being"-->is Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) "La Amapola is the current CMLL World Women's Champion" Comma after here. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) "second longest reign"-->second-longest reign Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) "had the shortest title reign, at 90 days.." Double period. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) IMO, "Vacated" should sort after Mariko Yoshida. Sorts as "X" now  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Why does "N/A" come up on top when sorting some columns? it sorts as a "—", no content and shouldn't sort as "N".  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) "The championship was vacated due to inactivity in CMLL's women's division" Needs a period at the end. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Why is the current champion not highlighted in the "Reigns by combined length" table? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Brain fart mainly, fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 5, the en dash code is broken.

• Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 6 has something screwy with the date parameter. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Support – "12-women" → "12-woman"? I'm pretty sure 12-man would be correct for the opposite gender, and this is the type of usage in the notes. That's the only negative that stuck out to me. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right, I fixed it.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 12:08, 29 August 2009 [10].

---

List of Denver Broncos first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Crzycheetah 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Recently I noticed it's been over a year since I nominated a list here, so I decided to contribute a little more. I have been working on this list the past 5-6 days and now I believe it's ready to be nominated. I welcome any comments/criticism/questions! Thank you! --Crzycheetah 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Reviewing a list from the top for a change... Is it precedent to separate first rounders from everything else? Well, there are 8-10 similar FLs already.--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Images need alt text. Those are pdf icons, they're exception.--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Not the images in the body of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I don't understand. There are alt texts for the two images in the body, does it not show for you?--Crzycheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "Teams are ranked in reverse order based on the previous season's record, with the worst record picking first, the second-worst picking second and so on." The noun + -ing grammatical construction is, well, ungrammatical. Suggest "Teams are ranked in reverse order based on the previous season's record; the worst record picks first, the second-worst picking second and so on." Ok, thanks for the example.--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "most-recent" No hyphen. I remember in one of my previous nomination someone suggested hyphen...it's gone.--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Can you center the em dashes in the position and college columns? Use {{center}}. Well, those columns are left aligned and it would be awkward to have one cell centered in those columns.--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Personally, I think left-aligned em dashes look awkward, but to each his own. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "No Pick" No reason to capitalize "Pick". You're right, Done!--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "Year" isn't a very descriptive header. You might say "Draft" instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Isn't "draft" redundant? Just wondering.--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Perhaps, but the problem is that the column looks like a bunch of low-value plain year links. We need to specify that these easter-egg links go somewhere relevant. See List of Washington Wizards head coaches (in the "term" column). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I'll do it later for sure, that's a nice example.--Crzycheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) There's no link to this article from the Broncos navbox. Done!--Crzycheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Note r is missing a word: "overall pick in the 2009 Draft along with a third round pick" Needs a number before "overall". Missing a lot of hyphens for compound adjectives in the notes (e.g. "first round pick"-->first-round pick) Done!--Crzycheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) No link to "Supplemental Draft"? Done!--Crzycheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Footnote g doesn't have a reference. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I hope you're not done commenting because I am waiting for your comments on the notes section.--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I wasn't finished, I hadn't even checked the references! Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I am done with all of it.--Crzycheetah 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I would still prefer to see all em dashes centered, but it's not enough to hold up an excellent list from FL status.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• About.com (ref 5) isn't considered a reliable source.
  • Why? What's the reason?--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No reputation for fact checking; many of the "writers" are not actually experts in their field. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, I'll change, thanks for explaining.--Crzycheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Newspapers should be in italics. You can do this by changing "publisher" to "work" in the citation templates.
  • Newspapers publish, maybe we need to contact the template editors and tell them to italicize the publishers?--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That's just a quirk of the cite templates. That publications are italicized is a major style convention. See WP:ITALICS. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Done! Except the two where newspapers publish AP's work.--Crzycheetah 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Use "p.", not "pp.", for single pages. You can do this by changing "pages" to "page" in the citation templates.
  • Thanks, I was wondering how to do it. Done!--Crzycheetah 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• National Football League and Denver Broncos shouldn't be italicized. Change "work" to publisher for those refs. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the helpful comments and support! Can you please cap your comments about sources, as well?--Crzycheetah 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I like to keep source comments struck, not capped, so that the directors know the sources were checked by someone and so that anyone can add to them if necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 I would also prefer to see the em-dashes centered. If you look at each row, it goes like this, "centered, centered, left-aligned, left-aligned, left-aligned". If all em-dashes are centered, then in those rows all cells will be centered; thus, breaking the trend.--Crzycheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I see that; however, I share DB87's opinion that the centered em-dash looks like a clean blank cell. I think that the left-aligned em-dash looks awkward. I won't push it, though, since most if not all of the other NFL first-round FLs follow the same format. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Any reason why the footnotes are in two columns? For tidiness and easy reading.--Crzycheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) It actually makes it harder for me to read because it looks cramped, but maybe it's just me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Ok, I removed the 2nd column.--Crzycheetah 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC) "The Denver Broncos, a professional American football team based in Denver, Colorado, are part of the National Football League's (NFL) American Football Conference West Division." - I don't like the way this reads, especially with the abbreviation in the middle of the sentence. Suggest two sentences: The Denver Broncos are a professional American football team based in Denver, Colorado. They are members of the American Football Conference West Division in the National Football League (NFL). Done, thanks for the suggestion.--Crzycheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Why is it unclear who they picked first? Are there two possible players? If so, they should be mentioned. Is there any kind of reason that can be further explicated? In all sources about 12 players are listed in alphabetical order, so it's hard to find out who was picked first. I'll try to add a sentence or two explaining this further.--Crzycheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) The pick is found and added.--Crzycheetah 06:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Why did they only participate in AFL drafts to 1965 if they didn't join the NLF until '67? They participated in the 1966 AFL Draft in 1965, then in 1967, they participated in the 1967 NFL Draft. If you could word this better, I would really appreciate!--Crzycheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) With the help of the Giants' comments below, I think this issue is fixed.--Crzycheetah 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC) I'm sure "The Falcons have selected..." in the third para of the lead was just an oversight. Yes, it was. Good catch!--Crzycheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Are there any first-round picks that have gone on to do something particularly notable (Hall of Fame, win Super Bowl, etc.)? Besides having it noted in the table, it would help to expand on that in the lead. I don't know why, but it looks short to me at the moment. I mentioned some stuff in the captions of the images. A fourth paragraph in the lead for this list is a little too much, IMO. I am going to start writing that paragraph anyway, though.--Crzycheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think it needs another paragraph, but some additions to the current paragraphs would be nice. Since this is a list about people, it makes sense to talk about some things they have done in the lead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Ok, I added two sentences at the end of the last paragraph. If it's not satisfying, can you hint what kind of info is needed, that is not too trivial yet short enough not to mess the lead?--Cheetah (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, they help, but I need more.--Crzycheetah 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The Broncos participated in the AFL drafts until 1965 due to them joining the NFL as part of the AFL–NFL merger in 1967." I thought 1966 was the year of the merger, and the unified draft began the next year. "They first participated in the 1967 NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting, more commonly known as the NFL Draft." I think this would be clearer with the year at the end: "They first participated in the NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting, more commonly known as the NFL Draft, in 1967." "Robert Ayers, defensive end from University of Tennessee." "the" before "University". Look a a typo in note h. Reference 26 mentions some team named the "oncos". Giants2008 (17–14) 15:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Done all, thanks!--Crzycheetah 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support – Nice to see a draft picks list at FLC; there haven't been many during my time as a reviewer. Looks like a nice one. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] "They first participated in the..." They should be The Broncos, as it is starting a new paragraph. Done!--Cheetah (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC) "The Broncos participated in the AFL drafts until 1965..." Don't you mean 1966? No, they participated on November 27, 1965.--Cheetah (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Just to avoid confusion, it would be better saying "1966 AFL Draft" then "1965", IMO. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC) "from the University of Nebraska and University of Tennessee" --> "from the University of Nebraska and the University of Tennessee" "The" is not necessary.--Cheetah (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC) In the third paragraph, you should note that all the picks were from the first-round, just to avoid confusion that they were picked from other rounds. The whole list is about first-round picks, why would there be a confusion?--Cheetah (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC) It's just that when you read this sentence: "The Broncos have selected players from the University of Nebraska and University of Tennessee three times each, the most from any university.", just like that, it sounds like you are talking about all the rounds, instead just the first. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC) "Each year is linked to an article about that particular NFL Draft." The table also lists AFL Drafts. Done!--Cheetah (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Is it OK now?--Cheetah (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good to me, though I agree with KV5 that more about the players can be added onto the lead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 12:08, 29 August 2009 [11].

---

2007 NBA Draft

Nominator(s): Martin tamb (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on this list by following the 2008 NBA Draft which already a featured list. I think this list already meets the FL criterias and ready to be nominated. I would be glad to address any concerns about this list. Thanks! — Martin tamb (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to raise an issue with the Notable undrafted players section. In the FLC review for the 2008 NBA Draft article, the section was removed because it is out of scope and the inclusion criteria is not clear. I personally prefer to remove the section, but since the older NBA Draft FLs have it, I decided to leave it to be reviewed. Please comments on this issue in the review. Thanks! — Martin tamb (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

1. "and was broadcast in the United States on ESPN. " should be "broadcasted"

   "broadcast" is correct grammar. It is an irregular verb. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

2. "Florida, the 2007 NCAA Basketball National Champions also tied the record set by the University of Connecticut in 2006 with five players selected in the first two rounds of the draft." A comma after Champions is needed.

Done — Martin tamb (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) No need to link United States, and New York City is a dubious link, too. "NBA" needs to be spelled out on its first appearance. "However, he missed the entire 2007–08 season" "entire" is unnecessary. "the first freshmen ever to be selected" "The 2007 Draft also marked the first time three players" Remove "also". "2007 NCAA Basketball National Champions, also tied the record" "NCAA" needs to be spelled out and remove "also". "Florida joined nine other schools, including Connecticut, who had five players selected in a single draft, " "who"-->that "second only to the University of Las Vegas, Nevada, who had six players selected" "who"-->which "Another record was set when eight freshmen were drafted, all of them were in the first-round."-->Another record was set when eight freshmen were drafted; all of them were taken in the first round. "Out of the 60 players drafted" Remove "out". "collective bargaining agreement" probably needs a link. "while 46 players who had previously declared as early entry candidates have withdrawn from the draft." "have"--had "The first fourteen picks-->The first 14 picks "that had missed the playoffs, with the order determined through a lottery."-->that had missed the playoffs; the order was determined through a lottery. "seventh worst record"-->seventh-worst record "fifth worst"-->fifth-worst "fourth worst"-->fourth-worst "Three teams who had the three worst records and the best chance to obtain the top three picks, the Memphis Grizzlies, the Boston Celtics and the Milwaukee Bucks obtained the fourth, fifth and sixth pick respectively, the lowest possible picks they could be awarded through the lottery." This sentence doesn't make sense. "The last time that the three worst teams were all dropped out from the top three picks was in 1993."-->The most recent draft in which the three worst teams did not receive the top three picks was in 1993. Don't use bold to denote something per WP:MOSBOLD. Don't superscript ordinals. Can you put centered em dashes in the blank cells of the lottery table? I still need to look through the actual draft and trade notes. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I have fixed all the issues you addressed. — Martin tamb (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris! ct 00:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Now it links to the wrong article. Twelfth grade is not the same thing as a senior in college. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Oh, you are right. I wasn't thinking straight.—Chris! ct 01:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris! ct 02:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC) More comments The rest of the article looks good; I spot-checked claims with sources and no inaccuracies turned up. Two things left: A couple trade notes have two sentences start with "Previously" in consecutive sentences. Could you mix it up please? For the international picks, you have the name of the club they played for, and then a year. Where does the year come from? For example, from Marc Gasol, there is "Akasvayu Girona (Spain) 1985". Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I've mixed "previously" with "earlier" and "beforehand". The birth year is there because the early-entry candidates list from NBA.com used that as player's status for international players instead of fr/so/jr/sr. I guess it is used to help readers see whether the draftee is an early entry player or an automatically eligible player. I could remove them if you think it's excessive and unclear. — Martin tamb (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I don't mind the years, but we need to make their purpose more clear. Perhaps add born before the years. Also, we need to cite them with the given source. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Done — Martin tamb (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and external links check out fine. The images need alternate text. Alt text done — Martin tamb (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Lead Al Horford, the son of former NBA player Tito Horford was drafted third by the Atlanta Hawks.[6] -- Comma after Tito's name Fixed — Martin tamb (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Lottery Why not just rename this section Draft Lottery? The Portland Trail Blazers, which had the seventh-worst record in the previous season, won the lottery with just 5.3% chance to win. -- No need for another link to the Blazers The Seattle SuperSonics, which had the fifth-worst record, and the Atlanta Hawks, which had the fourth-worst record, obtained the second and third pick respectively. -- Same here with the link of the SuperSonics Three teams who had the worst records, the Memphis Grizzlies, the Boston Celtics and the Milwaukee Bucks, obtained the fourth, fifth and sixth pick respectively. -- This would be better formatted as Three teams who had the worst records—the Memphis Grizzlies, the Boston Celtics and the Milwaukee Bucks—obtained the fourth, fifth and sixth pick respectively. Fixed — Martin tamb (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Key This doesn't need its own section, you can just place a semicolon next to the word Key under the First round heading. Fixed — Martin tamb (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Notable undrafted players The following players, who were eligible for the draft but went undrafted, have earned a full-year contract with the NBA teams for the 2007–08 NBA season. -- This should be in past tense. Fixed — Martin tamb (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Draft-day trades Be consistent with the names, such as spelling out the entire names of the teams or just listing the location of the franchise (San Antonio Spurs preferred over simply San Antonio or vise versa), and stating it as the Portland Trail Blazers, like it is in the prose. Fixed the note j which uses the full franchise name. Note that I prefer to use just the location for this section (except for L.A.), because adding the full franchise name would make the trades section longer and harder to read. But if you suggest that the full franchise name should be used, I'd be happy to fix them all. — Martin tamb (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Pre-draft trades I don't see the need to link to the franchises in this section nor the draft-day trades section because they are already linked in the table from which they are noted from, and its just overlinking the teams. Fixed — Martin tamb (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 503 02:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 15:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "Apart from those two trades, nine further draft-day trades were also announced." The change makes it less wordy. De-capitalize Champion for Florida. "Five players who played in the 2007 NCAA Basketball National Championship Final were selected in the top 10". First part of this has a glaring redundancy with "players" and "played". Please change one of them to provide more variety. "and two players came from the runner-up, the Ohio State University." Does anyone outside Ohio who wasn't an alumnus really call it "the Ohio State University"? Even if so, "the" is just another unneeded word. Draft Lottery: "won the lottery with just 5.3% chance to win." Missing "a". There are a bunch of "which"s after team names that should be "who"s. That was me, I'm afraid. I always thought that teams were referred to with "that" and "which", not "who" and whom? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC) The "which" doesn't work well when the nickname is used. If it is just given as a city name, it's fine. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) "These picks were the lowest possible picks they could obtained through the lottery." Use of "picks" is redundant, and add "have" before "obtained". I'm not in love with the idea of a "Notable players" section. What is the standard for determining who gets listed there? If it's time in the NBA, why is the section apparently not updated through 2008–09? What makes http://draftday.nbadraft.net/ a reliable source? What makes http://www.prosportstransactions.com/ a reliable source? Giants2008 (17–14) 19:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I've fixed most of them. About "Notable undrafted" section: As I said on the top, I also does not like the idea of "notable" and they are also out of the scope of the draft. Hence, I have removed the section, similar to the 2008 NBA Draft which is also an FL. About those 2 references: I agree that they aren't really reliable sources, but the individual references on the trade sometimes does not explain which draft pick has been traded, while these two pages explain which trade affects this year's draft. They were also supported by the individual trade references that I made after each trade details. The www.nbadraft.net also includes the links to NBA.com pages which has the trade details. However, if these two references aren't really needed, I could removed them. — Martin tamb (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Support – A worthy list now that the comments from everyone have been addressed. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments "they could obtained"→ "they could have obtained" The lottery results are rounded to three decimal points in this page, but the reference doesn't round it to 3 decimals. I think it's WP:OR to show .357 instead of .36. In note "r", it says "Phoenix acquired 2006 and 2007 first-round draft picks", but Phoenix did not acquire a 2007 first-round pick. In note "l", the word "exchange is used twice, I suggest the first "exchange" change to "swap". Same change is needed in the second part of the "w" note. Note "3" in the lottery section says that "Pick would be conveyed to Atlanta Hawks if it was not in the top ten". That pick was conveyed to the Hawks. I believe you wanted to say something else. I clicked on note "a" next to Glen Davis, then read the note and wanted to get back to Glen Davis, but when I clicked on "a", it took me to Jeff Green. I suggest to add the second link for note "a' in the trades section. Take a look at note "b" in the List of Denver Broncos first-round draft picks for an example of what I mean. There are many notes that are used multiple times in the tables with only one link in the trades section. Same with note "b". Also in note "b", it shows "...the draft rights to to 36th pick". I don't know what to do to get rid of the second "to", I am just letting you know. In note "d", "The" is doubled, as well. Weird! "Denver used the 21st and 30th picks to draft Daequan Cook and Petteri Koponen" - Just add the word "respectively" at the end. Current ref#5 should have "The Washington Post" in italics just like in the ref#70 "The New York Times" is. I also doubt nbadraft.net and prosportstransactions.com are reliable --Crzycheetah 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Fix the ref, fix the notes, deleted the 2 unreliable sources, found a source for the lottery probablities. — Martin tamb (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Great job!--Crzycheetah 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] "...and was broadcast in the United States on ESPN." Why not also include the Canadian broadcaster? Well, since the NBA is based in the U.S., and the Draft took place there, this info isn't too outlandish. In any case, to avoid the systemic bias, I replaced with another bit of information. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Well there are the Toronto Raptors. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC) "...the same school, the University of Florida." ", the" --> ", which was the". I changed the comma to a colon instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC) "...Florida, the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Basketball champion..." "champion" --> "champions". "Florida" here is being referred to as a single team rather than many individuals. The grammar is correct as is. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Just read the sentence slowly; which is correct: The Lakers were the 2009 NBA champions or The Lakers were the 2009 NBA champion? Right, but here, we're using Florida, not the "Gators". You wouldn't say Los Angeles were (in US English, which is what this article is using). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I'll use the sentence directly from the article. Florida, the 2007 [NCAA] Basketball champions or Florida, the 2007 [NCAA] Basketball champion? Ehh...I wouldn't not support because of this, but I just want to make sure which one is right. :p -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC) After reading both versions several times, I've concluded that both versions seem to make sense. Since that is so, I won't change it, as there's no real reason to. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC) "Another record was set when eight freshmen were drafted; all of them were taken in the first round." What was the record? In the whole article, "college basketball" should refer to "U.S. college basketball", as there are other colleges around the world that have a basketball program. In the "School/club team" column, one is like this: Mega Ishrana (Serbia) 1985, while all the others are like this: Beijing Olympians (ABA) (born 1985). I'm going to suggest to WP:NBA if we can merge all the rounds into one table, so that the readers can sort the whole draft, instead of sorting just one round. If the readers want to sort by one round, they could just do that by sorting the rounds, then choose whichever column they want to sort. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed them all, hopefully. Good idea about the separate rounds merged into a single table, will support that. — Martin tamb (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC) reference #15 was published before the draft, and does not reference the sentence which it is citing. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC) It was published after the 2007 draft and before the 2008 draft and it mentioned that "A year ago, a record eight freshmen were picked in the first round." I'll try to find another better reference, but as far I remember, I think this is the best I can find when I work on the citation a few weeks ago. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Anyway, I found an inaccuracies in the sentence. Fixed that also. Thanks for noticing and making me re-check the reference. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Laugh out loud. My bad for not checking the reference year. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Read comment in the box. Nice list overall. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the 2007 draft was two years ago, I guess the blame is on me for nominating this list two years late. Thanks for the reviews. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no due date, so ehh...just in case you don't watchlist WT:NBA, I suggested the merging all tables into one suggestion. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [12].

---

List of tallest buildings in Bucharest

Nominator(s): Mario1987 23:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i believe it meets all the criteria to be a FL. Mario1987 23:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Image needs alternative text per WP:ALT.—Chris! _ct 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Mario1987 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Support —Chris! _ct 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• The use of units of length is not consistent. In the lead meter is used as the primary unit and then converted to foot, but in tables foot is the primary unit then converted to meter. I am also interested why you are decided to use feet at all? Feet are not used in Romania. Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think meter should show first as that is the unit in used in Romania. But feet should still be used because it allows everyone to be able to comprehend the height of the buildings. As far as I know, all other tall buildings FLs are like that.—Chris! _ct 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Mario1987 20:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Further comments:

1. That 'Turnul Colţei' was demolished in 1988 should be explicitly mentioned, because without a clarification it looks strange that 'Turnul Colţei', having being 50 m high, is listed as the tallest building before 1988, whereas 'Foişorul de Foc', which is lower at 42 m, is listed as the tallest beginning since 1890.
2. I am interested why you chose 70 m as a cut off in the second table, but not 50 m?
3. What does 5x16fl mean? If 5 buildings with 16 floors, this should be clarified. In addtion × symbol should be used instead of 'x'.

Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. I added the demolished section for the 'Turnul Colţei', I changed the height from 70 m to 50 m in the second table and I resolved the issue with the 5x16fl. Mario1987 20:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Switched to support. Ruslik_Zero 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Height
ft (m) should change in all tables to Height
meter(ft) or be removed because it is mentioned anyway in every row of the table.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed that but did not remove. Mario1987 19:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• The only other problem I can see is the rank. If two buildings have the same height they should have the same rank with an equal "=" sign. For Example "BRD Tower" and "Bucharest Financial Plaza" should have both "4=".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Mario1987 17:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - all concerns addressed/clarified. Thank you for addressing my numerous comments very promptly :) Cheers, Rai•me 02:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Raime

Oppose General Comments All images need alt text, including the ones in the table. Done. Mario1987 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The alt text in the two lead images should be improved - "Tallest buildings in Bucharest" and "Panorama of Victoriei Square" aren't descriptive enough because the average reader doesn't know what Bucharest or Victoriei Square look like. See WP:ALT for more information, and you can look at List of tallest buildings in Singapore for examples of alt text for images of skylines and buildings. Done. Mario1987 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Note A is not needed; readers can look at the proposed table to see a list of all buildings proposed in the city. Removed. Mario1987 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Similarly, Note B seems redundant - all of these buildings are already listed in the under construction section, so why do they also need to be listed in a note? Removed. Mario1987 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think two images in the lead are needed; it is interfering with the table and creating a large amount of whitespace on my browser. Wouldn't having only the first be sufficient? Removed. Mario1987 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Cathedral Plaza is mentioned in the lead but isn't in the under construction table. Done. Mario1987 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Since Floreasca City Center and Esplanada City Center are the largest projects in the city, shouldn't they be mentioned in the lead? Done. Mario1987 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "metres" shouldn't written out after the first conversion - use abbr=on in the convert templates. Done. Mario1987 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) References I don't see anything about 60 high-rises supported by the current ref - it seems to only list 25 buildings. This link from Emporis indicates the city has 46 high-rises. This link shows that there are 59 buildings over 6 floors (what a high-rise means). Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Six floors is not the standard definition of a high-rise; Emporis lists both high-rises and low-rises. An exact high-rise statistic needs a reference which clearly states "there are x number of high-rises", and this link does, only with 46 and not 60. Rai•me 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Mario1987 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Height statistics in the lead for individual buildings should be referenced. Done. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "The project was suspended indefinitely in 2008, after Sector 1 City Hall cancelled the construction authorization, on grounds that the building might jeopardize the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bucharest" needs a reference Done. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The reference for Express Tower is a link to Pantelimon at Soseaua Iancului. Both names are correct. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) If the reference refers to the building as Pantelimon at Soseaua Iancului, then so should the list. The given ref does not state that Express Tower is a name for the building. Done. Mario1987 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The reference for Palace of the Parliament gives a height of 84 m, but the list has 86 m. Fixed. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The reference for Bucharest Financial Plaza gives a height of 83 m, but the list has 87 m. Fixed. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The reference for BRD Tower gives a height of 82 m, but the list has 87 m. Fixed. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The reference for Casa Presei gives a height of 104 m, but the list has 92 m. Fixed. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) What is this ref for Bucharest Tower Center citing? Sorry, I see it know - it was having problems loading on my computer. Cheers, Rai•me 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC) This link for Dorobanţi Tower appears to have connection problems. Fixed. Mario1987 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The reference for Kiseleff Business Plaza gives a height of 300 ft, but the list has 132 m (433 ft). Fixed. Mario1987 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Many references are mislabeled "in Romanian" when they are actually in English (such as this one) Fixed that. Mario1987 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) In the timeline section, the ref for Carlton Bloc does not support its listed heights. In addition, this ref for Turnul Colţei is a dead link. Fixed that and the ref does support, you should read more carefully. It's exactly under the quote of Dan Lungu Mario1987 18:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) My mistake. Cheers, Rai•me 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Prose "The city has been the site of several construction projects. For the most part, the projects consist of new office buildings, condominiums and hotel developments" - these sentences can be combined. Also, IMO, "residential towers" or "condominium towers" is better wording than simply "condominiums". Done. Mario1987 18:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "By 2010, Bucharest is expected to have 18 new skyscrapers over 50 metres (164 ft) in height." This statement is vague - I think it would be better if it was worded "As of August 2009, there are 12 buildings under construction in Bucharest that are planned to rise over 50 metres (164 ft) in height" or something along those lines. Done. Mario1987 18:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "Another project is the 19-story class A office building Cathedral Plaza which at completion will be the eight tallest building in the city" - awkward phrasing, needs to be reworded. Suggest: "Another development in Bucharest is Cathedral Plaza, an under-construction office building. The 19-story building would stand as the eight-tallest in the city upon completion." Done. Mario1987 18:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Tables The Height column doesn't sort correctly. How about now? Mario1987 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC) You should use {{sort}} or span style; since some of the buildings have three digit metre heights and others have only two, the sorting is off. Changing two-digit each entry to something along the lines of {{sort|090|{{convert|90|m|ft|abbr=on}}}} (or {{sort|090|90 (300)}}) would solve this. Done. Mario1987 20:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC) In the "Notes column", fragments should not have periods. Done. Mario1987 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "Tallest hotel in the city since it's completion in 1970." - no apostrophe in "it's" Done. Mario1987 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The notes alternate between complete sentences and fragments - for example, "MBC is the highest building in Romania made entirely out of glass and steel." could be reworded to "Tallest building in Romania made entirely out of glass and steel" Done. Mario1987 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "Having 1,459 rooms it is the largest hotel in the city and in Europe. It is the only hotel in Romania with a heliport" → "Largest hotel in Europe; only hotel in Romania with a heliport" Done. Mario1987 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the Palace is the world's largest civilian administrative building (The Pentagon is the largest overall), most expensive administrative building, and heaviest building." What does "heaviest building" mean? Weight of building material used? Mario1987 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I think you should reword it to "Second-largest building in the world by surface area; third-largest structure in the world by volume", which is what the given reference to Emporis states. Cheers, Rai•me 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Mario1987 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "Built as the Combinatul Poligrafic Casa Scînteii "I.V.Stalin" it was the tallest building in the city between 1956–2007; also known as Casa Scînteii." → "also known as Casa Scînteii" is redundant, since it is already listed as being a part of the former name. Done. Mario1987 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "Tallest under construction and proposed" should be changed to "Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved" since the buildings are sorted into those three categories. Done. Mario1987 17:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC) IMO, the "Tallest under construction and proposed" should be split up into three different tables for under construction, approved, and proposed buildings - see List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas#Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved. Done. Mario1987 18:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC) In the "Tallest under construction and proposed", buildings should be sorted by height, not by name. Done. Mario1987 18:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC) In the timeline, the "Reference" column should only contain references. Notes building about demolition should be linked to in the "Notes" section (see List of tallest buildings in the United States#Timeline of tallest buildings). Done. Mario1987 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Cheers, Rai•me 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC) More comments The lead does not adequately summarize the article; there should be some mention of the historical tallest buildings in Bucharest as a summary of the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section. The format for past building lists has often been describing past tallest buildings and building trends in Paragraph 2 and then describing future developments in Paragraph 3. Oops! Missed this one! Done. Mario1987 21:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Nice work the third paragraph looks good. I think it can be merged with Paragraph 2 since they both describe history of building construction (although Paragraph 3 should be listed first). Also, "as of August 2009" should be added to the beginning of the fourth paragraph, since those buildings are not going to be the largest projects in the city forever. Cheers, Rai•me 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Mario1987 12:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) This ref for the Bucharest Tower Center gives a height of 120 m, not 110. I also don't see "Bucharest Tower Center (former name Tower Center International)" as the title for that ref - the page seems to be titled only "Tower Center International". Done. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The list now reads 120 m, but the three references listed give three different heights: 120 m (Emporis), 110 m (anuala.ro), and 100 m (Avrig 35). Which one is correct? Cheers, Rai•me 21:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Mario1987 12:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Also, references 2 and 10 are the same; use <ref name> Rai•me 22:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Mario1987 12:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Many of the statements of the "Notes column" are not supported by the given refs. The notes for the following refs are not supported by the given references to Emporis: Casa Presei Libere, Palace of the Parliament, Charles de Gaulle Plaza, Millennium Business Center, TVR Tower Done. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Casa Presei still needs a ref for its former name, and TVR Tower needs a reference that it is the headquarters of Romanian television (although the latter can be left out altogether, as it isn't directly related to the building's height). Similarly, the fact that UN Plaza "has no relation to the United Nations" should be left out, IMO - that information is better reserved for the individual building article. Cheers, Rai•me 22:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Mario1987 12:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Cheers, Rai•me 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Additional comments Can a different reference than this one (a primary source) be used for the Rin Grand Hotel? Also, the building needs a reference for its height. Fixed the ref but height as below. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) There still need to be citations for the information to be verifiable. Rai•me 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Can a different reference be used for the CCIR Building? The current one is a primary source. Also, the building needs a reference for its height. Added other ref. Again the height is based upon the building plans. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) There still need to be citations for the information to be verifiable. Rai•me 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) For Anchor Plaza, [13] is a primary source, and its doesn't source the building's height. Fixed. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Unless I'm reading it wrong, this still doesn't provide a source for the height. Rai•me 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Does this reference support a height of 64 m for Premium Plaza? I don't see "64" listed anywhere in the article, but then again I can't read Romanian :) Fixed that. Added a new ref. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I only see the floor count in the article, but not the height. Rai•me 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The references for the following buildings do not source their listed heights: Iuliu Maniu at Virtuţii Bloc, Televiziunea Romana, Bucharest Stock Exchange, Blocul Sarbesc, Bucharest Corporate Center, Pantelimon at B-dul Chisinau, Express Tower, PGV Tower, United Nation Plaza, Howard Johnson Plaza Hotel, and the three mentioned above (CCIR Building, Rin Grand Hotel and Anchor Plaza) Much of the heights are based upon the building plans where the height of floors are listed. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) There still need to be citations for the information to be verifiable. Rai•me 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) In the Tallest under construction section, the refs for Asmita Gardens, Alia Apartments, City Gate Towers, Euro Tower, Floreasca City Center, Sema Parc Hotel, Victoria Complex, Piraeus Bank Tower, Nusco Tower, Open Sky Residence, Esplanada City Center, Niro Hotel Tower, Olympic Tower, Politehnica Office Tower, Cuprom Tower, Carol Tower, and Prime Towers do not support their listed heights. It appears that the references for Romfelt Plaza and Orhideea Business Center also don't support their respective heights, but I am unsure about those two. Many of the references also do not source the listed floor counts or dates of completion. Much of the heights are based upon the building plans where the height of floors are listed. Mario1987 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) There still need to be citations for the information to be verifiable. I suggest you look at SkyscraperPage and Structurae for heights of buildings without references. Cheers, Rai•me 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC) SkyscraperPage Bucharest buildings and Structurae] list with buildings from Bucharest and nothing that could help. Mario1987 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Try these links [14], [15] on SkyscraperPage. Otherwise, buildings which have heights that can't be verified shouldn't be included. Cheers, Rai•me 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Almost all of the references in the Tallest under construction and proposed section are primary sources. If possible, these should be changed to references that are independent of the subject. Done. Mario1987 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Can the ref for Prime Towers be changed? The ref is a primary source that doesn't list the building's height, only its floor count. Also note that there is an English version (The one listed is in Portuguese). Cheers, Rai•me 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "The project was suspended indefinitely in 2008, after Sector 1 City Hall cancelled the construction authorization, on grounds that the building might jeopardize the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bucharest." The statement is a little vague and awkward. What is the building jeopardizing - views? structural integrity? And I don't think the fact that the cathedral is owned by a diocese is relevant here. The building jeopardises the structural integrity of the cathedral. Mario1987 18:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Also, does "Sector 1 City Hall cancelled the construction" mean that the "government of Sector 1 cancelled the construction"? If so, that should be reworded. Also, no commas after 2008 and authorization. Cheers, Rai•me 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "metres" and "ft" don't need to written out for every single entry - i.e., use 110 (361) instead of 110 metres (361 ft) But i use the convert template (Ex: 1 metre (3 ft)) . Mario1987 18:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Spelling out "metres" and "ft" for every table entry looks awkward. I would recommend to just type in the conversions without using {{convert}}; this is the custom for most tallest buildings lists (see List of tallest buildings in Singapore). Cheers, Rai•me 20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Cheers, Rai•me 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC) More comments The lead uses both "story" and "storey". I would assume it should be "storey" since the rest of the article is in British English, but could be wrong. Done. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Don’t link Bucharest in the second paragraph; it is already linked in the first. Done. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Was the Carlton Bloc also the tallest building in Romania? If so, this should be stated. It is a high probability but i don't know for sure. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Similar to the above, are most of these buildings the tallest in Romania as well? If so, that should be stated, particularly in regard to Bucharest Tower Center - for that structure, mention that it is the tallest building in the city and Romania (assuming it is?) Done. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "The 47 m (150 ft) structure was, at the time of its completion, the tallest building in Bucharest; it remained the tallest in Bucharest ’’the city’’ until the 53 m (170 ft) Telephone Place was completed in 1934." Done. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "Bucharest went through a major building boom after the World War II that resulted from the city's rapid industrialisation" Done. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "The project consisted of a 15-story hotel with 1,459 rooms rising 65 m (210 ft)." → Suggest: "The project consisted of a 65-metre (213 ft) hotel containing 15 storeys and 1,459 rooms." Done. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "The building, located at the intersection of Splaiul Unirii with and Soseaua Vitan Barzesti, became the 10th-tallest building in the city upon its completion in July 2008." Done. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "both were topped out in 2007 and completed in September 2007" – I think saying topped out in 2007 is redundant when you already give a completion date in the same year. Done. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "As of August 2009, there are 13 buildings under construction in Bucharest that are planned to rise over 50 m (160 ft) in height." → Suggest moving this sentence to the beginning of the third paragraph. Done. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "As of August 2009 the largest construction projects in the city are the Floreasca City Center, a US$ 300 million 131 metres (430 ft) tower that is currently under construction and is espected to be completed by 2010[6], and the Esplanada City Center, a multifunctional complex with eight skyscrapers with the tallest standing at 210 metres (689 ft)." → Suggest: "The largest construction projects in the city are Floreasca City Center and the Esplanada City Center. Floreasca City Center is an under-construction 131 m (430 ft) tower that is expected to be completed by 2010,[6] and Esplanada City Center is a planned multifunctional complex with eight skyscrapers, the tallest rising 210-metre (689 ft)." Done. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) The fact that Cathedral Plaza is topped out should be mentioned in the lead. Since it has been topped out, the building should also be located in the main tallest building list; an appropriate note would be Under construction; has been topped out Done. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) More notes that can be condensed/reworded: Tallest building in the city between from 1956–2007 Fixed. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) The building is the headquarters of the Bucharest Stock Exchange → Headquarters of the Bucharest Stock Exchange (but does this really need to be stated? Like the TVR Tower, I am not sure if stating that a building is the headquarters of something is appropriate for the Notes column, particularly when it is so evident by the building's name) Fixed. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) It was the tallest building in the city between 1934–1956 → Tallest hotel in the city from 1934–1956 Done. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) At completion it will be the tallest building in the city. → Would stand as the tallest building in the city (Romania?) upon completion Done. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) At completion the 24-storey tower will become the highest residential building in the city and the second highest overall. → Would become the tallest residential building in the city (Romania?) upon completion Done. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Topped off but suspended on grounds that the building might the structural integrity of the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral → Topped out; construction of this building has been suspended Fixed. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) The hotel will be affiliated to the international chain Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide.  Why does this need to be stated? It seems unnecessary. Fixed. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) At completion it will be the highest buildings in the city → Would stand as the tallest building in the city (Romania?) upon completion. You could add this note to Dorobanţi Tower Done. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) One of the tallest buildings in the city at completion → Vague and unnecessary – all of the buildings over 100 m would stand as one of the tallest. Done. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) When completed it will be the largest office building in the city in terms of floor area → Would become the largest office building in the city by floor area upon completion Done. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) In the timeline, why do the years skip from 1888 to 1890? What was the tallest building in the city during those two years? Do not know. Researched but nothing. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) The notes about the demolitions of the two buildings need to be referenced in the “Notes” section. An earthquake on October 14, 1802 destroyed its top part, including its clock and in 1888 it was demolished completely. → The building’s clock tower was destroyed on October 14, 1802 by an earthquake. In 1888, the building was demolished. (Also, is there an article about the earthquake? If so, it should be linked.) Done. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Question regarding the above – if the building’s tower was destroyed, it couldn’t have stayed the same height. What was its new height (without the tower) from 1802 to 1888? This should be noted. The building was destroyed at the October 11, 1940 earthquake. → This building was destroyed by an earthquake on October 11, 1940. (Also, is there an article about the earthquake? If so, it should be linked.) The under construction section should have its own image column since many of the buildings have images - use a centered em-dash (—) for buildings without images. Done. Mario1987 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC) All empty cells in the under construction, proposed, and approved tables need to have centered em-dashes (—). For buildings that do not have verifiable height sources in these three sections, you should just use em-dashes. Done. Mario1987 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Cheers, Rai•me 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I tried to solve all the problems that you pointed and removed the buildings with no height reference and added others which had such a reference. What do you think? How does it look? Mario1987 15:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC) More comments The height column still looks awkward IMO. A format of 120 (390) is better than 120 m (390 ft) and more consistent with other tallest buildings lists (see List of tallest buildings in Singapore). Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) The most recent construction project to be completed in Bucharest → The most recent high-rise construction project to be completed in Bucharest Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) The 19-storey building would stand as the eight-tallest in the city upon completion. → Since its topping out, the 19-storey building has stood as the eight-tallest in the city. Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Rin Grand Hotel is listed as 65 m in the lead but 60 m in the table. Fixed. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Premium Plaza is mentioned in the lead but is no longer in the tallest buildings list. Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) How can "Sector 1 City Hall" cancel construction? A city hall is a building. Does that mean the "government of Sector 1" canceled its construction? If so, that should be reworded. Fixed. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Has been the tallest building in the city since 2007; previously known as Tower Center International → Has been the tallest building in Bucharest and Romania since 2007; previously known as Tower Center International Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) The title of the Emporis ref is listed as "Bucharest Tower Center (former name Tower Center International)", but I only read "Tower Center International" on the page. Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) The table should reflect the title of Tower Center International as listed in the ref, or an alternate ref needs to be given to support the name "Bucharest Tower Center". Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Topped out but suspended on grounds that the building might the structural integrity of the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral → Under construction; has been topped out; construction has been suspended on grounds that the building might endanger the structural integrity of the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Cathedral Plaza is still under construction, so even though it is already listed in the under construction section as a topped out building, it still should be listed in the under construction table. Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) The two notes for the demolished buildings still need references. The commonscat link brings the reader to an empty page. Removed. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) This ref for Anchor Plaza is a dead link - the building still needs a ref for its height. The ref works for me. And for height there is the ref34 and on the eight paragraph it states that the floor height is 297cm. And 12x2.97 m=35.6 m. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Calculating a building's total height based on floor height does not take into account the heights of beams between floors and rooftop structures. I've tried ref 33 on different computers but still can't access it, so I'm concerned the website has accessibility issues. Another ref to support the building's height is needed, or else the height should at least be marked with a note label as an estimate calculated by the building's known floor heights Also, "35.6" is too precise when all other heights are rounded - just write simply "36 (117)". Cheers, Rai•me 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I just got the other ref to work, but I still don't see a source for a height. If you can't find one, then make a new "Note A" with "This height figure is an estimate based on the building's floor heights; official height figures have not been released by Anchor Plaza's developer." Since the height figure is an estimate, it needs to be noted as such. Cheers, Rai•me 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Added note. Mario1987 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure Turnul Colţei should be in the timeline. It doesn't seem to be a building - the article lists it as a "bell tower", which isn't a habitable building. If it was a habitable building, however, the revised height figure after the earthquake needs to be found and listed. The building couldn't have stayed the same height if the earthquake destroyed its entire top part. So what should I do? Remove it from the list? How about Foişorul de Foc? Mario1987 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Was it a fully habitable building? Foişorul de Foc seems to be, so I would say that should stay. I don't know about Turnul Colţei, since I can't find much information on it - it was simply a bell tower without habitable floors, it shouldn't be included. If it is indeed a building, then its reduced height from 1802 onward should be notes. Cheers, Rai•me 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Removed. Mario1987 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Cheers, Rai•me 03:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Buildings in the "Under construction" table should have coordinates listed - see List of tallest buildings in Singapore#Under construction. Cheers, Rai•me 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Mario1987 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: I agree with Nergaal's concerns about primary sources in the main "Tallest buildings" list. Per WP:SOURCE, "articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Most of the buildings are cited to Emporis, SkyscraperPage, or news websites that fit this description, but others are sourced to official sites maintained by building developers or owners. These do not qualify as reliable, third-party sources. While such refs may be acceptable for proposed buildings due to a general lack of sources independent of the subject, this is usually not the case for completed buildings, so these primary sources should be removed and replaced wherever possible. Cheers, Rai•me 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I've struck my oppose, but I'm still concerned about the reliability of the primary sources in the "Tallest buildings" list (per above). I will support once the remaining primary sources are removed or clarified. Cheers, Rai•me 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I doubt that "storey" and "World War II" need to be linked. Fixed. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) "The city has been the site of several construction projects which for the most part consist of new office buildings, residential towers and hotel developments."-->The city has been the site of several construction projects, which mostly consist of new office buildings, residential towers and hotel developments. Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Instead of adding the comma, "which" could just be changed to "that". Cheers, Rai•me 03:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC) You're right; in fact, I think the grammar works slightly better with Raime's version better. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC) "Bucharest went through a major building boom "-->Bucharest underwent a major building boom Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) "65-metre (213 ft) hotel" "metre" should be abbreviated here. Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Sector 1 is overlinked in the lead. Fixed. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) "from 1934–1956"-->from 1934 to 1956 Fixed. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) The ref for Bucharest Tower Center doesn't say that "Bucharest Tower Center" is its name; it still calls it "Tower Center International". Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I've never before mentioned this on the many tallest building lists I've seen, but what does "Year" mean as a table header? I have added "The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed" to all tallest building lists per the comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Mobile/archive1. Cheers, Rai•me 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "Would stand as the tallest building "-->Will stand as the tallest building I don't agree with this - "will" implies certainty, and there is no guarantee that the buildings will be completed as currently planned. -- Rai•me 03:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC) OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC) "Would become the tallest"-->Will become the tallest See above comment -- Rai•me 03:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC) The two footnotes need references. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Mario1987 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, noting that I did not take a look at the foreign-language references. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The general reference needs to be formatted with publisher and accessdate.
  • Done. Mario1987 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Many of the foreign-language sources are not denoted as such.
  • Done. Mario1987 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 38, convert the web title from all caps to title case.
  • Done. Mario1987 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• I could not evaluate the foreign-language sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Conditional support once these the status of the sources is clarified. What makes these reliable: http://www.gff.ro/art_4025_Palatul_Telefoanelor_un_simbol_al_Bucurestiului.html Backed up by another ref. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.trigranit.com/index.php?p=hirek&id=239&page=1 Replaced. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.bucharesthotels.ro/Hotel-Intercontinental.htn Removed. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.autogreen.ro/?p=2071 Needed for the height confirmation for the hotel. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.spiegelfeld.ro/ro/pbt.php Needed because i couldn't find any ref to support the buildings height. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.anchorplaza.ro/facilitati.php Needed for the approximate height confirmation. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.expertcreditconsult.ro/parteneri%20-%20asmita%20gardens.html Replaced. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://masini-si-utilaje.masinisiutilaje.ro/numarul36/ase-macarale-turn-liebherr-la-proiectul-city-gate-din-bucuresti.html Needed because i couldn't find any ref to support the buildings height. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.riverinvest.ro/zona_comerciala/hotel/ Replaced. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.aliusinversiones.com/alia_apartments_site/alia_apartments.htm Replaced. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.bre.ro/offices_existing.html# Couldn't find a better ref than this. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.raduarchitects.com/index.php?cat=1&sec=2&prj=26 (at a quick look, isn't this a personal page?) Needed for the height confirmation. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.arhi-grup.ro/projects/chronological/2008/office-tower/ Couldn't find better ref. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.anuala.ro/proiecte/2009/studii/s34/ Can't find any other ref regarding this building. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.lausterradu.com/index.php?cat=1&sec=2&prj=88&pag=403 (isn't this a personal page also?) Needed because i couldn't find any ref to support the buildings height. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.epsteinglobal.com/Projects/Office_7.html Can't find any other ref regarding this building. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) http://www.estia.pt/index.php?cat2=3&cat=37&item=114 Can't find any other ref regarding this building. Mario1987 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) While the last ones are for unfinished projects and therefore I would not care too much about them, the first 6 or so are about finished projects, and therefore reliable sources ought to be available. These are mostly architect, developer or real estate brokers websites. I don't know why you think these sites aren't reliable. The trigranit, anchor plaza and riverinvest are official sites. I don't know what to say. Mario1987 09:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I did not say that they are not - most of them are probably reliable enough. I just said I am not convinced that they are reliable; for example are any of these "personal" websites of architects that think they have a project, but nobody actually cares about that project? Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) That's why they are called proposed buildings :). Mario1987 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Also: consider merging the three tables in "Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved" Split the tables per above. See the previous section. Mario1987 09:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, in this case the merged table was very long; it is the standard for tallest building lists to split up the "Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved" into three separate sections if there are many buildings - see List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas. Cheers, Rai•me 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC) what happened between 1888 and 1890? There isn't any reference for that period. If you find something please feel free to add it to the list. Mario1987 09:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Then add a note regarding this!

• Support while the reliability of some of the references is still unclear, I spent 30mins or so myself and there are indeed no other references clearly mentioning the exact height. Nevertheless, the number of floors (a good estimate) is provided for most of those cases with more reliable references. Please make sure you have a truly reliable reference at least for the number of floors. Good luck with the other FLC! Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • How come Foişorul de Foc is not in the main table? Nergaal (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • • Should i add it? Mario1987 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I think so, since it meets the height cut-off and is a habitable building. Cheers, Rai•me 02:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Done. Mario1987 12:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait a second, how come Turnul Colţei was deleted from the last table? Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • We (me and reviewers) agreed that this was only a bell tower not a habitable building. Mario1987 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • So? Why not leave it in with a clear note indicating that it was a "structure" and not a habitable building; also put it in a gray background or in italics. Nergaal (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
        • In other tallest building lists, free-standing structures that are not "buildings" are excluded from the timline. For example, the CN Tower is not in the timeline of List of tallest buildings in Toronto, nor is the Space Needle in the timeline of List of tallest buildings in Seattle. If it wasn't a building, it was never the tallest building in the city, so I don't think it should be listed. Perhaps a note in the section heading, however, could be made: something like "The 50 m (164 ft) Turnul Colţei was the tallest free-standing structure in Bucharest from its completion in 1714 until its demolition in 1888; however, since it was not a habitable building, it is not included in this table." Cheers, Rai•me 13:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
          • The CN Tower is actually included in the main table, with a note added to it. I see no reason why doing the same here would not be ok. Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Both towers are included but unranked in the main tallest buildings table for comparative purposes and excluded from the Timeline of tallest buildings. In the main Tallest buildings list, it is clear that they are not buildings and are not ranked as such; IMO, however, including a non-building tower in a "Timeline of tallest buildings" is misleading. Mentioning it in the section header is sufficient. Cheers, Rai•me 15:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
              • While I still think the best option is to leave the building out off the timeline entirely, I do like the appearance in the table. But it is still misleading to name it the tallest building in the city from 1714 until 1888 when it wasn't a building. The "Years as tallest" cell should be left blank with a link to a note describing its date of completion and eventual demolition. There is also another problem that I mentioned before - since the top part of the building was destroyed by an earthquake in 1802, it could not have remained 50 m tall until its 1888 demolition. Cheers, Rai•me 15:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)

Oppose I've done some quick calculations and the feet-metre conversions are incorrect for the first six and therefore I assume there's plenty of others. 120 metres is 394 feet to the nearest whole number, 104 is 341, 90 is 295 etc. I don't know whether it's the feet or metre figures which are accurate but either way when you convert it there are discrepancies. What's also worrying me is there's issues I've found which have already been brought up in this FLC and you said you'd done them: fixing the sorting of height columns (Raime) and buildings with same heights not being considered equals (Diaa abdelmonei). --Jpeeling (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed the height conversion from m to ft, fixed the sorting of height columns but i don't understand what you're saying with the buildings with the same height. Buildings with the same height are already listed as equal in the main table. Mario1987 08:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Sixth and seventh were previously the same height as were 20th and 21st, since the fixes to feet/metres they're not. Fair enough fixing these but I'm left wondering how many other issues you've said you've done when you haven't. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Try not to insult ok. I've worked a very long time on this list and i would appreciate that you stick to article reviewing and leave aside the personal remarks. Feel free to check all the previous issues that i fixed and you'll see that nothing was left out. Mario1987 12:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not trying to insult you, I was simply saying what my view is. When someone says they've done things and it later transpires that they haven't, is it rude to then question that person's word? I think not, you think it is, agree to disagree and move on. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Other issues: Lead says 13 under construction to rise over 50 metres but the under construction table only has 10 with heights, any explanation? Yes and i should update the numbers. The Asmita Gardens has 7 towers over 50m, Monaco Towers has 2, City Gate has 2, Dambovita Center has 3, and Romfelt Plaza 5. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) "The most recent high-rise construction project to be completed in Bucharest was the Rin Grand Hotel." This was in 2008 but there's three 2009 buildings without asterisks, explanation? All the 2009 buildings have asterisks in the table just after the names. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Well Olympia Tower, Monte Carlo Palace and Pipera Business Tower are built in 2009 and don't have asterisks, should they? --Jpeeling (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Replaced the Rin Grand Hitel in the lead with other buildings. Mario1987 07:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC) "The largest construction projects in the city are Floreasca City Center and the Esplanada City Center" what is meant by largest? because Dâmboviţa Center is going to be taller than Floreasca City Center according to the under construction table. Fixed. Added the Dambovita Center project too. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Lead has Cathedral Plaza construction being suspended indefinitely but table has a year of 2010 for completion, I don't quite follow? Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Should Casa Presei Libere, Floreasca City Center and Esplanada City Center not be linked in the lead? Done. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't topped out in the second paragraph of the lead be linked rather than the topping out in the third? Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) "has stood as the eight-tallest in the city" do you mean eighth? and if so why is it tenth in the table? Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Rin Grand Hotel was 10th highest when completed according to lead but it's 16th in the table and only three buildings ahead of it were 'completed' in 2009 and 2010. Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) The note above the first table 'The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed.' needs altering given the year 2010 appears in that column. Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) In the first table the first column doesn't sort correctly between 5 and 10. Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Casa Presei Libere has 14 floors in the first table, 12 in the timeline. Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) I don't know anything about co-ordinates but the numbers for Cathedral Plaza are a different format to the rest, is this correct? Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) How can Dâmboviţa Center at 155 metres have a note of being the tallest when completed in 2015 when slightly further down you have Dorobanţi Tower at 200 metres set to be completed in 2013? Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Bucharest Tower Center has different number of floors in reference. Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Ref 20 needs fixing currently it redirects to that sites main page. Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) From what I'm aware caches aren't considered reliable sources so ref 42 needs replacing. Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) storeys or stories? both are used. Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) The earthquake that destroyed Carlton Bloc is dated wrongly. Fixed. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved issues:

• "Bucharest's history of high-rises began with the 1934 completion of the 14-storey Carlton Bloc" What about the Foişorul de Foc completed in 1890? If that's not considered a high rise then the first sentence needs changing. Also is 1934 correct? it was tallest from 1932 according to timeline.
  • Fixed the year but don't know what to do with the Foisorul de Foc. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Bucharest underwent a major building boom after World War II that resulted from the city's rapid industrialisation" any reference?
  • None. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • As the sentence isn't backed up by the list, I only see one building from the forties/fifties, I would think it's the sort of statement that would need one. --Jpeeling (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes but when i say after WW2 i mean not only the forties or fifties, i mean even into the late eighties. Mario1987 13:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I think this sentence might be incorrect - it seems to have been taken from List of tallest buildings in Singapore, but I see nothing in the Bucharest article that mentions "rapid industrialisation" after World War II. The article does mention that Nicolae Ceauşescu destroyed many of the city's older buildings and constructed Communist-style high-rises in the 1970s and 1980s - this sentence should probably be mentioned and sourced. Cheers, Rai•me 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Replaced that. Mario1987 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Why are you using the publisher field with italics rather than using the work field?

--Jpeeling (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Fixed. Mario1987 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Dâmboviţa Center is 510 feet in lead, 509 in under construction table. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Mario1987 13:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have struck my oppose however with some issues still outstanding I am not happy to support at this stage. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

• In the "Tallest buildings", if you sort the "Rank" column, you will see that the column is not sorted properly.
  • Fixed. Mario1987 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• In the "Timeline of tallest buildings", Why couldn't you include the address instead of the location? Also, how are the locations cited?
  • Most featured lists of this type have a coordinates column and made this list the same. No other tall building list has it's buildings locations cited and this list is the same. Mario1987 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I could be wrong, but I think SRE.K.A.L.24 is referring to the "Location " column that lists street names. Other tallest building lists like List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas give both the Street address and coordinates, and the street addresses are cited by refs to SkyscraperPage. In this list, a definitive address, if available, would be better than "between Magheru and Regala streets", for example. Cheers, Rai•me 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 12:08, 29 August 2009 [16].

---

List of The Legend of Zelda media

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC), User:Guyinblack25, User:Nomader

I've been working on this with the co-nominators for a few months now, and I think it's finally ready for FLC. I have based the list off of similar lists, such as List of Wario video games. Gary King (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support as the list is fundamentally sound, but I really think it should be expanded into a List of Media instead, and maybe the article Comics from The Legend of Zelda series merged into it.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Though I see where you're coming from, and I myself thought about making the list into a media list before this nomination, I have to disagree with you. Not only would the media list require the comics page you linked to, but it would also require The Legend of Zelda (TV series) and two of the books from Nintendo Adventure Books. The list is already quite long, and based on the fact that many other lists of the same sort have recently passed FLC (List of Donkey Kong games, List of Wario video games, List of Space Invaders video games), I don't think it's necessary. If the series were smaller (like Halo or Metroid), I'd agree with you, but I fear Zelda has too many games too make such a list feasible– if consensus is against me though, I have no problem adding the requisite information to the list. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 00:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that all the episodes from the TV series need to be added, just a single box for the article. Not to mention that the comics could be pared down as well - most of the information there is completely unnecessary. I really don't think length is an issue unless it's extremely long...which isn't the case here, as it's shorter than other media lists. Those other series you mention probably aren't as large a franchise as Halo, Metroid and this one.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• You make a very good point, I was under the impression that each of the comics were notable from just a quick glance at the article. I went ahead and searched for sources for each comic book series, and the only one I could find anything truly reliable for was the manga one. I'll keep looking though. For now, I've added the manga series and information on the TV series; I've noted below that the page should be moved to a media page. If there's any other media that I've missed, I'll add it as soon as anyone makes note of it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• There are a number of soundtracks and strategy guides also released. I normally shy away from media lists because they can encompass a number of obscure pieces of media that are basically not notable and very difficult to source. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

• I usually read media lists as for listing only notable media, not fringe sources and strategy guides. You're right about the soundtracks though, they would be necessary. I found a fansite with most of them listed, but obviously that's of no help for this FLC– feel free to remove the media I've added if you'd like to keep it as just a video games list, I'm fine either way. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I generally oppose the idea because in practice such lists are hard to properly research and maintain. But if the sources can be found, then I see no real reason to oppose a media list. See what you can find and I'll do some searching too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

• ←I found a fansite (which is no help to us) that lists all of the soundtracks for Zelda games here, so we know what we need to look for. I've found only one mention on any of the major gaming websites so far of any retailed Zelda soundtrack, which is the Majora's Mask one. It was listed at IGN here. The Twilight Princess soundtrack was mentioned at a blog on Kotaku ([17]); the post was written by the founder of gaygamer.net (per this source), although WP:VG hasn't decided yet whether it's a reliable source or not although it's leaning towards not being one (per this discussion). That's all I've been able to find so far with regards to soundtracks... I'll keep looking though. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Comics from The Legend of Zelda series should be entirely merged IMO, it's mostly unencyclopedic and can easily be listified. The number of boxes should be expanded to include each and every manga book released.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added reliable sources for the mangas, but we're still missing reliable sources for the books– right now, the sources are from a fan-site which is too unreliable. I'll keep looking, but we may need to remove the books soon if I or anyone else doesn't come up with something. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I believe {{Nihongo}} is used incorrectly for the games with "Known in Japan as". The Romaji name should be written first. This can be achieved by adding an extra pipe character after "Nihongo": {{nihongo||ゼルダの伝説 神々のトライフォース|Zeruda no Densetsu Kamigami no Toraifōsu|lit. ''The Legend of Zelda: Triforce of the Gods''}}. This will produce: Zeruda no Densetsu Kamigami no Toraifōsu (ゼルダの伝説 神々のトライフォース, lit. The Legend of Zelda: Triforce of the Gods).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsonal (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay done Gary King (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Few more things: The Nihongo template in the lead is also used incorrectly. The official English title should be outside the parentheses. For style, why do some of the refs have their publishers wikilinked and others (e.g. #2, #8) do not? Arsonal (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed the Nihongo in the lead. I've unlinked all publishers; I believe this is just a matter of personal preference. Gary King (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why is this called "List of The Legend of Zelda games" rather than "List of The Legend of Zelda video games? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. List of Donkey Kong games was just recently promoted with this naming style. Gary King (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference unless there's a separate list for a different type of game. If the list sets out to list every single type of Donkey Kong game, why should it be clarified as a list of video games? Do arcade games count as video games?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked, and for game lists that aren't media titles, there are a number of different usages:

• List of XXX titles: Harvest Moon
• List of XXX games: Donkey Kong
• List of XXX video game titles: WWE SmackDown
• List of XXX video games: One Piece, Space Invaders, Wario

I suppose that would lead us to presume that "List of XXX video games" would be the best choice, but really, I don't think it matters too much. The inclusion criteria is fairly obvious for all of them, although it can't hurt to make it more standardized. But per the above discussion I'm having with Zxcvbnm, it might be best to make this a media list instead of just a video games list. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Per the material I've added above, I think it would be best if we moved the list to List of The Legend of Zelda media. I'm not sure what the policy is about moving pages while they're still FLCs, so if someone else could move it and take care of all the templates and such, it'd be appreciated. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I did a couple spot checks of the sources, but not a complete runthrough.

• "All The Legend of Zelda video games have been developed exclusively for Nintendo video game consoles" "All" is unnecessary.
• Is there a link for "port"?
• For The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, I couldn't find the GameCube release date from the source.
• "The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker" Are you sure the release year (2002) is correct? The source says only "Zelda no Densetsu: Kaze no Takuto " was released that year.
• "13 episode animated series"-->13-episode animated series Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed your comments. Ref 41 is the proper source for the GameCube release of Twilight Princess. It was apparently misplaced. The Wind Waker was released in Japan in 2002 under its original Japanese title "Kaze no Takuto". Wind Waker is simply the English translation. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

I've removed the Nintendo Adventure Books from the list; I couldn't find any verifiable sources. The only source listed for them was gamebooks.org, which from as far as I could tell was a fansite written by one guy. I looked up his name and nothing came up from any reliable publications. I didn't find anything I could use to verify either of the books except Amazon listings and other sites. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 00:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't an official Amazon listing notable?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you– I suppose, but I was under the impression that most of the information from Amazon listings is user-submitted, and many of the goods are user-sold as well. I've never actually used Amazon though, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If Amazon itself is selling the item, I don't think the info is user submitted, and you can tell whether the goods are used or new.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Goodraise (talk · contribs)

In the references:

• "GameSpot" and "GameFAQs" -> CBS Interactive (GameSpot and GameFAQs are the works, not the publisher. Use |work= for them instead.)
• "1UP.com" and "1UP" -> UGO Entertainment (See above bullet.)

Other than that, I can support this nomination. It appears to me that the list meets WP:WIAFL, though I didn't check too closely for criterion 1. Goodraise 22:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise- I've often wondered about including CBS and UGO in citations for GameSpot and 1UP.com. I see the logic to it, but I've wondered if websites count as a "work". Is this the same thing as a journal and publisher in {{cite journal}}? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

I must admit that I'm not absolutely sure about this. I'm simply trusting the documentation of {{cite web}}, which documents the work parameter with the sentence: "If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work." Goodraise 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The only case I've used the work parameter for a website is at Marble_Madness#cite_note-GameTrailers-2. GameTrailers a video game website sometimes "presents" content done by ScrewAttack, another website. Since it doesn't seem to affect your support, is it alright if I leave it the way it currently is? I will, however, bring the issue up at WT:VG and seek a more definite answer so there's consistency across the board. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it's alright. Goodraise 21:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It looks good, but I don't see mention of The Legend of Zelda Nintendo Power comics in the Comics section. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Gamer- If you're talking about the miniseries based on Link to the Past that ran in Nintendo Power, then that is the one done by Shotaro Ishinomori. Unless there was another NP series of Zelda comics (I stopped reading during the N64 and Gamecube years). (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Oh. It should be mentioned. But, I Support it. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't included it up till now because I wasn't sure how it was released in Japan. But I added the mention to the list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Alt text, dabs, and external links check out fine.

Lead

• 'The The Legend of Zelda games with two-dimensional (2D) graphics feature side-scrolling or overhead view gameplay, while the games with three-dimensional (3D) graphics give the player a third-person perspective.' -- "The The" is IMO not correct, I would remove the "the" that's not part of the series' title. It would still read the same way.

• I've changed it to "The games in The Legend of Zelda series with 2D...". ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Spin-offs

• Being a popular series in itself, why don't the last two entries have articles?

• The tingle spin-off games are usually only released in Japan and it can be hard to find sources. I'll do my best to find sources in the next couple days, but with college work I might not be up to any sort of normal standard. If anyone else can create the articles I'd be fine with it, but I'll see what I can do on my end. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 20:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Other media

• The first entry (note 1) - remove the period, not a complete sentence

• Everything else checks out fine.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Truco- Since the series is a Japanese one, it sometimes has Japan exclusive titles, which are difficult to write and source. I'm certain, however, that articles or at least redirects will be created in the future. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

• Support—Looks good to me in terms of the writing, in a quick run through. Tony (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 12:08, 29 August 2009 [18].

---

List of Last Exile episodes

Nominator(s): Arsonal (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article now stands at a much improved quality and greater coverage than when I started editing it several days ago. More specifically, episode summaries and information about DVD releases have been included. I believe it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Arsonal (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Image needs alternative text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• It had one (although I've made it more descriptive now). Is there something wrong with it? Arsonal (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I'm just blind (not really), although the elaborations are helpful. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've given the article another set of editing. It should be 99.9% free of grammatical errors. Arsonal (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The writing is good. I'm doing a bit of polishing, and will post any questions I have here. The lead needs a short overview of the plot. Will do. Do I need to reference each sentence to specific episodes? Arsonal (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC) No, not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) "However, as the final item of the auction, an artifact believed to be a gateway to the legendary Exile, is introduced, Alex opens the bid with a surprising 10 million Claudia." I don't understand this sentence. Claudia is 10 million? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I can put in a note about that. "Claudia" in Last Exile is a mineral that used both as a currency and as an ingredient in engines to generate lift for the airships. You can read a bit about it in the list of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. Arsonal (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC) OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) All done. Thanks for your help. Arsonal (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC) "As the vanship squadron attempts to anchor cables onto Exile, the ship's defense system activates, but it is able to complete their objective after identifying a weak point" What and where is this "weak point"? Specified in revision. Arsonal (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Claus recites all four Mysteria, to which Alvis responds" What is meant by "responds"? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Each Mysterion is a question or phrase that has an answer. These answers are locked inside Alvis's brain, and she only reveals them when prompted. What would be a better way to rewrite it? Arsonal (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Can't think of one off the top of my head, so this is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. I couldn't evaluate the foreign-lanugage sources for reliability.

• What makes http://www.mania.com/adv-films-uk-press-releases-for-february-2005_article_84769.html reliable?
• Likewise http://www.animefringe.com/magazine/2004/01/feature/01.php? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sources in Japanese come from the official Last Exile website. French and Swedish sources come from the official websites of the respective television networks. According to WP Animanga's list of reliable sources: Anime Fringe is a former published magazine that maintains a public archive; Anime no Tomodachi, which publishes FUNime, is a registered German anime/manga NGO; articles from Mania.com written by staffers are reliable material. Arsonal (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Anime Fringe is fine, as are the foreign language sources. I need more for mania.com; are the staffers experts on the subject material? Does mania.com have a good fact-checking method, and/or is it backed up by a major media company? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it's backed by a media company. That's something other members of the Project may know about. This particular news item from Mania.com is a copy-and-paste of ADV Films' press releases without any alteration. As the ADV Films website has just been revamped, I doubt the original release is accessible. Alternatively, I could use Amazon.com's product page if that is a more reliable source. Arsonal (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The anime/manga section of Mania.com is formerly AnimeOnDVD one of the most noted anime/manga sites in the industry. The site was sold to Mania.com and rolled into its overall site, however it is still one of the top sites and they are considered experts in the field. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

*Weak oppose "first thirteen episodes" - 13. Done Arsonal (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) What does Ep # mean? Heading is now more descriptive. Arsonal (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Episode Title -> Episode title. Same for the "Airing"s... Done Arsonal (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) " a respectable amount of attention " sounds like opinion to me. It's not. It explains the reason for the quick turnaround period for licensing into English and is stated in the source for that statement (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) Arsonal (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) "Geneon Entertainment DVD Releases" -> releases. Done Arsonal (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) You have a mix of ISO and human-readable dates in the references (e.g. "January 25, 2009" vs "2009-08-01" for ref 7) - MOS asks for consistency within the references for date formats. Changed to human-readable format. Arsonal (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Who were the writers of the episodes? Were they always the same or did they change like other TV shows?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Was the director also the same for every episode?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

They were the same. Anime series are not like American television shows and almost all have the same writer and director for every episode. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support all issues addressed. iMatthew ^talk at 20:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support now that all the issues were fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

Oppose

• "... to describe the overarching themes of each episode." - Could this be cited?

• They are cited in the individual episodes. Each chess term in the official glossaries provides a description of why it is used as a title. Rewriting the reasons themselves would be redundant to giving a summary of the episode. Arsonal (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• The source for the first episode note is this web page. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't say that "First move" was chosen as title for the first episode to describe the episode's overarching theme. Goodraise 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Statement removed, for now. I have not been able to source this information to any review. G.A.S^talk 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Using "Episode" as header for the column containing the episode numbers is slightly confusing.

• What would you have me use? The Rambling Man has said that "Ep#" is not a clear enough heading. I cannot fix it unless you provide me with the appropriate heading. Arsonal (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Ep#" with a note would be acceptable. So would be "Episode #". Goodraise 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. G.A.S^talk 05:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• "A chess player commits zugzwang when he or she is forced to make a bad move." - "commits" -> "is said to be in"
• "The queen's is the most powerful piece in chess." - "queen's" -> "queen"
• I find the table layout in the DVDs section displeasing. I'd suggest giving the release dates in the last column and (in the North American releases section) moving the footnotes behind the release dates, rather than behind the volume number.

• I have moved the location of the references. The tables themselves have been modeled after those used in the FL List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. Arsonal (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd still preferre the dates at the right end, but this is acceptable. Please note though that it doesn't matter what you modeled this list (or part of it) after. This list is up for review here, nothing else. Goodraise 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not happy about that portal link in the references section.

• Would you have me put it below the article's main image? Arsonal (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd remove it, seeing as the article has no see also section. My issue here is not that the link is missing in its proper location, it's that it is present in an improper location. The references section should contain only references. Goodraise 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Removed, as this is not common on episode lists. G.A.S^talk 05:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Official Last Exile episode list" is a description, rather than the actual title of the source. (multiple occurences)

• This issue remains. {{Cite web}} has a |trans_title= parameter for a reason. Goodraise 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have tried looking at this, but am unsure what you mean, or which references are affected. Please clarify. G.A.S^talk 05:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• For example: "Episode 1 Words" is not the title of this web page. If anything, it is a translation of that page's title. Goodraise 10:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Would you rather the title be "Words 第1話"? (I am a bit unsure if the .gif is part of the title;) ) G.A.S^talk 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I know. It's not always a trivial matter to determine the title of a web page. "Words 第1話" seems reasonable, as far a I, with my close to non-existent knowledge of Japanese, can tell. Goodraise 12:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. G.A.S^talk 04:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• FUNime -> Funime; FUNimation -> Funimation (per MOS:CAPS)
• RightStuf.com -> Right Stuf; Mania.com -> Mania (Use the company name, not the domain name. Amazon.com is the exception.)

Goodraise 21:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Everything else has been fixed. Arsonal (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment only for the moment.

• On the lead, it would seem more natural to establish the series title before the fact that there are 26 episodes. Something like, "Last Exile is an animated television series consisting of 26 episodes". Bland, maybe, but it's concise and establishes the what-it-is and why-we're-here. I'd move Gonzo to the second sentence as that encompasses the creators. I wouldn't bother mentioning the 10th anniversary as that's covered in the main article and nowhere in this list. Likewise, the last paragraph is lifted almost verbatim from the main article doesn't need to be repeated here.

• Noted. The first sentence seems to be consistent with other anime-related episode lists, though. Likewise with the last paragraph. G.A.S^talk 05:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• The second paragraph, I think you mean December 6, not 4.

• Done and verified against source. G.A.S^talk 05:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Episode 2, "ridding himself of feeling ashamed" either needs to be rewritten or removed. Maybe he was "moved by the message"? Incidentally, I haven't seen any of these but, y'know, good faith and all that.
• Episode 4, "had" died. Also perhaps establish who they're hiding it from, i.e. "from her". You don't mention when Al wakes up, maybe it's not worth mentioning that she's unconscious, for concision's sake. "Wrecks" makes me think of knocking over dishes and tearing down wallpaper. If there are weapons involved I'd consider "attacks"
• Episode 11, just confirming, the show uses Mysterion and Mysteria and not Mysterions?

• From what I can recall, yes. G.A.S^talk 05:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Episode 12, should be "...they destroy each other".

• Done. G.A.S^talk 05:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Episode 13, "cannot feel the same way..." I don't like. Consider separating the repair bit and rewriting the one guy's optimism and her pessimism into the same sentence. Why repeat the note when Cladia isn't mentioned by name?

• Note removed. G.A.S^talk 05:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Episode 17, I'd use "in compliance with a ceasefire." Episode 18, "for fear of..."

• Episode 17 changed. (Unsure about Episode 18.) G.A.S^talk 05:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Episode 21, I noticed something similar to "causing Claus to become upset that she disregards..." earlier too. Why not a more direct "while Claus becomes disturbed by her disregard for..."? Possibly as a separate sentence. "Pleasures" sounds dirty... maybe "indulges in"? "And he no longer recognizes..."

• Section updated. G.A.S^talk 05:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, it looks really good. The title notes especially are a nice touch. I'd consider removing a couple of the more obvious wikilinks, duel, ram, tethers, for example. I generally like to maintain a certain percentage of wikilinks too but it can be difficult to find good ones for plot summaries and, fortunately, they're not required at all. If most people are going to know what a word means the blue links only serve as a distraction or to take people away from your article—which I presume you want them to read. That's not a deal breaker though. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Good stuff. I'd still recommend dropping that last paragraph, the 10th anniversary mention and a bunch of the not-so-contextual wikilinks but I'm comfortable supporting the list as is. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support when other reviewers' issues are addressed. Looks quite well written.

• Any reason that "courier" is linked? "Dubbed"? Readers are expected to be able to read English.
• Is there a more specific link-target than Chess? Perhaps a section in that article? Or is there a List of chess terms?
• There may be good reasons not to, but I wonder whether the statement about chess moves at the end of each episode description might go first rather than last (jostling with the boundary, too). In any case, perhaps drop "Note:".
• You might consider removing the quote-marks from the episode titles; no big deal, though. Tony (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The quotation marks are required per MOS:TITLE#Quotation marks. G.A.S^talk 08:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [19].

---

List of Men's World Ice Hockey Championship players for Canada (1977–present)

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm back, with my first FLC in a while (Yay). So, to address an important question: Why 1977?

1. The current list is 122,254 bytes and has over 450 items. To do the entire history, that list would at least be doubled, so a split is needed.
2. If one could divide the entire World Championships into two eras, 1977 would be ideal because 1920-1976 is the amateur/Olympic era and 1977-present is the open era (meaning, professional players are allowed). I suppose some potential other splits are 1962-present (the era when Canada started using a national team), but the former is less POV and applies to the World Championships as a whole.
3. One less important reason is that Hockey Canada only keeps track of stats for what it calls the "modern era" (1977-present).

I largely followed the format of the List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada, although there are some changes such as having columns for total medals because since many have won numerous medals, it makes sorting easier. In the Olympics column, I decided to list every year (rather than using dashes) for ctrl-F purposes. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

"..., including two-time NHL MVP Phil Esposito." Why mention only him? I suggest you mention that he was the team captain. This was copied from the Ice Hockey World Championships page. The reason he is mentioned is because Esposito was one of the biggest stars in the NHL at the time and the only former MVP to participate that year, so I felt it was worth noting. Mentioning him as the team captian for the first team of the modern era would be nice. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "Many of the players on the Canadian team were not prepared for the tournament and were unfamiliar with the international game and the team finished fourth." Two and's in the sentence. Split into the sentences. "..., sending 57 goaltenders and 422 skaters" For people who are not familiar with ice hockey, they will maybe get confused of what a skater is. "Dany Heatley and Shane Doan have both..." --> "Dany Heatley and Shane Doan have each..." Done. "Twenty-five players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame, two into the IIHF Hall of Fame and thirteen into Canada's Sports Hall of Fame." Could mention that Gretzky and Lemeiux has been inducted in all three. When I sorted the names on the "Skaters" section, I saw some that were out of place. It's a big table, any specifics? If you sort the table, you'll see which ones are not sorted properly. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "Heatley, who has scored 38 goals and registered 62 points over two tournaments,..." over two tournaments? The table says six. Human error. Fixed. "Ryan Smyth has played for seven teams and captained five (from 2001 to 2005),[8] more than any other player since 1977,..." clarify that he has the most for both the most teams played in, and the most captained, instead of just the captained part. Done. IMO, "No." isn't really a good abbreviation for that column. I suggest "WCs", or merge it with the "Years" column. Done (former). If you look at the table, you'll see that you accidentally switched the column names "WCs" and "Years". Laugh out loud. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I noticed that Hockey Canada isn't mentioned anywhere in the prose. They are the ones who send out the teams to the IIHF WCs. I fixed the column, added a note for Esposito, and defined what "skaters" are. I tried sorting the skaters table and I didn't see any names out of place. Could you specify some? -- Scorpion0422 21:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC) When you sort the Skaters column by player (click the button once), you have several out of order names before the "As" start. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification, Dabomb. :D. Also, what about the other comments? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I tried that and I don't see anything like that (perhaps it's in the browsers - I use Explorer). I'll also add a note about Lemieux and Gretzky. -- Scorpion0422 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed the sorting myself. You still haven't replied to the two other comments I suggested. It would be nice if you do. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Also, per WP:HOCKEY, they do not allot accents to appear on the players' names. I don't know why, but that's what one user told me. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC) That is just on articles for North American leagues. The World Championships are international, so diacritics are used here. I don't really have a lot of time these days, so I won't have a chance any time soon to create pages for the redlinks, but I'll see what I can do. I have added a mention of Hockey Canada to the lead. -- Scorpion0422 21:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC) "Twenty-five players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame, two into the IIHF Hall of Fame and thirteen into Canada's Sports Hall of Fame. Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux are the only players to be inducted into all three." Gretzky and Lemieux are the only IIHFHOFs, so it would be nicer if you could somehow merge those two sentences. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Done. -- Scorpion0422 00:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC) "Would be nice if you create articles for the red-links, and non-links. Hope this list will be featured by August 31. :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) THanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 20:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I'll support once another reviewer reviews this nomination. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support What Giants2008 said. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) If you're going to link to Canada, might as well make it a bit more specific. Sport in Canada#Ice hockey would do (I was surprised to see that there was no Ice hockey in Canada article) Done. I too am surprised. "For the first 40 years"-->During the first 40 years Done. "The first open World Championship in was held in 1977 in Vienna" Too many "ins". Fixed. "NHL MVP" Neither of these two abbreviations has been spelled out. I added a full spelling for the NHL (I can't believe that I missed that), but I think MVP speaks for itself. "Many of the players on the Canadian team were not prepared for the tournament and were unfamiliar with the international game. " I'm not the expert, but ice hockey worldwide is pretty much like ice hockey in Canada, right? Perhaps "unfamiliar with the international gameplay?" Switched to "unfamiliar with the gameplay at the international level". "are the only players to be inducted"-->are the only players to have been inducted Done. The "Goaltenders" key table is messed up. How so? Since there are seven used cells, the eight cell was broken, and periodically seized up on my screen. To fix it, I just put in a blank cell. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Need a note saying that the year links go to articles about the championship for that year. Alternatively, you could rename the header "Year" to something more descriptive. Why is a note needed? Because otherwise the years look like plain, low-value year links. Per WP:EGG, we should avoid these hidden links and explain their actual locations. See List of New Jersey Nets head coaches (term column) for an example. Otherwise, you could rename the column to something more accurate, such as "Championship(s)". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I like the latter suggestion, done. -- Scorpion0422 16:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Can you improve the colors of the table cells for the gold, silver and bronze columns? Looks more like orange, blue and pink. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Those are the standard secondary colours used for medals, they are easy to see and are not very distracting. I'll take a look and see if I can find anything better, but I think most other options would be too distracting. For example, I put in this color for silver. I think it looks much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I like that colour as well. I think the gold works well enough (it looks yellow on my screen), so I'll see if I can find a replacement for the bronze. -- Scorpion0422 16:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Some players have 0.00 as their GAA while others have 0. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I've added the new silver, could you recomend a bronze colour to use? For goaltenders, 0 is used when that player did not play a single minute. 0.00 is used when they did play, but had no goals scored against them. -- Scorpion0422 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC) What do you think of this for bronze? A bit on the dark side, but it contrasts well. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I agree. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Scorpion0422 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC) One more thing, I think the link to the Canada portal is unnecessary. This is too specific an article for it to be of any use. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Done. -- Scorpion0422 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC) As always, thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion0422 15:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Comma after "professional players at the 1970 World Championships"? Added. "As a result, Canada withdrew from International ice hockey competition." De-capitalize International? Done. "including team captain Phil Esposito, a two-time NHL MVP." Spell out MVP? As I mentioned above, I think the abbreviation speaks for itself, and it would ruin the flow of the sentence. In the goalies table, clicking the sorting button for the Notes takes me to the top of the page. There was a row missing the final column. I have fixed the error. Skaters table: The Shane Doan note is centered, while the others aren't. Fixed. Image needs alt text. Giants2008 (17–14) 18:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Alt text added. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you Giants2008 for the review and thank you DaBomb for adding the alt text. -- Scorpion0422 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Support – Another high-quality Scorpion hockey list. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [20].

---

List of tallest buildings in Mobile

Nominator(s): Rai•me 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC), Altairisfar_talk

Self-nomination, co-nom with Altairisfar_talk. Another tallest building list, modeled after recently promoted lists such as List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas and List of tallest buildings in San Diego. I believe it to meet all the FL criteria in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. Any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks! Cheers, Rai•me 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Some comments I think this list is really good and only needs small changes to be featured.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC) "If completed, the two towers would rank among the tallest in the state." should be specific with a reference or removed completely. Removed "Upon its completion in 1965, the AmSouth Bank Building surpassed the height of the Regions Bank Building and became the tallest building in Alabama." needs a ref since the lead contains references all facts have to have references. Done - added ref "It held this title until 1986, when the 454-foot (138 m) SouthTrust Tower was completed in Birmingham, but remained the tallest building in Mobile until the 2007 completion of the RSA Battle House Tower." also needs a ref. Done - added refs Could u write in the caption of the panorama images which buildings are seen, from right to left or left to right? Done {{Mobile attractions}} could u include this list in the template?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Done, and I created {{Mobile skyscrapers}} to include in the list as well. Rai•me 01:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC) There are four buildings that don't have an article in the list, could u add some notes about them?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The buildings don't really have any notable information other than the statistics already included in the table; if they did, they would probably have their own articles. Cheers, Rai•me 01:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Using {{Object location}} could u do Wikimedia commons a favor and copy the coordinates to each image with available coordinates? Done. Thanks for the review! Cheers, Rai•me 01:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, great work...Just another thing I wanted to propose, how about making an svg image of http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=182 that only shows the outline of those buildings. Would be really nice.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice, but unfortunately I don't have the programs to make such an image. Cheers, Rai•me 17:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• SupportComment The "Rank" column doesn't sort properly.--Crzycheetah 06:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Done - fixed sort Altairisfar_talk 12:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I found no problems in this list. Ruslik_Zero 12:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) No need to link "U.S." Done -- Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "the 62nd-tallest" No hyphen here. Fixed -- Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "The city is the second most skyscraper-laden city in the state, only behind Birmingham." What does it mean to be "skyscraper-laden"? It means that the city has the second most skyscrapers in Alabama, only after Birmingham. The wording was taken from List of tallest buildings in Oklahoma City. Would: "The city has more skyscrapers than any other city in Alabama besides Birmingham." be better? Cheers, Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, I like the proposed change. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Done -- Rai•me 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "The structure, which is often regarded" Fixed -- Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "As of July 2009, there are no high-rises under construction or proposed for construction in Mobile." It's August now. Updated -- Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I know it's never been mentioned before for these lists, but is it worth clarifying what "Year" means in the header? I don't think it is really needed, but I have no problem adding a note - I wrote "The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." in the section header. Cheers, Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) OK, now we need to add this to other tallest-building lists to be consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Done - I added the note to all featured tallest buildings lists. Cheers, Rai•me 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "outside of Houston" Done -- Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) When you have a year range preceded by a preposition, change the dash to a word ("to). For example, "from 1965–2007-->from 1965 to 2007 Done, but I used "until" instead of "to". -- Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "4th-tallest tallest" Is there a better way to phrase this? Yes, it was a typo - removed second instance of "tallest". -- Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Is there no chance that Royal St. Francis Building will ever be an article? I doubt it - the Royal St. Francis Building, like the other unlinked buildings, has very little notable information besides what is already listed in the table. Cheers, Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I know it's not been an issue before, but I'm troubled about Emporis. It seems that there will be a way for companies to edit the website. I'm sure there's an explanation, but... Dabomb87 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, Emporis and its building data have been cited by several reliable publications worldwide, including Reuters, Le Monde, the Boston Globe, and the Seoul Times (You can see the complete listing here). I'm not sure about "Emporis Admin", but it seems to refer more to changing data on company entries than building data pages. Cheers, Rai•me 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, but I would keep an eye on that. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [21].

---

List of Dexter episodes

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk), Music26/11, 97198

And another month of waiting for somebody still not bored with episode lists because the last FLCs were closed early. Nergaal (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No they weren't. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Matthewedwards here, though the second FLC was closed early because there wasn't enough time to fix a reviewer's comments. But does this really matter?--Music26/11 19:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. I was trying to make a point about the last FLC where for 10 days nothing happened, then at day 10 and 16 first detailed comments were made which were fixed quickly; and when another set of comments came at day 20 when I was traveling, the FLC was closed. I bet that nobody will make any significant comments until this gets listed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog/items. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comments--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Lead More info should be added regarding awards received by the tv show and its success How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Good enough for me.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Since the Blu-ray discs weren't released at the same time of the DVDs their release date should be mentioned either in the lead, per season or in the overview. I added half a paragraph and a column on this. Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC) General I also suggest making redirects for "Dexter Season 1" and its equivalents to the according section in the list since the seasons don't have their own lists yet, I hope some day someone creates them. Did that, but I doublt anybody will create season articles until the show becomes bigger. Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC) You should add the viewers share and number in the Overview.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Added viewers average. Nergaal (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Since the overview became pretty wide, could u reformat it to be like the one on List of Lost episodes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC) That looks extremely ugly! If one uses a 1000 or 800px wide browser then the table would simply use two lines for the dated entries, which would still look much better than the lost version. Nergaal (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't Dexter_(TV_series)#DVD.2FBlu-ray_releases be better in this list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Not really. The emphasis here is on the episodes, not on the contents of the DVDs. Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Something else that's needed are viewers share or number for every episode like in Seinfeld Season 2 or others. This fairly interesting to see how the viewers reacted to the show and how it evolved.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) There are only a few episodes of which the viewer numbers are available (usually only the season premiere and season finale and occasionally an episode in between. Most of which are already mentioned in the section's intros). It's not enough for a header in the table as there would be too many dashes or N/A's.--Music26/11 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Is there also any info about why they chose the tweleve episode format? Instead of the usual 24 format?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Because it's a premium cable show, those usually have 12 or 13 episodes instead of 22 or 24.--Music26/11 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The sentence with "20 years" found in the second paragraph in the lead is nearly the same in the first season section last paragraph.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) So? It is not like it is copyvio and it is an important enough fact about the show to be worth mentioning in the intro also. Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I wasn't saying it's a copyvio, it's a repetition and repetitions usually don't look that great. If it's that important of a fact then leave it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The Blu-ray and dvds will be released tomorrow so I suggest updating the list about the blu-ray as soon as possible.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) How is this an overlooked thing? And what is there to update that is not in the list already? Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Date of DVD and Blu-ray release, changing tenses and info about special bonuses (if available) for the 3 DVD set.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Changed. Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC) What's the general reference you used for air date, wirter, director, title and production number?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Added. Nergaal (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC) I suggest saying under the References section General and adding those two reffs. Then have Specific and under it the reflist.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Still things I overlooked. Support I believe the List is featured quality. BTW I started watching the show, it's very good.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Support The list meets all Featured list criteria and all issues have been addressed as much as possible.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, issues from previous FLCs have been resolved. I don't think that we need to go too in-depth on awards and reception, as that's what the main article is for. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think there should be a couple reviews for each season. Here are some for season three, it shouldn't be too hard to find them for the other seasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you be slightly more specific? You want a sentence in each section about the general view of the season? Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How are the additions I made? Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb: is that support still striked? If yes, is there a particular reason for it? Nergaal (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.buddytv.com/articles/dexter/cbs-welcomes-dexter-tonight-16698.aspx?pollid=360&answer=1444#poll360 reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• BuddyTV is considered reliable because it bases its articles on published articles and press releases (which it sometimes also links too). The source for a BuddyTV article is always below the author's name (in this case Showtime and TV Guide). In addition BuddyTV is used in various new FAs ("Through the Looking Glass", "Pilot", "Premiere", "The Beginning of the End") on Wikipedia.--Music26/11 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence about it. Here's an LA Times article that can replace the air date source. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've switched with the LATimes reference. thanks, Nergaal (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK. The other use of buddytv is uncontroversial so I'll let it be. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question for reviewers is this notable for mentioning in the 4th season? Normally would be in the production section of a separate article on the season, but I don't know if it should be in this broader article. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Unless the event affected the episodes themselves, or the production, in a significant way, I don't think it's worth mentioning here. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues from past 2 FLC's have been resolved from me to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [22].

---

List of Chicago Cubs managers

Nominator(s): --Torsodog^Talk 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've done a LOT of work to it and believe it is a great list that meets the FL criteria. I used other similar FLs as templates, most notably List of San Francisco Giants managers. --Torsodog^Talk 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Does the green background for MotY only apply if the manager won the award WITH THE CUBS? I ask because Dusty Baker is a multi-winner (with other teams) but isn't green. Might be worth a tiny fix to the key for that, to "Awarded the Manager of the Year Award during tenure" or something. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, great point. I'll note that in the key right now! --Torsodog^Talk 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "The Cubs have also had 13 general managers." no need for also

• Gone!

• "The franchise's first manager" Wouldn't "club's" be more adequate? Or wasn't it back then a club yet? needs clarification...

• I don't really see a difference between club and franchise honestly. I could use "club" if you think that is a better term than "franchise".

• "In 1984 and 1989, respectively, Jim Frey and Don Zimmer led the team" isn't proper syntax.

• K, I think I cleaned this up correctly

• "The Cubs hold an option for a fourth year." This should be merged with the sentence before it or be extended to say what option exactly.

• I merged the two sentences --Torsodog^Talk 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Add alternative texts to all images using "|alt=" and describing what is seen in the image.

• All the images have alt text already...?

• File:Al Spalding Baseball.jpg needs license checking, why is it not public domain outside of the US? It also needs a summary and information template.
• File:Cap Anson 0555fu.jpg needs rearrangement. The summary at the bottom comes first, the " Benjamin K. Edwards Collection" template should be outside the summary, the modifications section should use {{retoutched}}.
• File:Dusty Baker.jpg needs a summary section with an information template.

• I didn't upload these images, so give me a bit to check them out and clean them up. --Torsodog^Talk 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List

• "Statistics current through 2008 season" isn't needed, one can see that through the list numbers.

• Actually, I think it is needed because Piniella's tenure uses the term "present", however 2009 statistics are not being incorporated. --Torsodog^Talk 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• The General Managers section needs some prose, since it's very short.

• This approach was taken directly from List of San Francisco Giants managers. The prose for the GM is incorporated into the article's overall lead. Do you think this should be moved? --Torsodog^Talk 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 03:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Check the NL Central link, as it isn't really an NL Central link. :-) Don't need a second NL link in the lead. Remove apostrophes in 1930's and 40's. "Durocher's Cubs tied the franchise's 103-game lose record...". Should be "loss record" instead. "set four years earlier by the 'College", however he...". Change comma to a semi-colon or "however" to "but". Grammar issue: "In last 37 seasons since Durocher". Hyphen for "4 year". Out of order references in the Frank Chance column. File:Al Spalding Baseball.jpg needs evidence that it was published before 1923, not merely created. The general managers table is sorting oddly in the Seasons column. The ones with months listed are sorting by month name, not year. People at FAC have said that names shouldn't be given in alt text. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC) K, I've taken care of almost all of these. Nice catch on the West... er Central link! The only one I didn't fix yet is the alt text thing. I should remove all proper names out of them? --TorsodogTalk 00:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Yep. An average reader would not be able to identify the subject just by looking at the image. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support – Excellent list. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Under Anson, the team won 5 more NL pennants" "5"-->five per WP:MOSNUM "After taking over the role from Hall of Fame manager Frank Selee in 1905, Frank Chance" You can probably delete "the role". "won 4 more NL pennants in 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1910, winning its only two World Series titles in 1907 and 1908."-->won four NL pennants, in 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1910, winning its only two World Series titles in 1907 and 1908. "After Chance, from 1913 through 1960, the Cubs employed 19 different managers, nine of which were inducted into the Hall of Fame."-->After Chance, from 1913 through 1960, the Cubs employed nineteen managers, nine of whom were inducted into the Hall of Fame. "the Cubs won 6 more NL pennants"-->the Cubs won six more NL pennants "College of Coaches." Per WP:LQ, the quotation mark should be inside the period. "next 3 seasons"-->next three seasons "the Cubs have had 22 different managers" "Each of these seasons earned their respective manager a Manager of the Year Award.["-->In both of those seasons, the team's manager won a Manager of the Year Award. "4-year"-->four-year "contract runs for three years with the Cubs holding an option for a fourth year."-->contract runs for three years; the Cubs hold an option for a fourth year. The alt text needs a bit of improvement. As I said above, we can't have names of people or teams, because you can't verify that info by looking only at the image. Also, phrases about the provenance of the image are unnecessary, such as "Black and white photograph" (although "baseball card" is game). Need symbols for College of Coaches and Manager of the Year Award colors. Image caption: "Don Zimmer won the 1989 NL Manager of the Year Award" needs a period at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I corrected all of the prose concerns. A lot of number problems! I'll keep an eye out for that from now on. As for the alt text, I think I fixed them all. You might want to take another look though and see how you feel about them. Thanks! --TorsodogTalk 21:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC) The alt text was much better; I tweaked it further and removed over-specific, unverifiable (from the image alone) details, such as the players' age. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/051221gmround.html a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't know. I took the source directly from List of San Francisco Giants managers, a FL that passed FLN only a few months ago. You personally checked out the sources yourself and said they "look good" in that nomination. Is there a reason this doesn't pass now? If so, I can try to find a different source. --Torsodog^Talk 21:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hm, it seems I must have skipped over that source for some reason. Let me look over some things... Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've asked Rlendog to comment here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether the question relates to Baseball America in general, or to this particular webpage, so I'll try to answer with respect to both. Baseball America itself is a respected publisher of a regular magazine (not sure if it is weekly or monthly) that focuses on minor leaguers and college players, and probably the most widely used source for such information. They also publish book such as the annual Baseball America Prospect Handbook and Baseball America Almanac (links to the 2009 editions on amazon here if that is hepful: [23] [24]). The Almanac at least has been published for over 20 years, as I found the 1988 version on amazon [25]. So I would be shocked if there was doubt about the reliability of a Baseball Alamanac publication as an offline source. As for this particular webpage, although I am not familiar with the author, it is not a blog and I relied largely on the fact that it is published by Baseball America, and therefore at least is a valid representation of what it claims to be, namely an interview with several general managers. And it is those general managers describing their jobs that is a source for the statements in the article, which they should certainly be reliable sources on. I believe that the statements are also nearly fully collaborated by the offline Dickson reference, although I can no longer access that edition through Google Books or Amazon's "Search Inside" feature (although I was able to "search inside" an older, shorter edition of the book and found support there for at least part of the referenced statement. Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your prompt and detailed response. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

• I know that lists take a different format, but why is the WP:LEAD five paragraphs. Isn't for the maximum for a conventional LEAD?

• The lead is five paragraphs because it is summarizing over 130 years of the team's managers and general managers. There is a lot of information to cover, and I did my best to summarize it without adding any unneeded detail. --Torsodog^Talk 03:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• What if you moved the first manager into the first paragraph where it sort of belongs with the first GM. Then, you could merge the remaining second and third paragraphs without loss of content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I tried it out and it looks pretty good. Check it out and tell me what you think. --Torsodog^Talk 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the four manager images might look better in a {{multiple image}} template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Any thoughts on the images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Just tried it out. Looks pretty good! --Torsodog^Talk 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links, and alt text all check out fine. Lead Please include the acronym symbols after the spelled out version (e.g. National League (NL)) I think NL was the only one I missed. Added it. "Split between Grimm's two managerial stints in the 1930s and 40s plus a brief appearance as manger in 1960," -- Comma before "plus" Done! Managers/General managers Why is the # column not sortable? I didn't sort it because it would sort the exact same way as the seasons column. If you think it is needed, I can add it, however. Yeah I recommend it because at first glance the reader won't know (like I didn't haha)--Truco 503 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Gotcha. Added it. --TorsodogTalk 03:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Notes Either link all the links (such as for the Manager of the Year Award) or don't link them at all because when the reader clicks on note C, they won't have the link. K, I added links to all of them. --TorsodogTalk 03:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 503 02:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL. Great work; I recommend contacting the reviewers above to revisit the list if you have resolved their comments already.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 When entries have spaces in them (for example, month and year), the en-dashes in ranges should be spaced. I speak specifically of the GMs table in this instance. "During the first year of its implemenation" - During its first year of implementation or, more simply, During its first year "the team rotated 4 different managers into the role" - four "P.K. Wrigley" - space between P. and K. All this good stuff has been corrected now! "Ending with the conclusion of the 2009 season, Piniella's contract runs for three years; the Cubs hold an option for a fourth year." - I don't know if I'm ok with this; there's no telling if Piniella will survive the season, he could be fired. I might consider a re-word, but I don't think it necessarily has to be removed. Hmm what about something like: "Piniella's contract runs for three years and is expected to end with the conclusion of the 2009 season; the Cubs hold an option for a fourth year."? (on a side note, he may get fired or quit since the team is imploding... grrrr) That would be better. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Done. I don't know how comfortable I am with the multiple-image template. It looks fine on my widescreen monitor but I have no idea how cramped the table will look on a 1024x768 resolution. I don't know much about resolutions and such. If you think this could be a big problem, I will gladly change it back. --TorsodogTalk 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Hope these comments are helpful. I've been on a bit of a reviewing hiatus, and it's good to come back strong to a baseball list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC) It is causing some cramping on my 1152x864 at work, so I would recommend changing back to upright thumbnail sizes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Alright, I removed it. Let me know how it looks now. --TorsodogTalk 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [26].

---

Lostprophets discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i believe that it's a good representation of the bands work, the article had some problems before and i feel that they have been addressed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Support All of my concerns have been addressed, and I'm happy to support. Excellent work! Drewcifer (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• yay! thank you so much for your help :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments I see this is the 4th attempt, hopefully this is the one! It looks like the list has indeed been improved with each FLC, but I still see some problems I'd like to see addressed: The multiple-column certifications is something I haven't seen in a while. The common form transitioned to a single-column (a la, for instance, Nine Inch Nails discography), since a column for each ends up being a huge waste of space. Additionally, there should be a link to List of music recording sales certifications. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) The dates are in American form (Month Day Year), but since the band is Welsh they should be in international form (Day Month Year). Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Some general references would be helpful. Again, you could look at the NIN discog for an example. added some. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) There's no need for a line break with the citation for directors; there's plenty of space on the same line. Drewcifer (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) What makes The Rock Hard Times. http://www.trht.net/artist/Lostprophets a reliable source? Allmusic should be wikilinked, at least in the first reference (or if you include them, in a general reference). Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "The band were established in 1997 in the Welsh town of Pontypridd" This fact is repeated twice. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) UK should be spelled out the first time it's mentioned. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) There's some broken references now. Drewcifer (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC) The first column ommits formats, while the second includes them. Use one or the other, not both. Same thing with release dates: the first table includes it, the second ommits it. Removed EP table. Mister sparky (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Why did you loose the table? That's not what I suggested at all. Am I missing something? Drewcifer (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC) i removed the ep table until i could find reliable enough refs, then i'll re-instate it. and haha oops! fixed the broke refs Mister sparky (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Well unfortunately, I don't think it's that easy. If the lostprophets released EPs, they should be included in the discography. So if they're not there, the list is incomplete, and so it would fail the FL criteria. Drewcifer (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC) re-instated the ep table with the info i could find from a ref recommended on this very page. Mister sparky (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Not sure where someone recommended MusicBrainz, but it's definitely not reliable, since it's user-editable. Therefore it can't be used for information-verification, ie, references. You could get away with using as an external link, but not as a reference. Definitely need to find something else. Drewcifer (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) as discussed elsewhere the table has been removed, so not relevant now. Mister sparky (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I also noticed how the MTV music video reference doesn't actually cover all of the music videos, just Rooftops. So obviously this doesn't work where it's placed, since it implies the same source for all of the directors. As it stands only one of the directors is referenced. Drewcifer (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC) More comments I'm not sure about the removing of the EP section. If they released it, then it's part of the discography. Though I understand that desire to take it out as well. If you can find some reliable sources that confirm their existence, I would recommend putting them back in, but I'll let that slide for the purposes of this FLC. reliable sources cannot be found to prove their actual existance, so they were probably just leaked demo's. hence their removal. Mister sparky (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC) MVDbase is not considered reliable, so you'll have to replace that one. wasn't sure about that one myself actually, removed now. Mister sparky (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Ref #8 and #9 need publisher values. added. Mister sparky (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC) No need to wikilink CD and digital download after the first time. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The dates still need to be changed to international format. Maybe you can scam Kiac into fixing them back? =) Drewcifer (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Support from k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you so much! was much more work than i had originally thought but thank you for your help :) Mister sparky (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Kiac

Comments - I apologise if I've repeated anything, just ignore it and reply to previous reveiwer comments if that's the case. Sources/References Wikilink Allmusic Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Rockband forums is not a reliable source. Done. oops forgot about that one! Mister sparky (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I agree with Drew that The Hard Rock Times looks dubious. One video source could be replaced with MTV. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) The RIAA reference (#15) is missing a publisher. it has one as far as i can see. please clarify Mister sparky (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) It has been removed, all good. Add general references to their discography on the official website, Rolling Stone and Allmusic. Then add an External Link to Musicbrainz. This should cover the release dates, etc. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Torrentz reliable as a source? What makes these three releases notable for inclusion? How are they official releases? If they're only available on Torrents sites, were they ever actually publicly released, or just leaked by the band? have removed the ep table until a more reliable ref can be found. Mister sparky (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) They all seem to just be demos, referred to here that way anyway. In this case - and if they were never officially released, then they don't really fit criteria for inclusion. This is a touchy one though, could just be that they were so small as a band at the time, that there's been no coverage of the releases. I see you've used Musicbrainz, I don't believe that is reliable as it is open source (user-submitted), just like Wikipedia. okay i'm confused now! at the top of the page the advice was they have to be included, you say they dont. which is correct? and why recommend an external link to a site that you think is unreliable? doesnt make sense to me lol. Mister sparky (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I know, it's confusing! I'll clarify - Musicbrainz and Discogs are user-submitted, so they are not reliable sources - but they are useful as External Links, because they cover similar information, etc. as discussed elsewhere table has not been removed so not relevant anymore. Mister sparky (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Other The Certifications column shouldn't be split. Fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think the é in debut is necessary. It's more common to spell without. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) You refer to the band as "are", plural - then you refer to them as "its", shouldn't this be "Since their formation"? Done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) More comments Acharts has dubious methodology and fails to name some of its sources - thus it is discouraged. Use Charts.org.nz. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Hot Modern Rock Tracks|US Mod → Alternative Songs|US Alt. RIANZ → Recording Industry Association of New Zealand Done. Mister sparky (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC) rowspan="1" should be removed, does nothing. already removed. Mister sparky (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC) There's some other issues too, I'll be back tomorrow to try nut some of them out myself. All replied by k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC) For some reason everything below the references section is tiny, can't see any coding error though. yea no idea why, cant seem to fix it.. Mister sparky (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 3 BPI website links are dead. See here and here will remove the uk certs until the bpi website is back online then i'll re-instate them. Mister sparky (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC) okay confused again! a few days ago drew said that as the band are welsh the dates should be put into the european format (day, month year), but today kiac changed them back to the american format (month, day year). which is correct guys?! you two keep contradicting each other so its making this very difficult to learn which is the correct way to do things.... Mister sparky (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Complete fail on my part. Got totally confused and did it without even thinking, Drew was right! My bad. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Use this for UK Certifications. :) Note that this only has LT down for Silver, not Gold. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Gold" > the G should be in lower case g. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Modern Rock Tracks > Alternative Songs (redirects there, same chart different name) already changed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) No mention at all of any singles in the lead? The lead's quite thin, you could expand it a bit and not concentrate so much on their formation and style, but on their actual releases - remember, this is a discography. Partially done, but does need more. Mister sparky (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Hmm. The lead is too extensive now (lol). As i said, remember it's a discography - it shouldn't stray away from the releases and details surrounding the actual releases. Information on television appearance, live success and their formation, is really not notable here and should be in the Lostprophets page only. You need to make sure discography is wikilinked in the first sentence (what if someone doesn't know what a discog is?). The second paragraph is trivial here and has nothing to do with the list, this part ("During this period the band built up a strong live following with support slots to popular acts such as Linkin Park and Deftones, as well as several headlining stints of their own.[4] The band subsequently toured with Ozzfest, played at Glastonbury and the Reading and Leeds Festival.[4][5] They also appeared on a number of British TV shows, including Top of the Pops, CD:UK and Never Mind the Buzzcocks. They also performed as part of the 2002 NME Carling Awards tour.") needs to be condensed. I understand that this was a major time for the band, with their success progressing without chart honors, but this is not all that relevant here. Critical response is superfluous here also. You need to concentrate on the releases. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Also we need to make a decision about the ep's. because you are contradicting each other on that as well. are they notable enough to be included or not. also have been looking for days and cannot find a reliable enough source to use so cant be included anyways. gah! what do u guys think? Mister sparky (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) My opinion is that they are not even EPs, they are in fact demos. Perhaps promotionally released to record labels or local fans when they were still small - there is no real claim for notability in each article and they should probably be deleted or merged into other articles. If you can find a reliable source proving this viewpoint wrong, then we can include them, if not then they have to stay out on the basis they are not actual EPs. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) okay as with the certs i'm going to remove the ep's until a reliable enough source can confirm whether they exist or not, and they lack notability. Mister sparky (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC) More comments MTV link only sources one of the videos, the other 10 need sources too. Done now. Mister sparky (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Find a better source for the two citations from Purevolume, it's self-published and not really necessary to be included here. Should be easy to find another one or two for what it's covering. We're going to have to go through the lead thoroughly, it's not going to pass FLC as is. Note: "Featured List criteria 2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." Concentrate on this, what's in the list is what we need to cover - the scope. Touring, producers and formation details aren't relevant here. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Music video directors sources - which seem to contradict others. "A Town Called Hypocrisy" directed by Ryan Smith posted by Visible Noise Records "Rooftops" was co-directed by the band and Ryan Phillips (of Story of the Year) posted by Visible Noise Records. VH1 says it was Ryan Smith also though? "Can't Catch Tomorrow" Ryan Smith posted by Visible Noise Records "Burn Burn" Patrick Kiely VH1 "Last Summer" The Malloys VH1 "Wake Up" - was this only live in concert? "The Fake Sound of Progress" Mike Piscetelli VH1 "Shinobi" Mike Piscetelli VH1 k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC) thank you so much!! still cant find refs for the director of wake up or goodbye tonight, its really frustrating! Happy to help. I'm assuming "Wake Up" was only ever released as a live video - meaning I would personally not require a director, just a note and reference of where it was filmed or something. Link for Goodbye Tonight - not 100% sure about this reference though, as it is his current production company, which he joined after making the video. Nevertheless, it clearly shows he directed the video for "Tonight". k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC) voila! done. and thank you! you have much better searching skills than i have :) Mister sparky (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC) You get used to it! :) You need to replace the onlinemusikvideos link with the already provided VH1 links and this one for Last Train Home. I don't like the look of that website. You missed the ref for the Malloys too. And they should be on one line, no need to put a line break between director and the reference. Visible Noise should have a wikilink. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC) better now? :) Mister sparky (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) We're getting there, we're getting there! I've done some fixes for you. There is still more to do however. 4:AM's reference could be replaced with this, which does not also contain Can't Catch Tomorrow for some reason. Found this on the website of the video's cinematographer, Christopher Pobst. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Was Thefakesoundofprogress originally released digitally? Way back in 2000? haha fair point! changed. Mister sparky (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) No need to say "according to BBC Wales" changed. Mister sparky (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Only the original release's record label should be included. So Thefakesoundofprogress was originally released by only Visible Noise, I understand, so only VN should be listed, etc. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) All three albums were released on both Columbia and VN in the UK? Should only list the first and main label to release it, only one. forgot about the table! fixed now. 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Singles table wikilinks: link GER → Media Control Charts, IRE → Irish Singles Chart, NZ → Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. was told to de-wikilink those a few days ago?? Mister sparky (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I know, but they were wikilinked to the country pages when they were delinked, not the actual charts. :) haha fair enough. changed now. Mister sparky (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) We're so close, so very close! One thing i will note, in the future get into the routine of using the most accurate title of a page in the reference, as opposed to just the most descriptive comment (eg. Use '"Shinobi vs Dragon Ninja" by Lostprophets' as opposed to 'Shinobi video and director'), anyway, nothing major, just something to consider. thanks, does make it better :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I screwed up the Last Train Home link, should be [27], that does not cover the director though. Ray Kay is wrong, he was the director of the Ryan Star song of the same name. Got one, select music videos then Brian Weber: [28] changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Why is the full release date needed in the lead? Does it really matter, especially when it would presumably be released on different dates internationally? changed to just month and year. or better to be just year? Mister sparky (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) In the second paragraph, title should have commas on either side - The band's first album, Thefakesoundofprogress, was released.. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Visible Noise Records > Visible Noise done. Mister sparky (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Remove "commercial" before singles, no real relevancy. Perhaps mention that Shinobi charted in the US. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Extended BPI > British Phonographic Industry in first mention in the lead. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) put the band at the top of the UK Albums Chart for the first time,[5] and was also certified Silver in the UK. > put the band at the top of the UK Albums Chart for the first time,[5] it was also later certified silver in the UK. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Should be it after these. :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC) In the lead, mention the fact they have two top ten singles in the UK? added. Mister sparky (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) UK Top Ten, "top ten" should be in lower case. Also remove Shinobi's mention of the UK Top 40 - not quite reaching the Top 40 has little relevance as compared to the Alt Songs chart and it's a bit long-winded. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) As I mentioned below, Amazon is not a reliable source. Can you explain "Pictures of You" being the release? Wasn't "Boys Don't Cry" by Lostprophets released on just this NME Cure tribute? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) looking at the image in the nme article, pictures of you was the title of the cd. Mister sparky (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• What's with the table code style changes? The alignment is rather poor now. It was fine the way it was, you had a few supports, no need to do major changes so late in a review. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

hi, i was experimenting with an idea with the column widths. but you're right it doesnt rly work, so have changed them back now :) Mister sparky (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dt128 (talk)

Comments/Oppose (for now) from Dt128 (talk · contribs) Sorry if I repeat anything. "EP details" should be "Album details" table will be removed anyways as discussed above. Mister sparky (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC) The formats in which the studio albums and extended plays were released should be listed, per MOS:DISCOG. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Change "Belgia" to Ultratop 50 (Flemish), "France" --> Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique, Germany --> Media Control Charts, Netherland --> MegaCharts and Switzerland to Swiss Music Charts. oops forgot about those. done now. Mister sparky (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Australia" should be wikilinked to ARIA Charts. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) No need to wikilink the "GER", "IRE" or "NZ" columns in the singles table, per WP:OVERLINK. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Why are the certifications in smaller font? no reason really, but is too small isnt it. changed now. Mister sparky (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Instead of titling ref #1 "Allmusic", why not call it "Lostprophets > Biography"? thanks, makes much more sense! Mister sparky (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) The author for ref #4 should be written as "McLaren, James". Changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) The font size of the reflist seems a bit small to me. the same as every other article as far as i can see Mister sparky (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed this. Dt128 SpeakToMe 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Hope this helps, Dt128 SpeakToMe 09:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC) The "Albums" section is not needed, it should just be titled "Studio albums" as there are no other albums released by Lostprophets. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) No need to wikilink "Welsh". Done. Mister sparky (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Are there any sources for the genres listed? the allmusic biography source provided after the genre... Mister sparky (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) The first use of "US" should be "United States". Done. Mister sparky (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Need a reference for "achieving a peak of number four in the UK Albums Chart". Done. Mister sparky (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "put the band at the top of the UK Albums Chart for the first time, and was also certified gold in the UK". References? Done. Mister sparky (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Instead of " Lostprophets Official website" why not just [Official website or something similar? yea looks tidier. Mister sparky (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Thats all for now. Dt128 SpeakToMe 17:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Are you sure that none of their singles have been certified? Are you sure that their albums have not been certified elsewhere? I would suggest doing a sweep of all the major sites, just to be sure. In the "General" section follow "General" with "<div class="references-small">", then the refs, then "</div>" . This should free up the "Specific" section. I've done this for you.Dt128 SpeakToMe 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I think the "Albums" section should be replaced by two separate sections titled "Studio albums" and "Extended plays" to keep consistency with other FL discographies. not relevant now. Mister sparky (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) see below changed now. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The publisher of Allmusic is Macrovision. What I meant here was that Allmusic is published by Macrovision. Both should be listed like this: "Lostprophets > Biography". Allmusic. Macrovision. Retrieved 2008-08-24. Changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) ? More comments from Dt128 (talk · contribs) In ref #1, the biography was written by David Jeffries. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 'More comments from Dt128 (talk · contribs) Important: Have Lostprophets not featured/worked on any release other than their own? Dt128 SpeakToMe 08:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC) really dont think so, but will keep looking! seems strange if they havent... Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Rolling Stone is published by RealNetworks, Inc. Changed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) BBC Wales shouldn't be italicized. isnt now. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Refs #1 and #20 still don't list the publisher as "Allmusic. Macrovision" they do. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The publisher of the official website is most likely to be the record label. makes sense! changed now. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) You need to include catalog numbers next to the labels. other FL discographies don't (eg rihanna, nine inch nails, girls aloud) so why does this one have to? Mister sparky (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC) All three of those were promoted over 6 months ago, and are getting outdated. Its only a small thing to add is generally required per MOS:DISCOG. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) done now. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) "The second track from Start Something, "Last Train Home", reached number one on the Modern Rock Tracks charts." Reference? Try using a different ref than ones used in the tables already. did look but couldnt find a reliable one, only forums. so used billboard. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) The image in the infobox needs alternative text per WP:ALT. still dont understand what that means, have looked at other FL discogs to see what theirs was and couldnt find any alternative text? please clarify. i'm probably just having a blonde evening! Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) It's alright, alt text is a new requirement. Look at the infobox in Massive Attack discography, at the parameter that says "alt=". Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC) thank you! i understand now. added. Mister sparky (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC) NME is published by IPC Media. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Dt128 SpeakToMe 08:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dt128 (talk · contribs) In the singles table, the "GER" and "NZ" columns shouldn't be linked per WP:OVERLINK. i de-linked them the other day as requested. but then 2 others said no change them back. make your minds up guys! Mister sparky (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC) have been de-linked now. Mister sparky (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Change the widths of the "Other appearances" table to fit the other ones, e.g. Song -> 210px. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Dt128 SpeakToMe 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, looks great, well done! Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 21:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you! appreciate it :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your help! :) Mister sparky (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "in 1997, [1]" No space between comma and space. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "The album was a success and was certified gold in the United Kingdom." If it was certified gold, I'm sure it was a success. Also, unlink "United Kingdom". changed. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "The album produced two commercial singles;Shinobi vs. Dragon Ninja and the title track The Fake Sound of Progress." Singles are enclosed in quotation marks. Also, space after the semicolon. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "The first single released from their sophomore album Start Something was "Burn Burn" in November 2003" Comma after here. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "achieving a peak of number four in the UK Albums Chart[5]."-->peaking at number four on the UK Albums Chart.[5] (note that the ref comes after the punctuation) yea i always thought the ref came before, oops! changed now. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "The album has sold over 2.5 million copies worldwide according to BBC Wales"-->According to BBC Wales, the album has sold over 2.5 million copies. different now. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "The band's third album, Liberation Transmission was released on 26 June 2007 and put the band at the top of the UK Albums Chart for the first time[5], and was also certified Silver in the UK."-->The band's third album, Liberation Transmission, was released on 26 June 2007; it put the band atop the UK Albums Chart for the first time,[5] and was certified silver in the UK. (note again that the ref comes after the punctuation!) changed. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "Singles from the album were Rooftops (A Liberation Broadcast), A Town Called Hypocrisy, Can't Catch Tomorrow and 4:AM Forever." Once again, songs are enclosed in quotation marks. Done. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "The band's fourth studio album The Betrayed was originally due for release in 2007 but was delayed many times." "was"--has been, as the album is still not released. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) "The title and several tracks were revealed in the August 5 issue of Kerrang! magazine, and the release was confirmed to be January 2010." "August 5"-->5 August (since you used British date format earlier), italicize "Kerrang!" because it's a magazine. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Image needs alternative text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC) added caption, which is what i think you mean Mister sparky (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC) proper alt text added. Mister sparky (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 3, BBC Wales should not be in italics.

• changed. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• It would be great if you could find replacements for ChartStats, but I won't push the issue if you can't.

• chartstats is used as the uk ref for all FL discographies that i've seen, its the only uk chart archive that covers positions 1-100 and is also listed at WP:GOODCHARTS as perfectly acceptable. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Refs 8 and 9 need publishers, and should be formatted like the others.

• added now. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.mvdbase.com/artist.php?last=Lostprophets&first= reliable?

• been replaced now anyways. Mister sparky (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=268875 reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

the source was recommended to me on this very page by kiac, so a reviewer would not recommend an unreliable source. Mister sparky (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not very convincing, with all due respect to kiac and you. To me, it looks little more than a blog post by Anton Djamoos. Is he an expert? How do we know that the site gets their information from reliable sources? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

i do see what you mean, but in my search for a better source i found that the exactly the same info is listed at amazon.com, cd universe.com and punktheclock.com the makers of the cd and rolling stone. but will replace with rolling stone if you'd prefer? Mister sparky (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone would be great. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

added. Mister sparky (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but do we need the absolutepunk source anymore? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

haha very true. removed. Mister sparky (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Dt128 (talk · contribs)

• Found at least 5 contributions to other records here, are you sure there are no others? [29]Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 08:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Of those, only "Figure of Eight (Turbulent Soundscape mix)" from [30] should be added per MOS:DISCOG.

Check out this, The Jam cover here and "Lucky You" is on the Spider-Man 2 soundtrack.k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• thanks for finding these guys! have added them to the article. suggestions for improvements? Mister sparky (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Amazon is not a reliable source because it is a retail outlet.k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [31].

---

Michael Jackson videography

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets the FL criteria, having had a helpful peer review from User:Finetooth. Pyrrhus16 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Much improved. "The popularity of his music videos that aired on MTV, such as "Beat It", "Billie Jean" and Thriller" Why are two video names in quotes, while another is in italics? Also, can you pipe link to the sections in the articles about their music video? The format was copied from the main Michael Jackson article. As the wikilinks for "Billie Jean" and "Beat It" are to the song articles, they are in quotes. Thriller is italicised because it links to the article on the film as opposed to the song. Should I change this? Pyrrhus16 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) "produce (in dollars per minute) on its release"-->produce (in dollars per minute) at the time of its release (I assume that's what you mean) "four separate characters" "Several of the actor's feature films have been released onto home video. All of them have been certified by bodies such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)."-->Several of the actor's feature films have been released onto home video, all of which have been certified by [be more elaborate than "bodies"] bodies such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA). "Jackson's short films became as influential as his music." A pretty big claim, no cite? "His Off the Wall era videos"-->His Off the Wall–era videos "The videos from Thriller are considered the most important of Jackson's career, aiding the album's record breaking sales." Hyphen between "record" and "breaking". This is also a big claim; can you cite it? "they initially refused; they felt black music wasn't "rock" enough"-->they initially refused, feeling that black music wasn't "rock" enough Inline cite right after the quote please. I doubt that animation needs to be linked. "Videos released in this period also continued " "Foden commented" Comma after here. "while Thriller later collected a world record"-->and Thriller later collected a world recor All of the above done. Pyrrhus16 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) In the image captions, it's not clear what the dashes mean. Were the people directors of the videos? Yes, they were. Should I remove the videos from the captions? Pyrrhus16 17:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Not necessary; you just need to reword the caption. For example, "Steve Barron – "Billie Jean"" could be "Steve Barron, director of "Billie Jean"" Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Reworded them all. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC) "Jackson was dedicated to the role, and watched videotapes of gazelles, cheetahs and panthers in order to learn graceful movements for his part." Remove "in order". None of the animals' names need linking. "Jones would later produce three hit albums for Jackson"-->Jones later produced three hit albums for Jackson Michael Jackson's performance as the Scarecrow was received positively, with critics noting that he possessed "genuine acting talent" and "provided the only genuinely memorable moments."-->Michael Jackson's performance as the Scarecrow was received positively; critics noted that he possessed "genuine acting talent" and that he "provided the only genuinely memorable moments". (note that the period is outside the quotation mark) "my greatest experience so far...I'll never forget that." Per MOS, we put spaces on either side of the ellipses. "portrayed by Anjelica Huston." Add "who was" before this. "(in dollars per-minute) upon its release."-->(in dollars per minute) at the time of its release. "In another Jackson-created film" For some reason, "produced" or "directed" sounds better than "created". Maybe that's just the terminology, though. "Having turned down an offer to star in Men in Black, Jackson played Agent M in its sequel, Men in Black II."-->Although he turned down an offer to star in Men in Black, Jackson played Agent M in its sequel, Men in Black II. "In 2004, Jackson made a cameo appearance in Miss Cast Away. He played Agent MJ, a parody of his role in Men in Black II."-->In 2004, Jackson made a cameo appearance in Miss Cast Away; he played Agent MJ, a parody of his role in Men in Black II. "Jackson wrote the song "Happy Birthday Lisa" for the episode, which was later included in the album Songs in the Key of Springfield."-->The song "Happy Birthday Lisa" was written by Jackson for the episode, and was later included in the album Songs in the Key of Springfield. "One of Michael Jackson's conditions" Why do you use his first name all of a sudden? "While he recorded the voice work for the character, all of his singing was performed by Kipp Lennon, because Jackson "-->Although he recorded the voice work for the character, his singing was performed by Kipp Lennon, because Jackson "Jackson has released several DVDs, some having originally been released on VHS"-->Jackson has released several DVDs, of which some were originally released on VHS "Outside of the U.S" Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC) All of the above done. Pyrrhus16 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) "Live in Japan" is a dab link. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Pyrrhus16 11:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Comment I think that the music video and filmography tables should be made sortable. The filmography will be straightforward, but the music video table will need some work. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I've done the filmography table, which was straightforward like you said. I've no idea how to sort the music video table; I've been using the 'show preview' button, and nothing seems to work. Do you know of any similar sortable tables that I can base the formatting off? Pyrrhus16 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) As I said, the music video table will take work. You need to make individual year rows for each video. Also, you need to use {{sortname}} when sorting people's names. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Ah, individual year rows. I'll get to work on that now. I'll add the {{sortname}} template as well. Pyrrhus16 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Also, for the Moonwalker video, it certified 4× platinum in Canada (source, but you only have it as gold. Why is that? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC) I must have accidentally been looking at the certification for something else. I'll go fix it. Pyrrhus16 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Also, what makes Artistdirect a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC) They have been described as "the premier Internet resource for music and entertainment news" by Bloomberg.com, and work in partnership with EMI Music Publishing, a big name publisher. The company has been cited as a source by publications/companies such as The Kansas City Star, MTV, and BusinessWeek. Pyrrhus16 16:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC) You need to use sortname for the music video directors, too. Also, because the table is sortable, you have to link the directors' names on every occurence. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Will do that now. Pyrrhus16 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Does the {{sortname}} template need removed from the redlinks, or is it fine like that? Pyrrhus16 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC) I added nolink=1 to suppress the red links. However, if any of those people are notable enough, I suggest that you remove the link so that someone will create those articles. Thanks for that. Pyrrhus16 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC) For the Chicago Tribune links, you need to make a note that payment is required to access the full article. Use this code in the templates: format=Payment required to access full article Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Pyrrhus16 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC) For the Dangerous video's Argentine charting, I couldn't find anything about its certification in the source. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) About its certification? The platinum coloured circle in the "Galardones" column signifies its certification. Pyrrhus16 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Oops, missed that! Dabomb87 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Unless I missed something, Video Greatest Hits – HIStory was 2× multi-platinum, see source Dabomb87 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Pyrrhus16 09:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Searched again, and it does say 5× platinum for Video Greatest Hits – HIStory. Pyrrhus16 16:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Right, I see it now. The "Book 1" thing confused me. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Video Greatest Hits – HIStory again: 2× Platinum in Austria, not Gold (source) Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC) That must be the album again; it says Gold for me. Pyrrhus16 14:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC) It would help if you told the readers what exactly to type in for each source so that we don't find apparent discrepancies. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Pyrrhus16 13:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 64, there's a double period after the author's name.
• Spell out all abbreviations in the publishers. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Thank you for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco General Dabs, external links, and alt text all check out fine. Lead In the early 1980s, Jackson became a dominant figure in popular culture and the first African-American entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on Music Television (MTV). -- 1)Is the dash really needed in African American? I don't think so. 2)I don't quite understand that to amass a strong crossover following on Music Television (MTV) [mainly the following on MTV part] 1) Removed the dash. 2) I've reworded to have a strong crossover fanbase on Music Television (MTV). Hopefully that makes it more clear. Pyrrhus16 13:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Music videos When Walter Yetnikoff, the president of Jackson's record label, CBS, approached MTV chiefs to play the "Billie Jean" video in the early 1980s, they initially refused, feeling that black music wasn't "rock" enough. -- The CBS part stands out, what do you mean by it? I've removed the comma preceeding CBS and placed the company in brackets, to make it clear that CBS were his record label. Pyrrhus16 13:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Much clearer now, however, the CBS link goes to the Columbia Broadcasting System. I don't believe that's the record label, or is it?--Truco 503 16:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for spotting that. I've changed it to CBS Records and pipe linked it to Columbia Records (what the company is now known as). They are a different label to the other CBS Records, founded in 2006. Pyrrhus16 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Since you link the other ones, link to Billie Jean Done. Pyrrhus16 13:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC) directed by Spike Lee.[13] Rupert Wainwright directed the "HIStory Teaser", a promotional trailer for Jackson's HIStory album. The teaser, filmed in Hungary, showed Jackson marching with soldiers dressed in red. -- Unlink Hungary, per WP:OVERLINK Done. Pyrrhus16 13:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC) In 1996, the $7 million "Scream" won a Grammy for Best Music Video, Short Form, and shortly afterward Guinness World Records listed it as the most expensive music video ever made. -- Link to United States dollar Done. Pyrrhus16 13:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Everything else checks out fine, excellent work.--Truco 503 01:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you. :) Pyrrhus16 13:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL, and I'm pretty sure TRM's comments will be addressed below.--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • ""Beat It", "Billie Jean" and Thriller" - why are the first two non-italics and in quotes and the last in italics without quotes?

• The format was copied from the main Michael Jackson article. As the wikilinks for "Billie Jean" and "Beat It" were to the song articles, they are in quotes. Thriller was italicised because it links to the article on the film as opposed to the song. I've changed it to quotation marks for consistency. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "credited for transforming the music video into an art form and a promotional tool" by whom? Where's the reference for this please?

• Now cited. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Same comment for the next couple of claims - "new channel to fame", "made an enduring staple", "drew controversy"..

• Now cited, apart from the last one. I changed it to the weaker word criticism. The criticism is referenced throughout the music video section. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "awarded Guinness World Records." why?

• Done. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "of the entertainer's other " - "of Jackson's other" is fine.

• Done. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "of the actor's feature" ditto.

• Done. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • suggestive lyrics. [5] - remove space before cite.

• Done. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • black artists. [6][7] - ditto.

• Done. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Why have a section 1.1 when there's no 1.2?

• Removed heading. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "was considered too violent, and was later replaced with a music video set in Brazil" a little odd for me. It implies that a video set in Brazil wouldn't be too violent.

• Added different before music video. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "recognised" this is BritEng spelling, while the rest of the article appears to be USEng.

• Done. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "the most successful music video" can you quantify what you mean by "successful" here?

• I don't really know what the Guinness World Records definition of "success" is. I wouldn't really like to speculate on it. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, so provide a directly referenced quotation please, as this will clearly remain ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• The phrase is now inside quotation marks. Pyrrhus16 12:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• • " the innovative music video " - who said it was innovative? Is that just your opinion?

• Removed innovative. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Certainly not sure I see the point of a single entry table for the Television appearances section.

• Removed. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • "Jackson has released..." implies he is still alive?

• Removed has. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • DVDs section - the table is quite messy for me. Do you really need to repeat the IFPI, ARIA etc when each one could be covered by a suitable column heading?

• Removed abbreviations from the table as they are not really needed. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Ref 10 - 2 not 02...

• Done. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Shouldn't the ten-digit ISBN fields be consistent with hyphenation?

• They are now all consistent. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Happy to say this list is looking very good. All of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to support. Drewcifer (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Weak Oppose Certainly a decent list, but I have a few problems with it so far: The DVD table is a mess. Specifically, the way it is formatted is way too wide, so it gets squeezed uncomfortably. And the reason this happens is because each county is given its own column, much like chart positions in discographies. Instead, I would suggest taking a cue from the same discographies, and modeling the certifications after the way it's done in discographies (see Nine Inch Nails discography for an example of what I mean.) You'd save some horizontal space since you can ignore countries where the DVD hasn't charted, and instead list things vertically. I would also recommend following a similar column header format as discographies, which would eliminate the need for sales figures (which are wrong anyways, since certifications are based on units shipped, not sold, but that point is moot if you remove them). Thanks. I've changed the format of the table. Pyrrhus16 14:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Secondly, some of the refs provided are problematic. Try clicking on any of the CRIA ones to see what I mean. Also, many of them are in foreign languages, so use the "language" parameter to the cite web templates. Added the language parameter to all foreign sources. Pyrrhus16 14:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) AllMusic Guide is now Allmusic, published by Macrovision. Changed to "Allmusic". Pyrrhus16 14:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Now for some more meta-questions: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. :) Pyrrhus16 14:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Some of the references still lead to a search page (like the CRIA ref). Provide a description of how to find the information you're referencing, such as "User must search for "Michael Jackson" or some other instructions they need to know. Added description to refs. Pyrrhus16 13:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The long list of certifying bodies in the prose of the DVD section is completely unnecessary, especially if they're wikilinked in the table like I suggested above. Removed. Pyrrhus16 14:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Looks like they've been put back. Drewcifer (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Removed again. Pyrrhus16 14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Use the multiplication sign (×) not an x for multi-platinum certifications. Done. Pyrrhus16 13:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Why the link to the Dome Project? It's just a redirect to Jackson's last tour, not sure how that applies. Drewcifer (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Removed. It had previously been an article on an unreleased Jackson music video. Pyrrhus16 13:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Why all the prose? This is a list, therefore, any prose should be in relation to the list as a whole. Or in other words, prose should only be provided if an explanation is necessary to fit a particular list item into the context of the other items. So, then, why so many unnecessary details? Why do we care that Michael watched videos of gazelles to prepare for the role of the Scarecrow? This is information clearly more suited to the article for The Wiz. And I would argue that at least half of the prose here fits under the same category. I've trimmed some of the prose. Would you like more taken off? Pyrrhus16 14:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Drewcifer (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure exactly what you've taken out, but I'd still suggest taking a ton out. Most of the Stark Raving Dad section could be trimmed down considerably, as most of that is better suited in the episode's article. Also, for instance, the sentence "Jackson's first film role was as the Scarecrow in the The Wiz". The table already tells us that, so why bother with repeating it in a sentence? Most of the prose in the article falls under one of these two categories: stuff that we already know from the tables, or stuff that is too specific and belongs in the film's article, not here. Trimmed some more. Pyrrhus16 13:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I think I'm suggesting much more than a trim, I'm talking about removing whole sections of prose, since they're redundant. Take a look at most FLs, and very few of them have any prose at all except for the lead. Some more examples: All the prose in the DVD section. It tells us a few things :"Jackson released several DVDs" well we know that from the table, "some were originally released on VHS" also featured in the table, "All of Jackson's DVD releases have been certified by trading bodies such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI)." also in the table. So why have any prose at all? I would say the same for the filmography section. It tells us almost nothing that isn't already part of the table. And perhaps, what little there is that the prose does cover could be incorporated into the table. You could add a director column. Add "(cameo)" to the last two roles. And voila, no need for any prose at all. Mind you, I haven't even looked at the Music videos section, but I'm assuming the same things could be said about that. Removed prose from both sections. Should I remove the prose from the music video section? Pyrrhus16 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Removed prose from music video section. Pyrrhus16 16:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I think the titling the last section "DVDs" is a bit of a misnomer, especially since many of them were originally released on VHS. I'd suggest retitling it. Renamed to home video releases. Pyrrhus16 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) For "Dangerous - The Short Films" and "Video Greatest Hits - HIStory", you should use an en-dash (–) not a hyphen (-). Granted, the titles of the articles being linked to use hyphens, but they shouldn't either. So, while you're at it, I'd recommend moving both to Dangerous – The Short Films and Video Greatest Hits – HIStory. Drewcifer (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Pyrrhus16 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Why "Videography"? It seems you've interpreted "Filmography" as "stuff only shot on film lasting x amount of minutes", but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Woody Allen filmography and includes television work, Spike Lee filmography includes music videos, Christopher Walken filmography includes video games. In fact, I'd argue that videography is less-inclusive than filmography. It was initially called Michael Jackson filmography, but as there were mainly music videos listed, it was suggested in the last FLC to change it to its current title. Pyrrhus16 14:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Not sure if I agree with that, but if someone else suggested it, I'll let it slide. But if anyone else has an opinion on this, I'd definitely want to hear it. I'm glad to say this list is look very very good. I only have a few more comments: The filmography ref column should be centered. Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC) The lead should mention the Simpsons episode. Done. Pyrrhus16 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC) The "DVD details" column is porrly named, since they came out in various formats. I'd recommend "Video details". Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Along the same lines, the Formats of all of the video releases should include DVD (assuming it was released as such). Done. Pyrrhus16 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Some external links would be helpful. Such as a link to his website, his IMDB page, etc.Drewcifer (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Done; added his official website, IMDB and Allmovie. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question shouldn't #Music videos have a chart position peak column also? Nergaal (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• The music videos have never been released in the way that a single or an album has. I don't believe there is a chart for music videos. Pyrrhus16 17:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support per completed reviews. iMatthew ^talk at 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [32].

---

CMLL World Mini-Estrella Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is up to the standards of the FL requirements, including the recently added "Redlink" criteria (I've created 10 out of the 11 articles since the requirement was brought up). It's part of my drive to make a "Featured Topic" of all CMLL Championships. Hopefully I've incorporated all the feedback from previous FLs to make this the best one yet (fingers crossed). Thanks in advance.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• DAB Tool is down but I'm 99.99% sure I don't have any DABs anyway.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• There are only two redlinks left and they're not in the actual list, but I plan on turning them blue within the next two weeks as well to make it a "true blue" list.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  12:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Confirmed that there are no dabs. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "A "Mini" is not necessarily a person with dwarfism like North American midget professional wrestling"-->"A "Mini" is not necessarily a person with dwarfism, as in North American midget professional wrestling" Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "Being a professional wrestling championship " Comma after here. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "The Championship was created in 1992 and is the oldest still active Mini-Estrellas title in Mexico, both the Mexican National Mini-Estrella Championship and the AAA World Mini-Estrella Championship were created after CMLL" Remove "still" and change the comma to a semicolon. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "championship as it's focal point" No apostrophe in "it's". Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "The first champion was Mascarita Sagrada " Comma after here. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "to form his own promotion" Comma after here. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "With Mascarita Sagrada gone from the promotion the title was vacant until September 1992 where Orito won the title in a decision match against El Felinito. "-->After Mascarita Sagrada left the promotion, the title was vacant until September 1992, when Orito won the title in a decision match against El Felinito. I don't suppose there's a link for "decision match"? Fixed and decision match is when there is just one match, not a tournament - I removed the term from the text.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "In 1999 it was decided to move the championship off then champion Damiancito el Guerrero and give it to Ultimo Dragoncito without an actual match taking place, a so called "Phantom title switch". "-->In 1999, in a a so-called "Phantom title switch", then-champion Damiancito el Guerrero had his championship [title?] stripped and given to Ultimo Dragoncito without a match taking place. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "over a year" Prefer "more than" a year. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "he is also the wrestler to hold the title"-->he is also the wrestler to have held the title Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "amount of time, 110 days"-->amount of time, at 110 days Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "and the only champion to vacate the title"-->and the only champion to have vacated the title Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "The current champion is Bam Bam, having defeated Pequeño Damián 666 for the title on July 27, 2008."-->The current champion is Bam Bam, whod defeated Pequeño Damián 666 for the title on July 27, 2008. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "It is Bam Bam's first championship reign, he" Make the comma a semicolon. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "Only one wrestler has held the title twice, Ultimo Dragoncito; while Pequeño Olimpico has held the title the longest of any champion, 1,442 days."-->One wrestler has held the title twice, Ultimo Dragoncito, and Pequeño Olimpico has held the title the longest of any champion, at 1,442 days. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Image caption: "Mascarita Sagrada, the first ever CMLL World Mini-Estrella champion" Remove "ever". Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Can you center the em dashes in the cells? It looks neater. Use {{center}} if necessary. It would also be nice if you could center the columns that contain only numbers. I originally did all pure number columns as centered, until it was commented that it should be consistent through out and I really hate the "all centered" wrestling tables so I went back to everything being left aligned, is there a guideline that states that "all-number" columns should be centered even if the text is not? cause then I got something to call on if anyone makes a comment about the mixed alignments. I don't mind changing it, but I only feel like changing it once, not back and forth ya know?  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "CMLL Held a tournament" "Held" should not be capitalized. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "determine the first ever CMLL World Mini-Estrellas Champion" Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "Champion, the semi-finals"-->Champion; the semi-finals Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Two inconsistencies in the print refs:
  • Denotation of pages. For some, you use "p./pp.", while for others there are no abbreviations at all.
    • Well there were a couple I had actually forgotten the page numbers, which is why it didn't looks the same, I fixed it.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Dashes for page ranges. Use an en dash (–). Right now, you have an em dash in ref 1 and a hyphen in ref 6. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Dashes all round.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "it can also be very short wrestlers who works in the Mini division." This should be led into with a semi-colon, not a comma; also, make "works" singular.

• Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• "the title was vacant until September 1992, when Orito won the title in a match against El Felinito." Little repetition with "title".

• Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Multiple Mascarita Sagrada links aren't necessary in the lead. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Took care of the last remaining grammar issue myself because it wasn't worth holding up support over. Similar in quality to the many other recent wrestling title FLs. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Will

• Support: all seems fine.--WillC 10:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Resloved comments from Will

"The Championship was created in 1992 and is the oldest active Mini-Estrellas title in Mexico" De-cap "Championship".--WillC 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC) "were created after CMLL created their Mini-Estrella championship" A bit redundant, change to "were introduced after CMLL created their Mini-Estrella championship"--WillC 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC) "on March 1, 1992, defeating Espectrito" → "on March 1, 1992 by defeating Espectrito"--WillC 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)' Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Everything else seems fine.--WillC 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • You use AAA as an abbreviation before you explain what it means.
    • Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • " in a a so-called " one too many "a"s there.
    • Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "regular sized" should that be hyphenated?
    • I'm not sure, but it is now.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "first Mini-Estrellas champion" should that be "Estrella champion"?
    • The title is named "Mini-Estrellas" so it shouldn't be sigular.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Then is this list incorrectly titled? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I read your comment wrong, it's name right the text is wrong and I will fix
  • "One wrestler has held the title twice, Ultimo Dragoncito, and..." - replace "and" with "while" perhaps, because it currently reads a little odd.
    • Reworded, better? MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is there a subsection 3.1 when there's no subsection 3.2?
    • I changed it to a level 2 header, not level 3 since there was only one tournament.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Are location and Event really needed in the table? The only two times they're different you could add a Note.
    • Standard pro-wrestling columns, if nothing else needed to consistency.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The + explanation in the key has a full stop, the other "meaning"s don't...
    • Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Championship tournaments" section is a little odd for me. I don't think we need the graphic, you can state what happened in prose.
    • It's standard tournament brackets often used for wrestling tournaments, I don't see the harm in the format, prose could be added if you'd like.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That section is also unreferenced.
    • Well no it's not, it's covered by the general reference.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "General source on the title until 2000" - what does this mean?
    • It means that the source listed covers the general title history up through 1999, or until 2000 as stated. it's instead of citing it 20 times.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed or explained everything I think.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) General There is a self-redirect to the article; don't know whether its intentional or not. It links to the tournament section I figured it was alright. Alt text and external links check out fine. Is the term "Minis" officially endorsed by CMLL? Minis is a term that's use in Lucha Libre in general including CMLL. Lead The CMLL World Mini-Estrella Championship (Campeonato Mundial Mini-Estrella de CMLL in Spanish) is a professional wrestling championship promoted by the Mexican Lucha Libre wrestling-based promotion Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL; Spanish for "World Wrestling Council"). -- A)Lucha Libre in Mexican Lucha Libre should be Lucha libre Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) A "Mini" is not necessarily a person with dwarfism, as in North American midget professional wrestling; it can also be very short wrestlers who work in the Mini division. -- Is there not a height limit for the broad term of "short"? There used to be a 5 foot max, but some minis go up to 5'6 so there is no actual limit any more.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) IMO it would be helpful if you stated that ever since the division was created there have been no wrestlers over the height of "#'#".--Truco 503 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I can't state that, I don't have a source on the definitive maximum size of someone billed as a Mini, I know the tallest champion but not the tallest Mini.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I see, I just feel that "short wrestlers" is too broad. But okay.--Truco 503 22:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I agree that it's vague, sadly that's a reflection of how "strict" CMLL is with their divisions (weight as well).  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC) When the creator of CMLL's Minis division, Antonio Peña, left CMLL to form his own promotion, Asistencia Asesoría y Administración, Mascarita Sagrada and a large number of other Minis left CMLL to join AAA. -- Use the AAA acronym here in both instances. Fixed  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Being a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match or awarded to a wrestler because of a storyline. -- I just noticed this, but I think a pipelink to Professional wrestling match types is needed on the word "match" I'd say it's a matter of linking a common term but alrighty it's linked.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but some people might want to know more about the "match" itself.--Truco 503 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC) From that point forward the title has not been vacated again. -- How about Since then, the title has not been vacated. or The title has not been vacated since then.? Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) In 1999, in a so-called "Phantom title switch", then-champion Damiancito el Guerrero had the championship stripped and given to Ultimo Dragoncito without a match taking place. -- Who calls it a "Phantom title switch"? It's a general wrestling term.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Then what's the point of saying so-called??--Truco 503 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Well for non-wrestling fans it's not like it's a common term it's "so called" in the wrestling venacular.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I see.--Truco 503 22:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The first Mini-Estrella champion was Mascarita Sagrada; he is also the wrestler to have held the title the shortest amount of time, at 110 days, and the only champion to have vacated the title. -- Since you already stated he was the champion before, its really repetitive to mention it again..instead how about In addition to being the first champion, Mascarita Sagrada is the only wrestler to....etc. [remember what I told you in previous FLC's about the pronoun usage of "[name of title] Champion]" or "[name of title] Championship" Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Ultimo Dragoncito is the only wrestler to hold the title twice, , while Pequeño Olimpico has held the title the longest of any champion, at 1,442 days.[4][5] -- Extra comma not needed Fixed  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) List Note Remove the link to the AAA and mention it in its acronym form; already in lead Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Instead of "left promotion" -> "left CMLL" Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Tournament I feel this should come first in the TOC, or at least under the "Title History" section like ==Title history== then ===Tournament=== then ===Reigns=== I figured that the two title history sections are related and should thus follow each other IMO.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I don't quite understand. It would better if you had the Tournament first since that's what came first in the history of the title, then the reigns themselves which followed the tournament.--Truco 503 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I would disagree, it's already mentioned how the first champion is crowned, then the title history and finally some details on the tournament that's not really necessary for the lead.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I hope you know that I'm talking about the section headers right? Not the lead. Take a look: ==Title history== ===1992 CMLL World Mini-Estrella tournament=== ===Reigns=== ==Reigns by combined length== ==Footnotes== ==References==--Truco 503 22:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Yes I got that, but I think that the two tables should follow each other, then the tournament brackets.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The tables will still follow each other, the thing is its really random how the tournament is at the bottom of the article.--Truco 503 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not trying to be dificult here, but to me the general title history is the main point of the article, which is why I think that the title history list should be the first thing presented after the intro, I haven't seen a single title history where tournament brackets come before the title history.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Here's the thing, however, this list is about the championship itself as well and not just the list of reigns. So the article should be arranged chronologically, like it is introduced in the lead. --Truco 503 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC) So if the title was vacated tomorrow it would go "tournament 1 / Reings / Combined reigns / tornament 2" - Title histories should be generally uniform in layout, especially within the same federation and not every title history has a tournament to crown the first champion, what if the tournament was for the 3rd or 5th reign? By your logic it should break the list up.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  00:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC) I'll let this go.--Truco 503 03:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Footnotes Because Ultimo Dragoncito had more than one reign, you should denote which reign this was. Done, although it's pretty clear which one it is from where the note is placed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) References The specific refs title is missing.--Truco 503 03:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Nope it's not, the title of the book is "Wrestling Title Histories", the chapter is "Mexico: EMLL CMLL Midget (miniestrella) Title" and the page is "396", all of which is there.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) No, I mean that you have the "General refs" title but not the "Specific refs" title listed; see NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship#References.--Truco 503 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Gotcha!  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Dabomb, Giants, and Truco's reviews. iMatthew ^talk at 20:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 [33].

---

List of new churches by John Douglas

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for consideration as a featured list following copyediting and a peer review. The list includes all the churches designed by John Douglas and built. Nearly every church in the list has an article; the rest have a stub. Notes have been added about each church to give added value to the list. During the peer review the title was changed from "Works of John Douglas (new churches)" Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Doncram I'll give some quick reactions first, could come back with more comments later. I haven't yet looked at the previous peer review. First, I basically like the list-article, and see that it reflects various developments in historic place list-articles as implemented in previous FLC reviews (such as including coordinates and a link to the google/bing map, and more).

The word "new" in the title seems a bit odd. For one thing, these are not new churches. I see that you are looking for a way to distinguish this vs. other churches where Douglas did architectural modifications, and other complete building designs. Title-wise, I would prefer "List of churches designed by John Douglas" with an early clarification to be provided to mention that he also modified other churches. Or, why not have the article be about "Architectural works of John Douglas", with just short sections for other categories of his architectural work?

About the table formatting, I don't like how each cell is narrow and tall, at least in my browser view. The images are very small, and the Notes column is somewhat difficult/unpleasant to read. Could several columns be merged, perhaps for one to be "Location / Patron / Date" together? That would allow the Notes/description column to be together. Also, the "Refs" column is a waste of a column, visually, I think. Those footnotes could be added at the end of the Notes/description column. I am not sure what is best, but this seems like too many columns with too much whitespace due to the different amount of material in each one. Also perhaps the images could be larger?

I think adding mention of this FLC at wt:HSITES would be appropriate, if it is not already noted there. doncram (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I see in the Peer review that User:Finetooth thinks otherwise, but I personally would prefer for the '''{{GeoGroupTemplate}}''' Google/Bing map link to appear sooner, perhaps to show next to the TOC, rather than in the "External links" section. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I don't know how strongly Finetooth feels either. Perhaps some other image could appear in the whitespace next to the TOC, too. doncram (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My thinking was that these are direct links to an external site and that Wikipedia articles generally avoid embedding them in the main text. However, direct linking to external city web sites in the infoboxes of city articles seems to be standard practice, and, now that you mention it, at least some of the other FLs put the template exactly where you suggest, opposite the TOC. I have no strong feelings about the placement. Finetooth (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The alterations to the pre-existing churches would also have been designed by Douglas, so "List of churches designed by John Douglas" would be misleading. While "new" may be a subjective term, in this case it is defined and made clear that it means churches built from scratch by Douglas, so I don't see a problem there; any reader confusion will be eased by reading the article. Increasing the size of the images would exacerbate the situation of "narrow and tall" columns (not a problem on my screen, what browser and screen size are you using?) and may unduly dominate the table. The only column I think could be merged is "patron" as the info could be added to the notes column. My thinking is that it is the column with least information (ie: most empty columns rather than not being useful to the reader), however I'm ambivalent on this. Nev1 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that is overstating it, to assert that it would be "misleading" to use the title "List of churches designed by", which i currently think is best. No title suggestion so far is both short and perfectly descriptive; all would require some explanation.

My view of the list is using Firefox, on a laptop PC with a small-to-mid-size display, and I have Firefox open in a window that does not use the full screen, as I normally do. The description column for the Congregational Church that is the second entry in the table runs to 22 lines. If i switch to full screen view, that entry runs to 10 lines. Ninety percent or more of some columns, and most of all columns besides the description column and last column, is whitespace.

The pictures are variously sized at 100px and 60px. Changing the 60px ones to 100px would simply enlarge them within the same-sized column and would cost no space (there would still be whitespace above and below them within the row, at least in my Firefox view). doncram (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've messed about a bit with the column sizes to make the notes section larger. It doesn't solve the problem, but might ease it slightly. I'm using firefox 3.something and my screen resolution is 1280x800, and the table looks fine. At 1024x768 the table is a little stretched by the descriptions, but there's nothing else I could do about it by changing column widths and it still looks good, with little white space above and below the images. At 800x600 it looks awful, but it's an uncommon screen resolution.

Images are different resolutions because some are portrait and some are landscape. I previewed them with all at 100px and the portrait pictures stretched the rows and in some instance created white space. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to the above. Sorry I have not responded earlier but non-Wikilife intervened a bit. To reply to the points made above (not in the order made).

• Format. Taking the points made above, I'll get rid of the Refs column (not necessary) and try incorporating the Patrons in the Notes. I'll then see how the images look.
• Title. The word "new" means to me both a new church on a virgin site, and a new church to replace a church formerly on the site, but demolished. This is to distinguish it from the many restorations of, and amendments and additions to, already existing churches, without replacing them. Nev1 seems to understand this concept too. Is it a transatlantic thing; does "new" have a subtly different meaning in USA from in Britain? It is after all an article on buildings in Britain by and English architect. "List of churches designed by John Douglas" would have to include the churches designed by Douglas but not constructed (and there were some). I see no point in adding these to the list; it would add nothing of value. If this title were used and designed-but-not-built churches were excluded, the pedants would undoubtedly have a point which could only be answered with a title like "List of churches designed by John Douglas and built" and that is awkward. "Architectural works of John Douglas" would not work because this would have to include all his works - and there are three other lists in preparation about these other works which I would like to bring to FLC if this list succeeds.
• WT:HSITES Thanks for the suggestion - done.
• Google/Bing map link. Strictly speaking it is an external link and so maybe should be in the External links section. But I agree it is more useful near the top of the list. What is the consensus on this? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. How's it looking? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good in Firefox 3.5 at 1280x800 and 1024x768, and even quite good at 800x600 as there's much less whitespace. It looks the same in IE (I think I'm running the latest version), how does it look for you doncram? However, there's something funny going on at the start of some of the date columns in IE. It looks like there's a blank cell overlapping the date column in the rows for St John the Evangelist's Church, St Ann's Church, St Stephen's Church, St Werburgh's New Church, Holywell Workhouse Chapel, St Wenefrede's Church, and All Saints Church. I've taken a look at the code, but I can't tell what's causing this I'm afraid? Nev1 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on outline It's looking better, format-wise, for me. Also I am okay with the current title, for what that is worth. When I first skimmed the article i had not known about the other articles; I added the hatnote at the top of the current article pointing to the disambiguation for the other works (also covered in See also at bottom). The outline currently is:

* 1 New churches
* 2 See also
* 3 References
     o 3.1 Notes
     o 3.2 Bibliography
* 4 External links

Since it is so simple, with only the one main section, I think it should be suppressed with a "__NOTOC__" at top of article. I am not familiar with what policy is for this exactly. doncram (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Response. Agreed. Dunnit. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Combine all the works? I looked at all 4 of the works of John Douglas articles, and I wonder if they should just be combined into one article with 4 sections. The current sizes of the articles are something like 38k, 32k, 38k, and 33k. A total size of 140k or so is okay, despite being over the 100k level for which a mechanical wikipedia suggestion is generated suggesting an article might best be split. I think the 100k level is less relevant as a guideline than it was a year or two ago. Also, the size of the combined article could be less than the sum of the separate component articles' sizes. Currently, the same portrait of John Douglas, and much of the same introductory text, and several of the sources, are included in all four articles. For someone interested in John Douglas, why not provide one stop shopping? I think that some other list-articles on architects' works are quite long, including many hundreds of works, although not necessarily in tabular format as here. A possible reason why this could be developed in 4 parts is that the combined list seems too daunting to get through FLC? But, we should focus on what is best for readers, not for FL reviewers. Anyhow, I am not seeing why the list needs to be split into four, causing repetition, coordination issues, and naming issues. doncram (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Response. I completely agree that all material on WP should be for readers and not for internal reviewers. When I split the list from the John Douglas article I had no intention of submitting it as a FL. I knew that a single list would be long and so, for the convenience of the reader, split it into 4 sections containing between 40 and 70 items each rather than having one list of 218 items. As a reader I find it easier to toggle across four open files rather then to scroll up and down an enormous list; but I suppose that's a personal preference. If you're interested in John Douglas, you read the article. If you're interested in his works you can look at the important works divided into the major categories either singly, or by having more than one file open and moving between the files. I don't see a problem with this or with the repetitive text; if you're reading one list it's there, if you're reading more than one you can skip the duplicated bits and read what is individual to that list. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good to be talking about it. It is certainly relevant to consider how many items are in the list components. And, I concede that a rule of thumb I have applied in U.S. NRHP list-articles, is to try to hold the number of items below 200. Only a few exceptions exceed that (I think the NRHP list for Detroit is one). I support the 200 item guideline in part because there is an undocumented limit in the Bing map display, which cuts off display of coordinates at 200 with no indication of it doing so. And the Bing map service is currently superior in various ways versus the Google map option. For another example, see list of National Historic Landmarks in New York State with 148 main items, and 16 secondary items, which I believe is a comfortable size.

I count about 40 in the New churches by John Douglas table (i think all with coordinates), and about 51 in the modified churches table (not yet having coordinates). These could easily all appear in one article: "List of churches by John Douglas", with two sections, and with the Google/Bing map link hanging next to the TOC that would then not be suppressed. The article could simply then link also to "Other works by John Douglas" that could easily hold all other works. That would avoid awkwardness in article naming present in the "new church" phrase and in the "houses and associated buildings" phrase used for one of the other of 4 articles now. About the duplication, and suggesting that readers skip over it: as a reader, you can't know what is duplication or not, unless you study it. I think it is best to edit down the intros of the 2 or 4 separate articles, to reduce the duplication. In particular, I think the large photo of John Douglas should be eliminated or at least reduced in size.

Another important virtue of combining the two churches articles into one (or combining all four articles into one), is that then the Google/Bing map is more helpful to readers. It would then display all the churches by John Douglas in one Google/Bing map, and a reader considering visiting some would be able to see, together, which ones are located nearby. The "name" chosen for Google/Bing map display can be edited to show "(New)" or "(Modification)" or "(Furniture)" as part of the label which will be displayed for each item in the Google/Bing map. I think reducing the 4 list-articles down to 2 articles would be a significant improvement. doncram (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a good think about this and have decided that I prefer not to combine the articles. I find that National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit, Michigan with its 232 items is slow to load, indigestible, and very difficult to navigate; the geobox is just a conglomerate of pointers. Compare this with List of castles in Cheshire with its 20 items; easy to navigate, easy to understand, neat and tidy (and it's a FL). Or even List of castles in Greater Manchester with its (only) 9 items (it's also a FL). As I said above, I (as a reader) find it much easier to deal with smaller lists (and if necessary to toggle across open files), than to scroll up and down a giant page. I wonder, again, if something transatlantic is going on here.

Regarding the suggested title "List of churches by John Douglas", it will not do. A restoration is not a "church by John Douglas"; nor is the addition of a vestry or a chancel; and most certainly a reredos is not a "church by John Douglas". The pedants would have a field day with that one.

Sorry but I just don't see any advantage to the reader in having two list-articles, each containing two separate lists, over four already separated but related lists; IMO it is a disadvantage. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well you clearly don't appreciate my opinion on this. To be clear, my opinion that 2 would be better than 4 is an editorial preference, and I think the principal author, you, should get your way on such matters. FYI, i was invited to comment here, and I gave my opinions and tried to explain my reasoning, in part based on my extensive experience with big NRHP and other big list-articles. Offhand, I don't think that searching for generalizations about American vs. British perspectives is helpful. I think my perspective is formed in part from working with big list-articles, period, though that experience is mostly with U.S. articles (I am working on some big lists of World Heritage Sites tho). Anyhow, good luck with the rest of this. doncram (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that I will provide a review shortly, but need to go through the list in more depth first. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you leave it until the above is resolved. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I also will be reviewing in the next couple of days, but will wait for the structural kinks to be worked out. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Very wise; slightly more than a "kink" I think. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• • In the meantime, do you think it would be appropriate to draw up a navbox for John Douglas' "works" lists? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure; not experienced in the use or construction of navboxes. May I think about it? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course; it was only a question, not a mandate :) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did a rough draft of a navbox here. What do you think? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful; I thought you were suggesting something much more complex. Of course it all depends on the outcome of the discussion above. (I tried to fix the typo but it wouldn't let me.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Simplicity is best. Of course, we can change the color or put in an image if you want. FWIW, I agree that this list should stay separate. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Present state After giving careful consideration to the discussion above, I have decided not to combine this list with any other and should be grateful if reviewers/assessors would give their opinions on the list as it stands. Ideas for improvements always welcomed, of course. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Lifespan isn't necessary for this article. Help! I think it's "hidden" and I can't find it. Sorry, I was referring to "(1830–1911) " right after Douglas' name. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I put it in because it immediately indicates the historical period in which he was practising, setting the time-context of his work. Otherwise something like "who was active in the mid-to-late 19th and early 20th centuries" seems clumsy. I think we need some idea of the period in which he worked early in the lead. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Two consecutive sentences in the first para start with the word "He". Variety please... Done. (Thanks Nev1) "Throughout his career, Douglas' most important patrons were the Grosvenor family of Eaton Hall, namely Richard Grosvenor, 2nd Marquess of Westminster, Hugh Grosvenor, 1st Duke of Westminster, and Hugh Grosvenor, 2nd Duke of Westminster." "Throughout his career" is probably unnecessary. Deleted. "Grade II* includes "particularly important buildings of more than special interest"" "includes" implies that there are other definitions than the one provided. Is this the case? Amended (and elsewhere). "For display of locations, click on "Map of all coordinates"." Probably not necessary. Agree; in fact the rest of the text duplicates what is above. I have deleted all of it. Does this work (in all browsers)? Why do you note the Grade listings but not Scotland's categories? Not sure what is meant. There is only one Scottish church, with its category recorded. An explanation of the Scottish categories is in Paragraph 4. Sorry, disregard this comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I notice that for the names of the churches in the table, you append "Church" to the end of the name, while Images of England always precedes the name with "Church of", instead. For example: sources is "Church of St John the Baptist", while list is "St John the Baptist's Church". I don't suppose it matters, but I wonder all the same. I think the two are interchangeable. Most WP church articles are entitled "St ...'s Church" and most sources (other than IoE) I have seen do the same. OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Put centred em dashes in the blank cells. You can make them sortable like so: {{sort|00|{{center|—}}}} Done. I've also sorted the Grades in the order I, II*, B, II, —. "Douglas & Fordham" Don't use ampersands. This was the official name of the firm; it was the British custom in the 19th century to use ampersands in their title rather than "and", and this convention continues to be followed in the sources. OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC) "wrote thousands of letter" Should this be "wrote thousands of letters"? Yes, corrected. Ref 28 should have "p.", not "pp.", unless you left out a page number. Corrected. Let me know if you want to put in the navbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, please I put it in. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. They are dealt with (except for the first). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Response made to the first. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support: I peer-reviewed this list and thought it was excellent, and it has only improved since then. It appears that all of the issues raised by others above have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. I was rather alarmed by the discussion above about merging this article. Longer lists may be fine for purely textual content, but when the elements of the list contain graphics, as in this case, I think it's better to have more smaller lists. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 [34].

---

List of 250cc Motorcycle World Champions

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that list meets all the criteria necessary, after some hard work NapHit (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

This is a List of 250cc Motorcycle World Champions, yet the lead talks more about MotoGP. Why? I'd like to know what 250cc means. The "Poles" column doesn't sort properly. Fixed NapHit (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Is there a rider that actually won three championships in one year? Nope NapHit (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Why are the next three sections needed? If I sort the main table by rider, I'll know how many times he won. Same thing with "by constructor" and "by nationality". It is easier to navigate in my opinion, as the information is in front of you, instead of having to count up stuff yourself. NapHit (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I'd put the bibliography in front of the citations. When I clicked on the first ref, it brought me to "Marshall. p. 289" and it took me a while to scroll down to find out who the Marshall is. The retrieval date of the current ref # 27 is... 2001. Is there any categories that could be added, as well? No not that I can see Is it possible to sort the Spanish flag as "S" instead of "E"? I think it is but I think it should stay the way it is. NapHit (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) What's the reason? Why should Spain be listed under 'E"? Well for one thing that is what the template lists it as, and I'm not sure how to alter it, and it is referred to as Espana regularly so I see no problem with it. NapHit (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC) --Crzycheetah 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Done all your requests. NapHit (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support It's definitely a good list.--Crzycheetah 03:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• support fulfills the FL criteria a very good article. 02blythed (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• Change comma after "250cc is the intermediate category" to a semi-colon.
• Period missing before Bruno Ruffo. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All done NapHit (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Support – My comments have been addressed, and the list was very clean to begin with. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I'd still prefer if the constructor's flags were removed, but can understand why you put them there. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Former classes that are now discontinued"-->Former classes that have been discontinued "the 250cc refers to the maximum engine displacement capacity. " Can you explain this a little better? For example, I always thought that the "cc" meant "cubic centimetre". "and is the oldest motorsport World Championship in existence." "In the current points system" Unnecessary. "Phil Read and Max Biaggi have won the most titles; both men have won four titles during their career."-->Phil Read and Max Biaggi have won the most titles (four each) No need to link Italy, Great Britain and Germany. "Germany is third with seven titles won by four riders." "Marco Simoncelli is the current champion.[5]" State which year in which he won. Alt text for the first image needs to be improved. You need to describe only what you see in the image. The other alt texts are good. Why do constructors have flags? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC) To signify to the uneducated reader what nationality they are. NapHit (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC) But how is that important? It can be confusing too; can only Japanese riders race on the Hondas? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I can remove them if you want but I think it's helpful information, and no any rider from any country can ride with any team, the flag just represented what country the team came from. NapHit (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Done all requests NapHit (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments The point system mentioned at the prose is the current point system. I believe that in the older years the point system were different. According to Alex Barros article, there were 3 different point systems. However I haven't had time to confirm this and find a reference, but I think it should be noted that the point systems weren't always the same. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 [35].

---

National Film Registry

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on this list for the last two weeks and believe that it meets the FL criteria. The list has 500 entries, and there are a few red links in there. The list does not have an image, but if one is needed, I can add one of the film screenshots for one of the early films since they are free images. I prefer the quote, but it's up to the reviewers. I have looked to similar lists for formatting and made some modifications to make it a little different. I look forward to addressing all suggestions for improvement. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I like this alot! After a quick glance at the list, I only have one style-based comment: the overall width of the table is a little problematic, specifically since it may get squished in smaller monitors, but also because there's just alot of wasted space. It seems as if the column widths haven't really been specifically addressed code-wise, since they seem to default to the width of the longest entry per column, resulting in a single line for every entry no matter how long. A look at the code verifies this. What I would recommend is to specify and standardize column widths to make things a little bit more consistent. So in other words, base the column widths on the average width of most entries, and force a line break for longer entries. A few other minor things: the column headers aren't proper nouns, so words after the first shouldn't be capitalized (ie "Film title" as opposed to "Film Title"). The same goes for the entries for Film type: they aren't proper nouns or titles, so they shouldn't be capitalized at all. I also think abbreviating years for time spans should be avoided (ie "1916–1917" versus "1916–17"). That's all I have for now. Drewcifer (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments. I addressed all of them (along with Seegoon). Let me know if the table columns should be re-sized further or if you spot anything else. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy to Support. All of my concerns and comments have been addressed. An excellent list, with a topic I like very much. Drewcifer (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I found the list to be interesting and figured it should be a FL. Fortunately updating will be easy as it only occurs once a year. This list may get quite long in several years, so splitting may be something to be considered down the line. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment - This is a nice list. But I think the note on top is kind of unnecessary. Also an image would be nice. Lastly, maybe it is a good idea to note films that have won the Academy Award although this is extra info that isn't related to the topic.—Chris! ct 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I removed the note. I considered adding the image File:BlacksmithScene.jpg (a screenshot from the oldest film on the list) but placing it on top of the quote looked a little awkward. If you still think it should be added, I can add it. Concerning the Academy-Award mention, I don't think it would be beneficial to mention just one type of award. In addition, some of the films are not eligible for a nomination of the award so it doesn't appear that it would be relevant to showcase some films when not all were considered. If they were all feature films, then I would probably have included mention of various awards. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Any image is fine as long as they are free.—Chris! ct 01:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Screenshot added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Link jargons such as feature film, short subject, film serial—Chris! ct 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I linked to each term in the lead so that readers can learn more about them before going to the table. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Is this article relevant (found it on Google News)? I saw that too, but wasn't sure if it was a reliable source. However, it does link to the Library of Congress's page. I couldn't find specific details saying that the films are all kept at the center, so I e-mailed them for clarification. Their site also had some update issues (for example, listed 450 films in the Registry when there are 500) so I pointed that out to them (almost wish it was a wiki, so I could fix it!). When I find out for sure if that is where the films are kept I'll add details to the lead. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I noticed there was no information about how the films are originally nominated for selection. I read an article that said for the 1989 nominations, the board considered nearly 1000 films nominated by the public. If it so interests you, I can email you the article. I added details about the selection process (started new paragraph), along with the ability for the public to nominate films for inclusion. Let me know if any further clarification is needed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) The link to United States is unneeded. I do think that a see also link to Cinema of the United States would be helpful. Changed to the cinema link. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "while affiliated with the National Film Preservation Board" Use "although" instead of "while" here to make the contrast more evident. Sounds better. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "in order to" Two of these words are redundant. Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "The earliest listed film is Blacksmith Scene (1893), while the most recent is Fargo (1996)." "while"-->and Not a fan of the "while"? I'll keep an eye out for future articles. Changed as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "The year with the most films selected is 1939, as seventeen films were chosen for preservation." "seventeen"-->17 per WP:MOSNUM I always thought it was 20 and above, but I changed it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "The range for the time a film debuts and is selected varies greatly." A bit awkward. Maybe "The time between film's debut and its selection varies greatly." Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "The shortest range is the minimum ten years and this span is shared by Do the Right Thing, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Toy Story, and Fargo."-->The shortest range is the minimum 10 years; this span is shared by Do the Right Thing, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Toy Story, and Fargo. Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "Among current entries" Unnecessary phrase. Removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "Year of creation" column should be "Year(s) of creation" because some films had ranges instead of single years. Good catch. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) The presentation of the inline citations in the table is a little strange because it makes it seem as if only the years of selection were sourced. Perhaps create a separate ref column (I could easily do it with WikiEd)? The citations are for the year the film was added to the registry. Most of the sources include the title and date of creation as well (although not the film type). Should another column be added in this case? If so, if there is a tool that could do it, that would be great. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Is there a reason that "Dickson Experimental Sound Film" is not italicized? The article for some reason didn't do it, but I changed it within the article and here in the list. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Likewise with a few other items, such as "President McKinley Inauguration Footage" and "Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse", the latter of which, according to the main article, has a "The" before "Tacoma"? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I believe all titles have now been fixed. I did a search on some of the listings of the NFR for the Bridge Collapse film and none used "the" in front of it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 6, guardian.co.uk shouldn't be italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Beat you to it, sorry I checked your contributions when you fixed the website's article formatting. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• The list is currently arranged according to title. Wouldn't it be better if the year of inclusion was the first column then the year of creation and then the film title? Making the list chronological...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that would be somewhat arbitrary because the year of selection is somewhat arbitrary. I thought it looked much better with the title on the left, especially if it's alphabetized by title. I prefer this over this. This is partly because the Title and type are left-aligned but the years and refs are center-aligned, which is how they should be. And the default sorting should generally be on the left of the table. Reywas92^Talk 00:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree that the film titles, which are most important and the default sort column, should be on the left. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Dang, where were you guys earlier (it took me an hour to re-format the 500 films)! No worries, if it is best to include the title at the left, I'll change it back now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
        • With the below mostly done, I support. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another thing would be images. Many of the films are Public domain works. Why not add some images along the list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a variety of the earlier films that had free images. More can be added later as new images are found (and as the years pass by). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Checks out on all the quick FLC tools (dab link, external link, and alt text checkers), and it looks great and nicely sourced. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments The list is really long, but what can we do...I have two problems: The "quote box" is overlapping the lead text on my screen, any idea on what to do? What browser are you using? I have Firefox and I formatted the quote box to appear as the same size as the 300px screenshot and it looks fine on my monitor. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC) IE8 at 1024x765. --Crzycheetah 06:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I'm at 1280x1024. I also opened it with IE8 and although it sticks out further, it doesn't intersect with the text. Do you know how to fix it at your resolution? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I tried several ways and the only way that worked was when I put the box right before the third paragraph of the lead. I guess that way will mess up the page for you/anyone who uses bigger resolution. I don't mind it really, it's just two words(Librarian of Congress) that are covered by the box. --Crzycheetah 07:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Just so you know, I just used Firefox and there's an opposite reaction: the words overlay the box.--Crzycheetah 07:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC) When I move it to the third paragraph, in preview it doesn't affect the text at my resolution. If it solves the problem at your resolution, feel free to move it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I find sorting the "refs" column unnecessary. The column is now set as unsorted. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Other than that, the list looks good!--Crzycheetah 06:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support--Crzycheetah 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose
  • You could expand the size of that lead image up a bit, if the resolution supports it, up to 300px per MOS#Images if I recall correctly.

    I currently have my preferences set at thumbnail sizes of 300px so it is already rendering at that size for me. All of the images in the article currently use the thumb format so that the images can be viewed at the reader's preference. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • That quote could be incorporated into the lead rather than as it currently stands, but it's a personal thing. I think if the lead was a bit heftier, it'd support that textbox better...

    I think that for the length of the quote, it stands out better by not including it in the text of the lead itself. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Is it 100% that the act will be reauthorized in late 2009 or is that a touch of crystal-balling?

    After further research, it looks like it actually took place in October 2008, and I added a new source reflecting that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Ref 1 looks like "Time" rather than "Millimeter" as the publisher/work. In fact, is that the reference you mean at all? It's by Richard Corliss, published June 24, 2001. Nothing like what the current ref says...

    I had copied and pasted that reference from another list when first starting to work on this list. I must have forgot to change the information. I fixed it now. As a side note, at the time that I reviewed the site the whole article was visible, but now it requires registration. Could you verify if the whole article is visible to you? If not, I'll add a "registration needed" note. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • "...is meant to preserve ..." reads a little odd. By "meant to" I guess you mean it's their "mission statement" or whatever. Just a bit oddly phrased right now...

    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • "...and Librarian..." who is the Librarian?

    I had left it blank as I thought several librarians had taken part in the NFR, but it looks like Billington has been there the entire time. I clarified, and it will have to be updated in the future when he is replaced. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • "to so-called orphan films" - well, they're either "orphan films" or they're not. I'm not sure if "so-called" is needed, particularly as you link the term.

    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • "significant amateur footage" - what does this mean? It's clearly significant if it's included in the Registry... Isn't a home movie amateur footage too?

    I believe it's separate. For example, amateur footage could be people that were recording the planes crashing into the World Trade Center, and a home movie could be like Disneyland Dream. Since they are similar, but not the same, I linked them together in the listing of the variety of films included in the Registry. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps you could clarify the difference between "home movie" and "amateur footage" then... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Notes which are complete sentences should have a full stop.

    I think only one qualifies, and I added a period for it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Can you assure me that the image caption claims (e.g. "first known film with live-recorded sound.", "one of the first films shown commercially to the public.", " a variety of editing techniques that were becoming popular at the time of its release." etc) are referenced somewhere?

    I pulled them from their respective articles. I believe most were cited, do they need references here as well? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    I checked several, many of which were not cited in their article. For example, The Phantom of the Opera and the makeup claim, and Rebel Without a Cause and James Dean's crash. Best to be safe and cite them all. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    There's nothing I like more than citing (man, that's pathetic), so I'll get to those now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    I cited the ones that I thought were necessary, the others seem pretty straightforward. Let me know if you disagree. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Ref 8 - you could use work=The Guardian, rather than publisher=guardian.co.uk.

    This was actually pulled from the website, and since there is an article on the website, wouldn't it be better to link to that? Or do work=The Guardian and publisher=guardian.co.uk? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    It's from The Guardian newspaper's online version. So I'd use work=. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    Changed to The Guardian. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 [36].

---

Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, another of my periodic Napoleonic naval orders of battle, this list supplements the article Battle of San Domingo, now wending its way along the torturous road to FAC. The list is quite simple: its an order of battle and casualties total for the battle, providing statistical support to the narrative text, although hopefully I've given enough context to the list that it makes sense on its own as well. Any comments welcome and thankyou very much. Jackyd101 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done (I think)--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Woody (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some quick comments after a first pass-through: The opening sentence is very long and unwieldy. Can you break it up? Lead images can be up to 300px though I don't think it is mandatory. I prefer a larger image myself Lighly damaged.? Typo Check for full-stops (periods) after sentence fragments. Lightly damaged doesn't need a full-stop. I will have a deeper look when I can. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Had a go at these, thanks. Any additional comments welcome--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Support After having another couple of read-throughs I can't see any issues. Meets all of the FL criteria as far as I see. Well done, regards, Woody (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

;Comments - interesting read, very nice. Should "ship of the line" be hyphenated or is that optional? Our own article seems to be inconsistent... I normally do not hyphenate it, following most of the histories I have read - I think that it honestly doesn't matter so long as articles are internally consistent. May be worth linking frigate and corvette in the lead to help us non-naval types! Especially since you do indeed link frigate a bit further on in the British squadron section. Quite right, done. You have diacritics on the French gent, why not on Cadiz? Honestly, beacuse British sources usually don't include the diacritic, so I overlooked it. However it should be there and I have added it. Is Rear-Admiral typically hyphenated? All my sources hyphenate both rear-admiral and vice-admiral. There certainly are sources where it isn't hyphenated however - I think this is similar to the ship of the line question again. "Source: James, pp. 196–197, London Gazette: no. 15902, pp. 371–374,." - remove that rogue comma, and why not make this a proper reference, perhaps against the n of squadron of "Admiral Duckworth's squadron" in the first cell of the table? Similarly for Leissègues' squadron. I can't remove the comma - the template makes it appear and I can't get rid of it. I'll look into alternatives. To be honest, the reason I have placed the sources at the ends of the tables rather than adding them as inline references to the titles is that I think it looks neater and easier to see if you are looking for sources on the tables specifically. Its really just a personal choice, but I have used it on a number of similar featured lists before. I had a quick look at the template doc and it appears that you need to add the publication date and then that rogue comma disappears. I've modified the two uses of the template here, and it seems to work. I hope you don't mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Not at all, that looks much better.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC) My totals don't add up to your totals... I make it 74 killed. Quite correct, how odd. Not sure what I did there, but it is now fixed. "Admiral Leissègues' Squadron" ->squadron. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• After you answer all of the Rambling Man's comments, please don't hesitate to contact me because I would love to give a review to this article. But some of our comments are the same.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I haven't been ignoring these comments, I just haven't had an uninterrupted stretch of time in which to address them. I will get to them as soon as I am able. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Life is real, Wikipedia, well, isn't...! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This is beautifully done; I have only a few nitpicks. "120–gun Impérial." I think that should be a hyphen. "Duckworth was able to strike at the head"-->Duckworth struck at the head "while the British suffered nearly "-->and the British suffered nearly "as over 1,500 men killed and wounded" Prefer "more than" to "over", but only a personal preference. "Duckworth's squadron was principally formed from his original Cádiz squadron, less HMS Powerful which had been sent to" This is worded a bit confusingly. Suggest: "Duckworth's squadron was principally formed from his original Cádiz squadron except for HMS Powerful, which had been sent to" I doubt that Indian Ocean needs to be linked. "Various frigates and smaller craft joined the fleet " "Various" is a superfluous word here. "During the engagement" Suggest comma after here to improve readability of a rather long sentence. Can you put an em dash in the blank table cells? It would also be nice if you could center the casualty totals. "as the best available source are the vague totals submitted by" "source are" sounds a bit strange. Notes that consist of single sentence fragments should not have periods at the end; an example is "Not engaged in the battle, returned to France." Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Hi, I've incorporated all of these suggestions except two: I have left Indian Ocean linked as I generally try to link all geographic locations as a matter of course and I think this could potentially be a useful link. Secondly I do not understand your point about the emdashes - the reason that those spaces are blank is that the information is missing and I cannot locate it, not that it doesn't exist anywhere. I can't see the benefit in adding a dash into those boxes in this case. In addition, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong with the casualty totals: they should indeed be centred and I've added what I think is the relevant code, but they have not moved to the centre. Thanks for your comments, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your response. A few points: I won't press the Indian Ocean issue, but per WP:OVERLINK, we shouldn't link well known geographical locations and terms, as most readers know what and where the Indian Ocean is. At the very least, could you pipe link it to Indian Ocean#History for more relevant info? On the em dash issue, if the information cannot be found, then it's correct that there should not be an em dash. I usually tell users to put em dashes in blank cells on the basis that there is no information available, but clearly this is a different situation. For the casualty totals, which table are you referring to? The British ones.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Use {{center}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Last comment: Could you link despatches? I feel that well-meaning editors may otherwise change it to "dispatches", thinking it a misspelling. Just a suggestion. I'd be happy to, but I'm not sure what it should link to in this instance.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) That's strange, I thought I saw an article for it; perhaps it was a redirect. On an unrelated note, you may want to add to the wiktionary definition, which merely cites it as a BritEng spelling of "dispatch" (unless that is the intended meaning here). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC) All done now, thanks very much.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Actually not done, sorry. Couldn't find any information on how to make an interwiki link between Wikipedia and Wikitionary.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC) THankyou very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• SupportI have only two things to criticize:--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

1. {{Harvnb}} would be more adequate for the book references and is used on multiple featured articles.

   There's no reason to change from one citation style to another; the existing system is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

2. As far as I understand the Notes column is about the State of the ships so how about changing it from notes to "State" or "Damage".

1) What do you think are the advantages of the Harvard system to the one currently in use and why would it improve the article to use them. 2) I'm afraid I disagree - The notes in the Notes section are not limited to state of ships or their damage and I think it is better left as it is. Thanks for your participation,--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Harvnb makes links to book references so that when clicked it would highlight the Book that is used, instead of the reader looking for which book was actually used. I did it for Woodman, you can check it out...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's useful when the list of inline citations or references is long. However, you can see both the inline citations and bibliography in one screen, making cross-checking easy even without harvnb. It's up to Jacky. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments
A few discrepancies, some based on the data in the Gazette link and this Naval History book, which may or may not need fixing.

A note on these sources - I am aware of them, but have chosen to use one selectively and the other not at all. The Gazette was written in the immediate aftermath of the battle and without the full range of facts. Subsequent sources have, as is common, revealed a number of errors and discrepancies. As for the second source, Edward Pelham Brenton is a chronically unreliable source and should only be used when supported by other sources. His scholarship was atrocious and he came under repeated attacks for his poor research in both contemporary and later histories.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agamemnon had 64 guns according to both sources.

You are correct, this was a typo, fixed.

• Alexandre had 84 guns according to both sources.

It is not certain exactly how many guns Alexandre carried, certainly some sources suggest 84. However Alexandre's rate was 80, and that is total used in the table.

• Diomède had 84 guns according to both sources.

Not true, Diomede had 74 guns - see above regarding sources.

• The surname of the Captain on Impérial was Pigot according to both sources.

Two of the sources quoted in the article (James and Clowes) give Bigot as the captain's name. I am more disposed to trust them than the two above, but I will check with a French user who helps with these articles.

• The total casualties at the bottom of the British table doesn't add up.

Another typo, fixed.

• French squadron section states: "the assumed totals for Impérial and Diomède, which are even less certain but reportedly totalled 500 and 300 respectively" Diomède had 250 casualties according to table.

I will look into this and sort it out.

I've researched and established that the best estimate is 250. Article changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

--Jpeeling (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• The image's alt text needs fixing, it's currently the same as the caption. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why are there two brigs listed in the section labeled "frigates". Brigs are not frigates.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.129.88 (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that is technically true, although I don't think anyone is going to be confused by it. What alternative term do you suggest?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon consideration I've changed it, hope that is better.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009 [37].

---

NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s): Truco ₅₀₃ 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well here it is...the NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship. This is one of the oldest championship lists that have come here recently and one that is no longer in existence, so it was interesting to expand and should be an interesting read. Now bear with me, this took a lot of hard work to expand, and because the Jim Crockett Promotions is no longer in existence, I was limited in resources. So luckily I found the Mid-Atlantic Gateway which keeps records of all the titles and history of the company through research in newspapers, old advertisements, and other reliable party sources, which is verifiable and not speculation, so it should come across as a reliable source. Disclaimer: This is one confusing title history. Thanks for the reviews!--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I can't run the dab tools, so there will more than likely be some dabs because I didn't check them before hand. Once the tool is up, I will check them unless someone notes it here.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Use User:Splarka/dabfinder.js. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • How do I run that? I have to install the js?--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Right. Just put importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js'); into your monobook.js. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay, I did but I have no idea how to run it.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
          • After bypassing your cache, look at the toolbox to your left. You will find a link that says "Find disambiguations". Click on it, and it will shortly highlight all dab links. The tool also has a handy redirect finder. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I did, but I don't see that link. --Truco ₅₀₃ 02:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
              • In the toolbox to the left; the link will be near the bottom (in normal reading mode, not the edit screen). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
                • Still nothing.--Truco ₅₀₃ 21:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah well, we can deal with that later. Here are the dabs (you know the subject, so it's better if you fix them):

• NWA United States Tag Team Championship (twice)
• Pat O'Connor (twice)
• Black Bart {twice)
• WRAL (twice) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed all of them except the NWA United States Tag Team Championship because the dab page is the intended target.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Why is it the intended target? Per MOS, we shouldn't purposely link to dab pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Because there is no article about the NWA United States Tag Team Championship, and the dab states that it was a name of a championship used in various variations, which is why the article states version of the NWA United States Tag Team Championship since there were many versions of it, the dab page just lists those that we know of and it states that it is a name of various titles=intended target.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport

Resolved comments from MPJ-DK

Lead "a prime reason why its championships included "Mid-Atlantic" in their names." A "prime reason why" doesn't read right with me, how about simplifying it by saying "which is why all JCP Championships all include "Mid-Atlantic" in their names" "In 1970, the championship was introduced (under the name "NWA Eastern Heavyweight Championship")" Do we need the parenthesis? How about "was orginally introduced as the NWA Eastern Heavyweight Championship"?? "on a taping" => "during a taping" "On the September 6, 1973 taping of Championship Wrestling,[Note 2] to coincide with JCP's alternate name of Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling", I'm not even completly sure what you're trying to say here. I reworded it, is that better?--Truco 503 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Barry Windham worked as Krusher Kruschev? That's wrong, they defeated Koloff and Kruschev so the Krusher note should just be removed. "and handed it to Crockett, Jr.", I'd use "belt" instead of "it" since that's the physical representation of the championship. "The title was deactivated afterwards for unknown reasons by Crockett, Jr., and eventually, JCP was sold to Ted Turner in 1988.[3]" may I suggest "Jim Crockett, Jr. deactivated the championship for unknown reason, and eventually JCP..." "Their prime championship, called the MACW Heavyweight Championship,[4] as a result, has no connection to this original JCP/MACW championship." I'd move "As a result" up first in the sentence. "in arenas or television studios" As opposed to? I changed it to and, maybe that will help.--Truco 503 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Table With Pat O'Conners' title reign being fictious would it make sense to actually not give it a number and start with 1 for the Misouri Mauler? Just wondering. The thing is, he is credited as actually being the champion, who are we to say he wasn't? If JCP said he was champion, then that's what he was. Just because it was a storyline reign, doesn't mean we shouldn't add it.--Truco 503 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I think that it'd look better if all the numbers in the second # column were on the same line and not underneath each other. On my browser they are all on the same line, I added +1 digit to the width, how is it now?--Truco 503 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC) N/A shouldn't sort by "N" but be either first or last in the sort order, I've done it by using {{sort|-|N/A}} to get it to sort as "missing data" and not data called "N/A" Black Bart sorts by "Bart", but that's not his last name, should sort by "Black", it's not a "first name" "last name" name but more of a title Iron Sheik should sort by "Iron" not "Sheik", as above. Johnny Valentine's 1st reign sorts like it's between 66 and 69 days but the note states 402 days Combined reigns I've been told that "The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain, the shortest possible length is used." should be "The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain, so the shortest possible length is used." instead. Sorting as above. The ordering of the tied reigns, in each case it's got a confirmed length and a "minimum length", I'd put the one with the potential to be longer as the first one, so Koloff before Brunzell and Slater before Atlas. Footnotes #1, should be "on which" not "In which" Notes 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13 should all be worded "The exact date on which" Sources Look good to me.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for looking. I addressed all your comments, and specifically commented on the ones which I could not/had trouble addressing. Thanks again!--Truco 503 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good, support.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Disclaimer -- I won't be on Wikipedia from 8/6-8/11, I will try to get someone to look over this FLC while I am gone, if not, I will address the comments when I get back.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "a territory-promotion governed by the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) promotion." Can we fix the repetition of "promotion"? "had defeated defending-champion Pat O'Connor in New York" Is the city not known? Remove the hyphen and insert "the" before "defending". "promotion, nevertheless," Comma after "promotion" should be a semicolon. "of it being a fictitious reign."--of its being a fictitious reign. That is not correct, it does not sound right when you read it -> Further information regarding O'Connor's reign is unavailable as a result of its being a fictitious reign.--Truco 503 15:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Actually, the current noun + -ing is ungrammatical; using the possessive is correct. See this. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I reworded, how does it look?--Truco 503 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "this coincided with JCP beginning to be promoted as Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling."-->this coincided with JCP's beginning to be promoted as Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling. JCP's beginning isn't right because they did not have a beginning of being promoted its just that they began to be promoted.--Truco 503 15:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Well, the noun + -ing structure is ungrammatical. Please rephrase. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I reworded, how does it look?--Truco 503 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "During this change" I assume the change wasn't gradual, so it should be "At the time of this change" "a group of promoters were given permission" One group, so "was". "there were 60 reigns among 29 wrestlers" "among"-->shared between "second-highest"-->second-most "length, at 504 days with two reigns; Patera ranks second, at 495 days with four reigns." Per WP:MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written in the same way, so make the numbers all words or all numerals. "televised events which aired"-->televised events that aired Can you center the em dashes in the key? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) All done, except were I commented. Thanks for the review!--Truco 503 15:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Glaring redundancy here: "the promotion was also promoted as...". Fixed.--WillC 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think Garvin's first name needs repeating in the lead, though this is a minor point. Also, Jerry Brisco's first name repeats in one of the table's notes, as does Garvin's. Fixed. Could you be exact as to where Brisco's name is repeated in the notes?--WillC 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Brisco's name repeats in the note for reign 15, the first under the new name. Garvin's repeats in the final reign's note. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC) All fixed.--WillC 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Comma before reference 4? Fixed.--WillC 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) "Overall, there were 60 reigns shared between 29 wrestlers, all of which occured in the United States in arenas and television studios." Wouldn't it make more sense to say the titles changed hands during shows? Fixed.--WillC 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) "Each reign was won at JCP promoted events". This strikes me as a bit awkward. How about "Each reign began at JCP-promoted events". Fixed.--WillC 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I like the "All title changes" bit, but I'd still like to see a hyphen for "JCP promoted". Giants2008 (17–14) 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC) All fixed.--WillC 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Jerry Brisco linked twice in the lead. Also two broadcast delay links, though one of them is piped. Fixed. Considering it is pipelinked in one of them, I wouldn't say that is overlinking.--WillC 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Note for reign 51: Contraction to be fixed (it's). Same for reign 56. Fixed, I believe.--WillC 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Don't want to be a pain, but the "its" doesn't look that great without the apostrophe. Perhaps "it is" would work better? Giants2008 (17–14) 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC) All fixed. You aren't a pain, grateful for all comments, no matter what they are.--WillC 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Footnote 12: Semi-colon after "television markets". Fixed.--WillC 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) En dash needed for page range in reference 3. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed.--WillC 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) All fixed.--WillC 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Support – Looks as good as the other wrestling title lists I've seen. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009 [38].

---

List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign

Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The last one of the campaign series of VC lists. This brings together all of the lists into one in the same way that the nationality list does. It forks out those lists that don't fit into to the main list. All of the other lists bar the WWII one (which is at FLC) are FLs. I think this meets all the criteria and I have tried to take into account the issues encountered in previous FLCs. Thank you for your time, Woody (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments I would state exactly what the VC is all about before saying how many recipients/awards there are. Is there a particular reason why Orders is capitalised? "some specify one date, some date ranges, some the name of the battle and others have both sets of information" - mildly confusing - you mention three elements of information (date, range, name) then say "others have both sets" - a minor reword I think to say either a date or range of dates, then some the name of the battle - my comment is mildly confusing...! You get my drift? "although official policy was to not award the VC posthumously" - is this referenced? Probably the most minor point ever - "six of the soldiers" followed by "six officers and men." in reference to the same group. I know exactly what this means, but would everyone else? "There are several statistics related to the largest number of VCs awarded in individual battles." - is this really necessary? Don't the following sentences go on to say that, and more? "Willie Apiata received the Victoria Cross for New Zealand on 26 July 2007" - why? The other two guys have their award explained... Don't like blank cells. Can you fill all with em-dash? Now, what an interesting sortable table... you have a kind of sub-heading thing going on which makes sorting by recipient a little odd, but, I think I can live with it... However, pay heed to WP:MOSBOLD. And when sorting by recipient, the "recipient" links sort by year, not alphabetically. It makes some sense to me, but is it actually what everyone else would expect? And do you need the numbers in the links, why not just have the theatre of conflict (i.e. instead of 16 Second Afghan War recipients, just Second Afghan War recipients would work for me). No need for (none) (imo - just the note will work, perhaps with an em-dash again). I think perhaps to be explicit, you should highlight in a different colour/symbol those chaps who received multiple VCs. Badcoe has three individual dates listed - can you explain this? Did he just get one VC for three separate acts or three posthumous VCs? Note B - unlink "and" in "and Bar". Ditto Note C, and be consistent with the capitalisation of bar throughout. Ref 8 should be pp. Ref 11 has a spare full stop. Ref 12 has an ISO format date which is inconsistent with the rest of the references. Good luck with this and then the topic. Please, please ping me when you list the topic at WP:FTC. Best regards. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Once again, thanks for your reviews TRM. I think I got everything bar two things: In terms of multiple recipients, nobody in this list is a double recipient, they are all in the sub-lists. Badcoe was awarded it for "three acts of heroism." The date comment in the lead is designed (or meant to anyway) to soften up the reader for these. There are many recipients who have received it for two separate acts on different days, usually within a month or two and in the same series of action. In terms of sorting, the default is per the chronological order of the campaign. When you hit sort on the recipients it should sort alphabetically as normal. The sublists will always be sorted chronologically at the top of the table. Thanks again, Woody (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'm wondering why the nationality list needs to exist. Since we have the wonder of the sortable table, can't you just put the nationalities in here and rename the list to List of Victoria Cross recipients? "It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals; it may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service and to civilians under military command." I haven't noticed this in previous lists, but this sentence doesn't flow well for two reasons: 1) the repetition of "it"; and 2) the semicolon makes the sentence stilted (this coming from someone who uses it frequently). I suggest "It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals, and may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service and to civilians under military command." (of course, then you have the "and repetition", so if you can improve on that...) "whilst "—"while" is plainer and much nicer. "awarded the VC and Bar, that is a medal" I think "that" should be "which". "two separate actions" separate as opposed to... "to 1353 individual recipients" Can recipients be anything but individuals (a genuine question)? "is the First World War, where 628 medals were awarded to 627 recipients." First World War is not a location. Suggest "is the First World War, for which 628 medals were awarded to 627 recipients." "largest number awarded in a single action " I think you mean "for a single action" (there's a subtle difference here) "Victoria Crosses; the Victoria Cross for Australia, the Victoria Cross for Canada, and the Victoria Cross for New Zealand." Use a colon instead of a semicolon. Can you center the em dashes in the table? Use {{center}} if necessary. Why do the orange-highlighted rows not have an accompanying symbol? I added periods to the ends of the legend explanations since they are complete sentences, and would be much obliged if you could do the same for your other lists. "This rule was changed in 1881 to only allow acts" Switch the order of "allow" and "only". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I have done all of the requests above. In terms of the nationality lists, it would be a problem given the size of this list and the fact that it relies on sublists. If a user wanted to see the list of Indian recipients they would not be able to acquire a full list using the sort function as he would have to search each individual list. I have tried a full list in one of my sandboxes but it isn't feasible as the page is too large, particularly when editing or viewing diffs; I tried it without nationality as well and this would further increase the page width. As such I don't think a merger would be feasible. Thanks for the review, regards, Woody (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - this is a well written and constructed list that meets the criteria. I do have two minor comments, however:

• There is some inconsistency with the presentation of access dates in the references section.
• Shouldn't Iraq War be listed instead of Operation Telic in regards to Johnson Beharry? On all of the other recipients listed they are recorded by war/campaign, rather than an operation within that conflict like Beharry.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorted, thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009 [39].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Alison Krauss

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Long ago I authored Wikipedia's featured article on Alison Krauss. I disappeared from Wiki for a while, but following my last return I happened upon List of awards and nominations received by Beck. Following the standards laid out in that FL (and in the many FL's by User:Gary King on musician awards) I realized I could rewrite Krauss' list which had been left to the wolves since I initially formatted it a bit during Krauss' writing process. I now feel the list stands up to the FL standard for musician awards as exemplified in the aforementioned Beck list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment A couple of the sources seem questionable in terms of reliability: http://www.twin-music.com/lists/40women.html and http://www.whowonwhen.com/entertainment/acm_awards/academy-country-music-2005.php. Also, the access dates shouldn't have ordinals, and refs 2 and 3 are missing publishers. The Billboard ref is dead (see [40]), but since they're redesigning their pages that's to be expected. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some awards simply don't seem to keep track of their nomination history. Those ACM nominations are mirrored by multiple sources, it's just there is no list on the official ACM site. Nominees but just for the 44th. I can happily remove the 40 women list thing, it's just an interesting honor (that once again there is limited material online about). I'll fix the refs now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• There we go, removed the ordinals and fixed the dead link. What would you recommend I do with the 40 Women list? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wait for other reviewers' opinions :) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Found a WAY better, official source for the top-40 list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• I really outthought myself on that one, heh. Turns out searching for wins on the official site also returns noms. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support once 1969 is unlinked. The other years are unlinked so 1969 should not be linked in my view. Consistency and all that. I'm not a fan of linking solo years anyway ;-) Nice work. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Also added a Wayback Machine ref of the 2001 ACM nomination. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• And then I was smart and found a better ref. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) General Missing You is a dab that needs to be fixed. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The image needs alternate text. Infobox:Musician Awards doesn't take alt text. Note all the other FL musician award lists, none of them have alt in the lead image. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Added it to the infobox and article. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Lead Alison Krauss (born July 23, 1971 in Decatur, Illinois) is an American bluegrass-country singer and fiddler. -- unlink Country music, its a well known genre that does not need the link. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Krauss has also released 5 compilation albums - Now That I've Found You: A Collection (1995), Live (2002), Home on the Highways: Band Picked Favorites (2005), A Hundred Miles or More: A Collection (2007), and Essential Alison Krauss (2009) - and made other notable recordings such the single Whiskey Lullaby with Brad Paisley or her several songs on the O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack. -- A)Change the endashes to emdashes and make sure the dash connects both the preceding and following word. B)+as before the single C)Change the or to and Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Krauss has won 26[4] Grammy Awards, most by a female artist and 3rd most by any artist all time. -- 3rd --> third Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) She has also won 14 International Bluegrass Music Association Awards,[6] 8 Country Music Association Awards,[7][8] 2 Gospel Music Association Awards,[9] 2 CMT Music Awards,[10][11][12] 2 Academy of Country Music Awards,[13] and 1 Canadian Country Music Award. -- numbers that are 9 and under should be spelled out instead of using an integer (per MOS:NUM) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The lead should state her overall awards and nominations count; yes the infobox states it but the lead should also. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Awards For one, this section should be renamed to at least Awards and nominations, since that's what it's about. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Overall: Change all numbers that are 9 and under from integers to spelled out words (MOS:NUM) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The Country Music Association Awards have been presented annually by the Country Music Association since 1967 and are generally presented at the Grand Ole Opry. -- Comma before and Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Each statement that gives the summary of awards like Singer A has received so and so awards from so and so nominations should all be consistent. They should all at least be in a format similar to Singer A has received five awards from 140 nominations. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC) References Ref 1 should be properly formatted. The for Billboard.com is not correct, a publisher should also be added. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Ref 2 and 3 lack publishers Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Ref 4 should not have from Grammys.com, the publisher should just be |publisher=Grammy Awards or |publisher=Grammys.com Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Ref 5, there shouldn't be a period before CNN Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) All the refs need to be referred to my comment about Ref 4, they are all improperly formatted. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Some of the publishers are also incorrect. CMAAwards is not the publisher, Country Music Association is the publisher. CMT.com is not the publisher, Country Music Television is the publisher. amcountry.com is not the publisher, Academy of Country Music is the publisher. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The Rock on the Net refs should not have a period before the publisher.--Truco 503 19:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) That's how cite web formats them. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Oh okay, I see now. The only other problem that I see is for sections in which Alison only won one award from one nomination <-instead of saying that-> reword it to has received one award., to avoid redundancy.--Truco 503 02:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC) You got it, all done. This is really nice, the crew that patrols FLC does an excellent job sharpening up things. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

*Comments Not overly keen on "w/" meaning "with" - any reason why we can't be explicit? Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Should we not name awards what they were when they were awarded? For instance (and mind you, this could be the only instance!), that 1991 Grammy was actually "Best Bluegrass Recording", not "... Album". If so, then please check the others. For (one more) instance, the 1995 Grammy was actually "Best Southern Gospel, Country Gospel or Bluegrass Gospel Album", not "Best Southern/Country/Bluegrass Gospel Album" as you called it. Done, along with a couple others (the 95 Country Collab. with Vocals and the newest Folk Album). Do you think I should link to the award a second time if the name changes? IE, should BOTH the 91 Best Bluegrass Recording AND the 93 Best Bluegrass Album link to the award (since with different names it might not be clear)? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't have a problem with that at all, in fact I think that's a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Will do. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC) I often suggest this, but I would prefer to see each table have the same column widths for consistency throughout. However, it's nothing mandatory, just a suggestion. I'd be happy to, but the awards table has fixed style features. If you know how to do this I'd be happy to change it. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) It's not a big problem. In general I think you could fix the column widths using either a % or a number of pixels. But it's no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) I'll try to make it work, but if you have any ideas please give it a try! Staxringold talkcontribs 18:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Louvin Brothers should be The Louvin Brothers. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Per MOS, consistent date formats in references please, preferably mdy per US format. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Your "Billboard" publisher links to Billboard the magazine, so shouldn't it be a work? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Is CNN really a work in this case, not a publisher? It was already listed as a work. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) But does that make it right? I'm not sure, I would have thought CNN would be the publisher... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Hahaha, I completely misread your comment, I thought you were asking for CNN to be a work (so I was confused because it already was). Changing now. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Spell out RIAA and IBMA in references. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) The lead does not mention Union Station at all which I guess is a bit surprising. Added note about doing 6 of her albums with AKUS. Do you think I should separate them out as I did on her discography page, ie "She has released 6 albums with Union Station - blah blah blah - and 5 apart from them - blah blah blah"? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I think the note is fine, it just seemed a bit surprising not to see it in the lead. But now it's there. Hurrah! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support my comments addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Singles (songs) are in quotation marks. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "(born July 23, 1971 in Decatur, Illinois)" is unnecessary info and should be removed. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "6 with Union Station" So is Union Station a recording company? Also, is there a link for it? As of now Union Station does not have their own article. I'll link it, but for now it's simply a disambig. They are a group of players who only release albums with her. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I've unlinked since it's a dab. If you or someone else ever creates the article, please re-add the link. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "Krauss has also released five" Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "and made other notable recordings such as the single Whiskey Lullaby with Brad Paisley and her several songs on the O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack." What makes these recordings especially "notable"? Whiskey Lullaby won about 2342 awards and earned Gold RIAA certification (her only RIAA certified single). O Brother, Where Art Thou was probably the biggest bluegrass/country music event in more than a decade and she was a part of it. I was simply trying to find a way to make mention of the vast majority of "other" recordings she has done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "The albums Now That I've Found You and Live were each certified double platinum" Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "About It and Raising Sand were each certified platinum; and So Long So Wrong, New Favorite, Lonely Runs Both Ways, and the single Whiskey Lullaby were all certified gold." Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "Krauss has won 26 Grammy Awards, most by a female artist and third most by any artist all time."-->Krauss has won 26[4] Grammy Awards, most by a female artist and third most by any artist all time. Add "the" before "most". Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "for a total of 55 awards from 96 nominations." This info usually goes at the end. You would say "Alison Krauss has received 55 awards from 96 nominations." Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "and are generally presented at the Grand Ole Opry." "usually" sounds better than "generally" here. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "received eight awards from 27 nominations." Per WP:MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written in the same format. So, "received 8 awards from 27 nominations". or "received eight awards from twenty-seven nominations". Fixed. But please make this an issue earlier, I already converted all the 1-9 numbers to words for precisely the same reason (WP:MOSNUM) for Truco. But I see that the exception overrides this. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I can't catch everything :) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "Those 26 wins are the most for any female artist (and the third most for all artists overall) in Grammy history." Remove "all"; change "for" to "of" in both instances. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "The International Bluegrass Music Association Awards are awarded annually by the International Bluegrass Music Association, founded in 1985." Makes it sound as if the association was founded in 1985. Try "Founded in 1985, the International Bluegrass Music Association Awards are awarded annually by the International Bluegrass Music Association." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 1, Billboard is the work and Nielsen Business Media, Inc. is the publisher.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.metrolyrics.com/1990-grammy-awards.html a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• It matches with everything else. The only reason I didn't use Rock on the Net is because it doesn't list Best Bluegrass Recording. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further information. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• They are backed by AOL. That's a large media company, yes? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Here is an article attesting to that, BTW. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, that's good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK at a glance.

• Wondering why the totals at the bottom of the infobox are formatted in such a complicated way: since green and red are the colour codings for wins and nominations, respectively, why not a single row, "Totals", with 55 and 96 across in the green and red columns. Seems simple and carries through the idea of the the colours.Tony (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• That's how the template is formatted. Ultimately though I don't really see it as complicated, it's basically the same length. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009 [41].

---

List of Olympic medalists in table tennis

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Third Olympic medalists list nomination by me. Copy-edits and grammar edits can go straight to the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you format the "Medals by year" table as it is done in List of Olympic medalists in figure skating? <minor rant>It would be nice if we could get some sort of consistency in these articles for once.</rant> Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think having a sortable function is nicer than not having one... If you think it is necessary to have them in the same exact format, it would be best to contact WP:OLYMPICS. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I will ... tomorrow. The thing is, with the sortable table, to a reader who's not familiar with these lists, it's not clear what the two-digit numbers mean without hovering over them with the mouse ([[WP:EGG problems). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, contact WP:OLYMPICS. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Addressed comments from Parutakupiu

Comments from Parutakupiu (talk · contribs) — Yesterday, I was going through the many "List of Olympic medalists in <sport>" and this one came out to me immediately as more than ready for FLC and with little to add and/or change to become featured. Surprise, surprise, here we have it today. The issue with the "medals per year" format I'm also experiencing on my nomination. I think this question should really raised at the WikiProject, in hope that a consensus is reached in time, regardless of its impact in the featured candidacy evaluation. Apart from this, there are just a few things that should be done so I can give my thumbs up: Alt text should be added to the images that lack it and improved for those that already have it. I think I can help you now on that, if you want. I definitely need help on the alt texts, as I really am bad at describing images... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Alt text added. Perhaps I was too detailed on some images, but better to add more than less. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Better than what I could have done. :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The lead text would improve with some tweaks here and there. I'll do that since you gave us, reviewers, permission to do so. :D. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC) OK. Lead copyediting concluded. Perhaps it's better if other reviewers check it, because I'm not perfect, far from it. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) You have a few images (couldn't you find more?) and plenty of blank space created by the tables, so you don't need to add upright to those images. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Nice! Much more pleasing to the eye. One thing you can do is use {{stack}} to pile vertically the images without messing with the [edit] section links, which get all clumped up. You can also place the images between the == Women == and === Singles === headings. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Done stacking. The reason why I put the images after the === Singles === heading is because I feel that it looks visually better than your suggestion. If you feel the need to putting the images between the == Women == and === Singles === headings, then feel free to do so. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 14:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Ended up making that move, while regrouping related images. I kept the "upright" parameter, because there are so many images now that they could spread out beyond the medalist table sections.Parutakupiu (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Fine with me. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links, and alt text check out fine. Lead Table tennis is a sport contested at the Summer Olympic Games. The men's and women's singles tournaments have been held at every Summer Olympics since the 1988 Summer Olympics. -- It would be better if you pipe link the last part to ..since 1988 because Summer Olympics is getting over repetitive in just the first two sentences. A total of seven table tennis players have each won four medals: Deng, Zhang, Liu, Wang Liqin, Yoo, Qiao Hong, and Chen Jing each have four medals; Ma and five other athletes each have three. -- A)No need to state again each have four medals, you stated that beforehand B)Why not state the other five? You listed seven, you may as well. Since 1992, the winner of the women's singles tournament also won in the other women's tournament;.. -- what other women's tournament? Besides Deng and Zhang, no one has successfully defended their singles titles; Deng and Qiao Hong (1992, 1996), and Wang Nan (with Li Ju in 2000, Zhang in 2004) have also retained their gold medals, in the discontinued doubles. -- This is confusing, I recommend splitting it because you're talking about doubles and singles and overall is just confusing to decipher which is which. China has been the most successful nation in table tennis, winning 41 medals; they have won 20 of the 24 gold medals. -- You say of the like its been stated before, but you haven't stated before hand about the 24 gold medals. Are these 24 gold medals the overall gold medal count? Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 503 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Truco, I've just made a copyediting of the lead and I think I have corrected all your concerns. Could you confirm? Thanks. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) It sure did.--Truco 503 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolve/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Table tennis features in more than just the Olympics, the opening sentence of the lead seems to imply it's Olympics only. Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "won five medals" - would be straightforward enough to state which colour medals, and then merge/reword the following sentence. I don't really know how to... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "were assured by" reads a little strangely to me - achieved? Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "China has been the most successful nation in table tennis" again, in Olympic table tennis. Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Not convinced that ref 6 backs up the fact that the medal sweep was unprecedented. Ref 6 shows the sweeps, while the general reference proves it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "more than three medals (17)." - I prefer to read prose than parenthesised facts - why not, "With 17 medals, South Korea is ..."? Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "There were four additional bronze medal winners at the 1992 Summer Olympics because no bronze medal matches were conducted" to a non-expert this makes no sense - more bronze medals because no bronze medal matches were played? I know what you mean, but it's ambiguous to a non-expert. See last reply. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "Zhang Yining of China won gold in every Olympic tournament she competed since 2004." - that's just two then? The caption seems to overblow it a bit...! She also competed in the women's doubles. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Ref 3 - XXIZ olympiad? Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Second general ref could have a work like refs 5 to 7? The second general reference is practically used in every single sentence in the second and third paragraph, which is why I used it as a general. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC) See my nomination paragraph. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the issues now pointed out by User:The Rambling Man were introduced by a copy-editing round I made some days ago. Since I'm not a native English speaker, my writing is not as good as I'd wish, sometimes. For this I apologize the nominator, because I ended up introducing more things to fix. I tried to address these copy-edit concerns, and hope they are fine now. I also fixed the other issues that the nominator couldn't resolve. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "for both men and women" Rephrased. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "a figure shared with compatriots Deng Yaping and Zhang Yining" "compatriots" is too informal. Maybe "fellow Chinese players"? Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "each with four"-->with four each Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "Seven players have won four medals, including Qiao Hong and Chen Jing (China), while six others have three."-->Seven players have won four medals, including Qiao Hong and Chen Jing (China), and six have won three. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "Chen Jing won her first two medals in 1988, representing China, but her last two medals were gained at the 1996 and 2000 Summer Olympics, while competing for Chinese Taipei." I see what you're trying to say, but it's worded confusingly. Try "Chen Jing competed for China when she won her first two medals in 1988, and competed for Chinese Taipei when she gained her most recent two medals at the 1996 and 2000 Summer Olympics." Directly copied. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "winning a total of 41 medals" "a total of" is redundant. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "With seventeen medals,"-->With 17 medals, The number "three" is in the sentence, which is why i chose to use the written format. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think those are "comparable" quanitites here. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC) The alt text is pretty good. My one niggle is that information about how the image was taken (e.g. "Side view", "Full body shot") is generally unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Hope Parutakupiu replies... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I'll chop those off. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I may have asked this before at another FLC, but what makes http://www.hickoksports.com/history/oltabletennis.shtml reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Parutakupiu inserted the reference, so it is best to ask him. The sentence is already referenced by general ref 2. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot answer that. I've used it on other articles, but was never questioned about it. I could remove that source, but then that final sentence would have no reference confirming it word for word; it might as well be taken out... Parutakupiu (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is referenced by general reference 2, as that reference includes all the information about table tennis in the Olympics. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Andrwsc

• References from sports-reference.com don't follow the format requested by the website's owner, here. Use author=Kubatko, Justin and work=Olympics at Sports-Reference.com with the {{cite web}} template to comply (close enough).

Done. Also fixed the references on List of Olympic medalists in basketball and List of Olympic medalists in badminton, though need help on the other Olympic medalists FLs. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• "...have been awarded to 55 players from 11 National Olympic Committees (NOC)." Players are not "from" those committees. I see this mistake many times. For example, Michael Phelps is not a member of USOC; but he is a member of the U.S. Olympic Team selected by USOC to represent the United States. Need to change the phrasing used on this list, as a NOC is not precisely synonymous with a nation, although results tables use a shorthand notation that implies something like that.

Changed "from" to "selected from". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 22:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "Chen Jing competed for China when she won her first two medals in 1988, and competed for Chinese Taipai when she...". "competed for" is a glaring redundancy. I don't mind the "for" that much, so dropping "competed" should be enough to fix this issue. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "no other female or male player have successfully defended their singles title". "have" → "has". Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "With seventeen medals, South Korea is second to China in the overall medal count". All other medal counts are given as numbers, and I imagine this one should be as well. "three" is in the sentence, which is why I chose to use the word format. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Caption: "Chinese Wang Hao...". Should be "Wang Hao of China" or "China's Wang Hao". Chose first one. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Check the captions to see if any more require periods at the end. That always gave me trouble in my nominating days. Another caption: "Zhang Yining of China won every Olympic event she competed since 2004." Should be "competed in". Also, should it be "has won", since she appears to still be an active player? Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC) According to the Manual of Style, bolding shouldn't be used to identify items. This is an open issue with various Olympics lists. Do any other reviewers have any thoughts on this? Giants2008 (17–14) 01:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) There's a discussion at WT:OLYMPICS about making these tables consistent. I'm reluctant to do anything while the format's still being hashed out. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I hope you would not not support this article just for the sake of this issue. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The one thing I'm still not sold on is the Hickok Sports reference. Is there any chance a more reliable source can be found? Giants2008 (17–14) 22:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Read Parutakupiu's comment above on Dabomb87's comment. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009 [42].

---

List of Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations

Nominator(s): TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am submitting this list for FL since I believe it is up to the standards of a FL; it meets all of the criteria and contains many of the same elements as the other featured lists of train stations. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
• It serves an average of 1,433,252 passengers each weekday and is both one of the largest rapid transit and light rail systems in the United States by ridership. - "Both" is redundant.
• Maybe it's just me, but the second paragraph of the lead reads more as a list than as prose. There's really nothing you can do about it, though.
• 37 of the stations are within Los Angeles - Numbers that begin a sentence should be spelled out.
• Unless I'm just missing it, the chart itself needs to be sourced.
• Use non-breaking spaces if possible.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The first, third and fourth points have been fixed. I noticed the same problem with paragraph 2 of the lead and fixed it a little before I put this up for FLC, but ultimately there's nothing I can do about it. For the non-breaking spaces, though, I'm guessing that you're referring to the dates which are split between lines. (If I'm wrong, please tell me where you do want them.) If that's the case, using non-breaking spaces creates large gaps at the end of some lines; if that's okay, I'll use them. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Thirty-seven of the stations are within Los Angeles - you may want to say here that it is the city of Los Angeles to differentiate from the county.
• I notice that Hawthorne station does not seem to be in the city of Hawthorne but in Inglewood. Now this may be correct but if so then Inglewood is not mentioned in the prose list at the end of the lead.
• The date opened column does not seem to be sorting correctly.
• In the images it might be nice to wikilink the station names.
• There seem to be slightly too many images and so for me the last one extends into Notes and References sections making them look slightly untidy.

Boissière (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Formally Support. Boissière (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - excellent list, through references need to have access dates—Chris! _ct 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the access date for the one reference where it was missing. The newspaper access dates aren't being displayed for some reason, though the dates are in the templates. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Technical Dabs and external links check out fine. Alt text can't be added to the map? I'm not quite sure how one does alt text for a map. I suppose I could describe the positions of the lines, but I don't know how useful that would be. How about something simple like A map of so and so showing so and so.?--Truco 503 01:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I've added alt text for the map now. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks, that looks reasonable. Two images still lack alt text though; please see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right corner of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Turns out I forgot to add the alt= parameter for those two, even though the text was there. It's fixed now. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 16:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Lead Los Angeles County Metro Rail, also known as Metro, is a combined rapid transit and light rail system serving the greater Los Angeles area. -- I see the Greater Los Angeles area capitalizes Greater and Areain each instance, shouldn't it be the same here? Los Angeles County Metro Rail, also known as Metro, is a combined rapid transit and light rail system serving the greater Los Angeles area. The system is operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. -- combine these two statements into -> Los Angeles County Metro Rail, also known as Metro, is a combined rapid transit and light rail system serving the greater Los Angeles area operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Metro is composed of two rapid transit lines and three light rail lines which run on 73.1 miles (117.6 km) of track. -- WP:OVERLINK of rapid transit and light rail It serves an average of 1,433,252 passengers each weekday and is one of the largest rapid transit and light rail systems in the United States by ridership. -- WP:OVERLINK of rapid transit and light rail These links aren't actually to rapid transit and light rail, they're piped links to the lists of rapid transit and light rail systems by ridership. Since [Ref 1] verifies the entire first paragraph, just cite it once. The next Metro line, the rapid transit Metro Red Line, opened on January 30, 1993, between Union Station and Westlake/MacArthur Park. -- WP:OVERLINK of rapid transit The light rail Metro Green Line, Metro's third line, opened on August 12, 1995, from Norwalk to Redondo Beach. -- No need for the comma after 1995 Metro's next expansion occurred on May 22, 1996, when the Metro Red Line expanded westward from Westlake/Macarthur Park to Wilshire/Western. -- Remove the extra space in the date. Unless I fixed this without realizing it, I don't think there is an extra space in the date. The final Red Line extension opened on June 24, 2000, from Hollywood/Vine to North Hollywood, completing the Red Line as originally planned. -- Instead of opened it should be occurred I reworded this one to something different, since I thought "occurred" sounded wrong in context. A fourth Metro line, the light rail Metro Gold Line, opened on July 27, 2003, between Union Station and Sierra Madre Villa in Pasadena. -- Remove the comma before between, its not needed List Instead of citing like 10 refs in one column, have you considered using a general reference instead? Possibly, except all of the articles I cite in that column are also cited in the 2nd paragraph of the lead at various points, so I don't know what I'd do about that. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Well for those points you just wouldn't have a specific ref because when something isn't specifically cited and you have a general ref its automatically known that its cited by the general ref. But in this case I think its fine using the format you have now.--Truco 503 01:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC) References Be consistent with how you list the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the first ref should have it spelled out. The PDF file: can it not link to the LACMTA article? If I could find the article on the LACMTA website, I would link to it, but I can't find it; if you can, please post the link. I meant in the cite template link to LACMTA.--Truco 503 01:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I see, it's fixed now. Sorry about that. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 503 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Except for where I've commented above, all issues have been addressed. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Metro is composed of two rapid transit lines and three light rail lines which run on 73.1 miles" "which"-->that Don't use "current" or "currently" unless the figures are changing rapidly. It's always better to remove it or provide a date. Two instances: "The current Los Angeles County Metro Rail system map" Recommend using an {{as of}} statement or just removing "currently "The system currently has 62 stations serving its five lines." Same as above. "The system currently has 62 stations serving its five lines." Per WP:MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written the same way. So, "62"-->sixty-two or "five"-->5 "the other 25 stations are located in the "-->the other twenty-five stations are located in the (for consistency in number formatting) "surrounding cities of Long Beach, Pasadena, El Segundo, Compton, Downey, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lynwood, Norwalk, Redondo Beach, and South Pasadena." Looking at the provided source [43], I don't see all of those locations on there (e.g. Redondo Beach, Hawthorne, Inglewood etc.) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC) All fixed. For the issue with the surrounding cities, I cited all of the line subpages individually rather than just the main station page I had cited. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I see. You should probably make a note of that. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Was this resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC) The original issue of citing all of the surrounding cities was resolved. I'm not quite clear on what you meant by "You should probably make a note of that", though. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I see that issue was resolved adequately, so we're done here. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 10, add format=PDF to the template. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments Link "km" in the lead. done TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I think having 5 references for the "city" column and 8 refs for the "date opened" column is not a good idea. Every time when I want to verify something, I have to go through 8 sources to find the one I want. Can you cite each ref next to each date, so that readers like me don't waste much time? Actually, I think citing the dates/cities individually might create an even bigger navigation mess. If I did that, some of the references would be citing 15 or 20 different things, making it really hard to go back to one individual reference after clicking the reference. If you think that's better, I can still cite the dates/cities individually, but I'm not sure it's better. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) There's an inconsistency in station names. Why, for example, "Vermont/Sunset" doesn't have any spaces in between the slash while "Vermont / Santa Monica" has those spaces? Is there a specific reason? That's just the way the stations' articles are named; I'm not entirely sure why the articles are named inconsistently either, but I'm just reflecting that. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) There's an inconsistency in date formats. In the lead and the table, you have "month day, year" format while in the references you have "year-month-day" and "day month year" formats. It's easily fixable. done TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) --Crzycheetah 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support I understand it's going to be worse with individual citing. The best solution could have been to find a better source that had most of the info, but it's always hard to find perfect references.--Crzycheetah 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - very nice, two very minor issues.
  • "7th St/Metro Center" and "Westlake / MacArthur Park" inconsistent spacings round the slash.
    • Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I imagine ref 5 should have an en-dash in the title, rather than the hyphen. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed—Chris! _ct 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - The only thing I would say is that the map may confuse readers whether the Orange and Silver Lines are part of Metro. I suggest you or another user make the same exact image, but without those two lines. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 09:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't make the map and don't have much experience with graphics, and the image's creator has been inactive for a month, so this may have to stay as it is. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I will provide a review later today when I get home from work. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Comments from Hassocks - I am fond of station lists, and this is an excellent example. Just a few points/observations: Some of the station names incorporate a "/". In some cases, this is spaced on each side; in others (e.g. Hollywood/Vine), it is not. Is this intentional (I suspect it is, but just need some clarification)? This is intentional; it reflects the names of the articles, some of which are spaced and some of which are not. I'm not sure why that is, and the article titles should probably be standardized, but for now the list is just reflecting that. I have fiddled around with the parameters in the "cite news" template to try to get the access date to show, but without success. It doesn't seem to be a problem with the template itself, because it's still working elsewhere: <ref name="CityMission">{{cite news|title=Church to be demolished|url=http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2006/3/31/209424.html|accessdate=2009-03-08|author=Jan Melrose|date=2006-03-31|publisher=Newsquest Media Group|work=[[The Argus (Brighton)|The Argus]]}}</ref> (from here) renders like this: Maybe needs more investigation. The dates are showing for me, though they weren't last week. Not quite sure what's going on there. This sentence is a bit ungainly: "The rapid transit Metro Purple Line, the fifth Metro line, was created on August 24, 2006, when LACMTA separated the Red Line into two separate lines; the branch between Union Station and Wilshire/Western became the Purple Line, while the branch between Union Station and North Hollywood remained the Red Line." I agree with the semicolon, but commas and the word "Line" appear rather frequently. Not sure how to reword. I've reworded it, tell me what you think of the revision. "Eight of these stations are termini, stations at the end of lines." Try a dash instead of the comma. Fixed. Nice images; the strip-down-the-right format is good. (Wilshire/Vermont looks awfully like this station, incidentally.) There aren't any overlapping or other formatting problems on my monitor resolution. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC) My responses are above. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support from Hassocks. All of my comments have been addressed or explained to my satisfaction. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009 [44].

---

List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions

Nominator(s): Don Lope (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

After a first wave of comments and answers, I have withdrawn and renominated the list per suggestion by The Rambling Man, to give a new boost to this candidacy. Don Lope (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- My issues were resolved in the previous FLC to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- The beefs that I had were cleared up in the other debate section. I think all of the grand slam lists (Australian, French, Wimbledon, US) on the men's sides are suitable for FA status. Next comes the women's for equality measures. TW-RF (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - looks good—Chris! _ct 00:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from blocked user

• Oppose - Serious inaccuracies and awkward phrasing remain in the article. Not all of the concerns expressed in the first featured nomination were addressed, and it seems like an abuse of process to have begun this second nomination (at the strong suggestion of The Rambling Man) without finishing the first one. Is the objective to make this article "featured" regardless of its merits? 85.249.33.2 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you operating from an open proxy again Chidel? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I reverted Chidel's edit. All the phrasings that remain in the article's current version have been decided by consensus in the first FLC. --Don Lope (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • That's a flat out lie, in several respects, and shows complete disrespect for this process. How about, for example, the error you made (and reinstated through your reversion) about the 9-point tiebreaker, which Wimbledon has never used? Was that "decided by consensus" at any point? What is the purpose of this nomination if everything in the article is unchangeable based upon some alleged earlier consensus? When are you going to stop exercising ownership of that article? Your attitude and the fact that the article is unstable proves that this article is no where close to featured status. 98.222.42.233 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Why don't your try to address the real issues instead of trying to ram through this nomination, The Rambling Man? 98.222.42.233 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Note: both open proxies used here have now been blocked. But just out of interest, I'm not ramming anything through. I suggested the previous FLC had become TLDR so it was failed, restarted and I advised Don Lope to take anything outstanding from the previous FLC and work on it here. And finally, the list will be promoted based solely on the consensus of the community, and that's not down to me. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Incidentally Chidel, it would be useful if you could register an account and stop using open proxies, that way your comments may not be discounted as the work of a blocked sockpuppeteer? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • If only Chidel would open discussions before making major changes and were a tad more civil, perhaps we could work in a more constructive manner. I have kept most of his edits, tweaking perhaps a word or two, and addressed the factual concerns. I have only a couple of small issues --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC):

(1) "Grand Slams" is used in RS (ESPN, The Independent, atpworldtour.com, NY Times). Using it would help avoiding the repetition of "tournament" in the lead. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is what is the "best" usage for the article, not whether a particular usage can be found occasionally. Would you misspell a word in a featured Wikipedia article just because a google search can find the misspelling here or there? I hope not. "Grand Slams" is confusing because it has two possible meanings: (1) winning the Grand Slam by winning all four Grand Slam tournaments; or (2) a simple collective reference to the four Grand Slam tournaments. It's easy to avoid this confusion by using "Grand Slam tournaments", and I don't understand the hesitancy in doing so other than an assertion of article ownership by you. 62.101.84.209 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point about an eventual ambiguity. OK for "tournaments", then. --Don Lope (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(2) "defending champion" can be used even when the champ isn't defending (CNN, ESPN). --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is what is the "best" usage for the article, not whether a particular usage can be found occasionally. Would you misspell a word in a featured Wikipedia article just because a google search can find the misspelling here or there? I hope not. "Defending" implies that the previous winner is trying to win the tournament again; so, it would be far better to avoid that term when the previous winner is absent. 62.101.84.209 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the RS using "defending champion" even when the champion isn't defending (AP/ESPN: "Defending champion Rafael Nadal withdrew from Wimbledon") ? I don't think there is any ambiguity with "...in the absence of the defending champion". --Don Lope (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. 62.101.84.209 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked another editor who told me he saw no ambiguity either but "previous year's champion" was perhaps better, so I'll go for that, and use "defending champion" in the previous sentence to avoid repetition. --Don Lope (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(3) "Open" is capitalized in many RS (ESPN, Bloomberg, SI/CNN). atpworldtour.com even uses "Open Era", like the History of tennis article. A recent (short) discussion on the WikiProject Tennis talk ended with editors agreeing on "Open Era". --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is what is the "best" usage for the article, not whether a particular usage can be found occasionally. Would you misspell a word in a featured Wikipedia article just because a google search can find the misspelling here or there? I hope not. The "open era" discussion involved only two editors, which is hardly equivalent to "editors agreeing" on anything. I'd wager that "open era" (uncapitalized) is far more prevalent in Wikipedia than any capitalized or partially capitalized permutation of the term. 62.101.84.209 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Open Era" is used in RS, in the History of tennis and Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era articles, and the editors involved in the WikiProject discussion have provided a good reason to use the capitalization, so I don't see why we shouldn't go for that. --Don Lope (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Don't see why", huh? Well, consensus should matter to you. And the consensus in our articles is to use lower case. 62.101.84.209 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the discussion where that consensus was decided ? --Don Lope (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the consensus that was developed through editing. At your leisure, have a look at a large sampling of quality tennis articles to see what I mean about "open era" being the consensus usage. 174.143.236.197 (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had look around, and have seen plenty of quality tennis articles using "Open Era", and plenty of quality tennis articles using "Open era". I don't think there's any consensus out there on the question. And even if there was a consensus for "open era", nearly all sources use some sort of capitalization for the term. My preference goes to "Open era", but the arguments raised for "Open Era" is the previously mentioned Project discussion also seemed solid. What do you suggest ? Open another discussion on the project page ? --Don Lope (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(4) The text would flow better with one longer sentence instead of two here. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The single sentence you believe is "better" has a whopping 45 words, which is stream of consciousness instead of good writing. 62.101.84.209 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what sentence you're talking about. The one I'm proposing is: "All sets were decided in the advantage format starting in 1884, before the "lingering death" tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, played at eight-all until 1978 and at six-all since 1979."--Don Lope (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence I referred to is at the link you, yourself provided. The sentence you just provided is still inferior to this: "All sets were decided by a two games difference from 1884 to 1970. The "lingering death" best-of-twelve-points tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, played at eight-games-all until 1978 and at six-games-all since 1979." 62.101.84.209 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked another editor's opinion and switched to his proposal: "All sets were decided in the advantage format from 1884 to 1970. The "lingering death" best-of-twelve-points tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, played at eight-games-all until 1978 and at six-games-all since 1979." --Don Lope (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is generally satisfactory except I object to: 1) "tie-break" in lieu of "tiebreak" or "tiebreaker"; 2) "to" or "until" instead of "through"; and 3) the use of quotation marks around "lingering death" when none are used around other technical terms. 174.143.236.197 (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of tie-break/to/until was already discussed in the first FLC and there is nothing wrong with those terms, no reason to change them. Many RS use quotation marks around "lingering death" so that's why I put them in the first place but I guess it doesn't really matter so I removed them on the list. --Don Lope (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I will be recusing myself from this FLC, including any further comment and any possible promotion. I heartily recommend that all reviewers pay close detail to any factual concerns brought up by any editors here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I missed out on this FLC because of the tldr and proxy editor issues. If I mention anything that has already been rejected or discussed, feel free to ignore that comment. Do we really need to link London, World War I or World War II? See WP:OVERLINK. Delinked. "All matches since the first edition have been played"-->Since the first edition, all matches have been played Done. Tennis terminology – Not applicable to just this FLC, but you might use {{anchor}} to create links for each term. Perhaps it's just me, but I have read again and again the Template:Anchor page and I still don't know how it works, and what it does exactly. Could you explain me, or link to a page where it's used ? I did "A" for you; now you click on the link to "all" in the glossary, and it will go straight to that definition. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I did all the other letters, and changed the links on list. --Don Lope (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "best-of-twelve-points" Generally, numbers over nine should be written numerically. Done. "All new singles champions are also traditionally elected honorary members of the AELTC by the club's committee." Done. "Gentlemen's Singles with seven victories each." Comma after "Singles". Added. Can you put WP:NBSP non-breaking spaces between the names and the symbols so that the lines don't break? Done. Why is there no symbol for "no competition"? No reason. Added one. "five-games-all" As this is a score, shouldn't the hyphen between "five-games" and "all" be an en dash? I never thought of it that way. Changed to en dashes. "allowing indoor and/or night-time play" No need for "/or". Removed. The last two external links aren't directly relevant to this article; I think they should be removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Removed. Thanks for your comments. In addition to addressing them, I have also made some (minor) tweaks to the lead, notably adding a "The Gentlemen's Singles' rules have undergone several changes since the first edition" sentence to introduce the second paragraph, and moving the bit about the Open Era to a footnote, as it does not directly concern the match rules. --Don Lope (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Ref 19, the work and the publisher are the same. Remove the publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed.

Comments – Most of my concerns were taken care of last time. Only found a couple of things that could be improved:

• Most people know what a replica is, and I doubt it needs a link.
  • Delinked.
• "Six of Renshaw's wins, however, came within the challenge round format, and he won the event only twice after going through a complete draw." Since he won seven times, one of the figures in this sentence is off. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed "Six of", as it was wrong, and probably unnecessary. --Don Lope (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support – Much hard work has gone toward bringing this list in line with FL standards, and I commend the nominator for his efforts. Hopefully this will be a strong template for future lists, and those FLCs should go smoother than this first attempt. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Why is Rafael Nadal in the lead on the French Open one when he has not eclipsed Bjorn Borg in the Open Era, which should be the standard to have the most in the Open Era to be in the lead? What is the reason for Agassi-Australian, Borg-French sic now ?Nadal?-French, Sampras-Wimbledon, and Federer-US, which that is because it is a breaker with Sampras and Connors because Fed won 5 consecutive unlike those two? Explain to me the change, Please Mr. Don Lope?98.240.44.215 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, we should have the players holding the all-time records for most titles: Emerson for the AO, Borg for the French (Decugis' eight titles are rarely counted as real GS titles), Sampras for Wimbledon (Five of Renshaw's seven titles were won in the challenge round), and Tilden for the USO. Unfortunately, we don't have any Emerson pic, and the Björn Borg photo seems to be a copyright violation, that will most likely be deleted soon. So the next best idea, in my opinion, seems to have the most successful Open Era record holders: Agassi for the AO, Sampras for Wimbledon, Federer for the USO (as you said, five titles, but won consecutively), and Nadal for the French, since we can't use the Borg pic, and Nadal is the next best French Open champion after Borg in the Open Era. --Don Lope (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment!98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Why did you delete the open era record holders from the intro, which I think is biased to the Amateur Era, which needs to be balanced out in order to be fair in the prose. I can see putting Agassi(4)-Australian, Borg(6)-French, Sampras(7)-Wimbledon, Federer/Sampras/Connors(5)-US? Also, saying that you put consecutive records in the opening for the Amateur Era, which the same needs to be done for the Open Era in the Opening such as Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas, Johan Kriek, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, and Roger Federer (2)-Australian Open, Bjorn Borg and Rafael Nadal (4)-French Open, Bjorn Borg and Roger Federer (5)-Wimbledon, Roger Federer (5)-US? Why is this not done?98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I went and looked, and we need to get the last paragraph in the intro's re-written, and we can do the challenge round and all, but we need to separate it into the more dramatic shift from amateur to professional from Championships to Opens? Why was this not done? I know I have gripes, but it is and has been overlooked because it is not written out in prose in the entries. Thanks for dealing with my concerns in advance! Have a nice day98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you must have missed the words all-time in the intros. The four leads are not biased towards any era, Open or Amateur, as they only mention the all-time records (which is why Nadal and Borg are mentioned alongside Decugis and Aymé on the French list, and Sampras, Borg and Federer alongside Renshaw on the Wimbledon list). I think you're referring to the US Open list, which only mention Sears, Larned and Tilden, all Amateur Era players, but there it's just a coincidence that all US records are held by pre-1968 players. If, say, Federer wins the US Open this year, he will be added to the lead as the co-holder of the all-time record for most consecutive titles. --Don Lope (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I can see putting a different color for the Open Era and Amateur Era to show the line of demarcation! What do you think? This is a more dramatic shift in the tournament! The Australian needs to further indicate when it was staged in December versus in January! Their needs to be a visual cue as well when the tournaments switched surfaces from grass in the wikitables!98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea of having different colors for Open/Amateur Eras. Colors wouldn't be more informative, I believe, than the notes used in the current versions. I'm not sure either we need to have something in the Australian Open table to say when the tournament changed dates, as the info is already in the lead, and anyway not directly relevant to the competition itself (as opposed to, say, the change from challenge round to no challenge round). On the other hand, I agree something should be done for the Australian Open and the US Open about the surface switches. Again, I believe adding colors to the tables would be too much, but notes for each year in which the events changed their surface would perhaps be helpful. --Don Lope (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Without any accusations, is this IP part of the Chidel sock mess in the hidden section above? If not, and the IP is genuinely interested in the FLC, may I ask why he is not logged in? Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matthew. No, we're pretty sure this particular IP is not Chidel. As to why he is not logged in, I don't know. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009 [45].

---

List of cities and towns in Arizona

Nominator(s): Shereth 16:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Round two for this particular list. I had submitted it a little over a year ago under another title (see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Arizona/archive1 for the FLC discussion) and there were a few niggling issues that never quite got resolved. I'd like to think that the issues have been resolved since then. Over the year it has been relatively stable, with the exception of a merger from a related article that was largely redundant information and I think that's been taken care of by now. Feel free to take a look and pick it apart again, FLC folks :) Shereth 16:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and alt text check out fine. Ref 2 has a dead external link Lead I believe that linking the cities in the lead will not violate WP:OVERLINK because the links are related to the list itself and are not just random geographical links. Municipal incorporation in Arizona The population limit specified by the constitution was lowered by state law to a minimum of population of 1,500 for cities or towns, or 500 for communities located within 10 miles (16 km) of a national park or national monument. -- Wouldn't the or 500 be and 500? Cities and towns in Arizona function in largely an identical manner, but cities are provided with a number of additional powers that a town charter does not provide, limited primarily to certain powers regarding the regulation of utilities and construction within the city limits. --> Cities and towns in Arizona function largely in an identical manner, but cities are provided with a number of additional powers that a town charter does not provide, limited primarily to certain powers regarding the regulation of utilities and construction within the city limits. Footnotes The municipal boundaries of Peoria, Apache Junction, Queen Creek and Sedona cross the county border into, respectively, Yavapai County, Maricopa County, Pinal County and Coconino County. The above table lists the primary county in which these cities and towns reside. -- The comma after respectively should be changed to a colon What is CDP? You need to spell out the acronym in its first occurrence. Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 503 16:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Suggested changes have been made. Shereth 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) What about the links in the lead? I think they are needed IMO (links to the cities like Tucson, Arizona)--Truco 503 01:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Somehow I missed that. Done now. Shereth 02:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Is it Phoenix metropolitan area or Phoenix Metropolitan Area? The article is Phoenix metropolitan area but here is not Use non-breaking spaces when necessary Maybe a good idea to have more images —Chris! ct 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I have seen it both ways. The Census Bureau capitalizes the term [46]. I don't know that one way or another is "correct" but am open to advice. I am OK with putting more images in but I will need advice, as previously there were more cityscapes but I was told there were too many. Shereth 01:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Well, my first point can be ignored if both are correct. Also, the article have room for several more image in my opinion.—Chris! ct 04:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I've gone ahead and added a few more images. I'm trying to keep them relevant/informative rather than merely decorative, so feel free to provide input on whether this is the sort of thing you are looking for. Shereth 14:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 18:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment The image needs alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Easily fixed - and done! Shereth 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. However, the alt text needs to be improved. If people using a screen reader were to "read" that image (without looking at the caption), it would not mean much to them (this is what it looks like), as most people don't know what the skyline of Phoenix looks like. So, you have to describe the appearance rather than "interpret" it. Alt text is analagous to describing the image to a friend over the phone. Take a look at these examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC) How's [47]? Shereth 21:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Excellent, thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A nicely done list. I think you could merge one or two paragraphs in the lead. "Current census estimates put 5,218,713 of the state's 6,500,180 residents within" "Current" is vague and a dated term. What year? "for a full 80.3% of the population." "full" is an unnecessary word. "a municipal charter shall not be created by special laws or by the " "shall not" seems quaint and different from the rest of the prose. I suspect this was taken from the constituion. Use plainer English, such as "cannot". "Currently, state law allows for the incorporation of a community as either a city or a town, with the only additional requirement to incorporate as a city is a minimum population of 3,000."-->State law allows for the incorporation of a community as either a city or a town; the only additional requirement for incorporation as a city is a minimum population of 3,000. "with a number of additional powers that a town charter does not provide" "State law allows adjoining towns to merge and it allows a city to annex a town, but it does not allow cities to merge. Additionally, a town may change its form of government to a city upon reaching the minimum population of 3,000." Where is the source for these statements? "with over 200,000 residents" Prefer "more than" to "over", but not a big deal. "Flagstaff is Arizona's highest city at 6,910 feet (2,110 m) elevation." "elevation" is unnecessary. I'd like it if the population and incorporation year columns were centered, but it's not a dealbreaker. In the table, some items have spaces between the footnotes and the term, while others don't. Make it consistent. Instead of linking "county" in the table to the general article about US counties, why not link it to List of counties in Arizona (another featured list, I might add)? For the population header, you should note that it is an estimate. You should probably use two significant figures for the places whose areas were rounded to a whole number. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Done, mostly. I do have a question about your last point: Are you asking for two significant figures, or are you looking for numbers rounded to two decimal places? Shereth 14:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Two sig figs. Example: Miami would be 1.0 sq mi instead of 1. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Gotcha. Done. Shereth 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I could find a few small things to complain about, but on the whole it looks featured-quality to me. Good work! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mild oppose I think linking the US Census would be valid in this context. Just a nitpick - I think you could happily merge the second and third paragraphs of the lead - four paras is probably one too may for a list of this length. Remove the space before ref 6 and ref 8. Surprised that Dabomb87 let the redirects slide - pretty much 100% of your County's are redirected. You don't have to fix them on their own, but it would be good if you could fix them while you're fixing other things. I let them slide because most (or all, I haven't check) redirect due to a missing "Arizona" at the end, as opposed to other lists, which have redirects that result from misspellings or missing diacritics. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Ahah. I see.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I think all numerical values should be consistent in the number of decimal places - in general you use one, but for Bullhead City (46), Chandler (58) you don't. There may be others. Note c - you don't need to expand out to square miles again. It might just be my poor eyes but I can barely make out that light pastel shade selected to identify county seats. It's personal, but I'd use a slightly bolder colour. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I think I took care of them. Let me know if the color still needs some adjustment, or if I missed one or two of the numbers, but I think I got them all. Shereth 17:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Comment- I adjusted my monocle and the pale green is much better. Nearly there with the rest of it, but Marana needs a trailing ".0", and you should check the km2 values too. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I think I finally nailed it - {{convert}} was fighting me tooth and nail but I believe I finally managed to finesse it into doing what I want. Shereth 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] "Most of the population is concentrated within the Phoenix metropolitan area." Would be nice to include the amount. "Unincorporated communities, such as Sun City and Anthem..." Why mention only those two? In the "List of incorporated places in Arizona" section, the captions, except for the second image, are not referenced. "Key: [green box] and [a] indicate that the listed city or town is a county seat." No need for that, since you already have a note for it. Just add the green box into note a. IMO, it would be better renaming the section "List of incorporated places in Arizona" to just "Incorporated places in Arizona". Would be nice to tell the readers if the incorporated place is a city or a town. Would also be nice to include more images... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Regarding the above points: Phoenix Metro population added. There are many dozens, if not hundreds (by some definitions) of unincorporated places in the state; I have picked two prominent ones as examples. If they are problematic they can be removed. It just looks picky to me. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Most of these are simple statistical points easily verifiable in the articles linked to, but specific references can be added here if necessary. I will dig them up tomorrow. I added the color-coded background as the footnotes might not be as easily distinguished on smaller monitors. I meant either remove note a, or remove the key, as the both say the same thing. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Section renamed. City/town designations are of minimal importance in Arizona and I thought their addition would be information overload; the table already has a lot of data. But the list is about cities and towns of Arizona...shouldn't you at least point out which one is a city, and which one is a town, even if they are of minimal importance. I think the area the probably the best column to remove, if you do add the designation of the area. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Relevant and useful images are not always easy to come by. Previous versions of this list were reviewed poorly for having too many "random" images that added little in the way of useful content. I will continue adding images as I find ones that are useful, but I won't be adding them merely for the sake of having more images. That is what I've had a chance to take a look at thus far. Shereth 08:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Above issues should be clarified. Shereth 04:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Better than most cities and towns articles. Well done. :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Why not include unincorporated locales as well? --Golbez (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Read last paragraph of the lead. Laugh out loud. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking to an article that should probably be deleted (it's nothing but a vertical category) isn't an excuse. There's few enough unincorporated cities listed on that article that the two could be merged. Larf. --Golbez (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Golbez - because there are no population statistics, no incorporation dates, and no physical areas for unincorporated places, they would irreparably break the tabular format of this article. Furthermore there is some dissent among various editors on Wikipedia as to what constitutes a "populated place", and by some definitions this could cause the list to become an almost unmaintainable collection of many hundreds of articles based on little more than a GNIS entry. For that purpose I've restricted the list to something that is both easily maintained and well-defined in its scope. Any attempt to create inclusion criteria involving unincorporated communities would be either purely subjective or unmaintainable and make a mess of this list.

Re SERKRAL - "Read last pargraph of the lead. Laugh out loud." Could you possibly be more specific in your description of what needs fixing? This comment is extremely unhelpful. Shereth 08:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment For the county seats, there should only be the color and symbol with a key at the top, as you have, but it is excessive and redundant to have them all link to the note at the bottom saying the same thing as well. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. See above and below. Shereth 04:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments I may repeat some comments from above "U.S." or "US"? Pick one...in the first paragraph of the lead "as of 2009, there are 90..." or "as of 2008, there are 90..."? Pick one...first sentences of the first two paragraphs. Mentioning two random localities (Sun City and Anthem) is POV, strongly suggest removing. I agree with SREKAL and Reywas above that color should be used with a symbol instead of a note. The key should not be small, by the way. The portal link should be placed at the top of the section. In the references: US Census Bureau? United States Census Bureau? Linked United States Census Bureau? Pick one Arizona State Legislature is the publisher of the current refs## 5-11 --Crzycheetah 03:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Should be done. Shereth 04:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Although, the last ref is a dead link.--Crzycheetah 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment
There are a few discrepancies between the area column data and the accompanying source that need fixing, explaining or additional references.

• Clifton is 14.98 on the source so rounded to 1 dp would be 15.0, currently 14.9.
• Holbrook is 15.45 on the source so rounded to 1 dp would be 15.5, currently 15.4.
• Marana is 73.56 on the source, currently 120.
• Prescott is 37.31 on the source, currently 153.5.
• Safford is 7.95 on the source so rounded to 1 dp would be 8.0, currently 7.9.

--Jpeeling (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good catches, not sure how the mixups happened, but it's all sorted out now. Thanks. Shereth 03:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Was the dead link resolved? Not witholding support over it, but it would be nice if it was fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sort of. I dug up an acceptable replacement, but it's too bad the old link just plain went dead - it was far more informative. Shereth 04:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, was this the one?--Crzycheetah 05:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Not quite. That looks like a still older version - it seems like the city feels a need to completely redo their website every several months or so! Shereth 14:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009 [48].

---

List of Olympic medalists in figure skating

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This list is among the biggest and most important lists covered by the WikiProject Olympics, concerning one of the oldest and most popular Olympic sports. Before I gave it a major revamping, the page only displayed the medalist tables. As you can check, it now has a reasonable lead, fully sourced, giving context to the article and the lists; a statistics section, as per similar recently featured lists (e.g. List of Olympic medalists in badminton, List of Olympic medalists in snowboarding); and plenty of correctly licensed images. I believe this lacks little to attain a little star, but it's your call. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Images need alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I'll try to add, but I'm not sure if I can add the best possible, most adequate alt text to each of them. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Eubulides (talk · contribs) is something of an expert on alt text; you might consult him/her on whether the alt text is adequate. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I just did so. Thanks. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Alt text added (and approved by User:Eubulides). Parutakupiu (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC) No need to link United Kingdom or France. Links removed. "who entered in four consecutive " Prefer "competed" to "entered". Word replaced. "having collected a total of four medals" Removed. "He is also the only man to win three successive singles gold medals"-->He is the only man to have won three consecutive singles gold medals Rephrased. "at both Summer and Winter Olympics."-->at both the Summer and Winter Olympics. Done. Put User:Splarka/dabfinder.js into your monobook.js. It will identify dabs as well redirects that need to be fixed, and there are plenty of the latter in this article. I added the script a few weeks ago, but can't seem to make it work... That's because you just copied the script. Put importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js'); in your monobook and it should work. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed the majority of the redirects. There's one that exists because it's the singular form of the article's name, but it has to be used this way; and another created by a template. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) There should be em dashes in the blank cells of the "Medals per year" table. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I tested adding em dashes to the blank cells but that messes a bit with the sorting function. Not if you format the table like it is in List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) But that table isn't sortable. Are you suggesting this one shouldn't be as well? Parutakupiu (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I don't really care one way or another, but I would like for there to be consistency among these Olympic medalist lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Formatted table as per similar lists. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• The first general ref needs to be formatted (publisher, accessdate).
  • Done.
• We shouldn't be using Encyclopædia Britannica (ref 6) or other tertiary sources, except for overview statements. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Source replaced. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and external links check out fine. Lead Figure skating was first contested as an Olympic sport at the 1908 Summer Olympics, in London, United Kingdom. -- Is the link to the UK really needed? Removed. It was featured a second time at the Antwerp Games,[2] after which it was permanently transferred to the program of the Winter Olympic Games, first held in 1924 in Chamonix, France. -- Maybe adding a link to the 1924 Winter Olympics? Link added. Swedish figure skater Gilles Grafström—who entered in four consecutive Olympics, from the 1920 Summer Games to the 1932 Winter Games—is the overall medal leader in the sport, having collected a total of four medals. -- Links to the respective games? Added link for 1932 Games; the 1920 Games already have a link in "Antwerp Games". Three other active National Olympic Committees (NOCs) own 20 medals: Austria, Russia and Canada. -- Why not link to the other countries at the Olympics? They already exist in earlier instances. Medals per year Not that you have to do this, but how about adding "0s" or "dashes" for the empty cells? "0s" don't mess with the sorting but they fill too much the table, almost obscuring the main figures. Dashes don't have that visual impact, but they do mess a bit with the sorting function. You could always do it like this {{sort|0|—}}, that way it looks like "—" but sorts like "0" and you get the best of both options. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, thought about that too. It is the best shot, despite the table script getting huge by adding hundreds of those. I'll see if I can use AutoWikiBrowser for that. Thanks. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC) You don't necessarily have to do it. I've seen previous lists fly without it, so its your choice. Just let us know what you are planning to do.--Truco 503 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I added en-dashes and removed the table sorting, to become consistent with other similar articles. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I like it =)--Truco 503 17:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC) References Encyclopædia Britannica has a link, publisher--Truco 503 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Already switched it as per previous reviewer. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL. --Truco ₅₀₃ 17:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "Since 1964, Russian figure skaters—representing the Soviet Union, the Unified Team, or Russia—have always won a gold medal in the pairs event, a record that still stands." What record is this referring to? Is it a record for most consecutive golds won by a country? If it's just a performance record, I think the last part could be dropped. It's pretty clear that the streak is active. You're right; rephrased that one. This caught my eye in a photo caption: "reached the Olympic title". A pair cannot "reach" a title, despite what the sportswriters may say. Reworded that portion of the caption. Any photos of ice dancing pairs? The rest of it is so well-illustrated that it would be nice to see a photo of ice dancers, if one is avaliable. Well, the photo that contains the caption you've addressed above is of an ice dancing pair. I really wanted to have a photo of Torvill & Dean, but it's incredible that there's no single photo that can be used freely in Wikipedia... Medals per year: Bolding in tables is discouraged in the Manual of Style. I think it wants us to use italics instead. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC) It's getting hard to find a consensual format for this table... Previously, it didn't have the boldfaced numbers because the highest medal count per year were explicit by sorting each column. The issue pointed out was that sortable tables were not present in similar already-featured lists, so I decided to remove the sorting option to give way for consistency. I now think that all those other lists should've had the sortable table in the first place, since they all use boldface as well. I honestly don't find it a good way to emphasize numerical data, so I kind of agree with the guidelines there. Concerning your suggestion, I don't think italics will do the job either. In my personal opinion, these tables should be sortable and have en-dashes sorted as "0", so that sorting is not messed up, even it means adding hundreds of {{sort|0|–}} to the table's empty cells. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I would rather see a table that conforms to our guidelines, even if a particular WikiProject prefers a different format, but I see there are differing opinions here. If I see a good argument on the opposite side, I am willing to go along with the present table. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I've brought this subject to the WikiProject with the intention of discussing and reaching consensus over a definitive format, but I haven't had any replies, so I'm not positive I can address this issue in reasonable time. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Any thoughts from any other reviewers watching this FLC? Giants2008 (17–14) 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I think the sortable version offers far more options and looks better than the bolding/italics. The problem comes when you come to deciding where thinks should sort. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support – Now that the one table has had a format agreed upon by all, I think the standards are met. The red links don't bother me that much, and they can easily be made blue if consensus requires it. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment.

• Links, in the first column, you have a lot of redlink "details", most of these can be easily made blue. Take 2002 in the pairs for example, I found [[]].
  • It is a the long-term goal of the Olympics WikiProject to create articles for those red links in the same fashion as the ones created for the most recent Games, which will serve as template for the older Games. Besides, those links are formatted so that they give rise to an adequately named article concerning that exact event, not pointing to sections in a a broader article. They are useful red links as per WP:RED, imo.
    • Well, you can turn Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics - Pairs blue by creating a redirect to Figure_skating_at_the_2002_Winter_Olympics#Pairs with {{R to section}}. Then, when your project gets around to creating it, then it can be made into a full article. As it is, there is no need for redlinks as Wikipedia already carries the related information. Woody (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• For the medals per year table, what does the colour signify? Can we have a key? Also, per WP:ACCESSIBILITY/WP:COLOUR colour shouldn't be "the only way used to convey important information."
  • I added a small text before the table explaining the significance of the dashes and the colored cells. Is is enough?
    • No it isn't. You still have a large number of cells that are completely empty apart from some colour. To some colour blind people or people using screen readers etc they will just be empty cells with nothing to signify why. Generally tables should not have empty cells. Woody (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Filled each shaded cell with a character that is explained in a key I added above the table. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Apart from those, it does look good. Images are appropriate and licensed, sources look good, the lead looks good. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. Parutakupiu (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything else looks great, but please remove the xs from the Medals per year table. They make the table look very full, cluttered, and ugly and are out of line with all other medalist lists. Keep the key, but even for those who can't see the colors, an empty cell represents nonparticipation because there are only gray empties and no white empties. Reywas92^Talk 18:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I do agree that it does look a bit cluttered, generally you should not have empty cells in a table. A coloured background does not count as filling a table for all of the accessibility reasons mentioned. By your reasoning there is no need to have the gray in the table at all given that empty cells are their own indicators. That others have failed to live up to guidelines and policies in the past does not mean that you shouldn't abide by them in the future. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know where people got the idea in the first place that tables shouldn't have empty cells. They look just fine to me. And you're right, you don't even need the gray, though I do think it's appropriate. Otherwise those should be the ones with the dashes and no medals is a zero (But don't take that as a suggestion!!) How about at least something smaller and less ugly and cluttering than an x, then, like a small dot? It's just really unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I've been further from removing the table altogether. It's giving more problems than what it's worth, at least to this specific article. I'm feeling a bit like the guy whose arms are being pulled to opposite sides. Please, what layout do you think can solve all your concerns? Do I keep the gray cells with the "x"? Do I replace it with a more discrete character? Do I remove the color altogether and display information with another character? Parutakupiu (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose this does place you in an awkward position, my apologies for that. The colour is up to you: it doesn't have to be there, I don't mind if it is or if it isn't. I will say that I think it isn't much use when you already have a symbol in the table. I don't particularly mind what symbol you have in there: if you think there is a less intrusive one, try it out. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize, it comes with being a reviewer. The problem is that there isn't any guideline regarding table presentation, more specifically whether empty cells should exist or not... One thing you're right: color becomes accessory when info is also conveyed by another way.Parutakupiu (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I think the color is a lot easier to see than the cluttered extra symbols, even for those who can't see it because it's empty. Help:Table says "For empty cells, use the non-breaking space   as content to ensure that the cells are displayed." From that I see that there's nothing wrong with having empty cells. However I think with updates over the years it is unnecessary to have the space - they always show up fine for a wikitable. And please don't remove the useful table. Reywas92^Talk 14:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support For the redlinked "details", I believe they're secondary links and can stay red. Good thing is that all medalists are blue. As for the gray cells, I'll leave it to the nominator/main contributor to decide what to do; though, I'd prefer the way it is now...with those x's.--Crzycheetah 01:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:04, 8 August 2009 [49].

---

Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I recently introduced this article to the mainspace, and with it being approved for DYK, I was hoping to take it up a notch by submitting this to FLC. Please throw at me tomatoes any comments which will help me improve the timeline to meet WP:WIAFL. Best, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"The timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season documents all the storm formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, as well as dissipation" Not an engaging start. See Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season for a better example. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that is an engaging start but I can't think of anything similar for the 1996 timeline. Any ideas? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty cool! Thanks for that. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 00:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

checking --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images need alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It took over 3 hours, but I'm finally done. This is the first time I've ever worked with alternative text, so could you please do a run-through of my work? Thanks! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 01:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, alt text is there. However, it needs work. The alt text of the first image is merely a copy of the caption. The two have different functions: alt text describes the image, while captions interpret the image. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For example, going back to the lead image, people using screen readers would not be helped if they were told it was track map, since most people cannot simply visualize what that looks like. You might say instead:

|alt=Map showing paths of tropical cylcones [or whatever the correct term is] that formed in the North Atlantic basin in 1996|Track map of all storms during the season]]

Alt text only describes things that can be seen by looking at the image. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I've used the example. Best, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 15:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One more example. The alt text for the June image: "Tropical Storm Arthur near its landfall in North Carolina on June 19. Arthur was a minimal tropical storm at peak intensity, with winds of 50 miles per hour, and a minimum central pressure of 990 millibars." By looking at the image alone, readers would not be able to verify most of the information in the caption (the date and the location are the exceptions). For example, I wouldn't know that the winds gusted at 50 mph or that the storm was named Arthur without the caption. Describe what you see, not what you know. See WP:ALT#Flawed and better examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody have a suggestion to fix that problem? I am fairly new to FLC, after all. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 18:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

bribe youre Admin Coach to do it for you :P Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no, I'm not into bribing people to do stuff for me. :P I'll just be patient and wait for a possible reply. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 18:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this, Tropical Storm Arthur approaching North Carolina on June 19. At the time, most of the thunderstorm activity was already over land? --Anhamirak 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dylan i generally meant have a word in youre coaches ear and he should be able to sort out all of the Alt Text for you. Jason Rees (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

On it. Might take a few hours though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text cleaned up for the most part, though it might take a bit of revising yet. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Julian. I don't think it will need revising; Truco (talk · contribs) below says the alt text (and the other technical aspects of the timeline) checks out fine. :) --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Technical Dabs, external links, alt text check out fine. Lead The 1996 Atlantic hurricane season was above average in terms of activity, with 13 named storms of which 9 became hurricanes and 6 became major hurricanes (hurricanes that are classified as Category 3 or higher). -- I don't know but to me this seems a bit POV-ish was above average in terms of activity, can it be reworded? Fixed. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 00:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think the links to Colombia and Dominican Republic, or even Puerto Rico are needed. Done, and I took it a tiny step further by de-linking North Carolina as well. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Why not link all the other publishers? Consistency. Done. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 503 20:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The 1996 Atlantic hurricane season was above average in terms of activity, with 13 named storms " Comma after here. Fixed. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "The timeline also includes information which " "which"-->that Fixed. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "These were Bertha, Edouard, Fran, Hortense, Isidore, and Lili." What is "These" referring to? Are the named storms hurricanes, tropical storms? I don't know; readers shouldn't have to click on the links to find out. Fixed. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "Hurricane Cesar (later known as Hurricane Douglas in the Eastern Pacific basin) was the deadliest storm of the season. It killed at least 51 people and caused severe damage in northern Colombia and southern Central America."-->Hurricane Cesar (later known as Hurricane Douglas in the Eastern Pacific basin) was the deadliest storm of the season; it killed at least 51 people and caused severe damage in northern Colombia and southern Central America. I will see to this concern tomorrow morning. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Done. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "Hurricane Fran caused $3.2 billion (1996 USD; $4 billion 2009 USD) in the United States" $3.2 billion in what? Fixed. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "on the spring of 1997" It's autumn in half the world. I was following what I viewed as standard practice, so I honestly do not know how I could fix this. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "respectively replaced with Cristobal, Fay, and Hanna for the 2002 season."-->replaced with Cristobal, Fay, and Hanna for the 2002 season, respectively. Just cut out the season altogether. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Done. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 20:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) In the timeline itself, change all instances of "weakens to" to "weakens into". Fixed. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "along Georgia/Florida border."-->along the Georgia/Florida border. Fixed. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think "south-southeast" needs to be linked. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC) I will see to this tomorrow morning. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Done. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I have read these comments and should get to them by the end of the night; right now I have commitments to make to two editors (one of whom is my adoptee). Best, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:04, 8 August 2009 [50].

---

List of Second World War Victoria Cross recipients

Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Next Victoria Cross list (WWI list is still active, but getting there I think). This follows the usual pattern, closely mimicing the WWI list and others in the series. Thanks for your time, regards Woody (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments - just two quick things: I don't know if this is applicable to quite a few of the recipients listed—I just noticed it mainly among the Australians—but in quite a number of the Australians listed their unit is given as their division or brigade, rather than their battalion, and I was wondering why this was? If one goes done to the "Notes" section and clicks on one of the arrows, it only takes you to where the first time it is used. As I have not used such notes before I thought it better to ask, is there a problem with the notes in the article or is this just how it is? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC) No, it is only with this list as I couldn't find many article of the battalions and I couldn't see many being created in the future so I upped to the nearest blue link. In most cases there weren't articles for the brigades let alone the battalions. There were a lot of redlinks with little "What links here." If you think they will all make viable articles then I am happy to change them to battalion links here. That is just how the {{ref label}} system works. Given it can only point to one, it points to the first. I prefer it to mixing footnotes with refs. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) With the way AustralianRupert has been working, it should only be a matter of time before the Australian units are up, but it might be best to upate the list as it goes a long. It is a shame with the notes, but I do agree it is better than mixing it with the refs. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I have added all the AIF battalions in now. Some stubs will soon be following! Woody (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Can't you use the "group" parameter in the standard "ref" type notes to divide footnotes for citations? I haven't tried to use it myself, but I've seen it in use. David Underdown (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC) You still have the same problem where it doesn't link back to the individual instance as far as I am aware. Woody (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC) The introduction seems to be slightly the wrong way around. The VC should probably be introduced before it is stated how many were awarded during the war. There seems to be a greater focus/emphasis on the conflict in Europe, and little on other theatres, such as in the Pacific or Mediteraniean. Also—similar to Ian's niggle in the WWI VC list—the focus is also on the war, rather than VC recipients of the conflict, particularly in the area of naval and aerial engagements/VC recipients. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Had a comprehensive reword, can you take a look and see what you think? Obviously it is very hard to try and capture everything that happened in WWII in this small lead. I have tried to provide links to all appropriate articles and included more info about the VC. Thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) You have done an excellent job encompassing all of the theatres and including specific references to recipients. I am happy to support now. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all issues addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

*Comments Not noticed this before, but is it worth linking service in the context of "...in any service ..."? "organized " -> use organised for BritEng. Likewise "mobilization ". "6 year " should be hyphenated I think. "saw 5 Victoria Crosses " - prefer "five". "saw 5 Victoria Crosses " is repeated. Can we rework a touch? Not sure you should link "and" with the "and bar". Removing that link also would ensure people see "bar" as something additional rather than assume you just linked VC again... "and bar" or "and Bar"... be consistent. "a *, indicates" no need for comma, unless you put one before the "along"... Should "2/2nd Batallion" (etc) sort after "81st West African..."? Notes need consistent full stop rules applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC) D0ne all of those I think. I linked in any service to British Armed Forces. Do you reckon that is a worthwhile change? Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, if that covers the entire scope of people allowed to receive the VC, I think it's just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, thinking about it some more, it doesn't cover it, particularly for WWII, given the huge number of Commonwealth forces that fought in the war. If there was a link to Commonwealth Armed forces then that would work. There isn't though, and I doubt there ever will be given the huge scope for that. So, I think we should remove the link and leave it unlinked? How do you feel about it? Regards, Woody (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Unless there's a more generic article to link to then perhaps we can leave it. It was just a thought that service can be ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) We could use Armed forces or Military? Woody (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC) What about Military service? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks again, Woody (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I think armed forces would be better, military service is more about compulsory army service. David Underdown (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC) David is right, Armed forces is about forces make-up in general which is the context of "service" in the article so I have linked to it instead. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - comments addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) WRT the above "armed forces" link issue, please fix that in all your VC lists if necessary. A small thing, but I'm a stickler about consistency across similar articles/lists! "was a global military conflict which involved a"-->was a global military conflict that involved a "Throughout the 6-year duration of the war" Numbers under 10 are typically spelled out. "mobilisation of over 100 million military personnel" and Prefer "more than" to "over", but it's purely personal preference. "technology improved rapidly" Comma after here. "Over seventy million people" Same comment about the "over"/"more than" issue, but "seventy" should definitely be "70". "The start of the war is generally held to be 1 September 1939" "held" sounds strange to me, although it may EngVar at work. Perhaps "considered" "so called" Hyphenate, I think. "which saw German U-boats attempting to disrupt and destroy allied convoys."-->in which German U-boats attempted to disrupt and destroy allied convoys. "the war was fought in several theatres" Comma after here. "two separate acts" "separate", as opposed to...? "awarded; five soldiers"-->awarded; and five soldiers "Upham was only the third recipient of the Victoria Cross and Bar, and the first for combatant actions, the previous two recipients being medical officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps."-->Upham was the third recipient of the Victoria Cross and Bar, and the first for combatant actions; the previous two recipients were medical officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Notes B and C are not complete sentences and should not have periods at the end. I'd prefer if note F had an inline citation, even if it's verifiable by one of the general references. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC) I have done all but the "held" one as it sounds better to me, maybe because I'm a Brit. In terms of the Armed forces thing, I will wait to see if it sticks before changing all the others. Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Minor point: in ref 2, I think "The Gazette" should be italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:04, 8 August 2009 [51].

---

List of CMLL World Trios Champions

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am submitting this list for FL as I believe it fullfills all the requirements, I've incorporated old review comments in the hopes of producing the best list yet. I've become very aware of redlinks in the lists and how it looks bad for what is supposed to be "Featured Contenet", therefor I have already created articles Los Infernales, MS-1 (wrestler), Pirata Morgan, Masakre and Jaque Mate and I plan on turning the remaining redlinks blue over the next couple of weeks: Outstanding redlinks at time of submission: Pierroth, Jr., Universo 2000, El Brazo, Gran Markus, Jr., El Hijo del Gladiador. Yes I am aware that have two other FL candidates but one is winding down and one has been going for a week or so, I feel confident it won't be a problem to work on input for either of them. I look forward to any and all comments. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Am I the only one that cannot get the disambig check link to work?? MPJ-DK (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links, and alt text check out fine. Lead The CMLL World Trios Championship (Campeonato Mundial Trios de CMLL in Spanish) is the primary professional wrestling three-man tag team championship promoted by the Mexican Lucha Libre wrestling-based promotion Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) in Mexico since 1993. - 1)Unlink Mexico 2)I would move the sentence about how the title is a pro wrestling title after the sentence that explains about the other Trios title. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ..since 1993 the Mexican National title has been relegated to a secondary championship compared to the CMLL World Trios Championship. -- comma after 1993 Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The first Trios championship team to be recognized by CMLL was MS-1, Pirata Morgan and Satánico (a team known as Los Infernales; Spanish for "the Infernals") who defeated the team of El Brazo, Brazo de Oro and Brazo de Plata (known collectively as Los Brazos; Spanish for "the Arms") in the finals of a 16-team tournament. -- 1)How about instead The first champions to be recognized? 2)Because in Spanish Los is capitalized since its a noun, the The in English needs to be capitalized Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) It is the second reign for the team, while Héctor Garza has held the title three further times with other partners. -- further --> other Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The team is the 20th overall champions, in total 36 individuals have formed 18 championship teams. -- change the comma to a semicolon Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The team of Rey Bucanero, Emilio Charles, Jr. and Satánico held the championship the shortest time, at 39 days. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Black Warrior, Blue Panther and Dr. Wagner, Jr. hold the record for the longest single reign of any team, at over 1,141 days. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Dr. Wagner Jr's four reigns combine to 2,051 days, the highest for any wrestler. -- for --> of Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ...Héctor Garza also holds the record for most individual reigns, with five reigns as part of four different teams. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The championship has been Vacated five times, either because one or more members of the team left the promotion or because a team split up, each time a tournament was held to determine the new champions. -- No need to capitalize Vacated Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Table Championship vacated after the team broke up -- period needed Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Footnotes All of them need a comma before placing Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 503 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your input. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Will

Support: Concerns fixed--WillC 07:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wrestlinglover

Lead Change image text from "Perro Aguayo, Jr., part of the 17th CMLL World Trios Champions along with Héctor Garza and Mr. Águila" to "Perro Aguayo, Jr., along with Héctor Garza and Mr. Águila, were the 17th CMLL World Trios Champions. Fixed "The CMLL World Trios Championship (Campeonato Mundial Trios de CMLL in Spanish) is the primary professional wrestling three-man tag team championship promoted by the Mexican Lucha Libre wrestling-based promotion Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) in Mexico since 1993." Add the translation of CMLL in here. Maybe change the sentence to "The CMLL World Trios Championship (Campeonato Mundial Trios de CMLL in Spanish) is the primary professional wrestling three-man tag team championship contested for by the Mexican Lucha Libre promotion Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL; Spanish for "World Wrestling Council") since 1993." Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Title history "Table last updated July 24, 2009" Is this really needed? It tells the readers that if there has been any title changes since July 24, 2009 is not in the list yet, since it's an active title and all. MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I can understand the reason, but what is the point actually? Why leave a note telling readers that editors have not updated this page. Would that appear in a written encyclopedia? No, so why should in appear in an online one? I believe readers could probably understand to not trust everything on here. Well encylopedias are generally printed, so they have a "last updated" date on everything.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Somewhat, but anyway it isn't a big deal.--WillC 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Not important, removed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  02:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Make sure all of the wrestlers are listed alphabetically in each reign section, if you understand what I mean. No I don't understand I'm afraid.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Names should be "A, B, and C" not "C, B, and A". Get it now? Ah you mean order of names per team.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah.--WillC 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed the 2 or 3 places it wasn't already like that.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  02:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The notes should complete sentences. "Defeated Los Brazos in the finals of a 16-team tournament" is not a complete sentence. To make it complete I'd just mention the name of the team, but that's generally not how the notes are worded.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Recently that is how most of the notes are done.--WillC 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Point to an example please.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The most recent wrestling FLs. All mine have been that way and it usually makes more sense and is more helpful.--WillC 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Team reigns by combined length Why don't you just do this section and the one below like other FLs like here? It's done like this to be consistent with all other CMLL & Mexican National Championship FLs that have already passed, if they're going to be a Feature Topic one day they need to all be internally consistent.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Well those list can be changed as well. The first lists I did, had a different format than the ones I've done recently. I've had to go back and update them.--WillC 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) If they are changed you cannot jump directly to "individual reigns" you'd have to go to "combined reigns", then scroll down - this format is more user friendly.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) That is why you use level three headers.--WillC 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Then frankly it's virtually the same, an editors preference like centering all text or not. I prefer to keep it this way.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) "Table last updated July 24, 2009" same question as above. All tables are quick references so everything that should be linked needs to be linked. It's done like this to be consistent with all other CMLL & Mexican National Championship FLs that have already passed, if they're going to be a Feature Topic one day they need to all be internally consistent.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The others ones can always be updated.--WillC 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Yes they can, if it's a general rule that "quick reference" lists have links, I have not see this anywhere.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) It is supposed to be in the wikipedia MoS. I forget the link, sorry.--WillC 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Hasn't been brought up in 6 FLs and the other FLC I got right now, can't have been very clearly marked. Lemme just say that I don't mind doing it, it's not like it's hard, I just want to be sure it's actually required before I edit all the lists for consistency.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Why don't you just use the age in days template to update the days automatically? Where? in the combined reigns? Because none of them are in the first reign, to my knowledge there isn't a "age in days + a bit" template. And WP:PW got all pissy about it being OR when someone put a calculated start date to make it could "current reign + previous reign".  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) It was agreed it wasn't OR, and since then all the list articles have gone by that format. It just takes the editor counting back to which day it would add up to be correct with the statistics.--WillC 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) You're saying WP:PW actually got consensus on something? I'm tempted to ask for proof of this statement ;) I'll see what I can do.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, shocking I know. Just look up the discussion you were referring to. It was pretty much unanimous that it was not OR.--WillC 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) And fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  02:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Individual reigns by combined length Same as above. Footnotes Fine. References Taking all Spanish ones in good faith. Fine. External links Remove Cagematch.net, it is not reliable.--WillC 00:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Which is why it's under External Links, not an actual source.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Well it is still unreliable so why link to a site that is unreliable when we are supposed to be trustworthy. Information on that site could be potentially false and some editors could think of adding it to this one as such.--WillC 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Show me where it has been proven as unreliable? As far as I know it's never been proven "Reliable" which is not the same, it's as reliable as Solie.org sources not taken from the "Wrestling Title History", except it's not used as an actual source.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) There have been a few FLs fail due to the questionable reliability of it. One example was the CZW World Heavyweight Championship.--WillC 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Which is why I'm not using it as a source.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Well I don't think it should be in the article at all if it is not reliable. It is like the New York Times having and article about ants but says for more information to contact Jim Bob down the road.--WillC 07:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Actually I found a different reason from WP:External links under the "what not to use" it states "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. " which the external links all fall under. I'll remove them all.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Just so I know, how many more of these lists do you have in the works? Oh boy, CMLL recognizes 18 championships and I'm hoping for a Feature Topic one day, last count 11 more lists to come if I'm not mistaken.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  20:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC) "The first champions to be recognized by CMLL was MS-1, Pirata Morgan and Satánico" "was"-->were (we're dealing with multiple champions) Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) "It is the second reign for the team, while Héctor Garza has held the title three other times with other partners." Can we fix the "other ... other" repetition? Fixed with "three further times with other partners".  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) "in total 36 individuals have formed 18 championship teams." Comma after "total". Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) "four different teams" I think "different" is redundant here. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) "The championship has been vacated five times, either because one or more members of the team left the promotion or because a team split up, each time a tournament was held to determine the new champions." Change the comma after "up" to a semicolon. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) A couple small niggles about the alt text, which is mostly very good: it is recommended that the simple present tense is used (so, "A professional wrestler ... stands" instead of "A professional wrestler ... standing"), and readers might not know what a "show" refers to. This should be remedied in all your lists, if necessary. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Because the following issues also popped up on the WCW FLC, I'll repeat the comments I made to Truco: "The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain, the shortest possible length is used." This is a comma splice. You have two options: 1)Use a semicolon ("The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain; the shortest possible length is used.") 2)use a comma and a logical connector ("The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain, so the shortest possible length is used."). Personally, I much prefer the second, as it flows better and makes more sense. Fixed and will fix in all FLs.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Footnotes: "The exact date" Add "on which" after this. Remove "where" in footnote two. Footnotes: "placing" is not a good verb, because it sounds like someone actually "placed" their reign in that range. Suggest "is not known, which means that [italics are mine for emphasis, don't actually use them] their reign lasted between $number and $number days". Fixed and will fix.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) The last two issues I raised are probably applicable to your previous FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• A couple of the web titles have words in all caps (refs 5 and 7). Per MOS:ALLCAPS, these should be converted to title case.
• Why are some refs' publishers "SuperLuchas" and italicized, while others' publishers are "SuperLuchas magazine" and not italicized? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Some are "cite web" some "cite news", when it's the actual magazine that's cited it's automatically in italics, when it's from the website of the magazine it's not automatically italic but should be, and I will fix it (in this and all other previous and future FLCs).  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  20:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I still don't understand why (refs 4 to 7) it sometimes says "magazine" but doesn't other times (all the refs are online). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• It depends on what I cite, the places it says "SuperLuchas magazine" I cite the website for the "SuperLuchas magazine", when I cite the website the publisher is "SuperLuchas" as that's how it's credited in the magazine. but I'll change it all to "SuperLuchas" for consistency.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Looks much better than the previous list in the series, and the sorting issues seen last time are nowhere to be found here. Thank you, I generally try to implement everything from the last review in the following ones, the sorting was a slip on my part.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) "The team is the 20th overall champions." I'm thinking that since "team" is singular, "champions" should be as well. Absolutely right.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) "Dr. Wagner Jr's four reigns combine to 2,051 days". Check the wrestler's name for a missing comma and period. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed, thank you.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Just noticed that the image is fair-use. There is really no way a wrestler photo is going to be valid fair-use for a list of champions. Are there any free pictures that could be inserted as a replacement? If not, remember that images aren't mandatory for featured lists. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC) You are absolutely correct, I had not paid attention to that. It's been removed until I can find an appropriate picture with the appropriate license.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support – Would have supported yesterday if I didn't find the one problem image, and everything looks fine now that it's been removed. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:04, 8 August 2009 [52].

---

Marine Corps Brevet Medal

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will go ahead and leave the first 2 comments as:

1. My first imulse was to change this to List of Marine Corps Brevet Medal recipients but I thought I would submit it as is and see what the consensus is.
2. There are some red links and I din't like them however there is limited info on some of these folks so rather than create several stubs I left them as is since the red link requirement was eliminated. --Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Sorry I forgot about alt text I will fix that tonight and I also realized I should put in some verbiage about what a brevet promotion is so I will fix that as well. --Kumioko (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Ok its done, I also added some additional references and info about brevet promotions.

Resolved comments from MPJ-DK

Oppose, I'm not sure if the "red link requirement" specifically said that it was okay that 17 out of 23 links in the list are red. I would not think it makes it "Feature Quality" when most of the subject matter is not available to wikipedia readers. A collection of links is only really helpful if there is something behind the links. Now if the number of red links was significantly lower, 25%-40% at most I might have thought otherwise but 74%? redlinks I cannot support that in a Featured List. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "Too many red links" is not a valid oppose rationale; there is nothing with them (see WP:RED), and they are not specifically related to this article. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Very nice work on removing the redlinks :) I cannot oppose it any more, I will read again to see if I can see any other problems.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had always planned on creating the articles, your comments just made me do it sooner. --Kumioko (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and external links check out fine. Can the logos not have alt text? Lead The Marine Corps Brevet Medal was a military decoration of the United States Marine Corps which was created in 1921 per Marine Corps Order Number 26. --> The Marine Corps Brevet Medal was a military decoration of the United States Marine Corps, which was created in 1921 as a result of Marine Corps Order Number 26. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The decoration was a one time issuance and retroactively recognized living Marine Corps officers who had received a brevet rank[n 1] between the years 1861 to 1915. -- the to should be and Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC) In the 19th century and early 20th centuries brevet promotions were extremely common in the United States armed forces. --> In the 19th and early 20th centuries, brevet promotions were extremely common in the United States armed forces. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC) During the American Civil War almost all senior officers received some kind of brevet promotion, particularly during the final months of the war. -- 1)Comma after Civil War 2)the war should be a war Did 1 but I don't understand 2. --Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC) The Marine Corps Brevet Medal, also known as the “Brevet Medal”, was considered to be the equivalent of the Navy Cross, although in precedence it ranks just behind the Medal of Honor, since those receiving the award had received field commissions as Marine Corps officers, under combat conditions, and had performed feats of distinction and gallant service. -- try splitting this sentence, its too long Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Initially, the Brevet Medal ranked behind the Navy Distinguished Service Medal and was only issued to a total of twenty-three Marine Corps active, retired, and discharged personnel. -- do you mean Initially, the Brevet Medal ranked behind the Navy Distinguished Service Medal and was only issued to a total of twenty-three Marine Corps who were active, retired, or discharged personnel. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC) This decoration was justified on the grounds that until 1915 Marine Corps officers were not eligible for the Medal of Honor. --> This decoration was justified on the grounds that, until 1915, Marine Corps officers were not eligible for the Medal of Honor. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC) He died in 1952 in Coconut Grove, Florida and the medal was never again issued. -- comma before and Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC) The concept of brevet commissions was phased out of the United States military to be replaced by temporary and field commissions which were awarded much more frequently than brevet ranks. -- how about The concept of brevet commissions was phased out of the United States military, only to be replaced by temporary and field commissions which were awarded much more frequently than brevet ranks. ? Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC) A bronze cross pattée, with the center of each arm extended in a semi-circular shape; in the center of the front is the word BREVET, encircled by the words UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS. -- this doesn't really make too much sense, needs a bit of rewording Recipients Every entry in the Place of action column should be linked because the table is sortable Footnotes Why is this split up in 3 columns? Not sure what you mean by 3 columns --Kumioko (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The footnote on my browser doesn't read in one long column, it is broken up into three parts in three columns like in a newspaper. Is this suppose to happen?--Truco 503 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I'm still waiting for an update on this...--Truco 503 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know why your seeing that. Could be something with your browser I am guessing. It looks like any other ref on all three of the computers I use and I checked it with netscape, IE and firefox and all 3 look basically the same fro me. --Kumioko (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC) References I see no need to have the HTML format listed, but if its a must, it needs to be done to every link that is HTML, not just a select few. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC) What makes angelfire a reliable source? Not sure. I will see if I can find a better reference. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Nothing was really referencing them so I moved them to an external links section. --Kumioko (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC) What makes geocities a reliable source? Not sure. I will see if I can find a better reference. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Nothing was really referencing them so I moved them to an external links section. --Kumioko (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 503 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolve/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Oppose Too many redlinks. The redlinks are fine for a regular Wikipedia article, but not for a featured one. Just because some "drunk who hangs around at FL" removed it from the criteria without getting a consensus doesn't change the fact that FLs should only have "minimal proportion of red links". --Crzycheetah 04:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Ok I was hoping to find more info on them first but I will create some semi stubby articles for these fellows and fix all the above issues over the weekend. --Kumioko (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I don't really think redlinks is a valuable objection, redlinks are actually encouraged. Yes in a list it is advised to create the links, but what's the use of a bunch of stubs that may eventually just end up being deleted at AfD? --Truco 503 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Red links are encouraged because ~90% of the pages here are not finished. On the other hand, a featured list is a complete work of Wikipedia. By the time of a nomination, it should be clear whether the link is needed or not; thus, it should either be a blue link or no link at all.--Crzycheetah 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC) As noted above, "Too many redlinks" is not a valid objection. Please judge each article against WP:WIAFL. Thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I do judge each article against the criteria! It's not my fault that the "too many red links" objection was blatantly removed from WP:WIAFL without any consensus.--Crzycheetah 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Featured articles don't have this requirement, although I can see why it might be different for FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC) If WIAFL once prohibited redlinks, then it was a direct contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines, and thus needed to be removed. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC) It's been reinstated again after discussion, although I still don't agree with it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (undent)I created 2 of the articles and I will make some more tomorrow. I also submitted one of them, Percival Pope, for a DYK if anyone is interested. --Kumioko (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The Marine Corps Brevet Medal, also known as the “Brevet Medal”," Why don't you note this at the top? Also, per MOS, don't use curly quotes. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to summarize the article better. This includes the description section in addition to the list itself. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "The Marine Corps Brevet Medal was a military decoration of the United States Marine Corps, which was created in 1921, as a result of Marine Corps Order Number 26." The commas make things confusing; it almost seems like the USMC was created in 1921. Try "The Marine Corps Brevet Medal was a military decoration of the United States Marine Corps; it was created in 1921 as a result of Marine Corps Order Number 26." Done. --Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC) "one time issuance"-->one-time issuance Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "were extremely common in the United States armed forces." Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) In the first branch of "Brevet promotions", you don't say anything about which branch it was that officers received brevet promotions, then you come out and say "In addition to the Army". Done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC) "at the end of the 19th century when instead of brevet promotions honors were bestowed instead with a series of medals.."-->at the end of the 19th century, when, instead of brevet promotions, honors were bestowed with a series of medals. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC) "All recipients of the medal had " Done. I thought this looked fine but I changed it anyway per your request.--Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "Initially, the Brevet Medal ranked behind the Navy Distinguished Service Medal and was only issued to a total of twenty-three active, retired, and discharged Marine Corps personnel."-->Initially, the Brevet Medal ranked behind the Navy Distinguished Service Medal and was issued to 23 active, retired, and discharged Marine Corps personnel. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "In 1940, the Marine Corps declared the Brevet Medal obsolete since only one of the recipients were still alive" "were"-->was. Comma after "obsolete". Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "Coconut Grove, Florida" Link? Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) "The concept of brevet commissions was phased out of the United States military only to be replaced by temporary and field commissions which were awarded much more frequently than brevet ranks."-->The concept of brevet commissions was phased out of the United States military, and were replaced by temporary and field commissions, which were awarded much more frequently than brevet ranks. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) "Only 23 men ever earned this award, and only three received both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor."-->Twenty-three men received this award, of whom three received both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC) "A bronze cross pattée, with the center of each arm extended in a semi-circular shape; in the center of the front is the word BREVET, encircled by the words UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS. " Not a complete sentence. For the descriptions, enclose the words in quotation marks. They are. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, I meant to say that the periods should be outside the quotation marks (not sure how I mixed those up...) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry I still don't understand, I don't see any with periods. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC) And once again you're right, I must be going blind. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Em dashes in the blank cells. Are you talking about the image cells? Should I use the no image image? --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) No, just em dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "Spanish-American War" Should be an en dash, not a hyphen (multiple occurences). Even though this is quote material, the MOS allows us to change dashes for correct usage. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Is there a ref for footnote 1? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Done. I took it out because it didn't really lend anything to the article with the article for brevet being linked. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "The Marine Corps Brevet Medal was considered to be the equivalent of the Navy Cross, although in precedence it ranks just behind the Medal of Honor." Tense inconsistencies; "was considered" but "it ranks". The problem with this stems from the wearing of Medals in the military. Since there could be multiple awards with the same level of precedence (the Soldiers Medal, Mairne Corps Brevet Medal and the Navy Cross for example) you can have multiple awards that are equal but when it comes time to wear it they have a precedence (in this case, if you had all three of the above, you would wear the Brevet Medal immediately after the Medal of Honor, but before the others. --Kumioko (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "The last nine brevet promotions awarded by the Marine Corps occurred during the Boxer Rebellion because the brevet promotion became an honorary decoration only." It's not clear how the Boxer Rebellion affects the decoration status of the brevet promotions. Not sure what you mean here, the Boxer rebellion didn't affect it, it was just the last time it was awarded. --Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "Marine Corps Order #26 was issued on June 27, 1921, authorizing the medal to be created and ordered. By November 10, 1921 the medals had been created." Repetition of "created" is a bit annoying. Overall, though, the article looks really nice and full with your latest expansion. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks I will knock the rest out tomorrow, I also created several of the articles but they are basically stubs so I wil go back later and add in more data. There are a couple that might make good DYK's too I think. --Kumioko (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I reworded it a bit based on your comments, Let me know if I need to make any more adjustments. --Kumioko (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/01_usmcBVT/USMCbrevet.html reliable?

This is a pretty widely respected website when it comes to the Medal of Honor (and several others for that matter). So on this point I have to say that I think this is very reliable. --Kumioko (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "widely respected" doesn't cut it at the FL level. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further information. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can think of 2 off the top of my head. The Congressional Medal of Honor society mentions them as a reference. Also, the military times (this is the media corp that puts out the Navy, Army, Marine Corps and Air Force times newspapers) posts a copy of the Home of Heroes database for awards on their site. This includes all MOH, recipients, Marine Corps brevet Medal, Navy Cross, and a whole bunch of others. Let me know if this still isn't good enough. --Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you could provide links of this evidence, that would be great. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, Hall of Valor --Kumioko (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, that seems fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise http://www.foxfall.com/fmd-navy-bvt.htm?

Regarding the reliability of this one I cannot levy the same faith. I will work to determine a better ref. I know have several books and magazine articles in my position that tells the same in as this website. --Kumioko (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have been having some pretty annoying internet issues (such as squirrels chewing through the cable line). So it may take a couple days to chisel through these. --Kumioko (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Was this replaced? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As a ref, but I did leave it as an external link. --Kumioko (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment: You do not have to have brackets around a single letter to signify change in capitalization, and definitely not for that many uses at once. Having so many brackets is distracting. Reywas92^Talk 22:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you would like me to remove them? --Kumioko (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm fine with either all uppercase or all lowercase. Reywas92^Talk 01:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry it took me so long, gremlins where interupting my internet connection. --Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:04, 8 August 2009 [53].

---

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because is a merge from three previous featured lists and we reached a consensus for this union so the list can be even more helpful to readers. The previous featured lists were: List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995 and List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1996, 1997 and 1998. The list for 1999 is still a FL, but I'll redirect it to the merge.Jaespinoza (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment The 1999 list needs to go through FLRC. I'll list it while this FLC goes on. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See here. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, I wasn't aware of the procedure. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No problem. The 1999 list can be speedy delisted; if you could lend your opinion at the FLRC that would be great. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There are several dead links. Check the toolbox to the right. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General No dab links. Fix the 9 dead external links The images need alt text Lead During the 1990s there were 36 number-one albums in this chart, which was first published on July 10, 1993. -- Comm after 1990s At the Grammy Awards of 1994 it won Best Traditional Tropical Album. --> It won Best Traditional Tropical Album at the Grammy Awards of 1994. Mi Tierra spent 25 weeks at number one in 1993 and 33 weeks at this position onin 1994. Segundo Romance by Mexican singer Luis Miguel also peaked at number one; this album completed a 29-week run, starting in late 1994. -- dash needed in between late and 1994 to connect them. It won the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album [when?] over singers Cristian Castro, Placido Domingo, Juan Gabriel and Tejano music group La Mafia;[6] this groupthe latter also peaked at number one inin March 1995 with their live album Éxitos En Vivo. Five albums by Tex-Mex music performer Selena reached first placenumber-one on the chart; one week after her death in 1995, her album Amor Prohibido returned to number one. The self-titled debut album by Enrique Iglesias reached the top spot of the chart for 11 weeks and won the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album over Nada Es Igual... by Luis Miguel,[11] which also peaked at number one. -- When? Two albums related to the song "Macarena" hit the top spot of the chart: Macarena Non Stop by Los del Río, and Macarena Mix, a compilation album with music by Sandalo, Manolos, El Lupe and The Sacados. -- When? Colombian singer-songwriter Shakira with ¿Dónde Están los Ladrones?, her first number-one album, spent 11 weeks at number one, received a nomination for a Grammy Award for Best Latin Rock/Alternative Album and was certified platinum in United States. -- you should state that the RIAA certified it platinum, if you do this, its gonna need (RIAA) next to the spelled out version earlier in the text. Latin rock performer Santana debuted and peaked at number one with Supernatural on the only week the album appeared on this chart. - Instead of on, use during The only other problem I see is that its not really clear when they won the Grammy Awards, either be consistent and don't mention when they won the awards or mention it for all of them. I think the first suggestion would be easier. Images Mexican singer Luis Miguel released four number-one albums during the 90's. -- 90's --> 1990s References Either link every publisher that has an article on Wikipedia or don't link them at all. The list itself checks out fine.--Truco 503 20:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The dead external links, alt text. and ref publisher linking issues still need to be resolved.--Truco 503 20:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Opposing Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Opposing until Billboard links are fixed, as that makes most of the list unverifiable.

• I performed a copy-edit of the lead; please make sure I didn't accidentally introduce errors.
• The images need alternative text. They only have captions right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Except for the Billboard links, which should be fixed when possible, Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 6, the "Gold and Platinum" is unnecessary in the work.
• Billboard's links are dead, but we just have to wait and fix them.
  • These are still dead, but I trust someone will go back and fix the links when the site is working again. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• The CNN link is dead.
• What makes http://www.clarin.com/diario/1999/01/06/c-00301d.htm reliable (I'm not fluent in Spanish, so I wasn't sure if it was a news company or something else)? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether the way the general reference is presented is acceptable or not, but I don't mind it. It explains every step that needs to be done to verify the info you want, so it's fine to me. As for the dead links, Billboard has moved all of its pages, so it's just a matter of time to find the right links.--Crzycheetah 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I fixed most of the refs, except the main ones. Dabomb, could you add the alt text? You're the expert around here.--Crzycheetah 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • About the reference: Clarin is the one of the biggest if not the biggest newspaper in Argentina. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the edits and clarifications. I put in the alt text. Kudos to Jaespinoza for the quick turnaround and production of a merged list. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the alt text!--Crzycheetah 01:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • It's very difficult to see, for instance, how long Ricky Martin's Vuelve was at number one since it was split over so many different runs at the top. Any idea on how this can be improved?
  • Is there any point in the navbox having two separate year ranges which both point to this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I fixed the navbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I think the sorting capability helps us find out how long each album was at #1. Just sort by album and all "vuelves" are listed next to one another.--Crzycheetah 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Dance with Me (soundtrack) is the only album that is not linked. Should it be section-linked to Dance with Me (film)#Film soundtrack, or should it be redlinked? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd either link it to the section or just redirect Dance with Me (soundtrack) to the section.--Crzycheetah 18:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a new article for the soundtrack... the list is now complete!.Jaespinoza (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Two billboard links are busted right now. They're reorganizing the site, but it should be a reasonably easy fix to poke around and find the new ones. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have found this link that shows the first week's chart. In that page, right under the logo, there's a date that states "July 10, 1993", anyone can click on that date to open a calendar and choose the week he/she wants to see by selecting the right year and month. Now, I realize it's a little complicated, but, as I see, the Billboard wants it to be this complicated. What do you guys think? Should we accept this way of verifying info or not? I personally don't mind it.--Crzycheetah 21:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I used the same link to fix the older ones. It is easy to find info in the billboard.biz site, but is for members only, so this is our best option to find out about the number one albums from this chart. This Billboard re-arrange... is kinda hard.Jaespinoza (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:04, 8 August 2009 [54].

---

List of Copa Libertadores winners

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that is now at a the necessary level required to become a Featured List. Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the image in the lead, then I'm pretty it does. NapHit (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it only has a caption. Alternative text is different; see WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Done both your requests. NapHit (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and external links check out fine. Lead The Copa Libertadores is a seasonal association football competition established in 1960. -- I think it would help if you mentioned exactly when its held. The Copa Libertadores is open to the league champions of all Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol (CONMEBOL) member associations, clubs finishing from second to fourth position in the strongest leagues are also included. -- 1)The comma should be a semicolon 2)What does strongest leagues mean? Originally, only the champions of their respective national league could participate in the competition; however during the 1970s this was changed to allow the runners-up of the stronger leagues to compete. -- Comma after 1970s, and is there link to national league for soccer? Peñarol won the inaugural competition in 1960 beating Olimpia over two legs in the final. -- Instead of beating how about defeating? Also add a comma before the word. Independiente hold the record for the most victories, they have won the competition seven times since its inception. --> Independiente hold the record for the most victories, with seven since its inception. [the only thing is what the its is referring to, the club or the cup?] They have also won the competition the most times in a row, winning it four times from 1972 to 1975. -- Instead of in a row, use consecutively Boca Juniors are second with six wins, they won their last title in 2007. -- The comma should be a semicolon. Clubs from Argentina have won the most Copa Libertadores, with 21 wins between them. -- Unlink Argentina -- per WP:OVERLINK Brazilian teams are second with 13 victories, and Uruguayan clubs are third with 8 victories.[1] -- Unlink Brazil -- per WP:OVERLINK The lead should state a bit more, like the overall number of winners; which country has had the most representatives at the cup; the highest scores; etc List 1–1 on aggregate Once Caldas won 2–0 in a penalty shootout * -- Comma is missing 2–2 on points Independiente won playoff 2–1 at Estadio Centenario † -- Comma is missing Results by teams The dashes should be left aligned like the rest of the entries I personally think it looks better in the middle, but if consensus is to change then I will agree. NapHit (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Flamengo and Racing club need dashes for the Years runner ups Each dash should be changed to an emdash, if they are already not that. Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 503 19:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Dealt with all your requests. NapHit (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC) One more thing, 2–2 on points; playoff 1–1, Argentinos won 5– in a penalty shootout at Estadio Defensores del Chaco * 5-? I believe another # is missing, correct?--Truco 503 01:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed the mistake, cheers NapHit (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The alt text is still not there. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Flawed and better examples for what I mean. "The Copa Libertadores is a seasonal association football competition established in 1960." Insert "that was" before "established"; it makes for better reading. "league champions of all Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol (CONMEBOL) member associations" "however during the 1970s"-->however, during the 1970s "Independiente hold the record"-->Independientes hold the record "Boca Juniors are second with six wins, they won their last title in 2007. " Semicolon, not comma. "Peñarol are third with five wins, though their last title was in 1987."-->Peñarol are third with five wins, their most recent of which was in 1987. "Peñarol and América de Cali hold the distinction of losing the most finals, each team has lost the final on four separate occasions."-->Peñarol and América de Cali have lost the most finals; each team has lost the final on four occasions. "with 21 wins between them. "-->with 21 wins among them. We shouldn't be using bold to note things; use italics instead. Why is bold no longer used, I see no reason why it shouldn't be. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC) WP:MOSBOLD. Yes, reviewers have been lax about this in the past, but we're cracking down on things that we didn't bother about a few months before. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Key needs a note explaining that each year links to an article about a Copa Libertadores for that year. In the colspans, use semicolons, not commas, to set off phrases. Example: "2–2 on points, Independiente won playoff 2–1 at Estadio Centenario †"-->2–2 on points; Independiente won playoff 2–1 at Estadio Centenario † "2–2 on points Independiente won playoff 2–0 at Estadio Defensores del Chaco"-->2–2 on points; Independiente won playoff 2–0 at Estadio Defensores del Chaco Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Other the bold issue all requests done. NapHit (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I still don't see alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Done the italics, I really don't know what to put for alt text, so hopefully, after your edit it's alright? NapHit (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC) I did not put in alt text; I just copy-edited the caption. Alt text is used to describe images for those who cannot see them. While captions "interpret" or explain the importance of the image, alt text merely describes the image. Here's an example: [[File:FamousFootballPlayer.jpg|thumb|alt=Man kicking a ball (this is the alt text)|Mr. Football is the best soccer player in the world (this is the caption)]]. Obviously, you should be more descriptive, but that's the gist of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Chnged it again, think I've got it now? NapHit (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately not. Captions and alt text are different things, and the image needs both. I've added an empty alt= to the image so that you know where to put it. The alt text should describe the appearance of the trophy (color, shape, size, etc.). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Is everything in order now? NapHit (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out CONMEBOL, FIFA and RSSSF in the publishers of the references. No need to spell out CNN or BBC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now
  • You link Uruguay but not Argentina.
  • "...the most Copa Libertadores..." is this the correct pluralisation of Copa Libertadores? Could it be Copas Libertadores? I'm not sure myself.
  • Agree that per WP:MOSBOLD we don't use bold to highlight things, "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text."
  • And you currently use italics for something but am I missing where you explain what this means?
  • Last column is called "Notes" but they are all references.
  • When do you decide to relink in the table? For instance, you relink Penarol after five unlinked versions... you link every other instance of Olimpia the first couple of times, and then you don't for a while... what's the strategy for relinking here?

If it's a team that is featured loads then every five or so times, then i f it's a team like olimpia then every first time they are mentioned. NapHit (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Not sure "Unión Española" sorts properly because of the diacritic on the o of Union.
  • Same for São Paulo and São Caetano.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done all requests NapHit (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "Penarol won the inaugural competition in 1960, defeating Olimpia over two legs in the final." It says in the previous sentence that the final is two-legged, so why does that need repeating? If there was a format change at some point, it would be understandable, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Independientes hold the record for the most victories". Can we double-check the spelling of the club's name? I thought they were just Independiente, and our article on them implies the same. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The International Herald-Tribune links are down. Their Internet site is merging with the New York Times, and whether links redirect correctly or not seemingly varies with each article. Unfortunately, these two don't. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Done all requests NapHit (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC) One more thing: the en dashes are centered in the team results table, but the years aren't, making it look unappealing for me. Can they be made consistent, one way or the other? Giants2008 (17–14) 22:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support – Only other thing I spotted was in the references; ref 9 should have the publisher (Sports Illustrated) in italics. Since everything else appears up to FL standards, I'll assume that this gets fixed quickly and won't postpone supporting the page. Giants2008 (17–14) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed that. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:04, 8 August 2009 [55].

---

List of tallest buildings in Singapore

Nominator(s): Rai•me, User:Cherub79

Self-nomination, co-nom with User:Cherub79. Another tallest building list, modeled after recently promoted lists such as List of tallest buildings in San Diego and List of tallest buildings in Oklahoma City. I believe it to meet all the FL criteria in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. Any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks! Cheers, Rai•me 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

*Comments Republic Plaza is a dab. Fixed "The 70 m (230 ft) was, at the time of its completion, the tallest building..." reads oddly to me. The 70m? Fixed - it was missing the word "structure". Don't relink skyscraper in para 3. Done Lead introductory sentence talks about skyscrapers above 150m, the list ranks skyscrapers above 140m. Why? It was a typo - I fixed it. Lead says 280m is 920ft, list says 280m is 919ft - consistent conversions required throughout. Done For references without notes, I'd keep the references left aligned. Done for the "Tallest buildings" section, but I left the references center aligned in the other three tables that do not have any notes. Is that okay? For missing images, use an en-dash so it doesn't just appear that we've forgotten it. Done "... in place of a height of 140 m ..." is redundant. Removed Consistent date formats within the references, i.e. either all ISO, all dmy, all mdy. Pick one and make all accessdates and dates same format. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review! Cheers, Rai•me 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 140m = 460 ft in lead, 140m = 459 ft in table. Please check all others! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Done - The {{convert}} templates in the lead were apparently rounding the conversions to feet without the |0 parameter. Cheers, Rai•me 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support my issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Dabs Republic Plaza Done - oops, I guess I missed one when I was going through and fixing the links per The Rambling Man's comments above... External links Ref # 11 has a dead link Removed and replaced Lead The 70-metre (230 ft) structure was, at the time of its completion, the tallest building in Southeast Asia; it remained the tallest in Singapore until the 100 m (328 ft) Shaw Centre was completed untilin 1958. During this time, the Overseas Union Bank Centre became the tallest building in the city-state; the 280 m (919 ft) was also the tallest building in the world outside of North America from its 1986 completion until 1989, when the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong was completed. -- the 280 m was also.., a word is missing Both done Tables, refs, images check out fine. Nice work Rai-me, its been a while since I've seen your work here and since we've worked together on a list =]--Truco 503 22:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Yes, it has been an long time - I took a wikibreak for several months, but I'm back now and hopefully will have many more lists to nominate here. It would be great to work on another list with you - we never got to List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris ;-) Cheers, Rai•me 01:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Replied on your talk page regarding that =]--Truco 503 02:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! Cheers, Rai•me 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Alt text looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "the majority located in the"-->the majority of which are located in the Done "The three towers, which also share the title of 70th-tallest building in the world," Done "Buildings in the central business district of Singapore have a maximum height of 280 m (919 ft) because of the proximity of Singapore Changi Airport." A bit unclear, is there an actual restriction on the height, or did it just happen like that? There is a 280-metre height restriction; the sentence now reads: "There is a height restriction of 280 metres (919 ft) for structures in the central business district of Singapore because of the proximity of Singapore Changi Airport." "skyscraper building boom"-->skyscraper-building boom Done "There are also a number of new developments"-->There are also several new developments Done You need to add alt= before the alt text in the images. Done Beautiful panorama of the skyline. I visited Singapore once, and it was like no other Asian city I've ever been to (granted I haven't been to China or Japan either). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I'd love to go to Singapore someday - it does look beautiful. The last Asian city I visited was Hong Kong, and that was amazing. Cheers, Rai•me 16:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Great list and I like seeing so many photos of buildings. Everything seems to be taken care of. I'm thrilled we finally have a building FL for an entire country, even if it's only one city. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)

Comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs) There's a few discrepancies that may need fixing. Lead says 29 skyscrapers constructed from 1990 through 2008, I count 30. Fixed Lead has Ocean Financial Centre at 218 metres (715 feet), the under construction list has it at 245 (804). Fixed - changed lead to 245 (804) per references The equal fifths in the main list have different heights in feet. Fixed - the heights in feet should have been equal per given sources 31 and 32 are same height in metres and feet but are not equal. Fixed Is there a reason why the first Raffles Place in the timeline list isn't linked? Fixed - I guess I just missed it :-) Note c for the timeline list says 'Since 1992, Singapore has had three tallest buildings' should this not be 1995? Corrected date --Jpeeling (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review! Cheers, Rai•me 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Additional comments Some discrepancies between the list and the references that may need fixing. The Millenia Tower is 218m in the list but both sources have 223m roughly. Fixed OCBC Centre is 201m in the list but both sources have 198m roughly, changing this would also affect the timeline list. Fixed, and adjusted timeline accordingly SGX Centre One and Two are 185m in the list but one source says 187, the other 189. I removed the 189 reference, as the majority of sources state 187 Hitachi Tower is 166m in the list but both sources have 179m roughly, including the spire which the intro to that list says is included in the height. The number of stories is also different to both sources. Fixed, and removed the second reference whose floor count differed from the majority of sources Neither of the refs for One Marina Boulevard have its height, an additional ref needed. I couldn't find a source for the building's height, so I removed it from the list. The ref for Pan Pacific Singapore doesn't have its height, an additional ref needed. I couldn't find a source for the building's height, so I removed it from the list. Refs 38 and 40 are the same, refname can be used to simplify. Those refs have now both been removed, per above. Cheers, Rai•me 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC) --Jpeeling (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I'm slightly confused by the Bank of China Building, in the first list it's listed as completed in 1953 and standing 168m, yet it's not on the timeline list. Also in one of the references it's down as being completed in 2000. I see from the Wikipedia article on the building there's a new block, but it might merit a note to clear up possible confusion. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Oops, that was a mistake - the 168-metre building was completed in 2000, and a much shorter tower of the same name (and located on the same block) was completed in 1953. The 1953 Bank of China Building doesn't meet the height cut-off for inclusion in the list, and while it was one of the city's early skyscrapers, it did not rise higher than the Cathay Building, so it isn't on the timeline either. Anyway, I fixed the building's entry to reflect that the 168 m tower was completed in 2000, not 1953. Cheers, Rai•me 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Support all issues resolved, however I would like to see someone more knowledgeable on the subject than myself review the article. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 20:48, 2 August 2009 [56].

---

WCW United States Tag Team Championship

Nominator(s): Truco ₅₀₃ and  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE)

Well, here she is..My first list since April. Me and Blue expanded this list in about a week, and I think it turned out pretty well. To us it looks and reads fine, but we're used to it and issues can probably be found by others. Since this is my first nom in a while, I wont be surprised if I see a lot of concerns, but they will be addressed by myself or Blue quickly. Thanks in advance to any reviews.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: No alt. text can be added to the image because it is an infobox inserted image. Also note that this nomination may have came a bit too soon, but stability should be no issue because this article is not touched upon daily or even monthly.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Re alt text: the infobox can be edited to add an alt text parameter. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, see the documentation; there is a parameter for adding alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, I didn't even notice that. Atl. text added.--Truco ₅₀₃ 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support

Resolved comments from MPJ-DK

There were at least 4 versions of the NWA United States Tag Team Championship in the old territory days, this is not even mentioned, nor are the three other versions linked to anywhere. with there being 4 versions frankly the name "NWA United Statest Tag Team Championship" should have been a disambiguation but if you can find a way to handle it without a disambig I could be swayed. Do you have a source for that? I don't. Which is why I don't mention it.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Considering that there are 3 other articles with the name on Wikipedia is the first clue, they're not the only ones either - and yes actually I do have a source "Wrestling Title Histories" tells me all about the various NWA US Tag titles from the territory age. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Well those titles had no roots to this title so I added a otheruses template instead because the creation or use of those titles had no effect on this title.--Truco 503 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC) No roots but they all share a name, so "NWA Umited States Tag Team Championship" without ANY qualifiers is not the proper name for this article as it refers to other versions as well and with 3 other titles on Wikipedia and more US Tag titles out there I'm not sure huge "otheruses" template is the way to go. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The thing is, this title was not a regional championship. It was all over the country with JCP and WCW, and it wouldn't be correct to have a acronym of those 2 companies as the qualifier when the NWA controlled the title most of the time in its history. Technically, they considered this the prime NWA US Tag Team Championship, so making a dab for this would be a bit tricky, unless you have an idea. --Truco 503 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I happen to know quite a bit about the subject and have several books on the subject so allow me to explain something here. this version of the US TAg Team champions was very much a regional title, it started out as the JCP US Tag and remained the JCP US Tag until it was turned into the WCW US Tag. the NWA Never recogonized ONE US Tag title, there was no "Main" title, just a bunch of regional versions, no one title being "main". Yes it's the title that grew most notable and known definitely, but it was never a "Prime" championship - the NWA had three "Prime" championships, the world singles and two lower weight class singles titles, this was always a JCP championship. There is also no indication that the NWA post-JCP recognized ONE primary US Tag title. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC) No "Reigns by combined length" section for either teams or individuals as is normal in wrestling championship articles. I'm working on that now, it may take a "minute".--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Jim Crockett Promotions was always a member of the NWA, it wasn't until Turner brought JCP and turned it into WCW that they left the NWA so mentions of "During this time, JCP was a subsidiary of the NWA" as they were always a member of the NWA. I see no difference in wording but I changed it.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) You worded it like JCP was at some point NOT a member of the NWA. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Maybe, since I wrote it I saw it otherwise I guess.--Truco 503 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) If Domino and Lewis held it four times as a team, they also held it the most times as an individual then right? Very true, I missed that.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I still maintain that only numbers should be centered Well that's your opinion.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Yes it certainly is. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I see no reason as to why everything shouldn't be centered, it seems a bit odd to have different alignments.--Truco 503 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Well centering is not going to be the sticking point on this so no worries. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The standard for team lists is that the team name is in small. Not really, that standard was set up in the List of WCW World Tag Team Champions list, which I expanded. To me it seems better without small font, not all browsers look right with small font in the tables.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The standard evolves, recent FLs for team titles have had it in small, but "consistency" is just my opinion as above. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) True, I changed it to small font. Damn me and my small font :D--Truco 503 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "First activation" and "second activation" sounds wrong, perhaps use something like "version" or the likes? Activation sounds odd. Definition of activation: To organize or create/the act of starting something Activation is fine.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) That's your opinion, I disagree 110%. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) How is it my opinion? --Truco 503 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Look I never said "Activation" as a word is wrong, I just think that it's wrong in this context, I guess we'll just wait and see if anyone else comments. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Sione Vailahi was billed as "the Barbarian", using his real name is confusing. My bad, I missed that.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Note 2 should sort as if it said "32 days", it does not right now. Not necessarily, from February to May is more than 32 days. But it was sorting by April, so I fixed that, but not what you mentioned.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) >Considering the column is for "Lenght" "April" isn't really a valid sort order, "Note" reigns in FLs sort by the least possible amount of days. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) No I meant that it was sorting by "4" instead of "5" (April instead of May), which is the correct date.--Truco 503 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I would prefer that the numbering is switched for the second and third list so that it's the number of the current championship that's first and the overall that's in parenthesis - so WCW US Tag is 1 (12). I don't know about that because all the overall reigns are without parenthesis, and changing that to a different format in the other tables would look odd since different formats are used. Bottom line, I think its better when one similar format is being used.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) But they're not "overall" reigns when you add in the Jersey version. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I mean overall reigns as in (all the reigns combined, not counting the promotional differences since the title evolved from the JCP to WCW back to NWA Jersey).--Truco 503 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Since there were several US Tag Team titles in the NWA is it confirmed that NWA Jersey actually continued the JCP version? and do they really recognize the WCW reigns? If not then they're a title that happens to carry the same name, but not lineage - and the WCW title is definitly NOT in the lineage of the NWA Jersey title. I checked the title histories book and while it confirms it exists and gives the same lineage as listed here nothing indicates that it's a continuation of the JCP version of the US Tag titles. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Well the Wrestling Titles Histories book is supposedly stating that the NWA Jersey revived the original NWA title and not the one with WCW lineage. Well, also IDK what you're talking about because they don't recognize the WCW reigns, and that's not what's in the article.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) And I'm saying that "supposedly" is wrong, I have the book. Also if the NWA Jersey branch does not recognize the WCW reigns why do you have the "total reigns" list continue on from the last of the WCW regins? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The title overall is represented as never being two different titles. When JCP sold to Turner and the WCW, it was still defended as the NWA title until Turner renamed it. But overall its still the same title. Then when NWA Jersey revived it, its still the same overall title: the number in parenthesis are just their to tell the reader how many reigns have occurred under the specific name of the title.--Truco 503 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not arguing "first NWA, then WCW" I'm saying the addition of the 2nd NWA title is wrong. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Public Enemy has a team article, link it. Link added.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Sources Alright I think - I will check to see if the book actually links these two versions of the championship of if that's a solie.org creation. They most likely are from the book because if it weren't they would have noted that different editors created the page.--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) As i said before, both in the book but Solie.org were the ones that created the connection between them - that is not from the book. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) What do you mean? How does the book list both of these titles?--Truco 503 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) It lists the original NWA title as beign replaced by the WCW one. It does not mention any connection to other NWA US Titles at all when it lists the NWA Jersey version, it always lists it's official "predecessor" like say WCCW Tag to USWA Tag. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Cannot support right now. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Thats okay ;)--Truco 503 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, let me sort this out. The book officially states that the Jersey version is another version of the title with no connection to this one, correct? If that is so, I should create an article just for that list. Then leaving this one just at 19 reigns and ending with the WCW reigns. In addition, I can then rename this article the WCW United States Tag Team Championship, since that's what its last name was (eg. WWWF United States Tag Team Championship). With that being said, a dab can be created for NWA United States Tag Team Championship, what do you think?--Truco 503 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I think that would solve all objections I have left about this list, you can turn the current name into a dab then for the four five different versions of the NWA US Tag title. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Okay, all done. Now, the combined reigns table summary will be published sometime tomorrow when Blue completes it. Other than that, everything is done. Wow, that was a mess to do, but thanks and apologies for any uncivil-ness of me.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about it, we all share a passion for what we do or we wouldn't got for FLs, I'm confident the total reigns section is find and you have my support. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Cool. The combined reigns have been added.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Wrestlinglover

Stay tuned, coming tomorrow, or whenever.--WillC 09:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be waiting ;)--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Lots of cool table-work, lots of detail, but I'm worried about the references. The entirely article seems to be based upon source material from Solie.org (save a couple small notes from the Beekman book). I'm sure the information holds true, but is there really no better/other source material to confirm or build up that referencing? With all the promotional material wrestling puts out, is there no "Wrestling Encyclopedia" or something that has this information in more reliable, printed form? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I know this one, it's actually mainly sourced by the book "Wrestling Title histories", the solie.org link is to provide an online version of the book, so that people without the book can check it. I think Solie.org also credits the book on the pages linked to. So it's a very reliable and thoroughly researched source (the book) with a "courtesy link" added.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Could the book ref be included as well, just as something for Wiki-browsers to investigate for a printed source? See CMLL World Heavyweight, CMLL World Light Heavyweight, IWGP Heavyweight, etc? Some, like PWG World Tag (though this one has TONS of specific citations), simply list Solie but I really think a redundant print source would be nice to at least keep listed in the article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Way to make myself look dumb for not checking - i thought it was the book ref, I gave the author the details to use "cite book" (if I didn't I can).  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  02:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Nah, the book source is included under the specific refs, it just seems like it's worth listing under general if it is ultimately the source material for Solie anyways. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Sorry for the late replies. The main reason why there are little specific refs is because this title is a former championships that existed well over 10 years ago, and because the company which owned the title does not exist anymore, we are limited to resources. The book ref listed is just sourcing some specific information about the history of the NWA (such as Crockett, Jr. being NWA President). I added, however, the main book ref from Wrestling Title Histories under the general refs.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Thanks for that, guys, makes all the difference IMO. The tables are great, just wanted to ensure they were reliable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "Since it's establishment". Remove apostrophe. Done.--Truco 503 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Hyphen (en dash?) for "JCP promoted"? Done.--Truco 503 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Commas before and after "The Barbarian and Dick Slater". Done.--Truco 503 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) "while the Fantastics's...". Remove s at the end and move apostrophe before the parenthetical stuff? Done. I left the apostrophe after the parenthesis because it would look odd for something like The APA's (Farooq and Bradshaw) last chance, instead of The APA (Farooq and Bradshaw)'s last chance. The latter reads more like The APA/Farooq and Bradshaw's last chance.--Truco 503 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Table: Date row has one entry not centered. Done.--Truco 503 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Second table: Typo in "WresteWar". Done.--Truco 503 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Combined team reigns table: Sorting from most combined days to fewest is way off. Same applies for the individual table. Done. I can't believe I didn't notice that.--Truco 503 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) p. for single-page citations, not pp. Also get an en dash in the page range. Done.--Truco 503 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Why are there no categories? Giants2008 (17–14) 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I'm asking myself the same thing, added.--Truco 503 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review!--Truco 503 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support – Seems to be up to the level of the other wrestling title lists that have been streaming through FLC lately. Nice to see one of the older titles getting some attention. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

* Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Done. I missed them when I added the new tables.--Truco 503 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The hatnote at the top is unwieldly and is redundant. Use {{otheruses}}. "American-based"—based in "American"? No, you mean "U.S.-based" or "United States–based". "The Barbarian and Dick Slater, of the titles " "the"-->their "Overall, there were 19 reigns among 15 different tag teams that all occurred in the United States."-->Overall, there were 19 reigns among 15 tag teams, all of which occurred in the United States. "The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain, the shortest possible length is used." This is a comma splice. You have two options: 1)Use a semicolon ("The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain; the shortest possible length is used.") 2)use a comma and a logical connector ("The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain, so the shortest possible length is used."). Personally, I much prefer the second, as it flows better and makes more sense. Footnotes 2, 3 and 4: "The exact date" Add "on which" after this. Remove "where" in footnote two. Footnotes 2, 3 and 4: "placing" is not a good verb, because it sounds like someone actually "placed" their reign in that range. Suggest "is not known, which means that [italics are mine for emphasis, don't actually use them] their reign lasted between $number and $number days". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Done all based on your suggestions. Thanks for the review.--Truco 503 20:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 20:48, 2 August 2009 [57].

---

List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas

Nominator(s): Rai•me 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after recently promoted lists such as List of tallest buildings in San Diego and List of tallest buildings in Oklahoma City. I believe it to meet all the FL criteria in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. Any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks! Cheers, Rai•me 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

• Why do two buildings in the first list not have a rank? It goes "blank, 1, 2, 3" which seems odd to me. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, I saw the note - maybe putting the note in the empty cell? people see it and wonder "why?" if the note is there it's an easy way to make it obvious why it's blank. Just a suggestion. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to format that; the current note label, [A], would look strange in a column otherwise filled with numbers, particularly if it were centered. Cheers, Rai•me 23:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• It would look like one of the columns in this article List of CMLL World Trios Champions, which I personally think looks okay. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• That list seems to use dashes, not note labels. I like the idea of the en-dash, as it is already used for the image column. I added them for both towers. Cheers, Rai•me 04:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oops, never mind, I was only looking at the first column in that list. I moved the note labels to the first column and changed the text to [Note A] (from [A]) to make it more differentiated from the numbers. Cheers, Rai•me 04:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links, and alt text check out fine. Lead Instead of world economic crisis, why not global economic crisis like the name of the article? I believe the cited article used the word "world"; I don't think it really matters seeing as they mean the same thing, but I changed the wording to "global". Cool.--Truco 503 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Table I think topping out is overlinked, I think the link in the notes should be removed. Done - removed links in "Tallest buildings" and "Tallest under construction" sections. In these types of notes (Under construction; the Cosmopolitan Beach Club Tower has been topped out.) why not format it as (Under construction; has been topped out.)? I thought the notes looked awkward without periods, so I tried to word them as complete sentences (since has been topped out is not a complete sentence, it wouldn't have a period). I can remove the names and just say "the building" or "the skyscraper" if you think it is better. Complete sentences is never required for the notes. To be honest I would have left it just at Under construction; has been topped out ...--Truco 503 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, I changed it. I know notes don't have to be complete sentences, but in this case I thought "has been topped out" looked somewhat awkward as a fragment. Still, I think you're right; writing out the name of the building is a little redundant and unnecessary, and I like the Under construction; has been topped out wording. Cheers, Rai•me 18:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC) My question is: there are some buildings which are still under construction but are listed in the main list despite this, why? Is because they have been topped out? If so, why are they listed in the under construction section? Or am I just confused O_o Topped out buildings have reached their final heights, so they are usually ranked among the completed skyscrapers. But, as they are still under construction, they are listed in that section as well. The headings of the two sections read "This lists ranks completed and topped out Las Vegas skyscrapers..." and "Under construction buildings that have already been topped out are also included", respectively. Is this clear enough? Now it is =], its been awhile since I've worked on these types of lists.--Truco 503 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) References The WorldNow publisher should be WorldNow and KLAS Done Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 503 16:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review! Cheers, Rai•me 03:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 21:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)

Comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs) There's a few discrepancies that need fixing. In the lead Fontainebleau Resort Las Vegas is at 734 feet, on the first list it's 735. Fixed - lead now reads 735 Lead has Palazzo at 55 stories, on the first list it's 53 floors. Fixed - was supposed to be 53 Lead has New York-New York Hotel & Casino at 529 metres, on the first list it's 529 feet. Fixed - Oops, that was a typo in the {{convert}} template - I accidentally put |m ahead of |ft ;) The first list has Fontainebleau Resort Las Vegas with 68 floors, on the timeline list it's 63. Fixed - correct count per sources is 63 On the timeline list there's a Freemont Street and Fremont Street, presumably one of these is spelt incorrectly. Done - "Freemont" was a typo. --Jpeeling (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review! Rai•me 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Additional comments Some discrepancies between the list and the references that need fixing. In the first list Palm Palace is listed at 50 floors but one reference says 47, the other 49. In the first list Panorama Tower III is 44 floors but one reference says 42, the other 41. In the first list Turnberry 1 through to 4 are all 48 floors, but references agree on 38. In the approved list World View Towers II has a different height to tower 1 but the reference has them at the same height. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC) All fixed. I changed the floor count of Palms Place to 47 (which is what the developer states), removing the opposing reference. For Panorama Tower II, I went with the 42 floor count (which is what the majority of sources stated) and also removed the opposing reference. I fixed the floor counts of the four Turnberry Towers and the height of the two World View Towers according to the given references. Cheers, Rai•me 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support for now as I would like to see someone more knowledgeable on the subject than myself review the article. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "sites of over 160 high-rises" Prefer "more than", but not a big deal. Done "Since the Stratosphere Tower is not fully habitable, however" "Since"-->"Because" Done "is the under construction Fontainebleau Resort Las Vegas"-->is the under-construction Fontainebleau Resort Las Vegas Done "and was later demolished in 2006." I don't think 2006 will ever be earlier than 1961. Done "was the 529-foot (161 m) New York-New York Hotel & Casino, which was completed in 1997." Done "Las Vegas entered into a skyscraper-building boom in the late 1990s that has continued to the present; of the city's 40 tallest skyscrapers, only one was completed prior to 1997." I think it would be stronger if you phrased it like this: "Las Vegas entered into a skyscraper-building boom in the late 1990s that has continued to the present; of the city's 40 tallest skyscrapers, 39 have been completed since 1997." Done "As of 2009, the skyline of Las Vegas is ranked 60th in the world and 20th in the United States with 168 completed high-rises." 60th in what? Its skyline is ranked 60th in the world by number of high-rises. "has been delayed by several months as a result of the global economic crisis." Not necessarily something to fix now, but sometime down the line, when the current downturn ends, you'll need to be more explicit about what "global economic crisis" is referring to. The reference provided specifically mentions a decline in jewelry sales in the "tough economy." I reworded the sentence: "due to decreasing jewelry sales as a result of the global economic crisis." Is this better? "That project, however, is also facing " Done "skeleton crews" Link? Done You link Las Vegas in second paragraph of "Tallest buildings", but not in the first paragraph; generally, terms should be linked on their first appearance (once in lead, once in body). Fixed "outside Las Vegas city limits"-->outside the Las Vegas city limits Done "often not very apparent." Done All blank cells need dashes, preferably em dashes. If you need to make the dashes sortable, use {{sort|00|—}} All fixed "Construction of this building is on-hold." No hyphen in "on-hold" (multiple occurences) All fixed Once you use "U.S.", don't go back to using "United States". I removed the "U.S. city" reference in the lead (I'm assuming this is what you are referring to), but I don't think it necessary. "U.S." here is only as an adjective in place of the somewhat controversial "American", as in List of tallest buildings by U.S. state. "The United States city of Las Vegas" looks awkward, but "United States" flows better in prose than "U.S." in the rest of the lead. On a spot check of the sources, I couldn't find anything that said Stratosphere Tower was the tallest observation tower in the US, unless "observation tower"="free-standing tower". Fixed - I added this ref from the Las Vegas Sun. "Trump International Hotel & Tower - Tower Two" Use an en dash instead of a hyphen. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed this and all similar occurrences. Cheers, Rai•me 05:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry about the late reply to your comments - I went on a last-minute vacation for three days ;) Cheers, Rai•me 05:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 8: publications such as journals are italicized. Also, we don't use allcaps in titles, even if it was like that in the original.
  • Done
• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.vegastodayandtomorrow.com/trade_centers.htm
    • I removed the reference and replaced it with this ref from Reuters.
  • http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0003279
    • I removed the reference, as the Stratosphere entry is already covered by three sources. But Structurae is, along with Emporis, considered an authority on civil engineering data.

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 20:48, 2 August 2009 [58].

---

List of CMLL World Tag Team Champions

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been here before and I've incorporated everything from before to make the list as ready for FLc as I possibly can. I've also been reading with great interest some old and current discussions on ALT text and especially on redlinks in a FL. As you can see there are currently 5 red links, I've already created one article for the list (La Sombra, created today) and I will create all five of the missing articles over the two weeks that the FLc process (as a minimum) takes. Watch as the redlinks for Pierroth, Jr., Emilio Charles, Jr., Rayo de Jalisco, Jr., Mr. Niebla and Scorpio, Jr. turn blue so that when this (hopefully) passes the FLReview it'll be a true blue list, because I do not see this as an "easy accomplishment" at all. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And I got four out of five turned blue before the reviews have rolled in. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Alt text looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "In early 1993 then CMLL Booker Antonio Peña"-->In early 1993, then–CMLL Booker Antonio Peña Fixe. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "In response CMLL created the CMLL World Tag Team Championship to fill the void." Comma after "response". Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "On March 3, 1993 Canek and Dr. Wagner, Jr. won a tournament to become the first CMLL World Tag Team champions. "-->On March 3, 1993, Canek and Dr. Wagner, Jr. won a tournament, becoming the first CMLL World Tag Team champions. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "It's Sombra and Volador, Jr.s first title reign both as a team and as individuals"-->This is Sombra's and Volador, Jr.'s first title reign both as a team and as individuals Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "and as individuals, they are the 29th overall champions"-->and as individuals; they are the 29th overall champions Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "Último Guerrero and Rey Bucanero holds the record for the longest combined reigns of any team, 1,185 days divided over three reigns."-->Último Guerrero and Rey Bucanero hold the record for the longest combined reigns of any team, 1,185 days divided over 3 reigns. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "Individually Último Guerrero has held it five times for a total of 1,283 days, which is the longest of any champion." Comma after "Individually". What is "it" referring to? Remove "which is". It = the subject of the article, I clarified. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "held the championship for 7 days, which is the shortest reign of any champion."-->held the championship for seven days, the shortest reign of any champion. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "Último Guerrero and Negro Casas are tied for most title reigns with five each, while the teams of Último Guerrero and Rey Bucanero, and Averno and Mephisto are the only teams to win the championship three times."-->Último Guerrero and Negro Casas are tied for most title reigns with five each, while the teams of Último Guerrero and Rey Bucanero, and Averno and Mephisto are the only teams to have won the championship three times. Note 1: Comma should be a semicolon; remove "only". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Wrestlinglover

Stay tuned, coming tomorrow, or whenever.--WillC 09:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) General Many prose issues I can't run the dabs or links checker tool at the moment, they are down. The tools are working again, and everything checks out. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Lead The CMLL World Tag Team Championship (Campeonato Mundial de Parejas CMLL in Spanish) is a professional wrestling Tag team championship promoted by the Mexican Lucha Libre wrestling-based promotion Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) since 1993. -- Tag team doesn't need capitalization. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) In early 1993 then-CMLL Booker Antonio Peña decided to leave the promotion and start his own professional wrestling promotion Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA), when Peña left CMLL he brought a number of wrestlers with him, among them the then reigning Mexican National Tag Team Champions, Misterioso and Volador, leaving CMLL without a Tag Team title. -> In early 1993, then-CMLL Booker Antonio Peña decided to leave and start his own promotion, Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA); when Peña left CMLL, he acquired a number of wrestlers, among them the then-reigning Mexican National Tag Team Champions Misterioso and Volador, which left CMLL without a tag team title. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I also have another question, were the National Tag Team Titles able to be defended in CMLL? Yes, until AAA was created CMLL used the Mexican National Tag Team title as their main tag championship. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Its odd because the main article doesn't mention the CMLL at all. --Truco 503 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC) It states that before 1993 it was technically not exclusive to one Mexican promotion and that in 1993 it became AAA exclusive, that it does not explicitly state that it was defended in EMLL/CMLL before 1993 is unfortunate and something that needs to be fixed in that article, but none the less how it was. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC) On March 3, 1993 Canek and Dr. Wagner, Jr. won a tournament, to become the first CMLL World Tag Team Champions. -- Comma after 1993, and remove the comma after tournament. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The current Tag Team champions are La Sombra and Volador, Jr. who defeated the team of Averno and Mephisto for the title on January 16, 2009. --> The current champions are La Sombra and Volador, Jr., who defeated the team of Averno and Mephisto for the title on January 16, 2009. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) El Canek and Dr. Wagner, Jr. holds the record for longest reign as a team, at least 608 days. -- 1)No need to pluralize plural2) in addition it would be best to add the footnote thats in the table here as well. 3)This sounds awkward but the last part needs to be reworded to , at at least 608 days. or , at 608 days at the least. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Último Guerrero and Rey Bucanero hold the record for the longest combined reigns of any team, 1,185 days divided over three reigns. -- The comma after team should be changed to a colon. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Individually Último Guerrero has held the championship five times for a total of 1,283 days, the longest of any champion. -- Comma after individually Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The team of Último Guerrero and Dr. Wagner, Jr. held the championship for 7 days, the shortest reign of any champion. -- Since this is about the tag team, champion should be plural. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Último Guerrero and Negro Casas are tied for most title reigns with five each, while the teams of Último Guerrero and Rey Bucanero, and Averno and Mephisto are the only teams to have won the championship three times. -- No need for the comma after and Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) List Why do the notes not sort by the least # of days in the days held column? Because I'm a dork who forgot to add the sort order, fixed now. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The key needs to have the column headers in bold Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I don't understand why you have different alignments, centering the # and days held column doesn't add anything to the table. Why not just left align it like the rest of the table? It has been commented in previous FLs that pure number columns should be centered, to be frank I'm not married to the idea and would be just as happy with left alight to be consistent. If only I could find the comment with the reason why numbers were to be centered. I'd like to know what the general take is on this and then correct this through out all my FLs and FLCs to be consistent. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) (Team Name if applicable)-->(Tag team name if applicable) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) defeated Dr. Wagner, Jr. and Satánico in the finals of an Eight-team tournament -- capitalize defeated Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Hijo del Santo and Negro Casas refuse to accept the championship after winning by disqualification, decision match is held --> Hijo del Santo and Negro Casas refuse to accept the championship after winning by disqualification: a decision match is held. (also link to disqualification) Surely disqualification is a matter of WP:OVERLINK or am I mistaken here? MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Professional wrestling#Disqualification, and no why would it?--Truco 503 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Win the decision match --> Won the decision match Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) The title was held up after a match against Averno and Mephisto ended in a double-disqualification -- link to disqualification As above. Championship vacated after Silver King leaves promotion --> Championship vacated after Silver King leaves CMLL (consistency) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Championship vacated after an inclnclusive match against the Headhunters -- 1)Do you mean inconclusive? 2)Who are the Headhunters? (the members?) Yes I do mean inconclusive, I'm sorry I let such an obvious spelling mistake through. I figured since the Headhunters team was listed earlier in the list with it's members it was okay to leave out the very "informative" (A and B) note but I don't mind putting it in. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Footnotes The reign of Shocker and Mr. Niebla lasted somewhere from 1 day to 293 days; the Último Guerrero/Dr. Wagner, Jr. championship reign has been confirmed as lasting 7 days. -- Confirmed by who/what?--Truco 503 18:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Confirmed by sources listed on the page. Guerrero/Wagner had a documented start & end date, Shocker/Niebla does not so it's verifiable that one title reign lasted 7 days, while it's possible that Shocker/Niebla's reign was shorter. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) You should state it as sources than.--Truco 503 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Alright I can do that. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note - the list is now a "true Blue" list with no redlinks at all. :) MPJ-DK (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – There are some prose issues, but I'm more concerned about the formatting, which could use tightening in several places.

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

*Do we have a wrestling glossary article that could be linked for Booker? I think that would be helpful to our general readership. It definitely would help, I linked it.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) "at 608 days at the least." I don't like the close repetition of "at". How about "at a minimum of 608 days."? Or lead into it with a colon, like in the next sentence. I chose "at a minimum" to avoid any repetition in format from sentence to sentence.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) "Individually, Ultimo Guerrero has held the championship five times for a total of 1,283 days, the longest of any champions." Last word should be singular. Was an s placed in the wrong spot in response to one of Truco's comments? Fixed,  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) "while the teams of Ultimo Guerrero and Rey Bucanero and Averno and Mephisto are the only teams to have won the championship three times." Can a different word be used to replace one of the "teams" in this sentence? Again, this is redundant phrasing. Yes.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Comma after Bucanero in the photo caption. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) The date sorting is off. When I sort by most recent, the 1997 vacancy appears on top. When sorting is done by first reign, several dates are not in chronological order. I did not put "1997" as {{dts|1997}} which is why it sorted wrong.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) When sorting from earliest to latest, there are many instances where reigns in a year are sorting in the wrong order. Can anything be done to fix this? Giants2008 (17–14) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Many? When I checked again I only had problems with the rogue 1997 sorting odd, which I fixed but I can't see a sorting problem otherwise? Can you please tell me what specific dates are not sorting right? It all works properly now. Perhaps the one problem number was affecting sorting in the entire column. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Notes in table: Periods should either consistently be included or not. Right now, there are variances in similar notes. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) "Championship vacated after Silver King leaves CMLL". "leaves" → "left" for past tense. A couple other notes could do with similar fixes. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Also watch the capitalization in the notes. I see "16-Team tournament" and a few "Eight-team tournament"s. "Team" and "eight" should be lower-case, I would imagine. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Link formatting is showing up in entry 11. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Team reigns by length table: Sorting by most days isn't working, though it's fine the other way. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) It's still off. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Yes it was, a zero too many and one missing flubbed the sort order, now it works.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Individual reigns table: Ultimo Guerrero doesn't seem to be in proper alphabetical order. He sorts by "U", Guerrero is not his last name, it translates as "Last Warrior" and should sort by "U".  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) He's sorting as the last alphabetical wrestler, after Dr. Wagner Jr. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Yes he accidentally sorted by "Ú" and not "U" so he was placed after "z" in the sort order, fixed that.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Reference 9 should be formatted like the other SuperLuchas citations, with the magazine's name in italics. Reference 9 is a web citation, where SuperLuchas Magazine is put under publisher as it's from their website - that's the format it has in the "cite web" template, should it still be italics?.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC) If it is magazine, it should be in italics, no matter what. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Alright, fixed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  03:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (17–14) 22:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC) The magazine in the title could be removed, although I don't consider it crucial and would prefer to see sorting fixes first. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Well they are the publisher of the website, it's their online news outlet so I'd say it's proper to keep it. I've checked out the sorting and fixed what was wrong, I'm confused about you seeing the date sorting being so off though.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support – Although the sorting proved difficult to fix, that and the other comments have been taken care of, so I'm happy to switch from oppose. Do be sure to double-check the sorting in future nominations, though. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Most definitly, it won't be put up for FLC before I've checked and double checked sorting.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 20:48, 2 August 2009 [59].

---

List of City University of New York institutions

Nominator(s): MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I started this article a few months back, worked it through DYK and PR and this it now could pass for FL. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looks great. I'd say to do the same thing as the state university list: combine the male/female percentages. Reywas92^Talk 03:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and external links check out fine. Lead Do not bold anything in the lead that is not the title: The City University of New York (CUNY) system is not the title of the article. Done If you complete my suggestion above, you can link to the article there, and unlink it in the sentence that follows the opening sentence. Done CUNY and the State University of New York are entirely different university systems, despite the fact that both are public institutions which receive funding from New York State. -- Is New York State referring to New York (U.S. state)? Done 64 SUNY and 24 CUNY campus units are all part of University of the State of New York -- 1)Per MOS:NUM, do not start sentences with a number 2)You need to add a (SUNY) to the sentence where the full spelling of this acronym appears, which I believe is the previous sentence before this 3)This sentence needs a period. Done USNY, which is the governmental umbrella organization for most education-related institutions and many education-related personnel (both public and private) in New York State, and which includes, as a component, the New York State Education Department. -- 1)Same thing here about the New York State I thought I am only supposed to link a term the first time I use it? Yeah you are, what I meant in my comment above was that I was asking you personally what you were referring to, and since you are referring to the U.S. state, it would be best if you state both these instances as the state of New York.--Truco 503 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Done History The Free Academy later became the City College of New York, the oldest institution among the CUNY colleges. -- This link to Free Academy should come in the first mention, not here. Done Over the years the configuration of the units of CUNY has changed. -- 1)Comma after years Done Also, Lehman College was formerly a branch campus of Hunter College that was known as Hunter-in-the-Bronx. -- It would be best not to start this sentence with Also, reword Done State which unit has the smallest enrollment. I thought about this, but the small professional schools screw up the size, so I thought it best to leave that out. What I find missing is an explanation of the word unit, as to what it means. Does it mean university system? If so, you should explain that or have a link to it. "Unit" is how I get around the distinctions of "school", "college", and "university", I could call it a "component" if it would be more clear. Well what does the CUNY officially call its schools? Is it also units?--Truco 503 16:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm, it seems they call them "institutions". I'll change the article over to that terminology tonight. MBisanz talk 17:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC) When you do that, you may also need to rename the list itself.--Truco 503 17:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Done List On my screen the table starts at the second image, leaving white space above it next to the first image. Done Remove the periods from the notes section, they are not complete statements. Done Shouldn't The City College sort by "C" instead of "T"? Done The enrollment column does not sort properly, use {{sort}} for this. Done The references should not be sortable. Done References There is an inconsistency in the linking of publishers, either link all of them that have Wikipedia articles or don't link them at all.--Truco 503 01:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Done

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL. --Truco ₅₀₃ 02:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• The only thing you got to do now is move this FLC to the new title of the article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment Images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Also, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I'm going to fix the periods, but I thought I had alt text for all of them. Am I missing something? MBisanz talk 04:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, punctuation done. MBisanz talk 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I was careless and copy-pasted the wrong message. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Toolbox reveals two dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I just clicked both and they are live PDFs. This could be related to the corruption of the toolserver database which is the source of live/dead information. MBisanz talk 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "three different types " "As of 2009[update], CUNY is the nation's largest urban public university" Comma after here. "public institutions which receive funding"-->public institutions that receive funding "The 64 SUNY and 24 CUNY campus institutions are all part of " "held by individual campuses" Comma after here. "a Free Academy for the purpose of extending the benefits of education gratuitously to persons who have been pupils in the common schools of the …city and county of New York." Per WP:PUNC, the quotation mark should be inside the period. Also, there should be a space on either side of the ellipis. "land-area" No hyphen. Is there any way you can explain/link "Senior", "Junior", and "Graduate" in the Type column? Perhaps this is an exception, but should "The Bronx" be sorted as a "B" instead of a "T"? The "Notes" in the table should not have a period at the end because they are not complete sentences. Because the table is sortable, the locations need to be linked on all occurences. Only one category? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I think I fixed everything mentioned. MBisanz talk 01:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose (apologies for the delay in the review) You say "graduate/professional schools" are they referred to this way or are they either graduate or professional schools? In other words, would "graduate or professional schools" be more appropriate prose than using the slash? "...is the nation's largest urban ..." minor point, and perhaps obvious to most, but you haven't mentioned which "nation" you mean. And because of your intelligent linking beforehand, there's no absolute linking to the United States... "... are entirely different ..." - is entirely really what you mean, or do you mean very different? Especially as you go on to say they are both "public institutions that receive funding from the state of New York". "University of the State of New York USNY" I guess USNY should be in parentheses. Is the list intended to be alphabetical by "Name" to start with? If so, Sophie Davis is out of order. Don't see the utility of ordering the notes. There aren't many and they're free text. Why is SUNY relinked in the table and CUNY not? What is CMA in ref 5? refs 69 and 92 are notes, not references. Ref 8 has pp. instead of p. (drop the s from pages in the ref). I've been informed several times by my colleagues over the pond that it's "The New York Times", not just New York Times. See ref 12. A lot of your references are called "Institution Lookup", e.g. ref 34. I can't see that text, and what would be far more useful would be "Home > Carnegie Classifications > CUNY College of Staten Island" or just "CUNY College of Staten Island". Same with all the College Search and College Navigator links. Refs 58 and 62 have, well, issues... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, I'll get to this tonight. MBisanz talk 08:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Well after an hour of errors, I think I covered all your comments. MBisanz talk 13:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Much better - notes are still sortable. CMA is red linked, why not just spell it out, you can keep it linked if you like. Ref 10 has pp. instead of p. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, I covered those 3 now. MBisanz talk 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - good work on my picky comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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