Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 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 Matthewedwards 23:40, 28 February 2009 [1].

---

List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² and Maxim_(talk)

This is one I got together fairly quickly and I hope this is the final piece of a potential Triple Gold Club FT. The table format is new, some alternate formats are here (A is the original). My reason for the switch was that a lot of people who visit the page are likely more interested in what team won the year rather than who the individual members were. As it was, it was difficult to browse through and pick out winners, so I thought the collapsible tables would help. That way, anyone who wants to know who the members of a team were can easily find it. It does have it's downsides though, one has to open each collapsed header manually and ctrl-F is not useable. Either way, this is a WikiCup entry and all concerns are welcome and will be addressed by me or Maxim. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - I note a bit of rushing ;) From 1920 to 1968, the Olympics also acted as the Ice Hockey World Championships and the two events occurred concurrently. -- Comma before and and I guess a link to the '68 event. In 1987, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to allow professional athletes to compete in the Olympics and in starting in 1998, the NHL allowed its players to participate. -- (1)Comma before and (2)Remove the in before starting The Soviet Union began competing at the Olympics in 1956 and nine straight Olympic medals, including seven gold. -- Add won before nine The Soviet Union broke up in 1991 and in 1992 a Unified Team composed mainly of former Soviet players won gold. -- Comma before and and after 1992. Teams from Canada have won the most medals over, with 16, including nine gold. -- I don't believe the over is needed, no? Athlete medal leaders Is there a specific order in which the nations are in? It seems a bit awkward to have this column sortable since there are more than one entry listed in some.--TRUCO 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) All fixed. Maxim(talk) 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC) This is going to be a race to see who can address concerns first, isn't it? -- Scorpion0422 02:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC) What about my last point/question?--TRUCO 02:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The table is sorted by total medals (in ties, it's ordered by whoever has the most gold). As for sortability, it has been removed. -- Scorpion0422 02:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Cool.--TRUCO 03:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• I can't really see the Show tags with IE, they mostly overlap the (CAN) part of the country name. I like the idea in principle though. CloudQuest (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Which version do you have? It might be that your browser isn't wide enough. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • IE 7, screen resolution is 800x600 CloudQuest (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's the problem. The table is 825 px wide. I've tried narrowing it, is it better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
        • No, that didn't help. I think you need to either widen the columns (and thus the whole table) or remove the flag icons and abbreviations. I think it would be preferable to make someone like me scroll sideways to see the final column rather than making the show tags illegible as they are for me now. CloudQuest (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The table looks great at screen width 1024, I need a new monitor :) CloudQuest (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Just for clarification, do you think the table should be made wider than it was originally? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes. CloudQuest (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Okay, each column is now 250px and the entire think should be roughly 875px. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Sorry, it's still very messy but I've got to go offline now. I'll try to stop by again, but don't take this as an oppose. CloudQuest (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Update I have switched back to the previous version of the table. There were still objections at the Olympics WikiProject, and as Andrwsc pointed out, it's meant to be a list of the individual medalists and a companion to the Ice hockey at the Olympic Games article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Andrwsc

• The "Medals per year" table seems like an obtuse kind of summary for a team sport. Is it really needed? The main article has a better summary in its "Participating nations" section, where instead of "1" or "—" in each table cell (or "2" since the introduction of the women's tournament) it shows a final placement, with gold/silver/bronze colouring for the medalists. I don't see a need to repeat this data in a different form. (But the "Athlete medal leaders" section on this list is great; good work in compiling that!) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved discussion about 1920 Czech roster

Ok, Scorpion0422, since you've taken the task of promoting this, you get a difficult task! We have long had an apparent discrepancy for the 1920 Czech bronze medal team. The IOC database shows 8 players, including Adolf Dusek. The sports-reference.com site also has 8 players, but shows Karel Wälzer instead of Dusek. The website of the Czech NOC lists the following 10 players: Karel Wälzer, Jan Peka, Jan Arnold Palouš, Otakar Vindyš, Karel Hartmann, Josef Šroubek, Karel Pešek-Káďa, Vilém Loos, Josef Loos, Karel Kotrba. Databaseolympics.com (not a source you cite) shows 10 players, with Karel Kotrbá and Josef Loos as the two additional players. The Czech Wikipedia page also shows those 10 players. You task is to resolve this situation for the FL. Good luck! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I did some checking in the New York Times archives (since that's one of the new newspapers with free online archives that go back that far) and I was able to find an article about the US beating the Czechs, but no mention of a roster. Google News and Newsbank have also been unhelpful. Here is a summary of my findings so far: Player Czech NOC ABC S-R IOC D-O Italian NOC SI/CNN ESPN Karel Hartmann Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vilém Loos Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Jan Palouš Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Jan Peka Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Karel Pešek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Josef Šroubek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Otakar Vindyš Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Karel Wälzer Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Josef Loos Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Karel Kotrba Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Adolf Dusek No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Still looking though. The solution may be to go with the Czech NOC and add a note about what the IOC says. They are the two most official sources, so what they say matters more than the secondary sources. -- Scorpion0422 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Good work so far! I've added ESPN. The other thought that occured to me would be to ask a question at the S-R website (feedback page), as the Olympics section is maintained by members of the International Society of Olympic Historians and they might be able to explain the discrepancies. I also found one of their journal articles that shows per-game roster information, and their 8 players match the 8 listed on the S-R website. Hansen, Kenth (May 1996). "The Birth of Swedish Ice Hockey - Antwerp 1920" (PDF). Citius, Altius, Fortius. 4 (2). International Society of Olympic Historians: 5–27. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I've done some more checking and nothing new. I think the best solution would be to go along with the IOC and add the following note: These eight players are listed in the IOC database. However, the members of the team vary by source. The Czech Republic NOC listing includes Karel Wälzer, Josef Loos and Karel Kotrba and removes Adolf Dusek. What do you think? -- Scorpion0422 17:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I think I would also include the ISOH journal article as a reference, as it is clearly a "scholarly work" and is itself very well referenced. ISOH has uncovered multiple errors in the IOC database, and we've referenced their work on lots of other articles. We might also want to double-check Canada and Sweden for 1920 against those references... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I have checked the roster for Canada and the US of A against all of the above refs and they all check out. (A few days, ago I did a quick sweep of the entire list and everyone listed is either in the IOC database, Sports-reference or DatabaseOlympics, I did pick out a few small errors). -- Scorpion0422 19:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) You have a whole lot of redirects because of misspelled names (missing letters or accents). Instead of me pinpointing them all, insert User:Splarka/dabfinder.js into your monobook.js and use the redirect finder to fix them all. "Teams from Canada have won the most medals ever, with 16, including nine gold." Comparable quantities (16, nine) should be written the same. "have been awarded and have been won by teams from 13 National Olympic Committees."-->have been awarded to teams from 13 National Olympic Committees. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed prose stuff. I can't get the script to work though. Does it take some time for it to highlight the redirects? Maxim(talk) 15:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) There should be two functions on the sidebar. The first should say "Find disambiguations" and the one below says "Find redirects". Don't forget to bypass your cache. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 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 23:40, 28 February 2009 [2].

---

List of Bleach chapters

Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk)

I am renominating this for featured list after it had all its issues fixed from the previous nomination. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead In Japan, they are published in Shueisha's Weekly Shōnen Jump since 2001. -- They are should be 'they have been'. He also encounters former Soul Reaper Sōsuke Aizen who created an army of powerful hollow called arrancar to destroy the Soul Reapers' organization, Soul Society. -- Comma before who An anime adaptation, produced by Studio Pierrot and TV Tokyo and airing on TV Tokyo, premiered on October 5, 2004. -- Reword to An airing of a anime adaptation, produced by Studio Pierrot and TV Tokyo, premiered on TV Tokyo on October 5, 2004. Viz Media released the first volume on June 1, 2004, as of December 2008 twenty-five volumes have been released. -- Comma should be a semi-colon not a comma. List From my standpoint the listings seem fine, but I would seek a copyedit of the summaries of the chapters. But first of all, where are these based from?--TRUCO 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Done the lead fixes. The summaries are based on the volumes. Is there any notable grammar issue?Tintor2 (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I mean, where do they come from. Are they reworded statements from another website? I'm not sure, but its a lot of content and a copyedit would be nice, just in case.TRUCO 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, they were made based on the volumes. If not they would be breaking copyvio.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, then. Due to that, it is best to seek a good copyedit of them. For now I will Weak Support this nomination (since it meets the rest of the WP:WIAFL criteria) until a thorough copyedit is done.--TRUCO 22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise

Resolved comments:

• Romaji titles need title-casing.
• "048. Menos Grande (メノスグランデ Menosugurande)" - No need to give romaji in this case.
• Ref 2 misuses the "title" parameter. Either give the chapter name or use the "chapter" parameter.
• Ref 61 needs a publisher.

-- Goodraise (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Ore-sama no na wa Ganju" -> "Ore-sama no Na wa Ganju"
• "Renshūkyoku Op.1" -> "Renshūkyoku op.1"
• "Hitori - ō no Kodoku" -> "Hitori - Ō no Kodoku"
• Link the publisher in ref. 59 and 61.

-- Goodraise (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak support, until a prose expert says it meets 1.a. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: Meets the featured list criteria. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Note I have done two complete copy-edits (summaries only), one here and another here, after the summaries were expanded. I will repeat that I did not look at the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I did some light touching up of the lead, nothing major. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Generally good, but can you find reliable sources to replace current refs 1 & 3. The encyclopedia section of ANN is editable by anyone, and therefore is not reliable. (NB. I have found mistakes with it recently). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For ref 1, another source I found was this. Any idea of what source could be used for ref 3?Tintor2 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Something like that TV Tokyo Archive --KrebMarkt 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Sourcing is now fine, apologies I don't have time to give a full review. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:46, 26 February 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 23:40, 28 February 2009 [3].

---

List of Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes

Nominator(s): NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )}

Peer review

Another anime list for your consideration. The list has been lightly copyedited. Please keep in mind that the episodes are eight minutes long (including the ending theme) so the episode summaries are therefore quite short in comparison to most summaries. Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(Copyedited by —La Pianista ^(T•C) @ 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

• Support - Made some changes, feel free to revert if you wish. I don't like the current FLC system, so I made comments using the <!-- --> tags. In any case, they are minor points, so support per meeting the FA Criteria. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Changed some stuff. Mold was from the previous episode and I always thought movies were italicized. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong... Thanks for the review! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Same as in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess! episodes, another great piece of work. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "that ran for 48 episodes between 1998 and 1999"-->that aired 48 episodes between 1998 and 1999
• "which focuses three goddesses" Missing a word.
• "The series had only two pieces of theme music"
• "However, Urd's predictions are all inanimate objects." I am confused. If these are predictions, then why does Gan-chan marry the kettle?
• "Gan-chan, Urd, and Skuld laze around, bored" Redundant, if they are lazing around then doesn't it follow that they are bored?
• "The three battles the rat"-->The three battle the rat
• "Gan-chan volunteers to act as a distraction. " I think "decoy" would be better here.
• "Urd and Skuld find the treasure, but it turns out to be a windup doll of a golden Buddha statue. " "but" implies contradiction. What did they expect the treasure to be?

• They expected the treasure to be an actual treasure, diamonds, gold, I dunno... I've changed this a bit to clarify a bit more. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 03:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Skuld and Urd build him-->Skuld and Urd build for him
• "ate like a pig following his exercise and regained his weight. " Can you put something more encyclopedic than "ate like a pig"?
• "Gan-chan has turned into mini-Godzilla named Gabira." Needs "a" before "mini-Godzilla".
• "can containing"-->can that contains
• "Upon entering "
• "However, the bad luck almost immediately" The way this is phrased, readers are expected to know that bad luck comes from the ring. Please explain further.
• "They try to place a spiritual barrier on the ring, but it fails." Fails to do what?
• "Urd and Skuld bathe him sunlight." Missing a preposition ("in", I think).
• "They duplicate themselves to make teams." "make"-->form.
• "play in ridiculous fashions, at one point, mimicking the tornado pitch of the Tasmanian Devil. Urd then disappears for her "ultimate pitch," and the rest all imitate her, leaving the stadium deserted. "-->play in ridiculous fashions; at one point, they mimick the tornado pitch of the Tasmanian Devil. Urd then disappears for her "ultimate pitch", and the rest imitate her, leaving the stadium deserted. What action do they imitate?

That is the first 12 episodes. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done with notes. I will c/e this myself again later. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 03:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Odd... Most of the issues seem to be centered in the first few episodes. Take another look now; there should not be any more major errors, though another copyedit may be necessary from a better copyeditor. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"and they try to save him with their various strange methods."

• • Removed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Gan-chan explains to Urd how to fish, but Urd ignores him and begins fishing herself." Add "by" before "herself".
  • That would change the meaning. I've removed "herself" however, so the meaning should remain the same and the grammar should be better. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Together, they pull out an extremely large fish" "pull out"-->reel in
  • Changed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• "When Marller checks on her henchmen, they are all enjoying themselves with their captives and the henchmen and the goddesses decide to have a party." Two unrelated ideas connected by "and".
  • Well, they seemed connected to me... Split anyway. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• "decides to summon some new servants"
  • Changed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Those were just a few more things, I've no time to go through the entire article. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• No worries. As long as the FLC doesn't close, I've got all the time in the world! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Expand WP:CONTRACTIONS
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Watch out for colloqualisms (e.g. "his place")
  • Hopefully, I took care of those during my c/e. Let me know if any more remain. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The one I mentioned is still there. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Finally fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• "twenty-four[13]," refs after punctuation.
  • Fixed by Dabomb87. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• For "one through twenty-four" and "twenty-five through forty-eight", I'd use 1–24 and 25–48 instead.
  • I prefer it the other way, but I've changed it. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Summaries still need work I am afraid. Some quick examples of erroneous or unclear things.

• "and beats the others" | beats?
  • Changed to "hits." NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Urd tests him" | tests how
  • Clarified. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• "is too nervous for the concert" | nervous about/before the concert ?
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• "destruction!" | full stop not exclamation mark
  • Changed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Urd, as the Mallard Train races Gan" | comma after train
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• "He imagines life if he lived in the miso jar" | He imagines what life would be like if he...
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

First 15 ep summaries.

• "The devices begin with Urd's attempt to build Icarus' wings, followed by Skuld's construction of the Montgolfier brothers' balloon, Otto Lilienthal's glider, Samuel Langley's (unsuccessful) Aerodrome and, ultimately, the Bell X-1, as Belldandy gives the history of flight." | reword or possibly remove "history of flight" as it is already mentioed in the previous sentence, and it reads funny.
  • Done. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "quoting Neil Armstrong's famous line" Expand. Is it in full or a parody. Gan-chan is a rat so does he really say "I small step for man...?"
  • Done. The translation is a bit funky, but that is to be expected, no? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• before reurning to his spaceship
  • Done. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• What is "deep space"?
  • The disambig describes it, but linking to dabs is suggested against so I've linked to outer space.
• "transform it into a spaceship" - it being? the temple?
  • Clarified. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Link "emcee"
  • Done. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• What is a "collared bowtie"
  • Linked. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean link it. What is a collar bow tie? Is it a type of bow tie. Can you do without the word "collared"? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Removed then. It's a bowtie that goes at the collar... I've removed "collared" and unlinked. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "beats up" is a bit colloquial - reword
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk)

16–35

• "Gan-chan repeats his attempt to clean Keiichi's desk and subsequent injuries" | Sounds like he his attempting to clean subsequent injuries
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "and begins to climb" | he begins to climb back up?
  • No, he's trying to climb down the cliff. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Urd rudely wakes him up" | bit vague maybe "abruptly wakes him"
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Skuld enters Banpei" | sounds like Skuld is going inside Banpei. Make it clear it is enters Banpei for the competition
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • "Skuld enters Banpei into the competition, and it wins" | "it wins" seems strange, I was happier with who wins assuming it is an animate object. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • However, the grammar of Skuld enters Banpei into the competition, who wins several times as well. is incorrect. I've replaced "who wins" with "Banpei." NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Link "sake"
  • Done. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "use inventions to calm him down" | what inventions?
  • Skuld just creates random inventions and I think naming them would give them WP:Undue weight. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "not unfounded" | double negative, maybe well-founded
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Possibly "and as a first-class sorceress demon, she easily defeats Gan-chan" unless that part is really relevent.
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "a black bird fly away" | black bird -> crow as you specify this later
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Unfortunately, it was all a dream" | unfortunate for who, maybe just but it was ...
  • Changed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Still don't know why it is unfortunate. Try Urd defeats Marller and saves the world from destruction, but it was in a dream. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Replaced. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "so that Belldandy confesses to Gan-chan inside his dream" | confesses what?
  • Changed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "beat him up" again
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "attach Belldandy to the machine" | what machine?
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "freed from his curse" | what curse
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "power goes out and their scores are lost" | need to mention that their "scores" are being recorded on something before
  • Added information. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "but the fish swallows him instead" | instead of?
  • Removed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

36–

• "Urd then moves" | The fake Urd then ...
  • Changed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The goddesses demands the real Urd what is going on" missing word
  • Dunno what the missing word was, but that sentence was horrid to begin with. Minor switch ups in wording, so it should be fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "favorite Ninja TV show" | if the show is called Ninja TV then fine, but I suspect it is a TV show about ninjas -> ninja TV show
  • I don't know what the true translation is, so I've made it lower case. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Rock-Paper-Scissors" -> rock-paper-scissors
  • Changed capitalization. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Link "smear campaign"
  • Linked. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "smear campaign against Gan-chan and incites a crowd against Gan-chan" | reword to remove repetition of "against Gan-chan"
  • Fixed them. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Gan-chan hurriedly tries to grant other wishes so that the Wish Maker does not grant them" | huh?
  • Attempted to clarify it. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "but the description sounds like Gan-chan, to his surprise—" | but, to his suprise, the description sounds like himself—
  • Changed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "but he unfortunately keeps missing Keiichi" | who? is that what the student his called? if so clarify that earlier
  • Clarified at the end. It doesn't fit elsewhere. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Gan-chan chases after her but accidentally ends up at the Extreme Thrill Ride Course, a roller coaster-like track, to his dismay." | after her but, to his dismay, accidentally ... a coaster-like track.
  • Clarified, and the wording morphed a bit from yours. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Alot of Ep 47 is unclear, I realise it is a weird plot, but it still needs better wording.
  • See if this is better. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The Adventures of Mini-Goddess... was a Japanese animated TV series that aired 48 episodes between 1998 and 1999. Episodes exist forever, so "...is a Japanese..." is more correct
• The series premiered on WOWOW as a part of the omnibus show Anime Complex; it is currently distributed in North America by Geneon Entertainment, formerly known as Pioneer Entertainment. The two parts of the sentence don't flow for me, because WOWOW is a Japanese network, and the bit after the semicolond discusses American distribution. Also, Anime Complex should be italicised per WP:ITALICS

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed both. Moved a ref to support the sentence created. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:30, 26 February 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 Scorpion0422 23:31, 28 February 2009 [4].

---

Rihanna discography

Nominator(s): Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

Great music. Great lady. Great list? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wow Matt, way to put this up at such a high point in her career! :-P iMatthew // talk // 13:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

Comment

• I am worried of the youtube links. They are external copyright violations and are not reliable, too. --Efe (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • They seem all to be uploaded by the universalmusicgroup, so they should be OK copyright-wise. --Amalthea 11:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • AGF because I cannot access the video, perhaps restrictions due to copyrights. --Efe (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Where are these links? I don't see them in the article.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 14:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • In the references for the directors of the music videos. Universal kindly provide directors, producers, and often camera/cinematographers for their music videos. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)
      • WP:YOUTUBE, they're not automatically bad. The links point to videos provided by Universal Music Group's official channel. You're in South America, right? Perhaps its restricted based on IP address? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Like Matt stated, if the channel is owned by the official publisher, its fine to link to them.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead She has also featured as a guest artist on four charting singles by other performers, and contributed to nine other songs on other artists' albums. | Add 'been' before featured Done Rihanna's music incorporates various styles of musical genres, including R&B, dance-pop, and the Caribbean music styles of reggae and dancehall. | IDK, per consistency with the linking of genres in other discographies, some of these are commonly known enough to have no need of a link [like R&B]. Not Done - just for consistency, if one or two are linked, I'd prefer them all to be. But if other people feel the same as you I will change it Well, its not really consistent with other discographies, but it doesn't hurt either way.--<TRUCO> 503 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC) It performed well in English speaking countries, reaching Number 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in the United States, the UK Singles Chart, and the Irish Singles Chart. | Spell out UK in its first occurrence. Done It was released at the end of August and performed moderately well in various charts around the world. | Its not clear in the context as to what year the album was released. Done In the United States it reached Number 10 on the Billboard 200 Chart, Number 35 on the UK Albums Chart, Number 12 on the Irish Albums Chart, and also appeared on a number of other European charts. | Comma after US [it was already spelled out, so that needs to be replaced] Done References How reliable is hitparade? I've never seen it used in discographies. I would say highly. It is an official provider of the Swiss charts. Many of the other sites within the company are also authorized by the countries' record associations, like IFPI, to provide official chart listings, such as http://australian-charts.com/, http://www.ultratop.be, http://danishcharts.com/, http://finnishcharts.com/, http://lescharts.com/ etc etc. --<TRUCO> 503 14:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support | Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Whataworld06

I really like this list, though I did notice a few things that could improve it:

• ""—" denotes releases that did not chart" needs to be added to the bottom of tables with chart positions (see this)

• Done

• I don't think all of the reference linking is needed (Allmusic is linked dozens of times). Consider linking the work or publisher only the first time it is used.

• If I do that, what's to say if the first linked referenced will keep on being the first one? Overlinking doesn't usually apply to references, see the capped comments by User:JD554 at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sigur Rós discography for an explanation.

• Add the Wikimedia Commons for Rihanna to the External links section (see the bottom of the Rihanna article)

• I think its only for bios. --Efe (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. -Whataworld06 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• No source is listed to verify the remix album or the DVD --Whataworld06 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done

Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks great, have hidden my minor comments below. Drewcifer (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Two minor complaints, mostly preference-based: the first sentence in the lead is written in the same-old boring "This is a discography of" style. We already know that, from the title. Also, consider bolding the album titles in each of the tables. There's so much data in these tables, that I find it helps to draw attention to what all the data actually pertains to. Also, you should definitely wikilink "Barbadian". I had to look that up separately. Drewcifer (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Re: the first sentence -- Not really. It neatly summarises her discog with "it consists of three studio albums, one remix album, fourteen singles, twelve music videos and one live DVD." We have to say "discography" somewhere and this is the most natural place. I bolded the albums, and have linked Barbadian. Thanks for looking! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Maybe I didn't notice this before, but the singles column has grown to 11 columns. 10 is the recommended cap. This would also fix the problem of the bottom legend spanning across all of the columns. It might also help make some more room (albeit not much) for the certifications, based on the conversation down below. Drewcifer (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah. You wouldn't believe how many times I've removed these, but the people keep adding them. They even changed FINLAND to TURKEY (and the chart positions) but kept the FIN reference! There's no real difference between 11 and 10, so I think it's OK to leave it as it is. It'd just get added back in again if I removed one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I kind of assumed it wasn't done by you, since the bottom row wasn't updated along with it. And yeah, I know 11 is close to 10, but I'm kind of a stickler for 10, for alot of reasons. As it stands, the table doesn't quite fit on my monitor (1024x768, a very common resolution), so the table is getting squished a little bit (about one column's worth, as a matter of fact). 10 is still plenty of data, and anymore begins to border on an indiscriminate stat dumb. And of course, 11 is close to 10, but 12 is close to 11. And hey, 13 is only one more than 12. So it's a slippery slope. This isn't enough for me to retract my support, but I'm uneasy with it, because of all of the above. You could add a note to try and curb fans adding another column. Drewcifer (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC) OK. While I was sleeping Cannibaloki has added singles certifications and removed the US Pop chart. All is well!. C Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Cool. Hopefully everyone is happy. Drewcifer (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Some of the links in the singles as featured artist needs to be corrected. Norway and Switzerland.

• Done

• The chart for Finland is incorrect, the reference for those charts positions goes to the YLE chart, not the Mitä hittiä.

• Done

• Just a question, why did you choose to put the charts for Austria and Switzerland, but not the one for Germany? I believe is the biggest german speaking market.

• No particular reason. MOS:DISCOG says 10 charts. I just picked 10 charts at random.

Frcm1988 (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

More comments

• In the music video section, only link Chris Applebaum and Anthony Mandler one time.

• Done

• The references from Allmusic for the Guest appearances: 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45 and 47 are lacking the author.

• Tomorrow going to bed now :)

• Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Frcm1988 (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Good work. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The discography of Rihanna, a Barbadian singer" Comma after here. Done "was later certified Platinum" No caps. Done "well in various charts around the world." Two vague phrases: "various" and "charts around the world". Delete one. Done "It's highest chart " Spot the simple grammatical error here. Done More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) "A Girl like Me, with a less tropical but greater urban sound"-->A Girl like Me, which had a less tropical but greater urban sound Done "It was certified Platinum" More unnecessary caps. Done ""Shut Up and Drive" and "Don't Stop the Music" were also released as singles; both had a rock/club style to the music." Source? Done "rerecorded"-->re-recorded (neater) Done "radio-edit remixes of eleven tracks" Numbers over nine should be written in numerals. MOS:NUM#Numbers as figures or words: single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• "AllMusic"-->Allmusic Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Where are the certifications for singles and DVDs? Cannibaloki 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a silly reason to oppose, rather than just saying "comment" or "neutral". They're not included because they don't really have to be. Adding an extra column for the singles is going to squash the entire table.

• I actually agree with Cannibaloki's position here. I find it a poor argument to say major content such as certifications for singles and videos are not included because they don't have to be. If that is the case, then I suggest we might has well remove all charts and album certifications, as they do not have to be there either. Not inserting such information defeats the whole purpose of nominating this discography for FL, which is to come up with the a comprehensive and complete discography. For that matter, I also suggest you add DVD charts and album sales, given the commercial success of Rihanna. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Album sales isn't necessary because certifications are awarded based on the number of sales. It would just be repetitive information. I'll look into searching for DVD certs later or tomorrow, but I think it's too much information for the singles. It would make the table look extremely ugly, which would make it fail Criterion 6.

In fact, Criterion 3: Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries, doesn't seem to support including them force their inclusion:

• All albums, singles and featured songs are included, meeting the "defined scope, complete set of items" part.
• "All of the major items": the certs for albums are major, whereas the awards for singles and DVDs are not -- the threshold of sales for earning certs are lower for singles than albums
• "It has annotations that provide useful and appropriate info" -- it has chart positions for all charted releases and bulleted notes for albums, guest appearances etc.

I don't see where it fails, and so I think the oppose is invalid. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the album certifications actually do not tell me how much Good Girl Gone Bad sold worldwide, and also sales are recommended at MOS:DISCOG. In regards to single certifications, saying that the threshold of sales for earning certs are lower for singles than albums is actually not true. If you take a look at the world's biggest music markets, sales thresholds per award are the same for albums and singles in United States, Australia and Japan, while they are actually higher for singles in Germany and the United Kingdom. And also, saying that inserting an extra column will make the tables look ugly is quite subjective and not necessarily true (e.g. Eminem discography). So it really doesn't make much sense to have album certifications but not single ones, which are too recommended at MOS:DISCOG. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, a proposed WP:CREEP MOS. I happen to think that the singles table in the Eminem discog doesn't look wonderful; there's too much white space, but whatever.

I have included chart positions for the DVD, and the RIAA sales certification. Despite what the article said, it wasn't certified in Australia according to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations.htm, nor in Belgium according to http://www.belgianentertainment.be, the Italian one can't be reliably verified because you need a password.[5] I can't find any other certs for the DVD, from any National record industry assns listed at http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_links/national_associations.html Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let's ignore DISCOGs, but what about the points I made about sales and certifications? By the way, the DVD also charted on Australia's Top 40 Music DVD chart. (source). You may want to include it if you feel it is appropriate. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was wrong about the thresholds for singles vs albums WRT certifications. I still don't think they're necessary for singles though. Especially when they're in the articles themselves. Sorry. I've added the Aussie chart for the DVD. Thanks for the link, I wouldn't have found it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cannibaloki, I see you added this information yourself. I won't remove it, so could you strike your "oppose"?

• Support, all done. Cannibaloki 01:52, 1 March 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 Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 [6].

---

List of New York Yankees team records

Nominator(s): Giants2008 (17-14)

Here's a second Yankees-related list from me. This is based on the other current baseball team records FLs, and has been peer-reviewed, like all of the lists I've brought here before. As always, I'll be around to respond to the community's comments. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead After beginning play in Baltimore, Maryland as the Baltimore Orioles in 1901, the club moved to New York two years later; in 1913, the team changed its nickname from the Highlanders to the Yankees. -- The last part implies that the reader already knows that they were known as the Highlanders but its never mentioned before, so that should be reworded accordingly. From 1901 to 2008, the franchise has won more than 9,000 games and 26 World Series championships. -- Is it really necessary to link franchise? Its seems like a pretty common term not needing specific linkage. Outfielder Babe Ruth holds the most franchise records with 15, including career and single-season home runs, batting average, and on-base percentage. -- As seen in previous FLCs and in the context, a comma should go in place before with. Everything else checks out fine.--TRUCO 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC) All three of those have now been fixed. Thanks for the quick review! Giants2008 (17-14) 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I participated in this list's peer review and fully support its inclusion as a FL. Nice work. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

A couple of minor issues, but overall, extremely well done.

• In the caption of Babe Ruth's lead image, all three numbers are comparative to one another, so spell out "fifteen", rather than 15, per WP:MOSNUM.
• I would like to see the "#" symbol superscripted or separated from the numbers in some way where ties are indicated. As is, when the characters are the same height, it's cluttered. I believe that I used the § symbol with superscripting to some degree of success throughout several other featured lists.
• Navbox needs to contain a direct link to this article to be included (see Template:Philadelphia Phillies).
• 'Twould be nice to have an external link directly to the official site (this was requested of me at my first FLC and I've tried to include it ever since). Don't forget to bullet it.

Hope this helps. Good work. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Got all of them. While superscripting the symbols, I realized they didn't have matching colors. Have to go now, but will add the colors later today. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, the colors are now in. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers. Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Yankees compete"-->They compete (avoids the repetition of "The...Yankees" in two consecutive sentences)
• "Yankees players who are still active"-->Active Yankees players
• File:Ruth1921.jpg needs a more specific source. We need to be able to easily find the picture.
• The external link is not really necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 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 Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 [7].

---

List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. It is fully referenced and meets the qualifications as laid out in WP:WIAFL. Questions will, of course, be addressed by the nominator. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead Since the institution of Major League Baseball's Rule 4 draft, the Phillies have selected 45 players in its first round. -- According to the MLB Draft article, 'Draft' is capitalized in Rule 4 Draft. Since the 'Draft' is a proper noun, it should be capitalized when referring to it, like 'The Draft'. To the two above, "The Draft" itself is not a proper noun, but is now capitalized when using its full title. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but in the usage of "The Draft" needs to be capitalized because its referring to the proper noun. If it were in the April draft, then it needs to be in lower case.--TRUCO 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC) List of Houston Rockets first and second round draft picks begs to differ. There is no support for "The Draft" being a proper noun. "Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example the common noun god denotes all deities, while the proper noun God references the monotheistic God specifically." (from Noun)KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I have used disambiguation to remove references to "the draft" for the sake of my own sanity and this argument. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The draft is Major League Baseball's primary mechanism for assigning amateur baseball players, from high schools, colleges, and other amateur baseball clubs, to its teams. -- IMO, this would be better formatted if the from high schools, colleges, and other amateur baseball clubs was in between emdashes, the excess of commas is daunting. Actually, the commas were completely superfluous, but that was copied from the article on the draft. I removed them altogether. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 28 years later, third baseman (later left fielder) Pat Burrell (1998), pitchers Brett Myers (1999) and Cole Hamels (2002), and second baseman Chase Utley (2000) were all members of the team during the Phillies' 2008 World Series championship. -- Wouldn't the (later left fielder) be better stated as '(later a left fielder)'? None of the other positions start with "a", so the addition would be unnecessary. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) These additional picks are provided when a team loses a particularly valuable free agent in the prior off-season,[2][6] or, more recently, if a team fails to sign a draft pick from the previous year. -- Remove the comma after or More recently is an appositive phrase which needs to be separated by commas. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Four other supplementary picks have been awarded to the Phillies for the loss of free agents. Dave Coggin was the first, selected in 1995 with the 30th pick, which was provided for the loss of Danny Jackson. Adrian Cardenas was selected in 2006, Travis d'Arnaud was picked in 2007, and Zach Collier was taken in 2008, using picks awarded for the losses of free agents Billy Wagner, David Dellucci, and Aaron Rowand, respectively. -- Since the first sentence states the pick in which the player was selected, why doesn't the latter follow that format as well? Consistency is needed. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Picks My question is why isn't the table sortable? It would serve the reader better.--TRUCO 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC) The table was originally sortable; however, I encountered many problems with continuity, especially with the years that had no first round pick. The colspans ruin the sorting and, in my opinion, the visual appeal of the table per Cr.6 was both easier to maintain and served the purpose of the table more appropriately, rather than forcing it to work for Cr.4 while sacrificing appeal. Many other FLs are not sortable. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Oh okay, that's fine then.TRUCO 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NatureBoyMD

Comments from NatureBoyMD (talk · contribs)

• "13 of the 45 players came from high schools or universities..." - Numbers at the beginning of a sentence should be spelled out. (per WP:MOSNUM)
• Same as above with "28 years later, third baseman (later left fielder) Pat Burrell (1998)..." -

NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done both, one through spelling out (which I don't agree with because it's unnecessary to spell out forty-five, but MOSNUM is so contradictory that it's easier not to fight with it) and one through refactoring. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Nice work. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "while Texas and Florida follow,"-->and Texas and Florida follow,

• Either is grammatically correct; trying to avoid duplicate "ands". The two states' numbers of picks also exist concurrently, strengthening the case for the use of "while". KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Eight first-round picks have gone on to win a championship with the Phillies."-->Eight first-round picks have won a championship with the Phillies.

• Done - actually reworded to avoid ambiguity. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• "The Phillies have failed to sign their first-round pick only twice."

• Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Jeff Jackson links to the wrong article.

• Ugh, I thought I delinked that already. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• On a more general note, why does this list only have the first-round draft picks? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Because a comprehensive draft history would be impossibly long, between trades and the sometimes unending length of the MLB draft. Also, first-round picks, in many cases, are many times quite notable because of their "boom-or-bust" quality. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:16, 22 February 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 Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 [8].

---

Gabor Medal

Nominator(s): — neuro^(talk), Ironholds

Another Royal Society medal, worked on by myself and Ironholds - seems FLable. — neuro^(talk) 15:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A note for transparency, I am in the WikiCup. — neuro^(talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The Gabor Medal is a medal awarded by the Royal Society of London for "acknowledged distinction of interdisciplinary work between the life sciences with other disciplines ". | remove the extra space between the quotation mark and disciplines It was first awarded in 1989 to Noreen Murray "in recognition of her pioneering work in the field of genetic engineering, in particular for her development of the bacteriophage lambda system as a cloning [vector?] into which could be incorporated DNA fragments of over 5 kilobases in length", and was most recently awarded to Richard J. Roberts "for his internationally acclaimed contributions to the discovery of RNA splicing and his structural and genetic studies that have extended the range of sequence specificity of restriction and modification of enzymes". | (1)Is the [vector?] suppose to be there [is apart of the quote]? (2)State the year as to what recently means. References The size of the general refs should be decreased to how it is here.--<TRUCO> 503 15:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC) First done, I'm checking up on the second. As for the refs, I'll do them in a moment or two, just got to sort some stuff out first. — neuro(talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, the "[vector?]" comment is part of the rationale. Doing refs in a second. — neuro(talk) 19:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC) The refs have been done, I did em earlier. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC) The second part to my second point of the lead has not been resolved.--<TRUCO> 503 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 14:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Initially awarded "for acknowledged distinction of work in the life sciences, particularly in the fields of genetic engineering and molecular biology" Comma after here.
• "as a cloning [vector?]" Why the question mark?

  No idea, it was in the original source. Ironholds (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Can you center the dashes and years in the table? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  All done except for point 2. Ironholds (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Refs 2 and 5 need format=PDF added to their citation template.
• Ref 4 is a book, use {{cite book}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support fulfills the FL criteria —Chris! _ct 07:14, 28 February 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 Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 [9].

---

Sigur Rós discography

Nominator(s): Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

I think this meets the criteria. Thanks in advance for taking a look. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note The nominator is in the WikiCup. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

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

Not usually a discog man, but as it's a band I like... "and sold only 313 copies" -> "and sold only 313 copies in its first year of release" Done Think you missed this one. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC) "Von brigði was released in 1998 and featured remixes of tracks from Von. Only one track, "Leit af lífi" is new to the album.[4]", sounds funny using "was" and "is" talking about the same thing -> Only one track on the album, "Leit af lífi", was new. Done - It was only released at one time, which is why I used "was", but "Leit af lífi" has only ever appeared on that album. As the album physically exists, I thought present tense should be used. But you're right, it does ready odd. "Kjartan Sveinsson joined the band in 1998, playing keyboards", should keyboards be plural. I realise some synth stuff is played on multiple keyboards at once but thought I'd check. Done "It reached Number 1 on Icelandic album chart", -> on the Done "We Play Endlessly" the discog box says 1999 -> 2009. Also I'd possibly mention this remix in the lead for completeness (as you mentioned the other one). Done (the date). I haven't added anything to the Lede because it was just a free giveaway in The Independent newspaper, nothing particularly notable about it otherwise. Music video: I believe it is Svefn-g-englar not "Svefn-G-Englar" Done I haven't done enough discog reviews to know about style issues and what charts should be used in the list and when. So all I will say is that it looks good to an untrained eye. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I've addressed them all, I hope. Thanks for looking. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I'd remove "Sigur Ros" & "post-rock" from the ==See also== section seeing as they are both in the first line of the lead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Done Singles-2003: "Untitled #1", the lead and ==Music Video== use "untitled #1" – consistency. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Changed to lower case. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Sources Ref 19: "HitParad" -> HitParade? Not Done - HitParad for Sweden, HitParade for Switzerland Ref 39: publisher The Mill links to a disambig page Done Ref 40: Two redlinks Not Done - Someone may or may not create them in the future. I have no interest in doing so at this time. Otherwise they look good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. all my issues have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• I'm not an expert on music or discographies, by why aren't (bass) and other related terms stated as "(bassist)"? In the sentence Sigur Rós was formed in 1994 in Reykjavík, Iceland, by singer Jón Þór Birgisson (guitar and vocals), Georg Hólm (bass) and Ágúst Ævar Gunnarsson (drums).

• Done

• Sigur Rós released their debut album, Von in 1997 on Smekkleysa Records. | (1)comma after the album title (2)Is on _____ Records stated correctly, isn't it like "with _____ Records"?

• Done

• Only one track, "Leit af lífi" was new to the album. | Comma after the song name.

• Done

Albums

• Why does the certifications list ISL and not IFPI?

• Because it's for the country, not the whole of Europe. The IFPI is the BPI/RIAA for many European countries, but each country has it's own subsidiary. I was told to do this in a previous discog FLC where I previously had them displayed as IFPI (Iceland), IFPI (Germany) BPI (UK), etc.

• Oh okay, thanks for clarifying that.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• The 2009 compilation album needs verification in some way, [a ref on its title to verify the details and its name].
  • As do the Remixes, EPs, and Soundtrack albums.
  • As well as the singles which did not chart.

• I know it's striked but I thought I'd answer anyway. Their physical existance can verify its title etc.

• Okay, thank you, I will keep that in mind for future discographies.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Directors

• What's verifying the final 2008 music video director?

• Dammit, I had it.. I'll find it again. Tomorrow though.

• Take your time =) [less than 10 days of course =P].--TRUCO 14:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I guess you couldn't find it?--TRUCO 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source, no. There is a reference for its existence, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

References

• What Rambo stated is what I also found.

• Replied above.

• Checks out fine, except about his point on consistency with untitled and Untitled.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

--<TruCo> ⁵⁰³ 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments by JD554 (talk · contribs)

*Von brigði was released in 1998 and featured remixes of tracks from Von: The album still exists, so this should be features. Done Keyboardist Kjartan Sveinsson joined the band in 1998 and a year later... would be more consistent with how the other band members are introduced. Done "untitled #1 (a.k.a. Vaka)" isn't the title of the song. It should be "untitled #1" (a.k.a. "Vaka") in both the lead and the singles table. Done Number is capitalised in quite a few places where it shouldn't be. Done In the various albums tables, change Vinyl to LP (wikilink first instance to LP album). Done Where Digital download isn't the first item in the list it shouldn't be capitalised. Done EMI doesn't need to be wikilinked in the compilations albums table as it has already been done in the studio albums table. Done The We Play Endlessly and Rímur entries should have Format: rather than Formats: Done Change Chart peak positions to Peak chart positions throughout. Done In the soundtrack albums table, change Released on to Released: Done "Leit Að Lífi" (Remix): Remix shouldn't be capitalised unless it's part of the track title, in which case it should be within the quotes. There looks to be a lot of overlinking in the references. Just one example is Allmusic being wikilinked every time when it should only be the first time. I don't think WP:Overlink applies to refs, as no-one reads through the references, but they are targeted to a specific reference where the information probably should be linked. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC) That's a point well made and I agree, they aren't all read through like prose, but dipped in to and out of as the case may be. I wish I thought of that at one of my past GANs! --JD554 (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I know the redlinks have already been mentioned, but if you don't want to create stubs it would be better to unlink (but this isn't a deal breaker). I'm not sure. If they are created later, they will turn blue. If they are removed the incentive to create them is removed too. For the second official website in the external links, can you clarify the second one to official UK site, otherwise it looks odd there being what looks like two identical external links. Done Looks like it's going to be another great discog. --JD554 (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just needs a citation for that uncited music video director mentioned by Truco and I'll be able to support. --JD554 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments from JD554

• Checking through the references for the music videos and, with the exception of "Svefn-g-englar", none of the references confirm Sigur Ros as directors, including the new one you added. --JD554 (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• The link for reference #4 doesn't confirm the chart positions. Is there some instruction missing from the reference?
  • Even though this reference has been changed, it still isn't a direct link to verify the positions. Further instructions seem to be necessary. See reference #20 at The Cure discography for how this is done on other discographies. --JD554 (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Reference #19 doesn't confirm Sigur Ros guesting on the track Dot.

• The ref verifies the album's existence. The album sleeve confirms their appearance, but I can't cite that, as a photo would be a primary source. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• In that case you could cite the album cover itself using {{Cite music release notes}}. --JD554 (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why are there two references for the The Loch Ness Kelpie soundtrack? #24 on its own would seem to be sufficient. --JD554 (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Just a matter of preference, but considering that everything (chart positions/certifications) is referenced in the body of the article, I think you can remove them from the lead to enhance readability. Also, stuff like record labels and the names of the singles released from an album, don't need referencing at all. indopug (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Done Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "but was certified Platinum in 2005 by Iceland's record industry association." 1)Why the capitalization of "Platinum"? 2)Could we know the name of the record industry assn? Done -- removed capitalisation. Local association is just an affiliate/subsidiary of IFPI (http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_links/national_associations.html) "It comprises eight untitled tracks divided by a 36-second silence." Not sure what is meant here, is it between each song? The silence is between tracks 4 and 5. Any ideas on how to rephrase? Why not separate the info about the silence into another sentence? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC) "It was certified Gold in Iceland" Why the caps? Done File:Reykjavik05a-01.jpg How do we know the license is valid? The permission came from a message board. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Well the permission came from the photographer of the site, through björn erlingur, one of the site's operators. Anyway, I've changed it out for File:Sigur Rós.jpg, CC-BY on Flickr Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Sources Spell out abbreviations in the publishers such as BPI. Done What makes http://www.tonlist.is/Music/Album/2950/didda/strokid_og_slegid/ a reliables source (probably an official website, but I can't read Icelandic)? It is authorised by the Icelandic music people to publish the charts. It is also a retailer, selling mp3, aac, wmp versions of songs. See also http://tonlist.com. It's also listed here " HitParad.se." Should it be " HitParade.se."? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC) No. That is correct for Sweden. Swiss is "HitParade". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks very nice, happy to support. One more thing, partly my fault: ICE looks kinda weird, doesn't it? What about ICL? Also, do you know of a way to lessen the space between BEL and (FL)? I dunno, both are up to you, they both just look a little funky to me. Great work though! Drewcifer (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment Looks pretty good. A few minor comments: What does "VLA" stand for? Is this an abbreviation for the Flemish region? Is there an abbreviation you could use that would be more familiar for an English-speaker such as myself that's not all that knowledgeable about the reason? The same goes for the ISL abbreviation. I realize this is the common abbreviation in the region, but it's not based on the country's English name. Something like ICE or ICL would be clearer for english-readers, since this is an English-wiki. The rationale for this is further explained at MOS:DISCOG. For instance we tend to abbreviate Switzerland as SWI, not CH, as they do in Switzerland itself. It was being used for the Flemish region (Vlaamse Gewest), I have now changed it to the ISO 3166-2:BE code VLG, which is probably what I was going for in the first place. I've seen and used BEL (FL) before, which is clearer. --JD554 (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC) The International Organization for Standardization is the standard used internationally, and is while I agree that "BEL (FL) may be clearer, I think ISO codes are more encyclopedic. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC) ISL is the ISO_3166-1_alpha-3 code for Iceland. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I'm aware of the ISO standards, and that they are more encyclopedic, but they are not as user-friendly to many English-users. People familiar with the region will know what you're talking about, whether they speak English or not, but those who aren't will not (i.e. me). I believe standards of clarity and ease of use are most important here. Drewcifer (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC) OK. Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) The list needs some general references, just to verify the broad information like labels, release dates, formats, etc. An allmusic link and a link to the band's homepage usually does it for me. The Sigur Ros entry at Allmusic is in the External links. So are the two official homepages. I see that, but they are not in the references section, therefore you're not saying "this information is from here". What you're saying is "hey, check this out too." In the interest of transparency of all the info, general references are very useful, whether or not they appear in the external links section or not. Drewcifer (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Done -- Added to Lede, after first sentence. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) The column-headings only need to be linked once. There's two tables back to back that have roughly the same headings, and roughly the same wikilinks. Drewcifer (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Done -- Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Comments Smekkleysa Records → Smekkleysa Nope. The correct name is "Smekkleysa Records", not "Smekkleysa", and not Bad Taste. In all honesty, the article should probably be moved. Formats Which ones? It's "Format" where there is only one format, and "Formats" where there is more than one. Ba Ba Ti Ki Di Do chart positions "Untitled #1 (Vaka)" Danish chart position Done both You have created a section with the name of "DVDs", which makes it confusing and redundant when you wrote in the field format: "DVD" (again?). Done Cannibaloki 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support, all done. Cannibaloki 06:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:07, 28 February 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 05:54, 28 February 2009 [10].

---

BBC Overseas Sports Personality of the Year

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk)

I have worked on this for the last month, It is my 5th award in a SPOTY topic. WikiCup entry. I must also thank User:Chrishomingtang and User:Chamal N got worked on this page before me (from this to this), which greatly reduced the work I had to do. All comments welcome. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment I think you should add a note about joint winners.—Chris! ct 23:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I don't quite understand what you mean. There already is a note, and joint winners are mentioned in the prose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Well, the main list should have a note even though it is mentioned in the prose. Look at NHL Foundation Player Award as an example.—Chris! ct 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Ah I see what you mean. Done. I should probably explain why I used two notes when it may have seemed one would suffice. The BBC only recognises three sets of joint winners, and recognises Protopopov and Belousova as a couple/pair that won the award.[11] Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The award is presented to a non-British sportsperson considered to have made the most substantial contribution to sport in that year. | (1)Unlink British. (2)In this context, I would add 'a' before sport -Done The winning sportsperson is the one with the largest points total. | (Opt.) Possibly add 'amount of' before points. -Reworded to "the largest amount of points in total" Australian golfer Greg Norman has won the award twice, while American boxer Muhammad Ali and Swiss tennis player Roger Federer have each won the award three times. | IMO, this is awkwardly worded having stated first that someone won it twice and then two others have won it 3 times. Maybe reword it or remove it as I don't see what it adds to the prose. Swapped order, keeping as it compliments the number of winners against the number of rows in the table. The husband and wife skating duo of Oleg Protopopov and Ludmila Belousova are the only pair to to have won the award, doing so in 1968. | Since the award was shared on previous occasions, how about stating that they are the first 'married couple'? Discussion The situation is more complicated than it seems (see response to Chris above), they were the only pair to win. Belousova was the first woman to become Overseas Personality_mdash;she is also the oldest, aged 33-years-old. |Typo on the mdash formatting. -Done The youngest ever recipient is Nadia Comăneci, who won in 1976 aged 16-years-old. | The first part is weirdly worded, how about, 'The youngest recipient of the award is..' -Done Boris Becker, who was 18-years-old when he won in 1985, is he youngest male to have won. | Typo on the. -Done Image caption Muhammad Ali (top) and Roger Federer (bottom) have both received the award three times | Needs a full stop -Done Oleg Protopopov and Ludmila Belousova, joint recipients of the award in 1968, were also husband and wife | Needs a full stop -Done References Ref # 4 | If there is no article for the publisher, its best to remove the link as a red one is really not appealing.--<TRUCO> 503 00:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Not done, I see red links as something useful. This is clearly a reliable source and probably merits its own article. Eventually if enough articles ref the redlink, it will rise up the most red linked "whatlinkshere" list and someone will be encouraged to create it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Well then if you're gonna keep it, link all the publishers and works that don't have articles. It doesn't make sense to have one red link against all other non-links.TRUCO 02:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Done (apart from "Telegraph Media Group" as Telegraph Media Group redirects to "The Daily Telegraph" (the work). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 14:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- this list would be a lot more interesting if it gave some idea of what they did that year to earn the award. For example, the first guy won an Olympic Gold Medal, the second set 3 new world records etc. Rules99 (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Whilst I would like to, it could be construed as WP:OR. The BBC does not specifically mention why it gave all the awards, so whilst the winners achievements in that year maybe mentioned alongside the fact they won the award, it is not explicitly mentioned if any specific contribution(s) caused them to win. For example, an athlete may have a very successful season and break a national record say. Who is to say that whether the good season or the NR was the contributing factor to winning the award. If it is not explicitly mentioned then it is OR. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Then couldn't you just provide it as background information not necessarily implying a causal link? Rules99 (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I've been advised against adding unnecessary background information (e.g. the age they received the award if not directly relevent [12]) All the winners have there own articles if people are really interested in their careers. After all isn't that what wikilinks are for...? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I think we should be assuming that readers want to know what they did that particular year. Rules99 (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
          • The thing is listing this information IMO does imply a link. Take Roger Federer. If we list that he won his fifth consecutive Wimbledon title that implies a link, however he actually did a hell of a lot of impressive stuff in 2007 so how can you choose what to include whilst remaining neutral. It seems an unnecessary and contentious addition considering everything would be in their individual articles. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Having everything in separate articles means the list is just navigational and not informative (and also deadly boring). Incidentally we can cite someone linking success at Wimbledon with the award: "after equalling Bjorn Borg's record by securing a fifth successive Wimbledon singles title. Federer won three of this year's Grand Slams... " [13]. If these really are contentious you could demand citations although I don't regard them as necessary. Rules99 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Bad choice due to it being recent. One wouldn't be able to this for the older winners (i.e. pre-1990). I notice that Rules99 has been blocked indefinitely so I can't continue this discussion in a constructive way. If anyone else wishes to discuss this please let me know. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- I'd like to be able to sort by nationality. Rules99 (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This can be done, and I have done it in the past, but I would require that there is consensus for it. The first SPOTY list I submitted started it's FLC with the nationality sortability [14]. However during the FLC, Chris! combined them.[15] Can I ask you to work out a solution between you, so I can standardise it for all the lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps another column (giving the names) could be added to the "By nationality" table? Rules99 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't really see how that would be necessary. The flags are easy to spot in the above table and it seems like unnecessary repetition. I do not like this option (per Cr.6 Visual appeal) and would prefer putting the nationality sorting back over this, but that is something I guess Chris would need to comment on. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. The nationality column has gone back in per a MOS issue Struway2 pointed out below. That fix has also resolved this issue. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

*Comments Manual of Style requires that when a flag is first used in a table or list, it needs to be accompanied by its country name. See MOS:ICON#Accompany flags with country names. Sigh, okay I didn't know that. I wish someone had told me this on the first SPOTY list and not the fifth. This might take a bit of time, as I'll need to do all the other FLs too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Done (inc. other FLs) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I do admire your conscientiousness, going back and doing the other lists as well. It would be more helpful if footnotes a and b appeared immediately below the table they're used in, rather than in a Notes section a long way below. Not done. WP:LAYOUT seems to suggest the end. Also there are multiple notes from all 3 tables, and it seems silly to have an individual Note section after every table for 1 note. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Wasn't really thinking of a whole Note section, just a couple of lines under the table, like here, for instance, though that style works better on a small table. It might be simpler to add a couple of lines of Key immediately above the table, so the reader can anticipate annotations to come: something along the lines of Key † Denotes joint winners ‡ Denotes a winning couple But if you're leaving them how they are, there's one thing that does need fixing, which is that you haven't got the reflabel/notelabel things formatted quite right. It shows up particularly with footnote c, where if you click on the c in the Winners by sport table, when you click on the letter c to go back after reading the footnote, you return to the top of the Winners by nationality table. Done. I have added a key like you suggested, and a second backlink for that other note. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) For information, BBC Sport is a division of the BBC which publishes its own output, so should be publisher rather than work in those references citing it. Not sure or that bothered. But this FAQ about the BBC Sport website says the work is copyright of the "BBC" not "BBC Sport" so I guess that would make BBC the publisher. I am not really fussed, so let me know if you want me to change them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I'm not that bothered either, but it might save you a bit of writing another time... Ok thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Not sure I'd have bothered with a separate section for a two-item legend, meself... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Also done. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The lead image should not have a period in the caption.
• "Oleg Protopopov and Ludmila Belousova, joint recipients of the award in 1968, were also husband and wife." Are they not married anymore?
• There is an inconsistency in dashes; use either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes, not both.
• "The winning sportsperson is the one with the largest amount of points in total."-->The winning sportsperson has the most total points.
• "American boxer Muhammad Ali and Swiss tennis player Roger Federer have each won the award three times, [4] while Australian golfer Greg Norman has won the award twice. " "while"-->and.
• "The husband and wife skating duo"->The husband-and-wife skating duo
• "Belousova was the first woman to become Overseas Personality—she is also the oldest, aged 33." Tense inconsistencies ("was" "is")
• "who won in 1976 aged 16"-->who won in 1976 at age 16
• "Two cricketers that received the award" Use "who", not "that", when referring to people.
• "with fourteen recipients, tennis is the most represented sport.-->tennis has the highest representation, with with fourteen recipients. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

All done, thanks for taking a look. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 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 05:45, 28 February 2009 [16].

---

List of Metroid media

Nominator(s): igordebraga ≠, Gary King (talk)

After finding an article that was a simple list of games (already found somewhere else), I decided to expand and put info on other Metroid media, that doesn't get much attention in the games and series' articles. I tried to mirror the style of the other video game media FLs, and did a Peer Review to search for problems and possible improvements. Now let's see if the article is good enough to enter the Featured Lists. igordebraga ≠ 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why are the left and right table margins for the games sections different than the rest of the tables? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's just a question of "format that seems to fit better" - List of Castlevania media also uses two different tables, one for music and another for anything else. igordebraga ≠ 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) -- Due to prose issues. Lead Metroid is a video game series published by Nintendo and originally created by Nintendo's R&D1 development team. -- Originally? This sounds as if it has another "creator", what are you trying to say? The series debuted in Japan with Metroid (メトロイド, Metoroido?) on August 6, 1986, and was later released in North America and PAL regions. -- its best to state when it was released in the other regions. Metroid is one of Nintendo's most successful franchises, with 14 million units sold, and all the games have received some level of critical acclaim. -- some is really weasely, how about 'a level of critical acclaim'? The lead needs to summarize the list itself more. The first game in the series was released, but the most recent or other significant releases need to be mentioned as well, this is a standard for all FLs. Added the most recent title. Video games Many of the notes need to be copyedit, some are not complete sentence and thus do not warrant a full stop. Others need to be reworded, like the second note of the first game; it can be reworded to read as a complete sentence. Refer to the soundtrack notes as a point of reference, see how those don't have stops? That's because they aren't complete statements, the same should be applied to the above. Comic books I don't understand the release date format February–May 1994? What does this mean, since it isn't noted about different release regions. "Nintendo Power, Issues #57–61". It's the timespan where all the mentioned issues were released. Manga 18-page adaptation, consisting of comedic strips with four panels. -- this is an example of an incomplete statement, which is why it should be reworded or the period (full stop) should be removed. Just as a point-of-reference: The first two chapters of Volume 1 received an online version with color and sound effects. -- this is complete statement. References If you're going to link GameSpot, you may as well link the other publishers like IGN.--TRUCO 22:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Done all, warn me of other sentences that don't need punctuation. igordebraga ≠ 00:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Further comments Remove the full stops The third note in the first entry in the first subsection. Second note in third entry in the first subsection. First note of the fourth entry in the first subsection. The last entry of the first subsection, Remake of Metroid, with improved graphics, new gameplay features and areas to explore. Also has the original game as an unlockable extra -- The first period should be a semicolon, and the last one should be removed or the entire thing should be reworded into a complete statement. The first note of the first soundtrack entry. The first note of the second entry in the Manga section. The note in the last entry in the Manga section. The first note of the fourth entry of the second subsection. These are all not complete statements because they don't contain the proper clauses.--TRUCO 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Removed them all, and also changed punctuation in the mentioned sentence. igordebraga ≠ 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments - It may be just me but there seems to be a lack of references, eg:

• The comics book section is lacking references for the creative team and the release dates
  • It's covered in the refs for the stories themselves; but added to two as it doesn't show the date
• Manga doesnt reference the release dates
  • Despite one I needed to add, it's covered in the refs inside the "Notes" section.
• In the video games some of the sentences arent referenced like Metroid Prime is the first 3D game in the series, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes first multiplayer in the series, Metroid Prime Hunters first with online multiplayer
  • The Castlevania list linked above shows not anything needs refs, but added.
• Soundtracks section doesnt reference the composers.
  • Added refs to the games themselves (composers are listed in the credits). igordebraga ≠ 03:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Salavat (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well with no other issues that i can see and to me the lead reads fine to me now, ive changed my comments to a support. Salavat (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just curious under the comics section you only list 3 stories by Valient Comics. How come Samus Aran's Starship Hunter IV isnt listed there to? Salavat (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not an adaptation of the game, as the title mentions, it's just an analysis of Samus' ship. igordebraga ≠ 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I would much prefer to see spaced en dashes used in listing items of items, they are less abrupt and look neater here. I beg your pardon? Instead of "1987—Nintendo Entertainment System", I would prefer the more visually appealing "1987 – Nintendo Entertainment System". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "Currently, the franchise consists of ten video games, with the latest installment being Metroid Prime 3: Corruption for the Wii. " Two ideas here that are clumsily connected and aren't that closely related. "dating from the Nintendo Entertainment System to the current generation of video game consoles." Redundant phrase Why? (also, borrowed it from somewhere) Disregard this, I wasn't reading the sentence correctly. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "The 2D Metroid games are side-scrollers, and the 3D games, also known as the Metroid Prime series, give the player a first-person perspective." Contrary to what I usually say, I think "and"-->while to emphasize their differences. "and all the games have received a level of critical acclaim." Not sure what that means. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Besides the two I added comments, done. igordebraga ≠ 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• The English tags are unnecessary.
• "Valiant Comics" is not a publication and should not be italicized.
• What makes http://mdb.classicgaming.gamespy.com/index.php?g=features&p=owsen a reliables source?
  • It's an interview with someone that worked for Nintendo. But if you still question, I can remove it. igordebraga ≠ 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem then. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 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 05:45, 28 February 2009 [17].

---

NHL Foundation Player Award

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]], – Nurmsook!

I am co-nominating with Nurmsook so that this can be resolved and have its promotion kepted. This article was just re-written by me and Nurmsook, and Scorpion0422 was the original editor and creator. Comments are welcome! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Sources, images, and prose look good. Disclaimer: I have the second-most edits to the page and I gave it a copyedit after Nurmsook and SRE.K.A.L.24's rewrite. Maxim_(talk) 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have the second-most edits to the page... What are you trying to say here? Thanks for that great copy-edit though! Disclaimer: 4 of your 6 edits were minors. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The winner is given a grant of US$25,000 to further causes the winner supports. | I think 'help' would work better than further here. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC) No player has won the award twice, nor has any team twice been represented by winners. | --> 'No player has ever won the award twice, nor has any team been represented twice by winners.' Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC) The award is closely related to the King Clancy Memorial Trophy, as only three of the eleven NHL Foundation Player Award winners—Darren McCarty, Marty Turco, and Joe Sakic—have failed to win the King Clancy Memorial Trophy in addition to their NHL Foundation Player Award. | (1)No need to state in addition to their NHL Foundation Player Award its repetitive of what was already stated earlier. (2)I still don't see how this NHL award is closely related with the King Trophy, a more thorough elaboration should be given or that statement should be removed. Done your first request. I hope Nurmsook can reply to your second statement. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Done. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Notes Note A | Reword to 'No award was presented due to the NHL 2004-05 Lockout.' Note B | Remove the full stop, its not a complete sentence. Done both. By the way, your username is too long, according to WP:SIGN. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC) --<TRUCO> 503 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support | Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL. Thanks for letting me know about my signature.--TRUCO 02:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - "as both are awarded to players who have made a significant humanitarian contribution to his community" doesn't seem gramatically correct ("players who have made (plural)....his (singular) community"), and ice hockey should surely be linked somewhere in the article? Other than that all looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case I am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Excellent job, considering the speed in which this article was brought to quality standards.

• "Winners have often made large charitable contributions to their community prior to being awarded." It is unclear that these contributions have led to the players' winning the award. Maybe "Winners have often won the award as a result of their large charitable contributions to before being awarded."

I'll let Nurmsook reply to this comment of yours. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• "German Olaf Kolzig is the only non-Canadian winner, while Ron Francis is the only winner to have been elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame." "while"-->and.

Is this necessary? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though Maxim took care of these, because these quotes are not the same as what's actually written in the article. Regardless, all have been addressed! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:21, 22 February 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 05:45, 28 February 2009 [18].

---

List of current NHL captains and alternate captains

Nominator(s): iMatthew // talk //

iMatthew // talk // 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General comment Fix the dabs, as seen in the toolbox. Lead The National Hockey League (NHL) is a professional ice hockey league composed of 30 teams, founded in 1917. | The final part of this statement should be "which was founded in 1917." Currently, the Florida Panthers and the Toronto Maple Leafs have no captain, and have instead named four or five alternate captains.[3][4] | I thought that teams could only select up to 3 alternative captains if they have no main captain? A team may also choose not to select a captain and instead select up to three alternate captains, unless a main captain does not exist. | This doesn't really help, it says that The team cannot select more than 3 if they dont choose 1 main captain, but if one doesn't exist then ..?? [it says the same thing]--<TRUCO> 503 21:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC) However, Vancouver Canucks goaltender, Roberto Luongo is the team's current captain, but two (of the three) alternate captains handle on-ice duties in his place: Willie Mitchell serves as the liaison with the officials, and Mattias Ohlund handles ceremonial aspects of the game (e.g. faceoffs). | (1)Comma after Luongo (2)Remove the comma before and Mattias Ohlund Actually, you can remove both commas before and after Luongo because in this context its not needed.--<TRUCO> 503 21:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Toews is younger than two current captains—Sidney Crosby of the Pittsburgh Penguins, who is the youngest-ever permanent captain and Vincent Lecavalier of the Tampa Bay Lightning, who has captained the Lightning in two stints seven years apart. | Comma after permanent captain and the last part should be along the lines of "in two stints that were seven years apart." In 1984, Brian Bellows was named temporary captain of the Minnesota North Stars when Craig Hartsburg was injured. | If this article is about the current captains, why is this noted? Notes Toronto Maple Leafs player Mats Sundin, at the time an unrestricted free agent after the 2007–08 season did not sign a new contract, leaving the Leafs with no captain. | Comma before did not sign Despite goaltenders not being allowed to act as captains during the game, Roberto Luongo was named captain for the Canucks, but was not allowed to wear a C on his jersey. He incorporated it into the artwork on the front of his mask, however. | The other captains are linked in the notes, so per consistency Luongo should be linked. References Ref #1 | Rules isn't necessarily the work, the work field is if the publisher is getting the published content from somewhere else, like Billboard and Nielsen. Ref # 7 | Joe Pelletier. is not the publisher. Ref # 9 | I don't know how trusted this website is or its reliability, but my Firefox malicious site report system found this site as an attack site.--<TRUCO> 503 20:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Completed every comment, thanks. Also for the last one about the refs, it's from the team's official website, therefore reliable. Do you mean a different one? iMatthew // talk // 21:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Hmm. Either my system is retarded or I must be dreaming. Looks fixed now.--<TRUCO> 503 21:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Okay cool. Done, thanks! iMatthew // talk // 21:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Well removing that statement doesn't help any better. There has to be a way to explain that statement to coincide with the 4/5 alt. captains that some teams have.--<TRUCO> 503 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC) It's nothing I can think of. Suggestions? iMatthew // talk // 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I mean the original statement stated that if a team chooses not to have a main captain, they can have the maximum of 3 alt. captains. But the other statement said that some teams have no captain with 4/5 alt. captains, so I think something is misworded here.--<TRUCO> 503 22:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)- Still not sure what you mean here. iMatthew // talk // 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) This statement [Each team is also permitted to select a maximum of two alternate captains who serve as the liaison to the officials when the captain is not on the ice.] contradicts this statement [Some teams in the NHL have no captain. Currently, the Florida Panthers and the Toronto Maple Leafs have no captain, and have instead named four or five alternate captains.] It needs to be explained why they have more than the "stated max of 2 alt. captains". Is that better worded?--TRUCO 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) All of Truco's concerns seem to have been addressed. Maxim (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Followup comment The Minnesota Wild do not name a captain for the full season; rather, they rotate captains on a month-to-month basis. -- Do you mean The Minnesota Wild have not named a captain for the full season; rather, they will rotate captains on a month-to-month basis.?--TRUCO 23:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Nope. iMatthew // talk // 23:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Well that sentence needs revising because do not name is not grammatically correct. Unless you mean "did not name"?--TRUCO 23:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC) How is it not grammatically correct? But no, I mean do not name. iMatthew // talk // 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Oh. Now I see, I was misreading that statement.--TRUCO 00:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 00:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nurmsook

Comments from Nurmsook (talk · contribs) I changed some of the images to better reflect the scope of the article. There should be a note reflecting the monthly rotating captaincy of the Minnesota Wild (I think Buffalo might do this as well) You need a ref for the Ohlund/Mitchell captaincy duties in place of Luongo in the lead. – Nurmsook! talk... 04:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I looked for sources about this, and I can't find anything... iMatthew // talk // 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) For the rotating captaincy it appears as though the Sabres only did this last year. As for the Wild, a quick Google search of "Minnesota Wild rotating captaincy" should solve the problem. And for the Canucks reference, just check the 2008–09 Vancouver Canucks season article. There's one in the pre-season section. All of these are pretty well documented topics, so it won't be difficult at all to find sources. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Further, the lead states that teams can choose a maximum of two alternate captains, but many of these teams have more than two. This is very confusing, and needs to be clarified. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Alright so to get you started on this, according to Rule 14 of the NHL Rulebook, when the captain is not in uniform, a coach can deligate three alternate captains. In the ref in the Canucks' season article, it discusses that because Luongo is not "technically" an in uniform captain, the Canucks can have three alternates. As for the other teams listed with more than two, it's probably a rotating alternate captaincy, so you'll have to do some mega research to clarify that all. I hate to say it, but without a ton of sources, I don't think this is going to pass FLC. But don't give up! The sources are for sure out there and I'll do my best to help ya out!! – Nurmsook! talk... 06:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I went through the lead and added a ton of references and expanded it quite a bit, but it still needs quite a bit of work before it passes. It should give you a good start though. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC) All of Nurmsook's concerns seem to have been addressed. Maxim(talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support: All of my comments seem to have been addressed. Looks good! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

"Both letters are 3 inches (7.6 cm) high." I don't get this sentence. What do you mean by high? So could the Canucks have 3 alternate captains on while Luongo is also on? I took the information from their roster page. iMatthew // talk // 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I knew that, but was wondering if you could get any more information about the Canucks captains. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC) "In 1984, Brian Bellows was named temporary captain of the Minnesota North Stars when Craig Hartsburg was injured.[9]" What has this have to do with the last paragraph? Like Nurmsook said, you should mention about the Wild and Sabres rotations for main captains. I can't find anything that says anything about this. iMatthew // talk // 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I'm 100% sure that there are information on the internet about this situation. You could ask some experts about the source finding. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Why did you put "Captain(s)" instead of "Captain" when teams can only have one main captain? "Florida Panthers traded Olli Jokinen to the Phoenix Coyotes during the 2008 NHL Entry Draft weekend, leaving them without a captain." You don't have to mention something about before the season. Florida could have just picked another one. So remove the note? iMatthew // talk // 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I believe you should. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Done. iMatthew // talk // 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Same with the Sundin one. So remove the note? iMatthew // talk // 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) {Above} -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Done. iMatthew // talk // 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC) So what was the consensus here? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I think ref 6 should be using {{cite news}}. I'd disagree, it's a website article. Done, with comments. iMatthew // talk // 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

• I think you should mention that alternate captains are appointed before each game.
  • What do you mean, before each game? iMatthew // talk // 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I meant that that are assigned before each NHL game...how clear do you want me to me? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I would disagree with this. Why not mention that captains are appointed before each game too then? It's not really noteworthy to add. It's just a coach listing who his captains are on his game sheet. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I believe it is, especially for the alternates, as some readers may be confused why there are more the 2 alternate captains, when only 2 should be assigned to a game. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
          • It's hard to complete a review when the reviewers are not on the same page. Can we decided on something here? iMatthew // talk // 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are finished with this...

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "founded in 1917" Not really necessary.

• It adds some context IMO.

• captain who has the "sole privilege of discussing with the Referee any questions relating to interpretation of rules which may arise during the progress of a game."-->captain, who has the "sole privilege of discussing with the Referee any questions relating to interpretation of rules which may arise during the progress of a game". (note that I moved the period to outside the quotation marks.
• "of two alternate captains who serve"-->of two alternate captains, who serve
• "named captain name more than"—"name" repetition annoying, why not "select"?
• "amongst"-->among
• "and back to his crease" Not sure what this means.
• File:NicklasLidstrom.jpg needs an author.
• File:Joe sakic.jpg same.
• "Player is currently on the Injured Reserve" Why is "Injured Reserve" capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2008/09/captain-puckstopper.html a reliable source?

• The author of the blog is Joe Pelletier is a published ice hockey author. He is using the blog as a means of publishing information.

• Likewise http://www.hockeydraftcentral.com/1982/82002.html?
• Spell out abbreviations in the publishers such as TSN. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless otherwise specified, all done. Maxim_(talk) 00:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

While we are on the topic of NHL articles, can you take a look at History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992) and History of the National Hockey League (1992–present) to do a prose check pre-FAC? Sorry for the off-topic note, but of course extra eyes (TalkPageFLCPage stalkers). Maxim_(talk) 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at 1967–92 a while back; I was almost finished with the fourth. Will go right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 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 05:45, 28 February 2009 [19].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): Efe (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been peer reviewed and I think it meets the criteria. Thanks, Efe (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I participated in the article's peer review, and believe it to be of FL standards. -Whataworld06 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Title I think its redundant to have (U.S.) in the title if the Hot 100 is only produced in the U.S. We also have List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Canada). --Efe (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Lead Oh thanks for clarifying that for me.--<TRUCO> 503 15:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) In 2007, seven acts achieved their first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest: Mims, Maroon 5, T-Pain, Young Joc, Plain White T's, Sean Kingston, Soulja Boy Tell 'Em. | the names should be organized in some order (alphabetical at least) Arranged. --Efe (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Three number-one singles tied for the longest run on the chart this year: Knowles' "Irreplaceable", Rihanna's "Umbrella", and Soulja Boy Tell 'Em "Crank That (Soulja Boy)" all topped the chart for seven weeks, the last of these was non-consecutive. | 1)Add an apostrophe with an S to the end of Soulja Boy Tell 'Em 2)was --> "were" Added apostrophe. I think it should be was, because it refers to its chart run. --Efe (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Image Caption: Soulja Boy Tell 'Em first U.S. number-one single "Crank That (Soulja Boy)" spent stop the chart for seven weeks. | spent stop? Sorry. Its atop. --Efe (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) See also Remove Top Hot 100 Hits of 2007, its already noted in the article so no need for it in the See also.--<TRUCO> 503 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC) I added it for that section not to look lonely. Hehe. 2007 in music is also linked above. --Efe (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but its not generally correct since both of those are already linked in the prose. Just the List of number-one hits main article should be there.--<TRUCO> 503 15:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I am hesitant. Can you provide me a discussion over the use of see also? Leaving that section with one entry is not a good idea, IMO. Cannot stand as a section. --Efe (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) WP:SEEALSO.--<TRUCO> 503 14:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) It says: "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Perhaps we discuss this at the project's talk page? --Efe (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Nah, its not that big of a deal. Like the guideline states, its all on editorial judgment.--TRUCO 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) In addition, dabs need to be fixed (as noted with the toolbox) and ref #27 and 50 are dead.--<TRUCO> 503 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC) How come? I can still access it and mostly links from Billboard are not dead. --Efe (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) All dabs fixed. --Efe (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Thats odd, I guess the external links article is malfunctioning.--<TRUCO> 503 15:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Perhaps. --Efe (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "In 2007, there were 17 singles that topped the chart." Redundant.

• Removed including "that" Leaving it would make the sentence ungrammatical. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• That is what I meant :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Three number-one singles tied for the longest run on the chart this year" "this" is too strong a back reference, say "2007" or "that".

• "That" is rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• What about "2007"? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Changed. --Efe (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• "weeks, the last of these was non-consecutive." Should be a semicolon, not a comma.

• A misuse of semicolon. Should be comma. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, we have a comma splice here. It needs to be reworded or a semicolon needs to be added. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see no comma splice here because "the last of these was non-consecutive" is not an independent clause. Do you have any suggestion or better phrasing? Perhaps that would settle it. --Efe (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like an independent clause to me (subject is "The last of these", predicate is "was consecutive"). Anyway, I will try to think of a rephrasing. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• "previous calendar year" Redundant, unless there is another type of year that could be referred to here.

• Removed. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• "one for five straight weeks."-->one for five consecutive weeks. better word choice

• The same consecutive and straight. I use both to make the prose better. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• ""Irreplaceable" is the best-performing single of the calendar year, topping the Top Hot 100 Hits of 2007." I am unsure of the logical connection of these two phrases. Is the song the best-performing because it topped the Top Hot 100 Hits of 2007, or was it already known as the best, and just happened to top the list?

• No. Its the best-performing single of this year although it started its peak position in the preceding year. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• "for its jump from 64th to first place" Keep the numbers in the ordinals consistent.

• They're consistent: 64th and 1st, unless I am missing something. Someone revised it. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Right now it is "first". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is should be in words, IMO. --Efe (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• It looks awkward though. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

But MOS states it should be in words, unless I missed some. --Efe (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• "making it the biggest leap in this year."-->the largest leap of that year.

• Changed to "of 2007". --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• "has been credited by the music press as 2007's Song of the Summer.[6][7][8]" By the music press in general, or a specific agency/magazine/institution?

• I have to generalize it. We don't want to name them all. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Young Joc"-->Yung Joc. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. --Efe (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 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 01:00, 25 February 2009 [20].

---

Copley Medal

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk)

Another RS medal: don't worry reviewers, only two more to go after this! then I start submitting the awards and lectures, mwahaha Ironholds (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the toolbox, there is a dab link and a couple of dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done; one of the deadlinks isn't dead, I don't know why the toolserver couldn't resolve it (possibly because it is a .pdf?) Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead Awarded every year, the medal is the oldest Royal Society medal still in use, having first been awarded in 1731 to Stephen Gray, who won his for "his new Electrical Experiments: - as an encouragement to him for the readiness he has always shown in obliging the Society with his discoveries and improvements in this part of Natural Knowledge" | who won his it would be better worded as 'who received his' The Medal was created following a donation of £100 to be used for carrying out experiments by Sir Godgery Copley, something which the interest on the amount was used for for several years. | Remove extra for Since the medal was created it has been awarded to a number of notable scientists, including 52 winners of various Nobel Prizes; 17 winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics, 21 winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and 14 winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, including Frederick Sanger who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry twice in 1958 and 1980 and was awarded the Copley Medal in 1977 "In recognition of his distinguished work on the chemical structure of proteins and his studies on the sequences of nucleic acids". | (1)Reword the beginning to 'Since its creation, the medal has been awarded...' (2)This sentence needs to be split, it makes up more than 80% of the last paragraph. There is no mention of the most recent winner in the lead. Recipients Rudolph Peierls doesn't sort correctly alphabetically. Entries that don't have a reference, what is verifying the rationale and the receiving of the award? I'll try and be civil and polite here: they would be verified by the big "general reference" at the bottom. The process of instituting third party sources in a notes column for this sort of list was instituted at your request here where you also said quote "You don't necessarily have to find it for all of them, just some, at least to have diversity, and the ones that you can't find will be fine sourced with the general reference". My apologies if it is too much to expect a user to remember what changes they instigated. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Well then. I do remember that, however, I didn't think the general reference would be doing that since I didn't click on them. Something is wrong with the formatting, the general references should be that large, they should be like it is here.--<TRUCO> 503 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC) You remember saying the general references would be fine but thought that rather than clicking on the general references here (which are named in exactly the same format as those at the Rumford Medal) it would be better to add a pointless thing to the list of corrections? Sizing error fixed.Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Well excuse me. I'm just trying to help, you don't have to go on a frenzy on me just for forgetting a minor thing.--<TRUCO> 503 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC) My apologies, I went a bit OTT; when at the urging of a reviewer you have found 156 third-party sources for something and are then told you need more things tend to get a bit.. heated. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Well just keep your cool next time.--<TRUCO> 503 15:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC) References Make it into one or two columns because {{ref}} states that not all browsers have the ability to see it in 3 columns. Ref #4, the publisher is not nobelprize.org its the 'Nobel Foundation': make that for all references from this source. Some of the Universities should be linked because I see other that are linked, so either add links or remove them for consistency purposes. Ref #76 should be cited with {{cite book}} not {{cite web}} How reliable is nobel-winners.com? Its not affiliated with the Nobel Foundation, which makes its reliability questionable.<TRUCO> 503 15:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC) All but the last three points are done; the third I'm working on finding an alternate source, the first two: 1) can you give an idea of which universities are not linked, and 2) #76 is a website. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) (1)Never mind, I thought you were linking each one in every occurrence, but you just linked it on its first occurrence. (2)Yes, but its on a book. Cite book does the same thing, place the URL where it is required and fill in the according information.--<TRUCO> 503 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC) No, 76 is definitely not a book. 73 is, if that is the one you mean? Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC) My bad. I meant 77.--<TRUCO> 503 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Done, that seems to be everything. Ironholds (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Followup comments The statement about the most recent winner should state the year to define what recently means. Why does the last sentence in the lead state Sir Roger and not by the person's last name? Just seems odd to me.--<TRUCO> 503 00:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I've done the first one; as for the second I have no idea; unless you think I this guy on speed dial I'm not sure what you want me to do about it. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC) List the Roger guy by his last name.--TRUCO 02:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC) You mean in the quote? Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, I didn't see that was a part of the quote.TRUCO 02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support | Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Lead looks good after a lookover. Meets WAIFL (waffle?). NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I remember seeing these in the nominators userspace, and remember this as the longest one. I can't see errors with the list, yet another quality Royal Society list from Ironholds. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  Heh, thanks. Sounds like an advertisement "yet another good quality list from Ironholds! Oh what WILL that man think of next? Order now and receive free shipping." Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "been changed a number of times"-->been changed a several times
• "A second donation of £1666 13s. 4d." What do the "s" and "d" stand for?
• "Since its creation"-->Since its inception
• "including 52 winners of various Nobel Prizes"
• "These include Frederick Sanger who was awarded"-->These include Frederick Sanger, who was awarded
• "and is one of only four people"
• "having won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry twice in 1958 and 1980" Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  All done. Ironholds (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• All web citations that are PDFs should have format=PDF added to their templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  All corrected. Ironholds (talk) 06:25, 22 February 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 01:00, 25 February 2009 [21].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Adele

Nominator(s): Another Believer (talk)

I am nominating this awards list for FL status because I believe it qualifies and I have made several improvements to the list based on suggestions made in the peer review process. Thanks! Another Believer (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FLC is backlogged right now, so please try to keep your nominations to one at a time for the time being. Not asking you to withdraw this, just saying for future reference. If you could review some FLCs, that would also be helpful. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General comment Like Dabomb said, due to the backlog, attempt to avoid nominating over 2 articles at one time. Understandable. I apologize. Lead Several singles from 19 charted on the American Billboard charts and United Kingdom Singles Chart, including "Chasing Pavements", "Cold Shoulder", "Hometown Glory", and "Make You Feel My Love". | (1)Since its stated as American Billboard charts, why not state the latter as 'English Singles chart'? or vice versa. Done. I removed "American" and changed "United Kingdom" to "UK" (the chart is most often called the 'UK singles chart', but I wasn't sure if the country name needed to be spelled out since it was the first time that name was used. Actually, you do have to spell it out in its first occurrence, so it will be best to possibly list American as 'United States'.--<TRUCO> 503 14:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Like so? --Another Believer (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)\ Change to and the United Kingdom's Singles Chart [notice the pipelink, it says the same thing].<TRUCO> 503 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Awards The descriptions/purposes of the BRIT Awards, Mercury Prize, MOBO Awards, the second sentence in the MTV Video Music Awards, and the Q Awards need to be verified by a reliable source.--<TruCo> 503 18:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Actually, I removed the second sentence in the MTV Video Music Awards section. I don't think it's necessary. That's fine.--<TRUCO> 503 14:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 00:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "She has released one studio album of original music called 19. Since it is specified that she released one album of original music, is she mainly a cover artist or something? Comment: No. That is her only album. Should "original music" be removed? Yes, it is a bit confusing. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Done. I think it would be helpful to provide her real name. Done. "The success of Adele's debut album won her two awards, " Should be a colon, not a comma. Done. "Overall, Adele has received four awards from 15 nominations." Comparable quantities should be written out the same (four, fifteen or 4, 15) Done. Since I have read that numbers greater than ten should be written numerically, I will make it "4" and "15". "artists of any race or nationality performing black music"-->artists of any race or nationality who perform black music Done. "the world of urban music including R&B, hip-hop, gospel and reggae as a potent force in the cultural worldwide music community." Logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotation marks. Done. "mtvU also has its own annual awards show, the mtvU Woodie Awards, where winners are determined by online voting."-->mtvU has (holds?) an annual awards show, the mtvU Woodie Awards, in which winners are determined by online voting. Done. By the way, when you address these comments, you don't need to ping me, as I watchlist all FLCs that I comment on. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Comment: Good to know. Thanks!

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 11, MOBO AWARDS-->MOBO Awards. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:23, 21 February 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 01:00, 25 February 2009 [22].

---

List of African American United States Cabinet Secretaries

Nominator(s): —Chris! _ct

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. —Chris! _ct 21:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Very good list similar to your others. Again, you could add a couple more pictures if you want. This one has a few more than the last list, but more articles should link to this one. Reywas92^Talk 22:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, BencherliteTalk

;Comments from Bencherlite An interesting list; just a few points. "Robert C. Weaver was the first African-American to hold a Cabinet-level position; appointed United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in 1966" - how about "Robert C Weaver became the first... position when he was appointed United States" etc? "In 1975 Secretary of Transportation William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr." - comma after 1975? "In 1979 Harris became the first" - comma after 1979? "Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's appointments as Secretary of State made them the highest-ranking African Americans in the United States presidential line of succession until the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009." I think this could be reworded, because Obama (as President) isn't in the line of succession to the Presidency. "Administration" sorts by first name of the President, rather than last. "The table below is organized based on the United States presidential line of succession." Unclear (particularly as it's a sortable table) and "organized based on" is poor. What do you suggest?—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "Numerical order represents the seniority of the Secretary in the United States presidential line of succession (Secretary of State being the most senior)." or something like that, perhaps? BencherliteTalk 09:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) "The table below is organized based on the time of which the departments were first established." Ungrammatical ("organized based on", "the time of which") and unclear. What do you suggest?—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "The departments are listed in order of their establishment (earliest first)." (or something similar?) BencherliteTalk 09:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Does the table for defunct departments really need to be sortable when it only has one entry? Notes section: (a to d) Shouldn't it say "The Department of the Treasury was established in 1789" etc? It seems odd to say "Secretary was established". What's happened to note e?! (f and g) Sentence should start with "The", i.e. "The Postmaster General" (h and i) I don't like "Secretary of War was defunct" - how about "The position of Secretary of War became defunct"? Same for Secretary of Commerce and Labor. Everything else done except the two I replied above.—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) BencherliteTalk 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC) All done—Chris! ct 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, good work. Bencherlite^Talk 17:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The United States Cabinet has had 16 African American appointed officers in its history. " Do you really need to link United States and Africa? "prior to"-->before "In 1979 Harris"-->In 1979, Harris "African American Secretaries with four."-->African American Secretaries, with four. "President Bill Clinton appointed seven African Americans to the Cabinet during his tenure, and President George W. Bush appointed four." Why did you mention these two presidents? Is there anything special about this? Reworded—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) File:Colin Powell official Secretary of State photo.jpg—the source link is dead. Replaced—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Everything else done—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Sources What makes http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript a reliable source? It is a .gov site, which is a part of the US government.—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Can you use better sources than Encyclopaedia Britannica? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I'll try to find a better source.—Chris! ct 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Did you find a replacement source? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I replaced one of them. I kept the other one because it has another ref to supplement it.—Chris! ct 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 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 01:00, 25 February 2009 [23].

---

List of Australian George Cross recipients

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I launched this list into the main space about a week ago after several days of construction in my sandbox, during which time I have received technical support and guidence from Woody (of which I am very greatful) and the list has also just passed an A-Class Review by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: the two remaining redlinks should be filled out within the next few days. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Meets the criteria. It is a well organized list, the lead section introduces the subject very well, and refs are reliable. AdjustShift (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) In an official broadcast on 23 September 1940, King George VI announced his decision to establish the awards of the George Cross and George Medal to recognise individual acts of bravery by the civilian population. -- This broadcast was what? A newscast? A radio broadcast. Now clarified. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC) The George Cross was replaced by the new award, the Cross of Valour, which was created by letters patent within the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories on 14 February 1975. -- I'm not sure if Territories is like the US and states, but does it need to be capitalized? I believe so, yes. In all official documents when Australian is addressed in such a mannor it is capitalized. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC) The only thing that stands out in the table is the date (or year) in which the awards were awarded. --TRUCO 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what you would like me to do in this instance. The whole table stands out to me on my screen. Thanks for the comments. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I suppose I could make the recipient's names bold in the list, if that would help. Thoughts? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC) No no, what I meant was that the table doesn't list the year in which each person was awarded the George Cross, unless I'm missing something.--TRUCO 22:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Oh! Sorry! The year (and date) each award was granted was the same date they were published in the London Gazette; each entry has a corresponding London Gazette reference that states the day they were published. I hope this will suffice? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I apologize, but not in this case. Most award articles (of all nature) list the date in which the recipient received the award in the table, the references should just verify them. If this is a yearly award, then the year which the recipient got the award can just be listed.--TRUCO 23:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC) The George Cross is a gallantry award and may be awarded at any time. I have actually seen quite a number of lists that do not include the year the award was granted, and I think that it this case it would be redundant in a way as several of the medals were awarded during the same year as the recipient's actions. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) It just seems odd, however, that the date they were awarded the award is not listed. Is this an annual award?--TRUCO 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Nope, not an annual award. It is the civilian counterpart of the Victoria Cross (the British equivalent to the Medal of Honor), and can be awarded at any time. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oh okay, its fine then, thank you for clarifying that.--TRUCO 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support As Abraham says, I have done some work on the list, mainly ironing out the little problems with it. It meets all the criteria in my opinion, it is extremely well-cited, it meets the MOS, the lead is ok and it has an appropriate images. No issues here, regards, Woody (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "for actions which are not "in the face of the enemy"" "which"-->that (restrictive clause) "The Royal Warrant establishing the awards"-->The Royal Warrant that established the awards "and would henceforth formally became recipients" Wrong tense. "Fortitude whilst a prisoner of war, Korean War" "whilst" is archaic, use the simpler "while". "Fortitude whilst a prisoner of war, Second World War" Same comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. All of the above have been actioned. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.gc-database.co.uk/exchanges.htm a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The George Cross Database is the unofficial website on the George Cross and its recipients. They have published several books on both the decoration and biographical information on recipients, leading me to believe the site is reliable. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you provide a link to the books please (Google Books link or something else). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The best link would probably be the site's main page [24]. Also, it was just brought to my attention the site is published by Chameleon HH Publishing Ltd. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:03, 20 February 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 01:00, 25 February 2009 [25].

---

Bauhaus discography

Nominator(s): JD554 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I finally got around to finishing it off and I believe it meets the FL criteria. If any editors have any concerns, I will of course address them as soon as I can. JD554 (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments You should make it clearer that "Kick in the Eye" did not chart on the "main" US singles chart; someone just glancing at the page might misinterpet it that way. "US Club" should suffice. Also, I think there might have been six music videos, but I may just be misremembering (although footage from The Hunger was fashioned into a video for "Bela Lugosi's Dead"). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed "Club Play" chart. I'm not sure if we should be listing videos that weren't released to promote either the single or the album the song was from. Was The Hunger video released to promote a re-release? I'm not sure, so it's probably best to leave it out unless a reliable source can be found to say it was. --JD554 (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Bauhaus bio I own. I'll look it up. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Weak oppose The discography of Bauhaus, a British gothic rock band formed in 1978... + The band was formed in Northampton in 1978... Fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Studio albums, Live albums, Compilation albums Title → Album details Fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Released: dd-mm-yyyy or mm-yyyy (Okay) → Released: yyyy (Remove all) Fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) ! colspan="3" style="font-size:9pt;"| Peak chart<br />positions ! rowspan="2" style="font-size:9pt;" width="90"| [[British Phonographic Industry|BPI<br />certifications]] Formats Fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) "—" denotes releases that did not chart. You have how prove that these albums were released worldwide? I haven't said they were released worldwide --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Extended plays: Title → EP details The column to the peak chart position is bad, change it. Both fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Video albums Title → Video details Fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Red links? Remove them or then create these pages. Fixed by NSR77 (thanks) --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Music videos Song → Title In what year were released the music videos? Both fixed --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) For now is that. Cannibaloki 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support, all done. Cannibaloki 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Very good work. My only issue is regarding the video section; could you remove the redlinks? NSR77 ^T 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The discography of Bauhaus, a British gothic rock band, consists of five studio albums, four live albums, three compilation albums, four extended plays (EPs), eleven singles and three video albums. | 1)Remove the bold, its not the literal title of the article 2)If this is done, link to the title of the band and remove the link that appears later in the lead. I've restored that format, it was changed by another editor. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC) The band was formed in Northampton in 1978 by Daniel Ash (guitar), David J (bass), Kevin Haskins (drums) and Peter Murphy (vocals). | IMO the roles should instead be formatted like "(bassist) instead of (bass) It's just as clear to say what instrument they played. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC) The next two full releases failed to break the Top 40 of the UK Singles Chart. | to break is very wordy, how about, I'm not sure what you were going to suggest there, but it doesn't seem wordy to me. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I was going to suggest "to reach" or "to rank". to break is not professional.--<TRUCO> 503 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Changed to "reach": I agree that's better, but just as wordy ;-) --JD554 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Studio albums The UK Certifications should have UK pipelinked to the British industry and the Certifications to the statement itself. In addition to having "(sales thresholds)" added, as seen in this FL. As it's only received certification in the one country, that isn't necessary. Certification and sales threshold information is contained in the BPI article. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC) General comment Since there is no general reference, the Live albums, Compilation albums, Extended plays, Singles, and Video albums need verification. So for the Singles, EP's, and Comp. albums, the entries that didn't chart need to be verified in a way. The others need a straight-forward source to verify them [place the ref on the name of the album]. All the releases are their own references, to add a reference to the fact there is an album etc would seem circular. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Hmm. I guess.--<TRUCO> 503 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC) References Is Zobell a reliable source? Is it an official website of a company or some random website that lists things?--<TRUCO> 503 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Zobell has been used in other discographies and it states its sources here. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Looks fine by me.--<TRUCO> 503 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support | Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "nine-minute long"-->nine-minute-long "They also released their debut album, In the Flat Field, which reached number " When? "Changing label in 1981 to Beggars Banquet Records saw the band reach the "-->After changing labels in 1981 to Beggars Banquet Records, the band reached the The second paragraph is very dull. It mainly consists of sentences such as "such and such album was released in [year], which reached". Change it up. "Another reunion tour followed towards the end of 2005, before work started on a new album, Go Away White, which was released in March 2008. " Delete the first comma, delete "which was". "Following the release of the album, Bauhaus again disbanded."-->Following the release of the album, Bauhaus disbanded again. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC) All fixed. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 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 01:00, 25 February 2009 [26].

---

Willowtip Records discography

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki

I am nominating this list because it is mostly based on the discographies of Dischord Records and Load Records, as both were promoted to featured list status (model and source of "respiration"). This is the first list containing only extreme metal bands which at least reached this page ("gangrenik" grammar). I chose not putting it on peer review, because its content is very short, and we don't need lose time with this. I think it is ready to receive comments, of course. Cannibaloki 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - pretty good list overall, but Lead The lead should be expanded further to summarize the list more, such as the first/most recent releases, and other significant releases. Done.--Cannibaloki 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC) This was not done.--<TRUCO> 503 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC) How not?--Cannibaloki 14:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I still don't see a summary of the list.--<TRUCO> 503 15:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC) What is missing?--<Cannibaloki> 666 15:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC) What's missing? Well for (1)The right to use my signature =P (2)I see a significant release, but not the first or most recent one listed.--<TRUCO> 503 15:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I see you in court! Done.--Cannibaloki 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Catalog Do the 'split' albums have official names? In addition, why aren't these capitalized? No. Done. The Co-releases column name isn't really descriptive of the column, can it be renamed in a way to state that the 'album' was co-released with such record. Co-released albums? I think a note explaining this will be better, in any way I have explained about the co-releases in the text saying: Willowtip Records has also co-released records with labels, such as Earache Records, Candlelight Records, and Neurotic Records.--Cannibaloki 02:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC) But the title of the column really isn't saying that, which is why I am asking whether it can be titled in a different manner?--<TRUCO> 503 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Co-labels?--Cannibaloki 14:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC) That would work perfectly.--<TRUCO> 503 15:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Done.--Cannibaloki 15:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC) In my opinion the note at the top and bottom of the table should be in a key at the top, it would be a better format. Done. I put on the bottom of the table. Notes All the notes aren't complete sentences, and thus are not subject to a period. In addition, the commas before limited to ___ copies should be semi-colon. The best option would be to make them complete sentences IMO. Done. In this context, its improper to start the notes with the word Also.--<TRUCO> 503 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Doing... Cannibaloki 23:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Done. The last 2 notes need full stops.--<TRUCO> 503 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Done.--Cannibaloki 14:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - (1) problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL. (2)IMO an external link to the official website should be added. (3)Court date is tomorrow =P.<TruCo> ⁵⁰³ 18:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay. Done. I will be busy, how about 31 February 2009? =D <Cannibaloki> ⁶⁶⁶ 18:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Perfect, see you then lol.--<TruCo> ⁵⁰³ 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "from several different countries" Done. "The label first releases"-->The label's first releases Done. "from 52 different artists." Done. The image caption needs a period at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Cannibaloki 17:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks very nice, so I'm happy to support immediately. Only one minor suggestion: I'd take out the last sentence of the lead ("Since its foundation, Willowtip has released 72 albums from 52 artists.") It's something that would require constant updating as the label releases more and more, and therefore it's prone to be out of date. I don't think the sentence is necessary, so I'd just take it out to avoid the hassle. Otherwise, great work! Drewcifer (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!--Cannibaloki 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And one other thing I noticed: "Split" isn't the name of anything, so it should be lowercase, not uppercase. Drewcifer (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Cannibaloki 18:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Is there a reason to not make the table sortable? Being able to find the albums alphabetically, or see all of a groups releases next to each other would be helpful. If made sortable, i would support. If free images exist for some of the bands, might be a nice addition down the side of the table (I use larger than standard fonts, and there is still enough space). The list of bands at the parent article should be a see also now.Yobmod (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific rule? Cannibaloki 15:01, 23 February 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 01:00, 25 February 2009 [27].

---

Gaylactic Spectrum Awards

The lists of nominees for the 3 categories of this award all already made FL, so this is the final part to make it a featured topic (i forgot i hadn't submitted it, this was essentially finished months ago!). It is very much a niche award, with no controversy, so 99% of sources are just list results, hence our article reflects that. All the formatting and sources are essentially the same as the sublists, so should have no problems. ThanksYobmod (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please fix the disambiguation links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all links except the Buffy one. The awards for buffy are for the TV series, comic and a novel, so in that case i think the disambig is the best destination. Thanks for pointing outthat tool, it will make finding these much easier!Yobmod (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• What are those three FLs? -- Banjeboi 15:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best novel
  • Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best short fiction
  • Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best other work
  • also note that lists cannot pass GA, and a GA would not be appropriate for FLC. GAN talk page has a discussion on this). Thanks.Yobmod (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Cool. -- Banjeboi 16:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Strong Oppose Sortability of names should be by surname. Nobody published "Angels in America"? Note A: "People's Choice award winner" - what does that mean? "Comic/GN" seems to be centered in one of the columns Inconsistent linking (e.g. you link "Warner Aspect" in 2000 & 2006 but not in 2004) The image causes the ==Regulations== text to be further down in the article than it should be. Please fix this. The ref column should not be sortable. The lead is too short. Please note these are all points I quickly noticed without reading a single bit of prose. FLC is not a substitute for peer review, and this should have had these simple problems solved there not here. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Most of these issues are rather minor, so unless there is a major concern that you did not note, I don't see the reason for a strong oppose. Granted, the lead may be a bit short, but note that the next section is all prose. Maybe the lead should summarize the regulations a bit more. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Yes you are quite right and have ammended accordingly. When I found those errors without looking at the prose I became a little exasperated that this had not been to PR. Please forgive me if I appeared hostile in any way. I will endeavour to give a full review later on in this FLC. Sincerely, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC) I think i can fix all of these in the review time: Names are now sortable by surname (and double checked) Missing publisher added (was HBO). All publishers with articles linked (and diambigs checked). Cateogry column justification made consistant. Refs are already unsortable (did you fix this?). People's Choice was an extra award for a couple of years. It always ended up going to works that got the juried award, so was scrapped. I make sure it is clarified in the prose. About the lead - i purposely made it shorter so as not to be repeating information in the immediately following prose section. I can beef it up easily enough, if such repitition is not a problem? To me it seemed to close together. Or i can put the regulation directly in the lead, but then that looked like to much in depth info for the lead.Yobmod (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Personally, I like the lead as it is. Why don't you merge the two paragraphs together? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) I'm going to increase it slightly (with sentences about regulations, major winners and one about the latest award), but keep it to 2 paragrpahs. Would this be a good comprimise? Hopefully this will also make the picture not mess with titles - on my setting it fit perfectly, d'oh. This is acceptable and I have struck above. I just have a few additional comments below this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Comments "G K Hall" -> G. K. Hall Done For "Comic/GN" I assume GN means graphic novel but you need to spell it out for people. Done Award process section: "Novels, Short fiction and Other works", don't CAPS novel, short and other. This also needs changing in the following sentence. And for "winners in the Best Novel category" at the end of the paragraph. Done (also in lead) "calendar year in English in North America that includes" second in should be or/and? Includes -> include done (changed to "English-language works in NA that include..." "from the SF genre" -> spell out SF. done Is the Hall of Fame still active as I note no inductees since 2003 Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I made an addition that no Hall of Fame inductee since 2003. There has been no anouncement about it being dropped (so i can't cite that), they just haven't been given.Yobmod (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Hall of fame "Ballantine/ Tor". Can you explain, did they both publish it? Also if that is the case, don't use a slash as it will appear from the title that Ballantine published & Tor produced. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC) For the Holdfast Chronicles? That is a series of 4 books, so some were published by Ballantine, and others by Tor. I can change it to an & sign, but thought that made it sound like they were cooperating, rather than competing. none of the books were published by both companies. I made it into a comma, is ok?.Yobmod (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all my issues have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Question (or Help! :-)). The images on my settings overlapp with the first heading, they don't cause it to move. This happens whether or not the TOC is expanded and on different monitors. Is this the same for everyone else? If this is something that settings can affect, can someone explain how to change it? I always make sure images don't move any tables, but thought that overlapping the headings was normal.Yobmod (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed this. If this is not what you desired please feel free to revert or enquire further about what to do. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks better.Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Established in 1998, the awards were initially presented by the Gaylactic Network, with awards first awarded in 1999." This is contradictory; awards were first presented in '99 but established in '98? The awards go over the year boundary, ie They were open to submissions in 1988 and announced long-lists, then in 1989 they announced the winners. "The most recent awards were presented in October 2008 at the Gaylaxicon science fiction convention in Washington, D.C., in October 2008, with Gin Hale and Joshua Lewis winning the awards for best novel and best short fiction respectively."-->The most recent awards were presented in October 2008 at the Gaylaxicon science fiction convention in Washington, D.C.; Gin Hale and Joshua Lewis won the awards for best novel and best short fiction respectively. changed per suggestion. "with the winners and short list of recommended nominees decided by a jury." Make this a separate sentence. changed per suggestion. "Since their inception, awards"-->Since their inception, the awards changed per suggestion. "This includes but is not limited to" changed per suggestion. "Melissa Scott has likewise received"-->Melissa Scott has also received changed per suggestion. Blank table cells should have em dashes. I wrote "Novel" in most of them, as i thinkit looked better and sorted better (even though it is repeated in the next cell). I forgot to mention this in your previous FLCs, but there should be a note that explains that the year links in the table link to the year-in-literature article for that year. See List of Washington Wizards head coaches as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I added a sentence to the table description, with links to the master lists for each subject area Sources Many of the web refs are not formatted. Use {{cite web}} and include at least the URL, page title, publisher and last access date. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Fixes with be along shortly :-). And i'll apply changes to the previous lists too. Sorry about the refs, they were newly added, and i'll use a tool to convert them all in one go. Done with reflinks.Yobmod (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support if the links for the dates in the table are fixed. Some of them do not point to the correct article location (for example films with dates that link to the year in literature.)Dillypickle (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, checked them all, and fixed the five i found going to lit instead of right aricle. Evil copy/paste to blame!Yobmod (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

struck my comment, leaving the support.

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 06:36, 21 February 2009 [28].

---

Triple Gold Club

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²²

Oh boy, my first nom with this fancy new preload template. Anyway, sourced, WikiCup entry, will address concerns, etc. For those who may think the current table is too cluttered, there is a sample version that lists only the first year the player won that accomplishment here. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) Possibly explain what the bold is for in the key, I realised but it wasn't immediately obvious to me. I took a shot at it but the sentence is a tad awkward. "medals to the players who had won the three championships" is anything known about these medals, is there a picture (I'm guessing not, but thought I might as well ask) No, after the initial press release, the IIHF hasn't mentioned them since. I'm actually suprised at how little I was able to find about that. "and award medals to" this isn't actually cited in either ref. Is there a cite for it? Hmm, you're right. In fact, none of the IIHF sources specifically say medals either. Removed that bit for now. I'm never sure about this one: "22 members of the Triple Gold Club—nine Swedes, six Russians, five Canadians, and two Czechs" don't the "22 members" and "nine Swedes" etc. come under comparable quantities, and therefore it should be twenty-two? Neither am I. Switched to twenty-two for now. "Swedes Niklas Kronwall, Mikael Samuelsson and Henrik Zetterberg needed the least to join the club, measuring from the time of their first victory of one of the three championships" It seems odd to say "the least" and not immediately follow it with (the least) what, can this be reworded or the word "time" added. I blame Maxim for that one. He copyedited that bit. I tried rephrasing it. Thanks a lot for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Otherwise I am impressed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my issues have been resolved, I won't support just yet because this nomination has only been open a short time and I'd prefer to wait to see if any other reviewers find a cause to object. Congrats for your excellent work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, No major issues have been raised in the other reviews. I can now confidently support this nom. Well done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - Excellent list overall. Lead The club has been described as a "a modern fraternity" because prior to 1977 NHL players—considered professional—were not allowed to play in the world championships or Olympics, which were intended for amateur players. - comma after 1997 Done. Swedes Niklas Kronwall, Mikael Samuelsson and Henrik Zetterberg needed the least to join the club, measuring from the time of their first victory of one of the three championships, winning the Olympics and World Championships in 2006 and the Stanley Cup in 2008 (as members of the Detroit Red Wings). - IDK, IMO its not really clear as to what the least is referring to. See above, done. Members What does the bold represent? See above, done. References Ref #1 is missing a publisher. I see it redundant to link all the other publishers and not the IIHF, thats from my view point.--TRUCO 503 21:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Well, the IIHF is already linked in the article, so I figured it would be redundant to link to it several more times in the refs section. I linked the first use of it in refs, is that better? Yep =)--TRUCO 503 01:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks a lot for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support as well presented, written and actually interestingly informative.Yobmod (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I made some minor changes, but otherwise looks good! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "because prior to 1977,"-->because before 1977, (one of my pet peeves, before is much simpler and more concise) Fixed. "very few Europeans played" The intensifier "very" is not usually necessary. Readers won't distinguish much between few and very few. If you want, you can put "rare". Removed. The blue shading should only be present in the first column; it is only used to indicate players who were inducees. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Well, I prefer to have full row colouring rather than specific cells. I think it looks a lot better. No problem. I can also see that the shading the achievements lends credence to the fact that those achievments led the player to be inducted into the hall of fame. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 16:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 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 06:36, 21 February 2009 [29].

---

List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology

Nominator(s): :bloodofox: (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements. I've recently rewritten valkyrie from scratch (now GA), for which this is a subpage, and you may be interested in having a look at that too if this list interests you. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are self-redirects from the navbox, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just caught that too. I fixed the one redirect in the introduction. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments (yobmod)Support - all queries answered.

• The names of the works they appear in would be better linked each time, as the first linking moves when sorted.

Done! –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think the translations shouldnot be sortable, as they are not standard (some have more than one translation). Sorting would imply to a reader that they can simply sort and look for the meaning, which doesn't work for "Help" for example.

Done! –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• The first sentence needs re-jigging- "...who choose who..." is confusing (even if not technichally wrong.

I changed it to "...who choose which warriors who will win or die...", but that might need rewording as English isn't my first language. –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed.

• Can the one entry in the source column with an explanation have the name of the source first for sorting (or use a sort key).

Done! –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Are the entries for the sources written so that the major/earlier source is first? If not, it should be, or maybe even 2 columns (Earliest source and other sources). This latter method would be great if not too wide, and the information is known.

I agree that this would have been very handy, but I am not sure if the markup would work correctly. Quoting from meta:Help:Table: "With colspan and rowspan cells can span several columns or rows," ... "However, this has the disadvantage that sorting does not work properly anymore." If someone with more experience with tables could look into this, I'd be grateful. I'll read some more on the help pages and see what I can do. –Holt (T•C) 17:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Reading your comment again, I understand you didn't imply anything about colspan/rowspan, which I thought at first. It should be doable regarding the dating of the sources, and this is basically how it would look (mark all, copy, paste on Wikipedia and preview). I'll let Bloodofox say his opinion before anything is done here. –Holt (T•C) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to figure what are "major" and "minor" sources here. They are all major sources for our purposes. All of these sources were recorded around the same time, but they reach much further back. It will be problematic to trot out all of the theories regarding dating here, but suffice to say that much of it comes from much earlier oral tradition. With these factors in mind, I would just leave them listed as they are. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if there is no good way to detirmine which is earlier, then this is fine.

• I take it this includes all of the names used in the sources? (so is presumably comprehensive?)

Only sources specifically referring to figures as valkyries. The problem with including all of the mentions of all of the figures is that their names are commonly employed in skaldic literature in kennings, which would mean listing a whole lot of works that only use valkyrie names as synonyms for "battle." It wouldn't be helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK.

• Could it not be renamed to simply "List of Valkyries" (keeping current name as redirect)? The current list is both a list of name meanings and list of orignal sources, so if there is no conflict with other lists, a general name would be better for a sortable list. Are there notable Valkyries outside of Norse mythology?

The problem is that there are a lot of valkyries in Wagner and a lot of valkyries in anime, video games, and manga, for example. This article is specifically about valkyries in Norse mythology. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, just "List of Valkyries in Norse mythology" (removing the names part).

Well, it's specifically a list of names that are outright referred to as valkyries. There are other figures that could be valkyries that are not specifically called this, etc. The reason for the specific title is because who could or could not be a valkyrie can get complex fast without precision. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Confusing: "The valkyrie name Herja may point to a connection to the name of the goddess Hariasa, who is attested from a stone from 187 CE." Which one does "who" refer to, and what is meant by "attested", the existance of the Godess? The link in mythology? Yobmod (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The stone from 187 CE refers to Hariasa. In this case, as everywhere else it is used when referring to sources, 'attestation' means "to bear witness; give testimony." In other words, the source says it was a goddess, therefore the goddess is attested by that source. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So the stone attests to the existance of such a goddess, rather than attesting to the link between the names? I think this should be clarified. Modern scholar saying there is a link is notthe same as archeological proof of such, which is how i first understood it.

Yes, that is correct. Hariasa is attested on the stone inscription. I've adjusted the prose to reflect this perhaps a bit more clearly. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment Why aren't the Rök Runestone and the Karlevi Runestone mentioned?--Berig (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Bloodofox left these out on purpose because they are not specifically referred to as valkyries on the stones. diff –Holt (T•C) 18:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have only mentioned sources where the figures are outright called valkyries. The reason for this is because if they're not outright referred to as valkyries it gets complicated; all of those Brynhildr mentions, all of those Hildr mentions, the iffy Róta mentions. The Prose Edda says Hildr is the same figure as Brynhildr, Hildr appears as a witch, Brynhildr appears in several late sources, and it's not even clear we're talking about the same figure sometimes, and so on and so on. Better to just leave those attestations out and handle them on their individual articles (when there is enough information for an individual article) or things get too complicated for the purpose of this list. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But they aren't mentioned as Valkyries in some of the sources that are included, i.e. Oddrúnargrátr[30] and Grímnismál[31], unless I've missed something.--Berig (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If the article is to narrow down the attestations to only sources where each name is explicity said to refer to a Valkyrie, I think it has to be explained in the lead, if not in the name of the list.--Berig (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I strike that seeing that there is information which I missed.--Berig (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are also the zillion kenning mentions, which is why I came to the conclusion that I had to narrow the list down to only where the figures are specifically referred to as valkyries. I'll remove the Oddrúnargrátr mention, since I may have missed this from my earlier purge, but it seems to me that it's doubtless that Odin refers to the list in Grímnismál as that of a list of valkyries, although he doesn't use the name "bear me a horn .... einherjar in Valhalla ..." :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There's no reason to include the runestones unless the other kenning attestations are included as well.--Berig (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Easily the best list of valkyries there is, online and offline. It is thoroughly sourced, comprehensive, clear and well-written. –Holt (T•C) 19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A very interesting and well done list. "where the deceased warriors become einherjar." A brief description of what einherjar are would be helpful for those not knowlegeable in Norse mythology. Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. "Valkyries also appear as lovers " "Valkyrie names commonly place emphasis on associations"-->Valkyrie names commonly emphasize associations Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the kind words! I will respond to your recommendations numerically: Well, I think the einherjar are pretty well described there already. As the valkyrie list says, they are deceased warriors who have died in battle and are chosen by the valkyries to prepare with Odin in Valhalla the events of Ragnarök. That sums it up. Is there some policy about this somewhere? I've been adding periods to the ends of my captions for some time and I'd like to know. I think the also is necessary here as not all valkyries appear as lovers of humans. In fact, this only happens with certain valkyries in the heroic poems (see valkyrie). Changed per suggestion. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC) WP:MOS#CAPTIONS. Everything else looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks—I removed the period. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support -- All my potential objections have been answered. Rules99 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 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 06:36, 21 February 2009 [32].

---

Spike Lee filmography

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk)

I've been working on this one on-and-off for a while, but I think it's finally ready. Thanks for any comments and suggestions you could give me. Drewcifer (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A couple dabs need to be fixed. "films dealing"-->films that deal "in this thesis" I think you mean "his". "which was the first student film" "Lee's first feature-film She's Gotta Have It, " No comma necessary. "Lee directed, produced, wrote, and acted in all of his first three feature-films, including She's Gotta Have It, School Daze, and Do the Right Thing." "all of" is redundant. "including" is only used for incomplete lists. Trim redundancy: "Throughout Lee's career, he has starred or acted" When else could Lee have done these things? "a series of Nike commercials also starring Michael Jordan"-->a series of Nike commercials that also starred Michael Jordan "Lee has directed a number of music videos, by artists " Comma not needed. "including "Fight the Power" by Public Enemy, which was featured heavily" I don't know what it means for a song to be featured "heavily". Was it played multiple times or was it the theme song (not an either/or question)? Such a claim would also need an inline citation. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Great suggestions overall. I think I addressed all of your concerns. As for the "Fight the Power" comment, I added a ref, but I'm not sure how else to reword it. To anyone that's seen the film, I think they would agree that "featured heavily" is the best way to describe it. The first scene is a dance number/music video type thing set to the song, and a character in the film carries a boombox around with him at all times, which is always playing the song. Additionally, I think it's the first song in the credits. But I don't think that much detail is necessary here, so "featured heavily" gets the point across, I think. If they want to know more they can go to the page about the song or the film. Drewcifer (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 2, should be The New York Times, not just New York Times.
• The Hollywood Reporter ref requires registration. Denote this in the ref with format=Subscription required in the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead Lee's films are typically referred to as "Spike Lee Joints". - source? FIXED Lee has also been interviewed in and contributed to many documentaries. - is this verified by the table itself? Yes, all the documentaries he has been interviewed in are listed in the table, usually denoted by "Himself". Merge either the last 2 or 3 paragraphs because they are too short to stand alone by themselves. FIXED--TRUCO 503 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to separate out some of the credits into further tables - such as for the television work, as well as appearances as himself. Since he is mainly known for his work as a filmmaker, the appearances in particular would benefit from their own table, as they otherwise give the impression of being part of his body of work (as a filmmaker). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I in a way disagree since he has been apart of the direction/promotion of those films.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about his appearances in his films, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

When you're right you're right! Done. Drewcifer (talk) 06:54, 16 February 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 06:36, 21 February 2009 [33].

---

List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers

Nominator(s): KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it exemplifies all of the featured list criteria. I know that I may be stuffing beans up my nose here, but I feel it necessary to address some concerns ahead of time. I am aware that the level of citations in the lead may be low compared to some other leads. The reason for this is due to the length of the Phillies' franchise history. The list is unsplittable by city or other non-arbitrary criterion vis a vis the Giants or Orioles lists. Some of the facts in the lead would require the use of between five and, in one case, fifteen references to fully verify. Though all of these references are available and presented in the article with their individual years, I feel that citing fifteen refs on one fact to be overkill per WP:LEADCITE and visually unappealing/distracting per WP:FL?'s Cr.6. Comments are welcome and will, of course, be addressed by the nominator. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• CommentSupport - I need to take a closer look, but at first glance tThis is EXTREMELY impressive. Having worked on many of the lists in this series myself, I'd be surprised if this wasn't the best of the lot. Rlendog (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Upon further review, changed to support. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I appreciate it; I've been working hard on it for two months. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The team's record in his five Opening Day starts is 4–1. - is -->"was" The record still "is", it's not changing, this is correct as is. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) But the statement is in the past tense, which is why it should be "was".--TRUCO 503 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Actually, the verb is what makes the tense past or present, so it would be grammatically correct either way. Since the record isn't going to change but still exists, it's like a world record or a season record; it doesn't change in history. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) It's either way really.--TRUCO 503 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Art Mahaffey has the best record in Opening Day starts for the franchise; though many players have won their only Opening Day start, Mahaffey started and won two Opening Day games, for a winning percentage of 1.000. - in this context, best record is POV unless you provide statistics right after it. The statistics are part of the same sentence; I don't see that it can get much closer. The sentence is structured to be grammatically fluent, which is a part of writing good prose. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Fine by me.--TRUCO 503 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) IMO it would make it sense to add the years in which the franchise used each stadium. It's a possibility, but it makes for a lot of parenthetical clutter. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) True.--TRUCO 503 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Steve Carlton won his Opening Day start against the Montréal Expos in 1980,[4] while Brett Myers received a no-decision against the same franchise (now the Washington Nationals) in 2008, a game that the Phillies eventually lost. - I thought Tampa Bay was in the 2008 World Series? Yes... this doesn't have to do with the World Series; rather, it addresses the seasons in which the team won the World Series. They didn't play Tampa Bay on Opening Day is 2008. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Oh okay.--TRUCO 503 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Grover Cleveland Alexander started Opening Day in 1915,[8] the Phillies' first World Series appearance,[1] while Robin Roberts started the first game of 1950,[9] and Terry Mulholland the first game of 1993. - Alexander's name is already mentioned before this, no need to mention his full name again. So is Roberts, for that matter. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Key Each year is linked to an article about the Major League Baseball season; numbers indicate game number during that Opening Day in the case of a doubleheader. - 1)if you mentioned the acronym of the Major League Baseball (MLB) in the lead, you can write MLB here to save space 2)"the" should be added before game number I don't see a need to save space and I don't use acronyms without a really good reason, so that's unnecessary. Second point: Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Its personal preference really.--TRUCO 503 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Table To be consistent, Grover Cleveland Alexander should be piped just to "Grover Alexander" [as well as in the lead] Not so. All contemporary accounts refer to Alexander by his full name or by his nickname, Pete Alexander. In addition, his article is titled as such, so there's no need to use the redirect. Furthermore, the Phillies retired a "P" for him using his full name, so it's obvious that they considered it necessary as well. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Oh okay.--TRUCO 503 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Footnotes Ties were technically possible in baseball until several rule changes beginning in 2007; however, ties were rare in practice due to the extra-innings rules. - wouldn't beginning be "began"? Either is technically correct; it's a matter of semantics. Both work. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) References To be consistent with the other links, link USA Today Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Its redundant to list the "work" as Retrosheet.org and the "publisher" as Retrosheet, Inc. when the URL is name after the publisher, so its best just to name it Retrosheet, Inc.''TRUCO 503 01:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Not correct on this point; they are two separate things. The non-profit company Retrosheet, Inc. is distinct from the website Retrosheet.org, like Baseball-Reference.com is distinct from Sports Reference LLC. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying that.--TRUCO 503 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

* Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, what makes Retrosheet a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Dabs are fixed. I am searching for the link that shows Retrosheet's reliability; however, I have seen this same question over and over again at FLCs, FACs, and GA noms. Does reliability have to be re-established every time? I would think that many of us have done enough FLs or reviewed enough times to know that this is something we see on a regular basis and know. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Here are past discussions on the topic ([34] and [35]). It's essentially a holy war. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) After reading that FAC, I decided that Retrosheet is in fact reliable. Also, this confirms it, so everything is good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Recreation Park yielded a 1–2 record on Opening Day, while Veterans Stadium has the lowest winning percentage (.200), with two wins and eight losses." "while"-->and. Both are grammatically correct. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, but "while" is only used for emphasis on contrasting clauses or if one action was taking placing during the other. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC) "Subordinating conjunctions also join two clauses together, but in doing so, they make one clause dependent (or "subordinate") upon the other." [36] In this case, "while" is used as a subordinating conjunction, and clause 2 is dependent on clause 1 to explain that the record stated is for Opening Day, rather than all-time or some other statistic. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) OK, but I noticed something else. The usage of verbs and subjects here is a bit confusing: "Recreation Park yielded" and "Veterans Stadium has". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Corrected tense agreement. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC) "the Phillies' first World Series appearance,[1] while Roberts started the first game of 1950,[9] and Terry Mulholland the first game of 1993." Same comment. See above. Also, in this instance, it would create two dependent clauses both begun by the word "and". KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Good point. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC) File:KidGleason1904photo.jpg needs a source and author. File:Grover Cleveland Alexander Baseball.jpg same. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC) To the two one above, I honestly have no idea where they it came from, and I don't know how to find them it. Should I just remove them it? It's never been a problem in any previous FLCs. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC) All of the information on the Alexander image was already present; I just organized it into the correct format. I don't have any information on the source of the Gleason picture and don't know where to look. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Well, if the info can't be found, then the image cannot be used. You would have to remove the image from the other FLs also. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Removed Gleason photo. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Sources Ref 2 needs a format=PDF added to the template. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC) All the Retrosheet references have double periods. That is because there is an abbreviation followed by a period. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC) OK, but it is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I had a similar issue with a recent GAN. It is just a quirk in the citation templates that they add a period, even if the information submitted to the template already ends in one. I think the simplest fix is to just drop the period at the end of the abbreviations, which will make the information submitted to the template look funny, but will produce a citation in the article with just a single period. Rlendog (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) That is what I do too. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Italicize USA Today, it is a publication. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Then who is the publisher? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Publisher or work, you only need one or the other. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 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 06:36, 21 February 2009 [37].

---

BBC Sports Personality of the Year Lifetime Achievement Award

This is my fourth list for a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic. I believe it now meets the criteria. Per this I think I am meant to mention I am participating in the WikiCup, but please note I started this topic before entering the competition. Thanks in advance for comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) When Alex Ferguson won the award in 2001, the BBC described the award as "a new accolade" to be presented annually;[3] however, there had in fact been two previous recipients of the Lifetime Achievement Award. - remove the word the before BBC, its not common to say the BBC. Not done, that is the common way ([38]) because it stands for "the British Broadcasting Corporation", infact see what it says on the first line of BBC. Oh okay, I wasn't aware.--TRUCO 503 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC) The inaguaral award went to Frank Bruno in 1996, following his retirement from boxing that year following medical advice. - 1)typo on inaugural 2)Reword the beginning to "The inaugural recipient of the award was ..." 3)repetitive use of following, for the last part how about "that year after he was given medical advice." -Done, Done and Done Having been favourite to win the main award in 1995, but losing to Damon Hill,[5] the Lifetime Achievement Award was criticized by many for being a consolation award. - 1)add an "a" before favourite 2)Who is this statement referring to? Done, reworded whole sentence but used "the favourite" not "a favourite" per wiktionary description of its use as a betting term. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Golfer Seve Ballesteros won the award the following year, and after that there was a three-year hiatus. - 1)Comma after that 2)I suggest rewording the last part of the sentence to ", before there was a three-year hiatus." -Done The award has been presented annually since football manager Ferguson ended the hiatus in 2001. - why not state that he is a football manager in his first mention? -Done Five of the ten recipients have been associated with football, with tennis being the only other sport to be represented more that once. - that --> "than" -Done Six of the winners have been from the United Kingdom, with the other winners being from Brazil, former Czechoslovakia, Spain, and Sweden. - unlink the countries, they are common geographical terms -Done Table and references check out fine.--TRUCO 503 00:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC) All done, thanks for the comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The BBC Sports Personality of the Year Lifetime Achievement Award is an award given annually, as part of the BBC Sports Personality of the Year ceremony each December." Comma not needed, something that can be applied to the other BBC SPOTY lists. Done. Oddly it wasn't in any of the other of the SPOTY lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC) "The winner is a selected by BBC Sport." Extra word. Done. "however, there had in fact been two previous recipients of the Lifetime Achievement Award."-->however, two people had already received the Lifetime Achievement Award. Done. "The inaugural recipient of the award was Frank Bruno in 1996, after his retirement from boxing that year following medical advice."-->The inaugural recipient of the award was Frank Bruno in 1996, who won it after his retirement from boxing that year. Fixing grammar and also trimming unnecessary detail. Done. "causing many to criticize his " Should be "criticise" because this article uses British English. Not done. -ize is infact the original and correct version. The word is derived from Latin and the original British word was -ize. The OED only started listing -ise as an alternative recently. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC) "Golfer Seve Ballesteros won the award the following year, before the award took a three-year hiatus." The subject is wrong; the award didn't take a break. Done. "Five of the ten recipients have been associated with football, with tennis being the only other sport to be represented more than once."-->Five of the ten recipients have been associated with football; tennis is the only other sport to have been represented more than once. Done. "Six of the winners have been from the United Kingdom, with the other winners being from Brazil, former Czechoslovakia, Spain, and Sweden."-->Six of the winners have been from the United Kingdom, and the other winners are from Brazil, former Czechoslovakia, Spain, and Sweden. Done. ""in recognition of his footballing achievements" which include " comma after the quote. Done. "including five Wimbledon championships." Change five-->5 for the comparable quantities to be written the same (better not to change the quote). Done. "for achievements which include helping"-->for achievements that include helping Done. "scoring twice in the final." Watch the logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotation marks. Done. File:Alex Ferguson by FvS.jpg—the image has been deleted on Flickr so we can't verify the licensing. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Replaced (used image of Pele instead) Thanks for taking a look, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] Couldn't you also tell the readers that Martina Navratilova is the only female to have won the award? -Done All the images are images of people who are related to football. Just add a little more variety to it. -Done (Many) more to come... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] (continued) "former Czechoslovakia" If you're saying "from", it should be "Czech Republic" because that was the country Navratilova was from in 2003. If you were saying "born", then the sentence will be fine. Either one is fine. Done, went with the "born" option as it provides more background. Why is the category Category:Sports halls of fame in the article? Done, no idea when that got put there. Good luck in promoting the topic. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks, for the review and kind words. I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support You're welcome. :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - passes all the criterion imo. Found nothing actionable to change. I would probable merge the "by sport" and "by nationality" sections into a "statistics", with the tables next to each other.Yobmod (talk) 10:01, 19 February 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 06:36, 21 February 2009 [39].

---

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

• Peer review (February 7, 2009}

I am nominating this article for featured list because it has previously gone through a failed FL review. I addressed the majority of points, passed it through Peer Review and now want to try and get it promoted. I feel it now meets the criteria and errors should be minor. 03md (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - prose issues still pending Please provide the link to the previously failed FLC nomination. Added the link The UK Singles Chart is a record chart compiled by The Official Charts Company (OCC) on behalf of the British record industry. The chart week runs from Sunday to Saturday, and the new Top 40 chart is first revealed each Sunday on BBC Radio 1. - the new Top 40 chart? I thought it was the UK Singles Chart? Which is it? In a way that you just told me, state that BBC Radio 1 only releases the Top 40 of the main chart.--TRUCO 503 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Done It is the UK Singles Chart but Radio 1 only reveals the top 40 - how else can I put this? During the 2000s, 248 singles have reached the number-one position on the chart, as of 1 February 2009. - remove the dash in between the number-one Done Why does the title have it as well? Saying number-one is much different from saying "number 20", yet they are implying the same thing, but the dash prevents that. Moved the page so it does not have a dash. I would consult with the respective project to discuss moving the rest of them, because its not correct stating "number-one" and then "number twenty" when the same meaning is implied, yet inconsistent.--TRUCO 503 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Rihanna and Jay-Z's song "Umbrella", spent 10 weeks at number one in 2007, the longest spell at the top of the charts since Wet Wet Wet's 1994 hit "Love Is All Around" topped the charts for 15 weeks. - 1)remove the first comma 2)add ", which topped" before the name of Wet Wet Wet's 1994 song name. (notice the comma) Done The Internet allowed music to be heard by vast numbers of people on social networking sites such as YouTube and MySpace (Lily Allen first gained exposure on the internet and her debut single "Smile" reached number one in 2006). - 1)the last part of that sentence should not be in parenthesis, it should be in front of a semi colon. 2)Allen's statement also doesn't match up, is it meant to be like Lily Allen first gained exposure on the internet with her debut single "Smile", which reached number one in 2006.? Changed to semi-colon; regarding the second point, I meant that Lily Allen made herself known on the internet and following this exposure her debut single Smile went to number one. How should I best phrase this? In a way that you just told me.--TRUCO 503 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Corrected the sentence This and the introduction of the UK Download Chart in 2004[4] saw a decrease in record sales and the number of copies needed to achieve a number-One reduced. - why is "one" capitalized? Changed Gnarls Barkley's "Crazy" became the first song to reach the top of the charts on downloads alone in 2006, remaining at number one for nine consecutive weeks. - notice the inconsistency with number one and number-one? Corrected This set a trend that was continued by Pop Idol winners Will Young and Michelle McManus and runner-up Gareth Gates; - 1)comma before and runner-up 2)What year was this? Done Fame Academy winner David Sneddon, and the winner of the first series of The X Factor Steve Brookstein in 2005. - what year was the Fame Academy? Added the year Reality television winners did especially well during Christmas: every Christmas number-one from 2005 to 2008 came from an X Factor winner. - 1)especially well is WP:POV, reword 2)If it was from every winner, why was is the X Factor linked to the first series? This phrasing was recommended by dabomb87 but I can change it if necessary. I have Changed link to The X Factor main article. Shayne Ward reached number one in 2005 with "That's My Goal" and he was followed by Leona Lewis, Leon Jackson and Alexandra Burke. - comma before and was followed Done Lily Allen's song "The Fear" is currently the number-one single, as of the week of 1-7 February 2009. - it should just be the week of "1 February 2009" Done Images The image caption of Rihanna needs a full stop Done Some of the image captions have Number-One, they should be number one. Done Singles In 2000, 42 songs hit the top spot, a UK charts record. - source for being a record? I cannot find a suitable source - I will have another look Found a source - added reference Four songs (Shakira and Wyclef Jean's "Hips Don't Lie" (2006), Eric Prydz "Call on Me" (2004), S Club 7's "Don't Stop Movin'" in 2001 and Daniel Bedingfield's "Gotta Get Thru This" in December 2001 and then again in January 2002) were at the top of the chartsfor two separate spells. - 1)Just list the names of the songs, no need to list the artists 2)Be consistent with the formatting, either say it with a format of "Song A (year)" or "Song A in year" Done Some of the artists have inconsistent linking, they should all be linked, examples Shakira and S Club 7. Done Million selling singles Five have been the debut singles of talent show winners, two have been charity singles ("Do They Know It's Christmas" and "(Is This The Way To) Amarillo") and one was a novelty record ("Can We Fix It?"): - the parenthesis within the parenthesis should be within brackets. What do you mean I mean like "(I [Truco] am a [English] Wikipedian)."--TRUCO 503 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.0.45 (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Why isn't this in a table format? Changed to table format TRUCO 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL. However, for the references, in everyhit.com capitalize the H because its how the website writes it.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 15:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your help. I have fixed this last issue. 03md (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Your welcome.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 17:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

General comment Truco, the hyphen in number-one singles is correct because it is a compound adjective. I moved the article back and moved the other decade articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There is one dab link. Changed The X Factor to The X Factor (UK) - no longer dablink "I Have a Dream" / "Seasons in the Sun" There should be a non-breaking space before the slash. Done "This and the introduction of the UK Download Chart in 2004[4] saw a decrease in record sales and the number of copies needed to achieve a number one reduced."-->This and the introduction of the UK Download Chart in 2004[4] led to a decrease in record sales and a reduction in the number of copies needed to achieve a number-one single. Changed "Reality television show produced " Should be plural. Done "Reality television winners did especially well during Christmas:" Should be a semicolon. Done "Lily Allen's song "The Fear" is currently the number-one single, as of the week of 1 February 2009."-->As of the week of 1 February 2009, Lily Allen's song "The Fear" is the number-one single. Changed "Appearances on Band Aid 20's "Do They Know It's Christmas?" are also included, even though artists did not receive individual credit on the cover." Comma not needed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Removed the comma There are many redirects; rather than having me point them all out to you, put this script into your monobook.js page and use the redirect finder to spot and fix them. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure where to find the redirect checker - I manually checked the whole table the other day, as well as the text, so I'm not sure where the redirects are. It is because I think you put the script in wrong—try putting in importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js'); The redirect finder is on the left sidebar of the screen and says "Find redirects" under "Find disambiguations". Don't forget to bypass your cache. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC) All redirects sorted and removed Thanks for all your comments and help. 03md (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, but other reviewers are asked to provide the viewpoint on everyHit.

• What makes everyHit a reliable source?
  • It is the only source that I can find that provides evidence of 42 number-ones in a year being the record. The data is all accurate and covers the whole period. What other similar source could you suggest?
    • As long as it is being used for that one claim and its other uses are supported by more reliable sources, it can stay. I will leave this unstruck for other reviewers to decide Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It seems reliable, but I don't think we can link to it since their FAQ states This is an altruistic, non-commercial public resource for personal and educational use only. Additionally, according to their about section, it is a fan website created by a random person who has many records and lists them, but they state that they get every release that reaches the top 40 by the British Record Industry, so I see it as a bit questionable.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I have decided to replace the general everyHit reference with one to the Official Charts Company website (see this link) which should be more reliable. Is it okay to leave everyHit as the verification for 2000 seeing a record number of different songs at number-one? 03md (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I think that should be fine. Minimal use of the source is what we are aiming for. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Done
• There is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed dead link

Comment

• "Before the advent of music downloads, the chart was based entirely on sales of physical singles from retail outlets. The chart is based on sales only, and rankings do not reflect the degree of airplay the songs may receive." Perhaps this info is too general for the list. I think it would be better to just state what determines the chart ranking during the year. --Efe (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Before the advent of music downloads" When was it? When was digital downloads incorporated in determining chart ranks? --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• "the chart was based entirely on sales of physical singles from retail outlets. The chart is based on sales only" Seems redundant or needs a little rephrasing. --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• "and rankings do not reflect the degree of airplay the songs may receive" Perhaps this could removed. --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Generally, only state what factors determine the ranking. --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I have removed the redundant sentence and added that downloads were incorporated into the chart from 2005. Hope this solves that issue.

• Better now. --Efe (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support It looks to pass all of the criteria to me. Question: Will there also be lists of number ones by decade, then by year? Seems useless to do so, but the people seem to also be supporting the US list of no. 1s by years.Yobmod (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is up to others to decide - I suppose yearly tables could be created with more specific references etc. which could also get up to featured list standard.

• This is a general comment. Yes, we can possibly create that like the yearly list of US number-one singles. --Efe (talk) 12:04, 20 February 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 06:36, 21 February 2009 [40].

---

List of Memphis Grizzlies head coaches

I am nominating with User:SRE.K.A.L.24, comments welcomed—Chris! _ct 02:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The team was founded in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1995 along with the Toronto Raptors, as part of the NBA's expansion into Canada. " Comma not necessary. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) "In their franchise history, the Grizzlies have never won a playoff game or a playoff series even though they went into the post-season three times."-->Although the Grizzlies have competed in the postseason three times (thrice?), they have never won a playoff game or a playoff series. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) "There have been ten head coaches for the Grizzlies franchise." Numbers greater than nine should be written in numerals. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) "who coached only for two seasons." Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) "regular season games coached"-->regular-season games coached Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) "while Mike Fratello is the franchise's all-time leader in regular season games wins (95)."-->and Mike Fratello is the franchise's all-time leader in regular-season game wins (95). or "and Mike Fratello is the franchise's all-time leader in regular-season games won (95)." Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) "Basketball Hall of Fame as a contributor in 2005." Is it possible to link to contributor or add a footnote that describes what it means to be one? I don't think so...You could go ahead and try... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) "Winters, Hollins, Sidney Lowe, and Iavaroni have all played in the NBA." That is not very remarkable. I say delete this. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) It would be nice if you could find a free image of an actual coach, although it is not a deal-breaker. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Memphis Commercial Appeal-->The Commercial Appeal (refs 16 and 22) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - excellent list, Dabomb got most of my comments 2003–04 NBA Coach of the Year - this should be in the format of "NBA Coach of the Year (2003-04)" It doesn't really make a difference... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) I tweaked it anyway to be consistent with other lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Most lists I checked use the year first format.—Chris! ct 19:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC) I will make all the lists use the same format. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Umm...ok, sure. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) So I guess, he changed it to a format of "Year Award" format right?--TRUCO 21:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) No answer, I guess I'll take that as a yes =P--TRUCO 503 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Unlink Canada, its a common geographical location. Dabomb87 removed the wikilink. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Spell out the first instance of the U.S. abbreviation. Dabomb87 tweaked it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Why does the "United States" have a dash in non-United-States? --TRUCO 21:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed—Chris! ct 00:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Owned by Michael Heisley and several locals including J.R. Hyde, Andy Cates, and Elliot Perry,[2] the Grizzlies play their home games at the FedExForum. - this sentence doesn't match up together well, it needs a transition or just needs to be split into two sentences. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) TRUCO 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5

• "first non-United-States team" - there are two here, so change to "teams". Also, the comment above from Truco regarding "non-United-States" was never fixed though it was marked as such. It should be "non-United States".

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• "The Grizzlies and the Raptors became the first non-United-States team to join the NBA since 1946." - needs a ref

I'm not very good at finding refs. I hope Chris can find one soon. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• "all-time leader in regular-season games wins (95)." - remove "games" or change to "games won". Either is fine.

Dabomb87 changed the grammar, but I'm hoping you're right. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• "to have won NBA Coach of the Year." - should be "to have won the NBA Coach of the Year award."

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• What is a "contributor" in the context of the Basketball Hall of Fame? This needs some more definition or a link. I see that it was noted above; however, I believe that context is needed. Even a reference that explains it from the NBA Hall of Fame would help.

Got one. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• "though Johnny Davis head coached two games" - just coached, "head coached" isn't a valid verb.

Re-phrased it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• "before Hollins' third term with the Grizzlies" - I would say "with the team" or "with the franchise"; Grizzlies has been said a lot and this would break it up a bit.

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have made two minor grammar changes and a punctuation fix. I now support. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:26, 20 February 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 06:36, 21 February 2009 [41].

---

Timeline of the 1972 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): Saola ^{Talk to Me}

I am nominating this article for featured article because I think it satisfied the criteria. Saola ^{Talk to Me} 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I think you meant featured list :) "The 1972 Atlantic hurricane season is only one" done "the others being 1968 season"-->the others being the 1968 season done ", a total of 7 tropical or subtropical depressions formed, of which all became tropical or subtropical storms or hurricanes."-->seven tropical or subtropical depressions formed, all of which became tropical or subtropical storms or hurricanes. done "The first storm of the season, Subtropical Storm Alpha" Comma after this phrase. done Numbers under 10 should be written out. done "3 became hurricanes with none reaching Category 3 intensity or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale."-->three became hurricanes; none of these reached Category 3 intensity or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale. done "It killed 122 and" 122 of what? done WP:CAPTION, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. done Please check the use of "it's", this is being used as a possessive, so use "its". done Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Sources Ref 1, add format=PDF to the citation template. done Spell out abbreviations, such as NOAA, UNISYS and HURDAT. done Web-page titles should not be in all caps, rewrite them in sentence case. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC) What do you mean web-page titles should not be written in all caps, do you mean the publisher for the refs? --Saola Talk to Me 19:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Please do not alter reviewers' comments (strikes). I changed the strikes to little "done"'s. I was mistaken about changing the titles; you can change them back. I only meant to spell out abbreviations in the publishers, not the titles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I think I fixed them, I won't be here tomorrow until at least 4 p.m. EST (2100 UTC) --Saola Talk to Me 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

commentsJason Rees (talk)

• Local time needs to be added in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Rees (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)done

Will do so tomorrow, I'm going to bed. --Saola ^{Talk to Me} 04:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Did local time.--Yue ^{of the North} 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Change the Track map from the timeline one to the one in the seasonal article
• "2 p.m. EDT (1800 UTC) – A subtropical depression forms from a extratropical cyclone southeast of Savannah, Georgia.[2] [3]" - References need to be together also after extratropical cyclone add a comma and add in "located to the" southeast .....
• "8 p.m. EDT (0000 UTC May 26) – The subtropical depression strengthens into a subtropical storm and is named Alpha." - Add in "previously located to the southeast of Savannah, Georgia," before the strengthens into part.
• "6 a.m. EDT (1200 UTC) – Subtropical Storm Alpha reaches its peak strength of 70 mph (110 km/h)." - Change its peak strength to its maximum sustained winds.
• Add a point before this sentence - 7 a.m. CDT (1200 UTC) – A tropical depression forms while over the Yucatan Peninsula.
• Change that sentence to say A tropical depression forms over the Yucatan Peninsula.
• "The tropical depression emerges off the Yucatan Peninsula" - Emerges into what? (i presume the GoM)
• Change this from "Tropical Storm Agnes strengthens into the first hurricane of the season" to Tropical Storm Agnes intensifys into a Category One hurricane.

This one is fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "1 a.m. CDT (0600 UTC) – Hurricane Agnes reaches its peak strength of 85 mph (140 km/h)." Again change this to its maximum sustained winds.
• "2 p.m. EDT (1800 UTC) – Tropical Depression Agnes unexpectedly strengthens into a tropical storm how can ." Strengthens -> Reintensify
• (1800 UTC) – "Tropical Storm Agnes makes landfall near New York City, New York with winds of 65 mph (100 km/h)." - Add local time which is 1300 EDT. (UTC -5)
• Change this - "There was no tropical systems during the month of July." add a comma and add the words within the Atlantic Basin.

was -> were Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "A subtropical depression forms north of Bermuda." add the words to the before north.
• "Subtropical Storm Bravo become tropical and is named Betty" - Change to Subtropical Storm Bravo becomes Tropical and is renamed Betty.
• "Tropical Storm Betty strengthens into the second hurricane of the season" - Again into a Category One Hurricane.

This is fine also Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "A tropical depression forms west of Daytona Beach, Florida" add the words forms "to the" west of Daytona Beach, Florida.

This is fine (per minor discussion on IRC) Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "2 p.m. EDT (1800 UTC) – Tropical Storm Carrie reaches its first peak intensity of 60 mph (95 km/h)." References need to be together.
• "Tropical Storm Betty become extratropical in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic." become -> becomes
• "Tropical Storm Dawn strengthens into the third and final hurricane of the season" into a Category one Hurricane

This is also fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Tropical Depression Dawn dissipates northeast of Charleston, South Carolina after having paralleled the Georgia and South Carolina coasts for the last 24 hours." add "to the" before northeast

This is also fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "A subtropical depression forms northeast of Bermuda" add "to the"

This is also fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "There was no tropical activity in the month of October in 1972." Change this to "There was no tropical activity in October, within the Atlantic Basin.

Try and be uniform throughout the article, it should read "There was no tropical systems during the month of October." Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think thats it Jason Rees (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I did the fixes.--Yue ^{of the North} 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think so too SupportJason Rees (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Subtropical Storm Alpha and Subtropical Depression Alpha - are these the same? It's unclear. Do either have articles?
  • Yes they are the same - Irmela had forgotten to put in when subtropical storm alpha weakened into a subtropical depression Jason Rees (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, why is anything in May included, when you've already stated the season doesn't begin until June? These events are not part of the season.
  • Whilst they may not be a part of the offical season, they are counted because they formed within that basin within that Tropical Cyclone Year.Jason Rees (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Tropical Storm Agnes, Hurricane Agnes - the same as the subtropicals? Do any of these have an article you can link to?
  • No they are not the same as Subtropical storms. Jason Rees (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Article link for Subtropical Storm Bravo?
• Article link for Tropical Storm Betty or Hurricane Betty?
• Link for Tropical Storm Carrie, or Hurricane Dawn, or Subtropical Storm Charlie, or Subtropical Storm Delta, or Subtropical Depression Delta?
  • Just of note, the above storms don't have articles yet. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah. OK. Well I don't mind redlinks. I'm of the school that they encourage new articles. One question though, which is probably not suitable for FLC but it has my curiosity all the same: Is the reason they don't have articles that no one has gotten around to writing them, or because they're not notable enough? If the latter, is a list of non-notable hurricanes notable? I know it has references, but just because it happened and the fact it happened can be verified doesn't mean it is notable. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, this is where it can get tricky. In theory, all storms meet WP:N, although most of them are generally deemed non-notable by the WikiProject. Also, in terms of tropical cyclone documentation, 1972 was quite a long time ago, and thus information is probably scarce for the storms that didn't make landfall. I suppose articles could be created on all of these storms, but they would probably be little more than stubs. Each storm has its own individual section in the 1972 Atlantic hurricane season article, however, so it might be more appropriate to pipe-link to those. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Still unresolved

• MOS:NUM -- local times should include minutes (2:00 p.m. EDT, not 2 p.m. EDT.)
• Please link to EDT and UTC for readers unfamiliar with either
• "There was no tropical systems" --> "There were no tropical systems", surely?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:33, 21 February 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 Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [42].

---

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966

The list is complete and covers all 318 recipients within the Kriegsmarine. Every bit of information is cited. I therefore feel that it may qualify for the featured list rating. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise

General Usage of serial commas is inconsistent. The list contains too many red links. Lead "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross [...] and its variants was the highest award [...]" - "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its variants" is plural. "Was" is singular. "At the end of 1944 the last and final grade" - Add a comma after 1944. Three links in the lead link to Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Either de-linked all but the first or make them lead directly to the subsection where the desired information can be found. "29 December 1944 concluded the variants of the Knight's Cross." - Add a comma after 1944. List In the first two sections, there are parentheses around the enactment names, but not in the third section. Why aren't the first two lists sortable by date? "awarded after this date and must be considered "illegal" hand-outs." - Who used the word "illegal"? Footnotes "German National Achieves" - You mean "German National Archives"? (multiple occurences) Sources Citations 2-5 need a language parameter. Otherwise, sources look good. (Including the German ones.) Nice list, good work. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Comments from MisterBee1966 Regarding too many red links: I have written 5 featured lists so far and every time the a coverage of greater than 80% was required. Has this changed recently? 80%? That figure is news to me. Anyways, on re-reviewing I find the amount of red links bearable. Objection withdrawn. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC) [...] and its variants was the highest award [...] done comma after 1944 done parentheses arount enactment done sortable by date done illegal handout: check again it is cited "Fellgiebel 2000, p. 4." I see. But that source is written in German. Meaning, you're using the German word "illegal" as if it were the English word "illegal". Couldn't you say that without a direct quotation, like you did in the lead? -- Goodraise (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC) done please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Achieves/Archives done linking of Knight's Cross done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Citations 2-5 need a language parameter. doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC) serial commas doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Let me explain: "Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds" is with serial comma. "Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds" is without. Either way is acceptable, but you have to choose one and use it everywhere. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I think the only place left was in the infobox to the right. I removed the comma before the "and". I noticed that it may take a while for this effect to be visible. 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: All issues resolved. Sources look good (including the German ones). -- Goodraise (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - well constructed and comprehensive list that meets the criteria. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - A++ list; meets FL criteria. AdjustShift (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Of these, 316 presentations were formally made and two recipients received the award after 11 May 1945, " comparable quantities should be written the same. Seems like some parallelism is going on here. done "cease of all promotions and illegalized all subsequent awards done "and a higher grade, the "-->and as a result, higher grade, the done "the last and final grade" Spot the redundancy. done "Within each of these lists a unique " "Within" can be shortened to "in" unless you are emphasizing the insideness. done The second color of the legend needs an accompanying symbol. doen used the question mark "This along with the * (asterisk), indicates that the Knight's Cross was awarded posthumously." Comma not necessary. done More wordy phrasing: "Ultimately, it would be awarded to "-->It was awarded to done "Nevertheless a number of Knight's Crosses were awarded after this date and have received the medal without legal authority" Comma after "Nevertheless". A subject is needed, the Knight's Crosses did not receive a medal (right now, it reads "Knight's Crosses ... have received the medal..."). done "Also Karl Jäckel received his done "There is no reference of the Oak Leaves awarded to -->There is no reference that the Oak Leaves were awarded to doneDabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC) All issues addressed MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 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 Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [43].

---

Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester

The above list is a complete collection of the Scheduled Monuments (SM) in Greater Manchester, England. The subject is an important one, and SMs are sites of historic importance that are protected from change by legislation. The list features a developed lead and descriptions of each monument in tables. I believe the article fulfils the FL criteria. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll return for a full review later, but for now, my only comment is that there is a dead link and the disambiguation links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The links were easy enough to fix, the reference was used as a back up and wasn't necessary so has been got rid of. Nev1 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Excellent list overall; there are no major issues, just some proofreading things: "is a "nationally important" archaeological site or historic building, given protection against unauthorised change." A bit ambiguous. Is it nationally important in part because it is given protection or is it given protection as a result of being historic? Point taken, changed to emphasise it was important before being protected. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "While Scheduled Monuments can also be recognised as listed buildings" I don't think it should be plural (listed buildings). They were both plural, so there is no conflict, however I have changed it so that they are both singular. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "The metropolitan county of Greater Manchester is made up of 10 metropolitan boroughs" I think "composed of" is a better phrase. Agreed. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "and are the two main areas of Roman activity" Should it be "were"? You're right. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "The stone circle is located near the summit" Done. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "Only six stone"-->Only six stones Done. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "lord of the manors " Should "lord" and "manors" be capitalized? Yes, all occurrences are now capitalised. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "The current structure was built in 1421, however"-->The current structure was built in 1421; however, (on both occurences) Done. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "as a result of Manchester expanding."-->as a result of Manchester's expansion. Done. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "The ditch is visible in sections today" Implied by present tense Done. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "The barrow is oval shaped measures 17 m (19 yd)" Missing a connector I think. Quite right, missing "and" added. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "The base of the stone cross is medieval, however the cross shaft is modern."-->The base of the stone cross is medieval, but the cross shaft is modern. Done. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "The stone cross was of four known crosses marking the medieval route from "-->The stone cross was of four known crosses that marked the medieval route from Quite right, changed. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) "Dried-up square moat surrounding the 18th-century Moat House." I think it would be better if this were a complete sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Expanded. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) The relevant changes are here. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Images File:AstleyGreenCollieryPithead.jpg needs a specific link to where it says that the image is under CC licensing. Done. Nev1 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) File:View of Buckton Castle from below.jpg needs an author and source link. That reminds me that I needed to move that to commons. Done, and now has all the important info. Nev1 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) File:Marple Aqueduct.jpg the image has been deleted from Flickr, so we can't verify that it was under the said license. Replaced with a better image from geograph. Nev1 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) File:Castleshaw plan 1752.jpg Can we have a page number? We need to make it as easy as possible to verify this. A page number would take at least a week as I no longer have the book. Nev1 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Not a pressing issue at all, it can be done after promotion. As long as it is done, I don't care when. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC) File:Hanging Bridge 1892.jpg same. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Done. In fact it was already there but didn't stand out. Nev1 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some comments - mostly look and feel.

• When first looking at the page I was slightly surprised to see the set of images 'start' above the first table. On checking the source I saw that all tables and the image column are part of an outer table - something I hadn't seen done before. I would suggest that you get rid of this outer table and put the images separately in each section (before each individual table). One advantage of this is that you can have images directly next to the table of the district that the depicted monument is in (and thus you don't 'run out' of images half-way down the page).

• Will address this next. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) The problem is there aren't enough images, some sections would be without them (not so bad for Trafford which on has one SM, but Bolton has three and no images) which leads to the tables being different sizes. Also, some sections have too many images, which means they follow on to the next section, looking messy and causing link bunching; this would mean some have to be left out, in an article with not that many images to begin with. Take a look here to see the problems. While it would be desirable to have the images nearer to the appropriate entry, the current ribbon of images is a neat solution to the problems mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I made my original suggestion because there is now a large right margin of white space for nearly half the page. However, if there aren't enough images available there is not a lot you can do about it (except a field trip perhaps). Boissière (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• A few of the image captions don't have wikilinks to the depicted monument.

• Links added for consistency. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think that you need to review the sortability of the columns. In my mind you don't need to sort the description column and if the date and location column are to be sortable then the sort order when you click on them needs to make some sort of sense. Currently both are just doing the default sort on the text of the cell.

• Agreed, the description column does not need to be sortable, the date column is the only one that concerns me, as Bronze Age doesn't sort nicely with dates like 1677. I'm not sure how to fix that, I'll have a look round, there's probably some template or something, like "sortname". Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The sorting now works, I cheated by adding "<span style="display:none">01</span>" where necessary and forcing it to sort chronologically. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's much better. There is one error though, in Wigan the Moat of Moat House is in the wrong place in the date order. Boissière (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

After a couple of attempts, Wigan now sorts properly. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• As all the tables contain the same columns then you need to ensure that the columns line up from table to table.

• The columns are already fixed to a set width, this is pretty much as good as it gets. If the columns don't quite line up, it's because the text inside the columns is too long. For example, for the Bury section, 200 BC–250 AD won't break down into anything smaller because the manual of style requires non-breaking spaces between the numbers and BC/AD. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• (Not look and feel) I am almost certain the the Hanging Bridge is entirely within the city of Manchester and that no part of it is inside Salford. The city boundary in this area is the River Irwell and for the bridge to be in both cities it would have to span this river which it does not do. The cited reference (the Salford city council website) does not explicitly claim that the bridge is in Salford.

• I think you're right, the confusion arose because it's part of the Cathedral conservation area that covers part of the City of Salford. Fixed. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Boissière (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - FLC criteria are met. It's just a pity that the images do not link up better with their descriptions, but I understand the reason for that. This will be improved as more images become available. In the meantime it may be better to place them in the order in which they appear in the list. For example Radcliffe Tower should be lower down, and Mamucium and Hanging Bridge should be swtiched. Otherwise an excellent list with good, short but adequate, descriptions (the editors are fortunate that that there are "only" 38 SMs in the county). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:46, 17 February 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 Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [44].

---

List of Baltimore Orioles Opening Day starting pitchers

I believe this list meets the Featured List criteria, similar to List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Atlanta Braves Opening Day starting pitchers, and other similar featured lists. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - excellent list Flanagan's two Opening Day starts came eight years apart, in 1978 and 1986. - instead of came, how about "occurred" McNally's record of three wins and no losses in Opening Day starts gived him a 100% winning percentage, the best in Orioles history. - 1)gived should be "gave", unless its an English variant 2)no need for the percentage symbol 3)best is WP:POV, "highest" should work better The Orioles played in the World Series championship in 1966, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1979 and 1983, winning in 1966, 1970 and 1983. - Either remove championship or add "game" after championship I don't know, but I just find it weird that you link the other publishers but not the MLB, that's just IMO though.--TRUCO 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I addressed them all, except that I think the percentage sign is needed with the 100% (even though it is stated to be a winning "percentage"). I don't know how I brain farted that "gived". Rlendog (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Its not really a common for these types of list to have the #% winning percentage, its too repetitive.--TRUCO 01:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) It seems odd to me (I think that, if anything, they should all use the percentage sign, since one character is hardly overly reptetative and this is a percentage so without a % it seems like it should be just "1" or maybe "1.000", but then those aren't percentages) but I changed it. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Actually, "winning percentage" is not given as a percentage, but as an average. I know the name is misleading, but it's the proper way to write it. It should actually be a "1.000 winning percentage." KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) I agree with Killervogel, it should be reworded accordingly.--TRUCO 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Rlendog (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 04:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) An excellent list (as always), just a couple things: Link "winning percentage" in the lead. "Flanagan's record of no wins and two losses represents the lowest winning percentage" Not really a representation, it just "is". Change "represents"-->is. "They have had a record of nine wins, four lossess and two no decisions in 15 Opening Day starts at Camden Yards." "had" is not necessary. Dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. I also apologize for botching the Baseball Reference citations. I must have put the list together initially without the work/publisher split and then neglected to check it before submitting the FLC. Rlendog (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• What makes BaseballLibrary.com and Retrosheet reliable sources? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • BaseballLibrary was considered a reliable source for List of New York Yankees Opening Day starting pitchers and List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers, both of which are featured lists. BaseballLibrary is in fact the sole source for much of the information in the Red Sox list.
  • Retrosheet is actually the source for much of the box score information included in Baseball Reference, which is itself considered a reliable source. See for example the attribution at the bottom of this page [45]. It is also heavily used in Sabermetric books researching baseball history. See, for example, the acknnowledgement on page 7 of Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein's Baseball Dynasties book [46] (you may need to search for "Retrosheet" and link to the "Front Matter" item; there is also a 2nd reference to Retrosheet within the book).Rlendog (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification on Retro sheet. For BaseballLibrary, we need to know exactly what kind of fact-checking the website does; that it is used on other FLs mean nothing. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The information I was sourcing from BaseballLibrary was included in the Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference sources anyway, so I removed those citations. I am pretty sure the BaseballLibrary information is good, since it matches up to the other sources, but I do not know how to prove it, and it is unnecessary for this article anyway. Rlendog (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I reinstated the BaseballLibrary source; it was proved reliable at an FAC a while back. Sorry for the trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 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 Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [47].

---

Hughes Medal

Nominator(s): — neuro^(talk), Ironholds (talk)

A Royal Society medal - worked on by myself and Ironholds, seems FLable. — neuro^(talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Note One of the nominators, Neurolysis, is a WikiCup participant. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I asked Garden if I should note that (I listed this before it was mentioned, and he said it didn't matter, in case you are wondering why I didn't do it myself). I don't know FLC etiquette so well, so I just figured it was best to leave it alone once it was announced that it should be mentioned in the opening statement.. — neuro^(talk) 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion said something about it here and here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, didn't see those. Fair enough then. :) — neuro^(talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Initial concern from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) NNDB does not seem to be a reliable source. I had a look around on wikipedia and all mentions at WP:RS/N cast severe doubts over its reliability (here & here), WP:BLP/N sees to come to the same conclusion (here) and has even listed it as an ongoing BLP concern. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Ooh eck. Give me 20 minutes and I will try and find better sourcing. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, working on this too. I was informed that NNDB met RS, but if it doesn't I will work on fishing up some other refs. — neuro(talk) 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Got to go out for a bit, but you can see what is going on here, seems to be coming along alright. — neuro(talk) 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) NNDB stuff done, thanks to Neuro. Ironholds (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Ok, I'm fine with this now. Comments I'd give Michelle Dougherty an explicit cite (list & lead) as she is not listed on the general refs winners page. This should do. General references say "The Royal Society", just Royal Society I think. Ref 5 "JSTOR" is italicised but it isn't for any other of the refs. I notice a few occasions when the Medal has been shared by 2 or 3 people. Do they share the medal and money? How many times has this happened? Those might be worth mentioning in the lead. I am a bit concerned about the image. It appears quite widely on the internet. Looking around I think it is possible it may have originally come from here. I think this could be a copyvio, additionally it was the user's (Gosaldar) only contribution and they did not provide a date they took the photo. All books should have pubishers stated. e.g. refs 22 to 25 are missing along with some others. Refs 5, 7, 42, 43, 50, and 79 all need subscriptions to verify the info. This should be noted in the ref. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC) All fixed; I simply replaced the image in the end. Ironholds (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Woops, forgot about that one. I honestly have no idea if the money is shared; as previously stated, the Royal Society website is the only real source for decent info, and that doesn't say anything. I've added a bit about it being awarded to multiple individuals at a time, though. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, but if you add quotations to the lead they need a cite there too per WP:LEADCITE. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support, all my issues above have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The most recent winner was Michele Dougherty, who was awarded the medal "for innovative use of magnetic field data that led to discovery of an atmosphere around one of Saturn's moons and the way it revolutionised our view of the role of planetary moons in the Solar System". - winner should be "recipient" Done — neuro(talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Why was it named after Hughes? Doing — neuro(talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I assume 'because he died and was popular'. Normally it is either 'X gave us masses of money, so we made a medal for him' or 'X died and we liked him, so we made a medal for him'. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Can that be verified by a source, though?--TRUCO 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Is this going to be added with a source or is it going to be left out?--TRUCO 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Left out; it was more a glib remark than a serious statement. We can verify it is named after him, but we cannot unfortunately verify why. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Okay.--TRUCO 16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Where there any other significant recipients that should be noted in the lead? Doing — neuro(talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) The not awarded entry should sort towards the bottom of the list IMO. Done — neuro(talk) 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Since JSTOR is not elaborated in the article, its acronym should be spelled out in the references. Done — neuro(talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Ref 20 has JSTOR linked, but it should be linked in its first occurrence of ref #5 Done — neuro(talk) 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) I am also skeptical about Notable Names Database, can you prove its fact checking system?--TRUCO 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Doing, removing all NNDBs and replacing with other refs - about half way done. — neuro(talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, going to bed now, don't know if Ironholds will come on later tonight and add some more, if not, they'll all be done by the end of tomorrow. — neuro(talk) 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Until then, I will support.--TRUCO 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Still pending on the sourcing issue.TRUCO 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Sourcing issue close to being resolved, doing the last eight now. — neuro(talk) 01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Done — neuro(talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The only year where no medal "-->The only year in which no medal "Unlike other Royal Society medals such as the Copley Medal, " "such as the Copley Medal" is unnecessary. You might link "other Royal Society medals" to Royal Society#Medals. "J. J. Thompson"-->J. J. Thomson "Frédéric Joliot"-->Frédéric Joliot-Curie "Anthony Hewish"-->Antony Hewish Several dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Publications such as The New York Times (by the way, "The" is part of the title and should be part of the work), the Chicago Tribune and The Telegraph should be in italics. This can be done by changing "publisher" to "work" in the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  All done. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 8 February 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 Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [48].

---

List of FIFA World Cup finals

I've recently reformatted the page to be consistent with other FLs of similar scope. Hopefully it meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note The nominator is in the WikiCup. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) I would explain that the FIFA Cup is used to represent the championship, and that way you can eliminate saying that in this sentence..The Italy national football team were crowned champions after beating the France national football team in the final, and awarded the FIFA World Cup Trophy. The current World Champions, Italy, follow with four titles, while Germany hold three. - "holds" not hold Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) The other former champions are Uruguay (who won the inaugural tournament) and Argentina with two titles each, and England and France with one title each. - it maybe the punctuation but it should be like ..The other former champions are Uruguay (who won the inaugural tournament) and Argentina, with two titles each, and England and France, with one title each. Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) I find it redundant to link to the respective finals article in the World Cup and Final score columns, it should just be in one. In the year column, it's the link to the article about that year's competition. In the Final score column, it's a link to the article about the final match. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) Oh okay.--TRUCO 22:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't Runners-up be "Runner-ups"? Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) Actually, "runners-up" was correct and "runner-ups" is definitely wrong. See dictionary.com -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Changed it back. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) I don't know, but IMO the World cup column should be called "Year" and then a footnote should be added that each year is linked to the respective finals article. Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) What happened to the footnote?--TRUCO 22:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) The image of the cup should be decreased it goes through the first section on my browser (FF). Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) Why is there a lot of extra white space in between the first section's table and the following section's header? Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) In ref #2, if you are going to spell out the acronyms in the other refs, why not spell it out here? Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) --TRUCO 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Thank's for taking a look so quickly! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I would support this nomination since the prose and other related issues were resolved to meet WP:WIAFL, but with the discussion and worry about this being content forking, I will wait to see the outcome of that discussion first before making my final decision.--TRUCO 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I feel that this article is fine to stand alone and is not subject to CFORK in this case.--TRUCO 22:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I think that this article is fine as a stand-alone list. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "after beating the French national football team 5–3 after a penalty shootout." Change the second "after" to "in".

• Done

• "Of these, only eleven have made it to the final match, and only seven have won."

• Done

• "while Germany holds three"-->and Germany holds three

• Done

• Add a note that describes where the hidden year links and the links in the match scores go to. 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Comment from OdinFK (talk) Shouldn't it be mentioned (in a footnote probably), that the 1950 "final" was not a real final but the final game of group play? OdinFK (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done (stolen from the FA FIFA World Cup :) ) Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

Support — I like the list the way it is. I also don't think that this is an unnecessary content fork. Actually some content has to be forked off from the main article, otherwise it will just grow to huge proportions with all there is to say about the World Cup. OdinFK (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

• No need for comma after first four words

• Done

• Ref 1 is before full stop, should be after

• Done

• "The championship has occurred every four years, except in 1942 and 1946, due to World War II." - reword, grammatically speaking this sentence indicates that the championship has occurred every four years due to World War II

• Done

• "Teams compete to win the World Cup Trophy" - very short sentence, should be merged with another one. Also, if you're going to mention the trophy, you should elaborate that a different trophy was used up to and including 1970

• Done

• Is it really necessary in the sentence starting "the most recent...." to write "Italian national football team" in full? Surely "Italy" would suffice? I doubt even the most non-football-savvy person would read "the tournament was won by Italy" and assume that the entire population of the country competed

• Done

• "In the eighteen tournaments held, seventy-five nations have appeared at least once in the World Cup finals tournament." - I suggest that everything after "once" is redundant

• Done

• "The current World Champions.....follows with four titles" - grammatically incorrect. Also I see no real reason for the capitals on World Champions

• Done

• "The other former champions are Uruguay who won the inaugural tournament" - needs comma after Uruguay and tournament

• Done

• In the table, for the two matches that went to a penalty shootout, you have listed the "score" of the shootout itself as the match result. This is completely incorrect, under the laws of association football the result officially recorded is that at the conclusion of on-field play. The score shown in the table should be the score as it stood at the conclusion of normal play, with the "score" of the shootout shown in the footnote.

• Not done (yet). I'm not sure about this one. I get what you're saying, but we're not governed by the laws of football. At the end of the game the winning score is that from the penalties. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "At the end of the game the winning score is that from the penalties". No it isn't, the final score of the game in 2006 was 1-1 (see BBC report), the penalty shoot-out did not form part of the game and was equivalent to a coin toss to decide who got the cup. If the game had been decided by a literal coin toss (as many big games were back in the day) would you show the score as 1-0 ont he grounds that Italy got one "head" to France's nil? We may not be bound by the laws of football, but we are bound by the requirement to present accurate information. The information as presented is inaccurate so unfortunately I have no option but to oppose unless it is rectified (if it's changed, I would support) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• It now shows the Final scores with the penalty results in footnotes. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• In that case Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• As noted above, "runner-ups" is not a real word, should be "runners-up" (as it originally was, in fact)

• Done

• In the footnotes, why are there capital letters on "Full-time" and "Extra time"

• Done

• Do BBC Sport and FIFA need to be wikilinked 20 times each in the refs?

• Not done There's no guarantee that what is currently the first ref will continue to be, and if removed the Wikilink will go with it. There is no harm in linking them each time. WP:OVERLINK states nothing about references.

Looks good apart from these points. The most important issue if the one regarding the scorelines for the 1994 and 2006 finals, which must be corrected as the information as currently presented is inaccurate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I have done all but two. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Oppose - unnecessary content fork of FIFA_World_Cup#Results. A list this size can easily sit within the parent article. Only the stadium and host city of the final match have been added, and these could be added to the existing table with a bit of re-formatting (maybe by giving the third and fourth place teams less prominence). --Jameboy (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your oppose has no validity. The page has existed for over two years with no previous complaints of forking. The Featured list criteria does not mention content forking, which I don't believe this page is. It has eighteen entries in the first table and eleven in the second. That is well above the requirement for a List.

FIFA World Cup is a WP:Featured article, the formatting, layout and information in the table in the Results section is the same now as it was when it was promoted. It was not mentioned at its FAC, or its FAR, where it was kept as a FA.

Your oppose should reflect what is listed at WP:FL?, nothing else.

• Does it meet Wikipedia's general requirements? Yes
• Does it contain professional standards of writing? Hopefully
• Is it comprehensive? Well it has the results for every World Cup final, there are no empty table cells of missing information, it has footnotes to accompany the entries. So yes
• It is easy to navigate? Does it have section headings and table sortability? Yes
• MOS compliant? Yes
• Visually appealing, suitable use of colors, layout and formatting? Yes
• Stable? No edit wars, only needs updating every 4 years. Yes.

I don't see where you're coming from. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have opened a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FIFA World Cup finals to get input from the community. This isn't a WP:POINTY move -- WP:DEL#REASON says Content forks are a reason for delting, and I am happy to let it rest if the community agrees with you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly let me say that as a standalone piece of work, it is excellent, and I hope I wasn't too blunt or disrespectful with my previous comment. You are correct, it deserves to be a featured list based purely on the list criteria, but if content forking is not part of the list criteria, I think it should be. Given that that the user is quite likely to have navigated from FIFA World Cup to this list, I think he or she would be disappointed to see the same information repeated - the list has to offer them something more. Increasing numbers of lists are appearing that, while well-produced and informative and great standalone pieces, fail to ask the questions "should I exist?" and "where do I fit in"? If stating my opposition based on such things is invalid, then fair enough, I accept that. I guess this is a wider point that I should take up at WP:Lists and WP:FL. --Jameboy (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Comment - Another pointless list that should be the centre piece of the main FIFA World Cup article, not split off onto a separate article. I see the AFD raised this morning was closed on a technicality within a very short space of time. Perhaps putting a mergeto tag here would be a better idea. - fchd (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the main World Cup article again, all the information in this list is already there, albeit in a slightly less-readable form. Therefore, I suggest just copying the two tables and the references to replace those in the main article, and making this a redirect. - fchd (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I rather think this is the wrong forum to discuss that. Here we discuss the list and decide if it is worthy of being listed at WP:FL based on the FL criteria. Content forks should be discussed at a different venue, either WP:AfD or WP:Proposed mergers. I had opened a disussion at AfD, but it was closed after an hour by an admin who apparently had not read WP:GD for it says, "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

---

• Oppose as fork of FIFA World Cup#Results. The fact it existed for two years has no bearing on whether it is suitable as a standalone article. Given the list's relative brevity, I would recommend merge & redirect into the main page. Qwghlm (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your oppose is invalid based on WP:FL?. I'll discuss whether the list meets the criteria, but not whether it deserves to exist. This isn't the right forum for that. Take it to WP:AfD or WP:Proposed mergers and I'll be happy to discuss it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Even though this is an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I'd like to point out that many such "content-fork" like lists have been promoted at FLC in the past eight months. For example, by some of the opposers' reasoning, just about everything at Template:NBA head coaches by team could be nominated for deletion, even though 80% of those articles are Featured lists or good quality (those not eligible to be featured). Same with Template:MLB managers by team. As I said, perhaps invalid, but consider that there may be a precedent set at FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Content forks, because this discussion has the potential to affect many FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest we place this nomination on hold until a discussion about it being either a valid stand-alone article or a content fork takes place in the appropriate venue -- WP:AfD or WP:PM. We at FLC cannot decide that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

---

• Generally I favour larger lists/articles, but I'm ok with this as is. Support. Tony (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

---

• I also think this is fine as a stand-alone article. Does FIFA World Cup even need a list? I don't think removing that table from the main article would do any harm; directly below it is a list of finalists with all winners and runners-up. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments - Actually, I didn't support above. I merely said that I thought it was an appropriate list for Wikipedia to have. As long as I'm here, I might as well offer a full review. I probably don't do enough reviewing at FLC anyway, considering that I have five FLs myself. Wish we had 36 hours in a day to make things easier.

• Unneeded links in the lead: Germany (country, not national team) and South Africa. Also multiple links to Italy national football team and France national football team.
• What are your thoughts on making the table key its own section? It looks like it doesn't cover the Results by nation section, when it is meant to.
• Here's an innovative one: How about offering a note in the key that the links in the Winners and Runners-up columns go to national teams? They're a lot more valuable than straight country links, which are what they appear to be at first glance.
• Footnote 3: Take "also" out of the parenthetical part?
• Is the TM mark needed in reference 5?

Very good list overall, and I'll be happy to support for real when these are done. You also might want to put ChrisTheDude in your summary above. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have made the necessary changes and removed you from the summary below. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Italy and South Africa links are still in. Do you want to leave them? I'm not really worried about the South Africa link, but am not crazy about having duplicate links in the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've now fixed it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Not really convinced by the rationale of the opposers, and it's a high-quality list that meets the standards. I noticed that a new paragraph has been added, and I'll make any needed fixes myself when I get a chance to read it closely. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Oppose There isn't enough context for the list to stand alone as it is currently written. At no point are we told what a World Cup final actually is, i.e. that it is a one off match with extra time if required etc. Since the Maracanazo was not actually a World Cup final as such, the explanation for its inclusion should be described fully in the text, not hidden away in a footnote. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do about it being a stand-alone article. I still feel FLC is the wrong forum to discuss it. I've tried to address your point about describing what the final is, and the Rules of the Game for the match. Since the refs, including FIFA, verify the claim that the 1950 final is the final, and since the article does discribe the discrepancy, I'm leaving it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean not to debate as to whether the article should exist, but to say that it ought to be able to stand up without having to refer to other articles to get context. For penalties, it'd be useful to put that they have been the tiebreaker since [year] - the rules used to be different. I'd much prefer an explanation for 1950 in the prose. It wouldn't take much, a paragraph starting something like "The tournament has been decided by a one-off match on every occasion except 1950, when..." Oldelpaso (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Done - I have moved the footnote and put it in the lead section. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Support - Excellent piece of work here, meets the criteria and is fully deserving of that little bronze star. Great work. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Summarising !votes of those who have commented

(as of 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

• User:Dabomb87 Supports
• User:Tony1 Supports
• User:ChrisTheDude Supports
• User:OdinFK Supports
• User:Giants2008 Supports
• User:Rambo's Revenge Supports
• User:Sunderland06 Supports
• User:Jameboy Opposes on WP:CFORK but notes it is an excellent piece and "it deserves to be a featured list based purely on the list criteria"
• User:Qwghlm Opposes on WP:CFORK
• User:Oldelpaso Opposes
• User:Richard Rundle has not opposed but also feels its a CFORK
• User:Truco Supports is holding back from supporting or nominating due to the CFORK issue

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What was the outcome of this anyhow? I haven't really followed and the discussion at WT:FLC is a bit confusing.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The FLC is still open; there is still no consensus on the validity of this page's existence. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

---

• I have made two minor copyediting changes. I support the prose and list, and abstain from commenting on the CFORK issue. I'll let Matthew or Scorpion make that decision for us. :P Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Note Odelpaso is on a WikiBreak. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 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 Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [49].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse

I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all requirements and I have made improvements to the article based on a peer review session. Hopefully this awards list can join the other wonderful featured lists relating to awards and nominations won by musicians. Thanks so much! -Whataworld06 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed the article during its peer review and I now find it up to FL standards.--TRUCO 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Due to the success"-->Because of the success Done. "under Island Records throughout"-->under Island Records in Done. "Several of Winehouse' singles have charted around the globe"-->"Several of Winehouse' singles have charted worldwide" Comment: "Around worldwide"? Or just "have charted worldwide"? DONE. "Normaly " Typo. Done. "mtvU both provides Done. "12 months prior to the"-->12 months before the Done. ", as voted on by teens" Use "teenagers", it is a slightly more formal register. Done. "Best International Female Artist - Rock/Pop" Should be an en dash. Done. "Performing Right Society" I think it calls itself something different now. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Now states: "...sponsored by PRS for Music (previously The Performing Right Society)." Sources What makes http://acharts.us/song/11232 a reliable source? Comment: I am not sure if a discussion has occurred regarding the reliability of this source, but I have seen it used for other featured articles/lists. For example: 50 Cent discography, Maroon 5 discography, and Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. We need something better than that. To determine the reliablity 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 reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC) I have replaced the acharts references with Billboard sources displaying American and European chart positions. If this is not enough, please let me know. Thanks! Done. Likewise http://www.belgovision.com/en/index_f.php?id=4685? Comment: I can replace the source with this one, though it is in Spanish. This Billboard article mentions Amy Winehouse being nominated, but doesn't specify "Rehab" as the nominated work. I am not sure how to display the Spanish source, but it has the information needed and it's directly from Premios 40 Principales. Add both refs. For the Spanish ref, add language=Spanish to the template. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC) DONE. Likewise http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/winehouse%20grammy%20gig%20up%20for%20creative%20business%20honour_1091853? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Comment: How about I replace the source with this BMI article? Or even this BBC article? -Whataworld06 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Either is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Done. -Whataworld06 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Oops - I didn't realize there were 2 CM references used. I have not corrected the above yet. Working on that now... -Whataworld06 (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC) I have replaced the source with this. I hope this meets requirements for reliability. DONE. I believe I have corrected all concerns raised and suggestions made, Dabomb87. Thank you so much for your assistance, and please let me know if there is anything else that can be done. -Whataworld06 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. I don't like this one, because all the small section give me brain ache. But this is a result of the short career, so cannot be helped. As i find nothing actionable to change, i think it matches all the criteria.Yobmod (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Struk support, after seeing a better formatting possible.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• She is best known for her eclectic mix of various musical genres including soul, jazz, rock and roll and R&B. Ref?
• Since refs 1-7 all go to Billboard pages, can they be replaced with the Billboard page for Winehouse? I'm pretty sure that will link to those pages anyway.
• I'm also not a fan of the many small sections. Have you looked at List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations, a recently promoted FL with a different layout style?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

oohm strongly agree that the List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations type formate is prefferable. Will support is something like that is enacted.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

All music awards lists use this format. The problem with the Old Men format is that there are no descriptions of the individual awards. Readers shouldn't have to click on every award link to find out what it is. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. The list I created is similar to most of the other Featured Lists relating to awards and nominations received by a particular artist. I think wikipedia users will appreciate the consistency. -Whataworld06 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But the alternate format allows sorting by year, which would be very useful. I can't support a format all becasue other reviewers have accepted it in the past, when that format results in poor readability, as it does in this case. The idea that creating tables with a single entry is the best wikipedia can do is simply not true. But i don't oppose, staying neutral.

Episode lists manage to have continuous sortable lists and detailed descriptions, so it is possible for these too, no?.

And they clearly don't all use this format, as we have an example that doesn't (supported by some of the same people that are supporting here.) So both formats are acceptable, and i think for this one the current format is the wrong one, sorry!Yobmod (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I only said that all music awards lists use this format. You may be right that the other format is better, but consistency is important, as shown in this discussion. I think there should be an independent discussion on this, not one that confined to those who participate in FLCs. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [50].

---

Nashville Sounds all-time roster

I believe this list meets all the requirements to become a Featured List. If promoted, it will be the first all-time baseball team roster to reach FL status. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• Note: I peer reviewed this list and support its inclusion as a featured list after the correction of the following concerns/suggestions.

• Captions that are complete sentences need to end with full stops/periods. I think that this only applies to the lead image at this time.
• I would like to see expansion of the captions for any players who are franchise leaders and have pictures, since these are important facts to note.

Other than that, excellently done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• All done. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) How many more articles do have left for your Featured topic? "Of that number"-->Of those players "where it remained through 1984"-->in which it competed through 1984 "Three former Sounds players have gone on to win a"-->Three former Sounds players have to won a "Since 2005, Nashville has been the top farm team of the Milwaukee Brewers." Can you explain what it means to be the "top" farm team? In the image captions, be more descriptive. It is not clear what name (year) means—other than the name of the player pictured. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Done. The change in the third bullet didn't make sense; I think you meant to leave out the "to". I changed the text to "Three former Sounds players have won a...". Changed "top farm team" to "Triple-A farm team". I added to the captions. Are they what you had in mind? After this list, the topic is 3 FLs away from FT. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, sorry about the confusion, I was typing in a hurry. Will return Dabomb87 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - nice job! Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - wow no problems, meets WP:WIAFL. Though, I would request an image review.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Images check out and are all licensed/tagged properly. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:56, 10 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [51].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2004 (U.S.)

The list was recently peer reviewed, and I feel it meets the criteria. Regards, Efe (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - due to the sourcing and a couple prose problems. Lead The proper acronym for the United States is "U.S." not US. Its now acceptable. --Efe (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Says who?--TRUCO 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Both are acceptable; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). While U.S. is more common in American English, there is no reason to change styles. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the supporting comment. I have also given him a link just below this one. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) In 2004, 13 acts each achieved a first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest, namely: Sleepy Brown, Twista, Kanye West, Jamie Foxx, Lil Jon, Fantasia Barrino, Juvenile, Soulja Slim, Terror Squad, Ciara, Petey Pablo, Snoop Dogg, and Pharell. - 1)namely should be "most notably" 2)13 acts achieved their first U.S. single, however, you stated "most notably" as if you were only going to list a few, but you listed all of them, so this should be reworded 3)If you are to list them all, list them in alphabetical order Its not randomly listed; its based on whose single first topped the chart. But it could be alphabetized, too. A mere editorial preference. --Efe (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I never said they were randomly listed, I said that the way the sentence is worded makes it seem like you are going to list only a few of those 13, yet you list all 13, which is why I stated that the sentence should be reworded accordingly. Its not a editorial preference, its unprofessional for them to be in any random order.--TRUCO 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I think its in MoS, or some MoS guys. --Efe (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC) So what do you suggest now? --Efe (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC) It's not in the MOS, its a standard of other FLs as well, because its unprofessional to list the people in any random order. In addition, reword accordingly as I mentioned above.--TRUCO 00:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Here, I trimmed it: "In 2004, 13 acts each achieved a first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest, including Fantasia Barrino, Ciara, Jamie Foxx, Lil Jon, Petey Pablo, Pharell and Kanye West." Sorry about the MoS thing. That was supposed to respond question number one. --Efe (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC) That's fine. But like I stated in my first point, US is not correct, its "U.S." (the proper acronym).--TRUCO 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) U.S. is the original acronym but US has generally been used nowadays: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. --Efe (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC) During the year, seven collaboration singles reached number-one position. - add "the" before reached You mean this: "During the year, seven collaboration singles the reached number-one position." Perhaps you mean "During the year, seven collaboration singles reached the number-one position." But I think its meaningfully the same as "During the year, seven collaboration singles reached number-one position." --Efe (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, I did mean the latter.--TRUCO 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed. --Efe (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Barrino and Ciara were the only acts to have earned number-one debut single this year. - add an "a" before number-one debut Fixed as suggested. --Efe (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC) R&B singer Usher had four number-one singles that appeared in the 2004 issues, and Outkast had two. - issues? You mean "charts"? Issues refer to the charts, as explained in the above part of the lead. --Efe (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Usher's "Yeah!" is the longest-running number-one single of 2004, staying at that position for 12 straight weeks. - it would be better stated as Usher's "Yeah!" is the longest-running number-one single of 2004, remaining in that position for 12 straight weeks Fixed. --Efe (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Other singles with extended chart run include Ciara "Goodies", which features Petey Pablo, and Usher's "My Boo", which features Alicia Keys, each topping the chart for seven and six weeks, respectively. - Ciara should be "Ciara's" Oops, fixed now. --Efe (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) He had four singles that topped the Billboard Hot 100, namely: "Yeah!, "Burn", "Confessions Part II", and "My Boo"; he is the only act in 2004 to have earned multiple number-one singles. - namely is being misused here, it should be a related phrase to "most notably" I don't like to use that because its tends to be POVic. Also, when you say most notably, you only mentioning part of the entire list. In this case, I mentioned the four singles. --Efe (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Okay.--TRUCO 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC) The feat broke the record set by Glenn Miller and His Orchestra; in 1940, their records spent 26 consecutive weeks at the top spot of Record Buying Guide, a jukebox chart Billboard magazine published in the late 1930s and early '40s. - the semi colon should be after 1940 (so replace that comma with the semi colon) Either way, they convey the same meaning. But I fixed it as suggested. --Efe (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Chart history Checks out fine References Only one publishing source is being used, which is a primary source. Third party sources should be found to include more variety in the referencing.--TRUCO 04:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Most of its FL precedents use only Billboard magazine as source. --Efe (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Those were probably promoted before the FL sourcing criteria was strictly enhanced. See WP:PSTS.--TRUCO 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC) How about List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (United States). --Efe (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC) That list has references to other sources as well, not just Billboard.TRUCO 00:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC) This sourcing issue is the only thing keeping me from supporting.--TRUCO 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC) I have added one from MTV but I will still try to search for more. --Efe (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Try searching newspapers, magazines, or other published work online.--TRUCO 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I am actually reluctant to add some more non-Billboard sources because everything are well sourced. --Efe (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I know what you mean, but this is an issue also brought up at FAC per WP:PSTS. With at least two non-primary sources, the list will be fine. Variety is just needed.--TRUCO 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC) OK, I understand. --Efe (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Added two non-Billboard sources to support one line there. --Efe (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Perfect.--TRUCO 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "In 2004, 13 acts each achieved " Redundant Removing it would result to ambiguity. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) I don't understand how "each" influences the meaning of the sentence. Where is the ambiguity? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) To clarify that each act achieved a first US number-one single. --Efe (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) But even as "In 2004, 13 acts achieved...", it is understood that they are 13 separate acts. Also, looking at the sentence more and more, I do not think "achieved" is the correct verb. Maybe "released"? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Seems awkward. Number-one singles are not released, they are achieved/gained/earned, although they were literally released. --Efe (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) OK, but what of "each"? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC) What about this: "In 2004, 13 acts achieved first U.S. number-one single". --Efe (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC) OK, but you are missing a "their" after "achieved". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Done. --Efe (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) "trying the record set in 2003." I suspect that "trying" is not the intended word here. Oh, sorry. It should be tying. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) "on the top spot had reached" Redundant Removed. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) "is the most-successful act" Hyphen not really necessary here. Yeah. Thanks for that. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) "He had four singles that topped the Billboard Hot 100, namely: "Yeah!," Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I removed it but can you grammatically explain why? Truco said there was a misuse of this word, but I can't figure out why. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Two reasons: a)It is redundant (the colon makes it clear that the following items are the singles); b)A colon should be preceded by a grammatical sentence; "namely" makes the sentence ungrammatical. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) All comments have been addressed. Thanks for the review, Dabom. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support as long as you fix these minor points:
  • No need for comma after "physical sales" in the first para

• Done. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Missing word in "such extended chart run" in the last para

• You mean "in such extended chart run"? --Efe (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• "becoming the first act to have achieved such extended chart run on the Billboard Hot 100" should be "becoming the first act to have achieved such an extended chart run on the Billboard Hot 100" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Missing "s" in "Other singles with extended chart run" in the third para

• You mean chart runs? Although I am no expert on grammar, I think its already fine. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Other singles with extended chart run include" should be "Other singles with extended chart runs include" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Four mis-spellings of "Bronson" in the refs

• Only found one. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood my comment. "Bronson" is the correct spelling, but it was mis-spelt four times as "Bonson". Please correct each instance of "Bonson" to "Bronson"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Looks spot-on other than that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments and support. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• All done. --Efe (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Then I fully support :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 13 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [52].

---

Pantera discography

One, two, three, four... (Better than leave this blank.) Cannibaloki 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The band's major-label debut, 1990's Cowboys from Hell, peaked at number 27 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart,[1] and was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). - it should be made aware that Billboard is an American organization since this band charted on international charts as well Done. The following year, Cowboys from Hell: The Videos was released; it included all video clips produced for Cowboys from Hell as well as additional material. This video was certified gold by the RIAA. - comma before as well Done. Pantera's second major-label album, Vulgar Display of Power (1992), reached number 44 on the Billboard 200,[1] and was later certified platinum in Australia and the United States. - 1)It was certified in Australia by the respective industry, so the name of the industry should be given not the country's name and the United States should be replaced with the "RIAA" Done. Vulgar Display of Power was backed by the singles "Mouth for War" and "Walk"; both songs received music videos that were included on 1993's Vulgar Video. - was backed by is not featured wording, replace with "included" Vulgar Display of Power included the singles "Mouth for War" and "Walk"; both songs received music videos that were included on 1993's Vulgar Video. Well use a synonym for "included" because "backed by" is not professionally worded.--TRUCO 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Vulgar Display of Power produced two singles, "Mouth for War" and "Walk"; both songs received music videos that were included on 1993's Vulgar Video.--Cannibaloki 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Perfect.--TRUCO 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC) After touring for two years, the group released Far Beyond Driven (1994), which debuted atop of the Billboard 200 and ARIA charts,[1][3] and reached the top five in Sweden and United Kingdom, and was certified platinum in Canada and the U.S. - 1)It should be made aware that the ARIA charts are Australian 2)add "the" before United Kingdom Done. If my suggestions are taken, you may have to fix up the formatting of the "U.S./United States" instances accordingly. Done. The album produced three singles, "5 Minutes Alone", "I'm Broken", and the Black Sabbath cover, "Planet Caravan"; the last, reached the top 30 in the U.S. Mainstream Rock Tracks and UK singles chart. - 1)Wouldn't it be better to make the comma before the singles a colon, and then make the semi colon an emdash (the longer one) 2)Whether you take my suggestion or not, the and before the Black Sabbath cover and place it before Planet Caravan 3)the last should be the latter Done. The Great Southern Trendkill (1996) peaked at numbers two and four on Australia and U.S., respectively, and reached the top five in Finland and New Zealand. - 1)It should be made aware that the topic is about the charts not the country in general 2)link to the Finland/New Zealand charts? Done. It was certified platinum in the U.S. and Australia. Pantera's final studio album, Reinventing the Steel (2000), became their second release to peak at numbers two and four on Australia and U.S., respectively. - it should be made aware that these are the charts, it is awkwardly written like this Done. The best-of album Far Beyond the Great Southern Cowboys' Vulgar Hits! (2003), which combined the titles of the band's four major-label albums, was released in the U.S. - shouldn't there be another period after U.S.? Since the period that's there belongs to the acronym? Done. Although it only reached number 38 on the Billboard 200, it was certified platinum. - certified platinum by ___? Done.--Cannibaloki 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Discography For the 1996 box set, can the content be added or an emdash, an empty box is not really appealing. Other than that, the discography checks out fine. Done.--Cannibaloki 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC) References How reliable is Zobbel.de? This is where its info comes from. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC) That's good for me.--TRUCO 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) External links The link should say "Pantera official website" or anything related.--TRUCO 22:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Done.--Cannibaloki 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Are you absolutely sure that "Cowboys From Hell" and "Cemetery Gates" weren't released as singles? I mean, the band's template at the bottom of the page disagrees with this discography.
  • Those you mentioned were released as [one-track] radio promos, not singles.
• I'd consider removing the refs from the lead as everything is obviously referenced again. indopug (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.--Cannibaloki 21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Pantera formed in the early 1980s, and" Comma not necessary.
• "it included all video clips"
• "as well as additional material." Delete this phrase. "included" means that there is additional material.
• "This video was"-->The video was
• "by the Australian Recording Industry Association and by the RIAA."
• "both songs received music videos" What do you mean by "received"?
• "which debuted atop of the U.S. Billboard 200 and Australian ARIA charts, and reached the top five in Sweden and the United Kingdom, and was certified platinum in Canada and the U.S.."-->which debuted atop of the U.S. Billboard 200 and Australian ARIA charts, reached the top five in Sweden and the United Kingdom, and was certified platinum in Canada and the U.S.
• "—the latter, reached" Delete comma and make em dash a semicolon.
• "the top five in Finland" "in"-->on.
• "Although it only reached number 38 on the Billboard 200, was certified platinum by RIAA." Insert "the album" before "was". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• The lead needs an inline citation. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For?--Cannibaloki 15:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • "Later in that year, Pantera broke up and the band members formed the groups Damageplan, Down, and Superjoint Ritual." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Done.--Cannibaloki 19:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• "Elektra Entertainment Group"-->Elektra Records Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • All done!--Cannibaloki 21:56, 3 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [53].

---

List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1)

Peer review, Previous FLC, Collectonian informed, Dabomb87 informed, Rambo's Revenge informed

Most of my rational can be found on the page of the previous FLC. The list has been copyedited by Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (informed of FLC) and I have removed the unsourced episode in question. Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to question on my talk page: I don't see a problem with citing the episode, as long as the information is not controversial. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Undid the removal and cited the episode. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise

Comments "The English adaptation is licensed by Media Blasters" - Ok, that leaves the question: Who created the English adaptation? Well, Media Blasters did. I'm not entirely sure how to reference this fact, so please check the fix I made. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) How about "The anime was licensed for an English adaptation by Media Blasters"? -- Goodraise (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I've tried something else and removed the words "English adaptation" altogether. Hopefully, this solves the problem. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I'm anything but an expert on English prose, but that whole sentence just doesn't seem right to me. You're squeezing so much information into it, it reads like it's crying for mercy. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Third time's a charm. I've split the sentences. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC) The ELs don't seem to be relevant to season 1 in particular. Move to Ah! My Goddess? -- Goodraise (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not sure I know what you mean. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) From WP:EL: "Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." - In other words: These external links have no more relevance to season 1 than to season 2 or to Belldandy. It seems they're just there for the purpose of having an EL section. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Oh wow, when you said EL I thought episode list!? and was utterly confused. I've removed the section. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 22:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support My issues with the prose have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Did we ever get confirmation on whether http://cal.syoboi.jp/tid/521/time was reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything. I removed it in an earlier revision, but apparently I reverted that. Anyway, I've removed it for now. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Meets the criteria, as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there a better reference (possibly foreign language) to use instead of (with) reference 1, because the encyclopedia section of Anime News Network is editable by anyone and therefore not considered very reliable.

• In general, that source is widely accepted when it comes to anime episode list FLCs. That being said, I'll go take a look anyway. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've fixed the refs as best I can. Most of the refs indicate that the songs were the openings or endings, but do not confirm the episode numbers. I could just cite the episodes themselves if you would like, as the episodes do list the opening and closing tracks and the artist's name when the credits roll. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• None of these citations are actually needed. Everything they are used to cite should be verifiable from the episodes themselves. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• In the episode summaires try not to be too colloquial – e.g. I noticed the word "dorm" in episode 1 & 2

• Fixed the "dorm." NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:35, 10 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [54].

---

List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks

This article was previously reviewed for Featured List status, but back then, there were not many other NFL "starting quarterbacks" lists. Some objected to the format of the list but now that others have seemed to copy off my idea, I think it's ready to be passed. There are many references and it has been updated thoroughly. conman33 (. . .talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - prose/formatting issues Lead The Kansas City Chiefs are a professional American football team based in Kansas City, Missouri. The Chiefs are a member of the Western Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL). - there is no reason to give an acronym for the AFC since its not mentioned again in the article. Numerous backup quarterbacks have successfully led the franchise in the starter's absence, most notably Mike Livingston and Rich Gannon. - why are they notable? Davidson played with the franchise from 1960 to 1962,[4] by then Len Dawson was acquired through free agency and played for the Chiefs . - wouldn't it be "Texans/Chiefs"? In addition, remove the extra space between Chiefs and the period Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City including Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon. - comma before including In the 2008 season, the team's most recent, the Chiefs alternated the starting quarterback position between Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen. - I know it sounds redundant, but you need to state that it was the team's most recent "season" Thigpen played in 11 games in the 2008 season following season-ending injuries Croyle and Huard, but managed to lead the Chiefs to a 1-10 record as starting quarterback. - this sentence does not make sense, I hope you spot the error towards the middle of the sentence Starting quarterbacks The team's primary starting quarterback, or the quarterback that started at the beginning of the season, is listed first. The number of games started in the season is listed in small parentheses. Statistics do not include post-season starts. - this would be best represented in a table key not in words Starting quarterbacks by season (1960–2008) - is it necessary to have (1960-2008) in the header? Its not like there are sections broken up to represent other eras. Having the starting quarterbacks column sortable isn't the best idea because some entries have two people and it really isn't representative. Either, remove the sortability function for that column or list each season more than once and list the quarterbacks in each of those extra instances Notes Since the 1978 NFL season all teams have played 16-game schedules. - comma after season Strikes by the National Football League Players Association in the 1982 and 1987 seasons resulted in shortened seasons (9- and 15-game schedules, respectively). - why does the 9 have a dash next to it? Blackledge started the first six games of the 1984 season before Kenney was retained as the starter after a thumb injury. - comma before before In 2006, Huard filled in for an injured Green after Green suffered a concussion in the first game of the season and threw 11 touchdowns and only one interception. Green returned in week 11 and finished the season with 7 touchdowns and 9 interceptions. - its irrelevant to say his game stats By Week 3 of the 2008 season, Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen had all started one game each.[6] Both Croyle and Huard suffered injuries in their respective starts in Weeks 1 nand 2. - typo on and Be consistent, link all the players name mentioned in the notes or don't link them at all. Note A, B, C, D, and G need verification by a source. References The section called notes under the table should be called "footnotes" and the "further reading" section should be called "References", or you could rename this section to "References" and make the book a general reference and the rest specific references as seen here--TRUCO 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) (Resolved comments by nominator) Lead The Kansas City Chiefs are a professional American football team based in Kansas City, Missouri. The Chiefs are a member of the Western Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL). - there is no reason to give an acronym for the AFC since its not mentioned again in the article. - DONE Numerous backup quarterbacks have successfully led the franchise in the starter's absence, most notably Mike Livingston and Rich Gannon. - why are they notable? - DONE - Removed, this was from History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks, but being this is an article about starters, it's not notable here. Davidson played with the franchise from 1960 to 1962,[4] by then Len Dawson was acquired through free agency and played for the Chiefs . - wouldn't it be "Texans/Chiefs"? In addition, remove the extra space between Chiefs and the period - DONE - changed from "Chiefs" to "franchise" Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City including Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon. - comma before including - DONE In the 2008 season, the team's most recent, the Chiefs alternated the starting quarterback position between Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen. - I know it sounds redundant, but you need to state that it was the team's most recent "season" - DONE - added "(2008)" in parentheses, link to 2008 season article Thigpen played in 11 games in the 2008 season following season-ending injuries Croyle and Huard, but managed to lead the Chiefs to a 1-10 record as starting quarterback. - this sentence does not make sense, I hope you spot the error towards the middle of the sentence - DONE - re-worded, hope it's better Starting quarterbacks The team's primary starting quarterback, or the quarterback that started at the beginning of the season, is listed first. The number of games started in the season is listed in small parentheses. Statistics do not include post-season starts. - this would be best represented in a table key not in words Starting quarterbacks by season (1960–2008) - is it necessary to have (1960-2008) in the header? Its not like there are sections broken up to represent other eras. - DONE - removed Having the starting quarterbacks column sortable isn't the best idea because some entries have two people and it really isn't representative. Either, remove the sortability function for that column or list each season more than once and list the quarterbacks in each of those extra instances - DONE - changed to unsortable, The last review I underwent told me to change this to a sortable table. Notes Since the 1978 NFL season all teams have played 16-game schedules. - comma after season - DONE Strikes by the National Football League Players Association in the 1982 and 1987 seasons resulted in shortened seasons (9- and 15-game schedules, respectively). - why does the 9 have a dash next to it? - DONE - "9-" was added as if it were to say "9-game" or "15-game" Blackledge started the first six games of the 1984 season before Kenney was retained as the starter after a thumb injury. - comma before before - DONE In 2006, Huard filled in for an injured Green after Green suffered a concussion in the first game of the season and threw 11 touchdowns and only one interception. Green returned in week 11 and finished the season with 7 touchdowns and 9 interceptions. - its irrelevant to say his game stats - DONE - That must have been added in by someone else, I agree that it's not relevant. By Week 3 of the 2008 season, Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen had all started one game each.[6] Both Croyle and Huard suffered injuries in their respective starts in Weeks 1 nand 2. - typo on and - DONE Be consistent, link all the players name mentioned in the notes or don't link them at all. - DONE Note A, B, C, D, and G need verification by a source. References The section called notes under the table should be called "footnotes" and the "further reading" section should be called "References", or you could rename this section to "References" and make the book a general reference and the rest specific references as seen here - DONE TO-DO Insert table to replace "The team's primary starting quarterback, or the quarterback that started at the beginning of the season, is listed first. The number of games started in the season is listed in small parentheses. Statistics do not include post-season starts." - DONE Sortable or unsortable columns? - DONE We'll need a consensus. Like I said, the previous FL review I made told me to change the table into a sortable format, but now I'm told to make it unsortable. If unsortable, should I remove the templates that make names easy to sort? All recently promoted sports lists of people (football and basketball) do not use sortable tables. I say that sorting isn't necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Note A, B, C, D, and G need verification by a source. - DONE Found link for Note B (1978 season) and Note C (strikes). Removed 3 notes detailing injuries that made Dawson/Livingston, Grbac/Gannon, and Green/Huard rotate the starting job. This sounds too detailed and if anybody wants to read up on them, check out History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks or their own respective articles. I felt they were too much and irrelevant in a broad sense. conman33 (. . .talk) 06:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Well, when all my comments have been addressed, notify me.--TRUCO 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) It looks much better, the only thing, however, is that links to the proper seasons should be linked in the lead. In addition, the year column should be made sortable. Lastly, the last part of the lead should be part of the second paragraph, its too short to stand alone on by itself.--TRUCO 14:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC) DONE conman33 (. . .talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Disambiguation links need to be fixed.
  • DONE conman33 (. . .talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The Chiefs have had 31 starting quarterbacks in their franchise's history." Move this sentence to the start of the next paragraph.
• "Cotton Davidson was the team's first starting quarterback, playing all 14 games for the Texans in their inaugural 1960 season." A bit clumsy, try: "Cotton Davidson was the team's first starting quarterback; he played all 14 games for the Texans in their inaugural 1960 season."
• "Davidson played with the franchise from 1960 to 1962, by then Len Dawson was acquired through free agency and played for the franchise for 14 seasons" a) What happened to Davidson, did they release him? b) the sentence structure is off—"by then" doesn't belong here.
• "following the Chiefs' victory in Super Bowl IV"-->after the Chiefs' victory in Super Bowl IV
• "Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City, including Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon." You say three, but "including" means that there are more. Reword to "Three future Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks started for Kansas City: Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon."
• "After Croyle and Huard were sidelined by injuries, Thigpen played in 11 games, winning one and losing ten games."
• "Thigpen remained the starter through the remainder of the season." Change "remained"-->was. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Refs 88 and 89 need publishers. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DONE conman33 (. . .talk) 01:34, 4 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [55].

---

List of number-one albums of 1983 (U.S.)

I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think the reference titles should be changed a bit. Right now all of the last half of references on that page say The Billboard 200. For example this link is about the Week Of Jan 01 1983. but all of your references from 17-69 say The Billboard 200. I think for all those reference titles should include the week for reference title. So for example, change "The Billboard 200" forJanuary 1 column to --> "The Billboard 200 for The Week of Jan 01, 1983" and so on for every other citation. --Gman124 ^talk 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Changed References. Frcm1988 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • now Support --Gman124 ^talk 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• I feel some of the information on Thriller is more relevant to the 1984 page, not this page. For example, only 6 of the 7 singles were released in 1983. "Thriller" was released in 1984 and was one of the reasons the album spent 15 weeks at number one in 1984. His Grammy awards are more relevant to the 1984 page because they helped the album sell well in 1984.

• I agree with you in the singles part, since you know more about Jackson than me, did you have any suggestions for any relevant information about the album for this year? In the awards part, it may helped the album sell in 1984, but the 26th Grammy Awards are for accomplishments from the year 1983.
  • Nothing really, you can take any relevant information from Michael Jackson or Thriller (album) if you want it. I think you have the main points, just that some of them are more relevant to the 1984 page, which currently lacks info on why the album was the best selling of 84 as well. Note that his visit to the White house also boosted sales in 84.

• Ok I will changed the singles part an mention that 6 singles were released in 1983 and 2 of them reached number-one, and I will remove the part of the 7 singles and put it in the 1984 list. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I fixed that part, and I will put the removed information in the 1984 list. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Inconsistency with the number formatting in the lead (and caption).

• Changed

• I can still see examples where where you have twenty-two and then 25.

• Sorry I missed that one

• Is there a reason that you mention none US act's nationalities but don't do the same for American act's?

• In the list for 1999 another reviewer told me to remove the American nationalities since the list is American

• Personally I don't think nationality needs mentioning at all, but it's no big issue.

• • I'll add more as I see it. — R² 12:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) There were six number-one albums on this chart in 1983, including the debut album of the Australian band Men at Work, Business as Usual, which spent the last seven weeks of 1982 and the first eight weeks of 1983 at number one and was certified quadruple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 1984. - either place a comma before and was certified or replace that and with a semi colon and start the next part of that sentence with "it was" Done It peaked at number one for twenty-two non-consecutive weeks in 1983, with the seven singles released from the album hitting the top ten on the singles chart. - hitting-->"ranking on" Changed Two of them: "Billie Jean" and "Beat It", reached the top of the Billboard Hot 100, - the top ____? Added position In 2008, 25 years after its release, the record was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame and, a few weeks later, was among twenty-five recordings preserved by the Library of Congress to the National Recording Registry as "culturally significant". - 1)the comma should be before and not after it 2)add "it" before was Done The two singles released from the album: "Flashdance... What a Feeling" by Irene Cara, and "Maniac" by Michael Sembello reached the top of the Billboard Hot 100 in 1983. - change the colon to a comma and add a comma after Sembello Done British band The Police were the year's most influential rock band, with Australian, British and American bands copying the white-reggae formula of their earlier successes. - comma before and Done The group released their fifth and final studio album, Synchronicity in 1983. - comma after the album name Done The album, a varied accomplished blend of rock, funk and third-world rhythms, - comma before and Done ..stayed at number one for seventeen weeks and was certified quadruple platinum by the RIAA in 1984. - quadruple would be better worded as "four times" Changed Albums Checks out fine. Image Michael Jackson's sixth album Thriller, spent 22 weeks at number one, sold more than 15 million copies becoming the best-selling album of 1983 and won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year. - remove the comma after the album name and reword the middle part of the sentence to .."to become the best-selling"... Also, add a comma before and--TRUCO 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Done Frcm1988 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC) One last comment I highly recommend moving this page to List of number-one albums of 1983 (U.S.), per other lists that are in similar nature to this one.--TRUCO 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "with the seven singles released from the album ranking on the top ten on the singles chart" The noun + -ing sentence construction is awkward and ungrammatical.

• I will change the sentence, some information belong to 1984.

• Ok I changed the singles part a bit. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• "to have seven top ten singles" I think "spawn" would be better and stronger than "have".

• Changed

• "British band The Police were the year's most influential rock band, with Australian, British, and American bands copying the white-reggae formula of their earlier successes." This is too subjective to be a flat-out statement. Maybe "British band The Police were considered by [insert whoever said that here] to the year's most influential rock band; Australian, British, and American bands copyed the white-reggae formula of their earlier successes."

• Do you think that the author of the article should be mentioned or is fine with just The New York Times

• New York Times would be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• "which remained three weeks at the top"-->which spent three weeks at the top

• Done

• "Singer-songwriter Lionel Richie," No comma necessary.

• Done Frcm1988 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The ref dates are inconsistently formatted. I will fix these myself, so this is just a note. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think is because some of them are with {{cite web}} template and others with the {{cite news}}. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [56].

---

WCW Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): TRUCO

I am renominating this list because FL director Matt stated I could immediately renominate it since the last FLC only had one support, and only one reviewer reviewed it. The same statements I made in the previous FLC apply here as well, any other comments will be addressed.--TRUCO 18:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support My issues were resolved at the last FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support – The only problem are the images, that are not being next to the table in my browser. Cannibaloki 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about now?--TRUCO 18:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not changed at all. You should remove those images, see Wikipedia:Layout#Images. Cannibaloki 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Or convert them into a gallery. Cannibaloki 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about now? I'm not sure what resolution you're using, but I am also using FF 3, and they work fine for me. If it still doesn't I'll just remove them.--TRUCO 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looks good now. (1024×768) Cannibaloki 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool cool. It was the coding of the thumbnails and the width of the table, so I fixed it.--TRUCO 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Some of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph, which is basically half of the article itself, contains no citations of where the information came from. — Moe ε 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets start this over, the first paragraph is sourced by the refs that are there. The beginning of that paragraph is sourced by the general reference, which serves as a ref to the entire article (prose and list). The second paragraph is not sourced because per an accepted FL standard, the summary paragraph does not need references because since it is a summary of the list, the references in the list cover for that paragraph, so there is no need for inline citations for that paragraph. In addition, that paragraph is also sourced by the general reference.TRUCO 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I still prefer inline citations, but if the information is actually cited in someone way then I'm fine with it. — Moe ε 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you still oppose it?--TRUCO 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No. — Moe ε 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

May you cross it out, you don't have to support.--TRUCO 21:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Place separate numbering for notes and citations. Perhaps change the four notes numbering you have to a, b, c, and d. Examples: Packers, Saints, and Eagles. --Gman124 ^talk 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done.--TRUCO 16:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Very well written article, and can find nothing else wrong with it. Gman124 ^talk 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I only saw one suspect thing: "WWWF World Tag Team Championship". Too many W's? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • At one time WWE was called the "World Wide Wrestling Federation", hense WWWF.--WillC 07:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)--WillC 07:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • In addition to being explain in footnote C.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 21:06, 11 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [57].

---

List of Football League Cup winners

I believe this list is worthy of featured list status, it has had a thorough peer review which addressed many issues, and I now believe the list is very close to attaining FL standard. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note Nominator is a WikiCup participant. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - A very good list (started by me, I might add ;) ). My only suggestion would be to use "Wembley Stadium (1923)" and "Wembley Stadium (2008)" instead of "Wembley Stadium (original)" and "Wembley Stadium (new)", as, while the current Wembley Stadium is currently the "new" Wembley Stadium, that will not always be the case, so it would be better to disambiguate by the year that each one opened. – PeeJay 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - While I'm not aware of any guidelines on how much prose can or should be included in a list, I don't think the History section is required. It says For more details on this topic, see Football League Cup, but the History section there is the same size, so something isn't right. The History section could be merged into the lead without losing any information, and I have put forward a proposal for what this may look like in my sandbox. By doing it this way, the reader goes straight from the lead into the list, while maintaining a good lead to introduce the list. --Jameboy (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I was just going along with what has already occured in other featured lists such as List of FA Cup winners which has a history section, I think it should remain personally it is nice addition and does not detract anything from the section in the main article. NapHit (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with NapHit. Similar sections have been included in pretty much all of the other "List of [competition] winners" articles, so it stands to reason that this one should have one too. It doesn't stray from the main topic of the article too much, so I don't see what harm it does. – PeeJay 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • On the other hand, I agree with User:Jameboy, I don't see any need at all for this to be a standalone article. Merge the table of winners back in to the main League Cup article, and you have all the information in one article, which isn't too big (which might have been the case for the FA Cup). The way this stands now, it's just an article for an article's sake. - fchd (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The competition was established in 1960, and is considered to be the second most important domestic cup competition for English football clubs, after the FA Cup. - remove the first comma This one seemed alright to me, as an example of the Oxford comma, but I've removed it anyway. You're right, I misread the sentence, you may readd it, sorry.--TRUCO 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Upon a second reading of the sentence, I'm not sure it needs the comma. It would probably be fine either way. – PeeJay 01:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC) It could go either way, so its fine either or.--TRUCO 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC) The first Football League Cup was won by Aston Villa, who beat Rotherham United 3–2 on aggregate, after losing the first leg 2–0.[3] For the first six seasons of the competition, the final was contested over two legs, one at each participating club's stadium. - 1)the second sentence should go first because it helps to explain what the terms in the following sentence means 2)What does aggregate mean (link? footnote? elaboration?) 1) done; 2) linked Liverpool hold the record for the most League Cup titles; they have won the competition seven times[4] including four consecutive titles from 1981 to 1984. - comma before including Done The cup is held by Tottenham Hotspur, who defeated Chelsea 2–1 after extra time in the 2008 final. - add "currently" before held Done Swindon Town also then of Division Three matched this feat in 1969. - comma before also and after Division Three Done Sheffield Wednesday then in the Second Division became the last club to win the competition whilst competing outside the First Division, when they beat Manchester United in the 1991 final. - comma before then and after Second Division Done With the promise of potential European football, First Division teams entered the competition, and all 92 Football League clubs entered the League Cup for the first time in 1969–70. - since the year is in that format, where is the link to that season or respective article? Linked to the appropriate season, although it is a redlink The final returned to London in 2008, where Tottenham Hotspur became the first side to win the competition at the new Wembley, beating Chelsea 2–1 after extra time. - the first side? Is this another word for "team"? Yes Is the attendance necessary? It doesn't add to the relevancy of the list. If it is, it should be summarized in the prose as well. The attendance isn't especially relevant, but I've left it in as I don't really fancy removing so much info myself. I don't like the pressure, you see. Well you should note something about it in the prose if you are going to leave it.--TRUCO 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Could do, but I'm going to bed now, so if someone else could do that, that'd be great. – PeeJay 01:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Well, that makes the list incomplete because a major part of the list is not being summarized in the lead and is just there for no apparent reason [in regards to the reader]. So until then, I can't support.--TRUCO 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC) It is not needed describing the attendance in the lead is unnecessary, it is overkill, I will add a link to attendances or something so the reader can click on that if they are interested, otherwise there is no need for anything else. NapHit (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Then at least add footnote stating why the attendance is there, if I didn't know any better, I would be like "Why the hell is the attendance in this type of list"?--TRUCO 18:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Added note to clarify NapHit (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Since ref #3 and 8 mostly verify the entire list(s), how about making it a general ref, as seen in this FL's references?--TRUCO 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the comments. – PeeJay 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Football League Cup is a knockout cup competition in English football, organised by and named after The Football League." Comma not necessary.
• "second most important"-->second-most important
• "It was during this period"
• "whilst "-->while
• "the first time that any team had won"
• "The last League Cup final replay was held in 1997, with Leicester City beating Middlesbrough 1–0 after extra time at Hillsborough" The noun + -ing structure is awkward.
• "both teams winning two titles each"-->as both teams won two titles each
• Add a footnote or item to the key that says the links in the year column link to an article about the Football League Cup Final for that year. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don;t think this one is necessary, iyt just sees like overkill to me, if they hover over the link they will find out is the final article, responded to the rest of your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the header so the note is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the section titles indicate that the tables are about the finals of the competition, so it should be more appropriate to title the columns as "Year". – PeeJay 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am OK with "Final". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

However, the entire article is about the finals of the League Cup, so why is anything other than "Year" required? – PeeJay 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at MOS is that while having hidden year links in tables is acceptable, it is preferable to add explanatory text or make the header clearer so that the reader knows that those are not trivial year links. See List of Nashville Sounds managers for example; many other sports FLs do this. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the references need some slight formatting. Please check with User:Ealdgyth
  • guardian.co.uk, independent.co.uk and football-league.co.uk are the names of websites and should not be italicised. football-league.co.uk can be removed completely since the publisher is "The Football League"
  • Ref #4 needs a space between "BBC Sport" and "(British Broadcasting Corporation)"

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • To add on that, I would argue that the .co.uk is unnecessary. Just use The Independent or The Guardian as the work. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • To Matthew: There is actually a space between the publisher and work, but the italics obscure it. There is no way to fix it without editing {{cite news}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the problem with the refs. NapHit (talk) 14:43, 11 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [58].

---

Buchanan Medal

Another Royal Society medal; comments appreciated as always. Ironholds (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Just a friendly notice, refrain from nominating lists of the same subject back to back, considering that there is a lack of reviewers and these noms are by one user. Wait at least for one to be promoted/archive before nominating another one. The Buchanan Medal is awarded by the Royal Society every year "in recognition of distinguished contribution to the medical sciences generally". - if the period is apart of the original quotation, it should be in between the quotation marks. It was created in 1897 to be awarded once every five years, but since 1990 the medal has been awarded every two years instead. - comma after 1990 Since it was created it has been awarded 28 times, and unlike other Royal Society medals such as the Royal Medal it has never been awarded to the same individual multiple times. ---> Since its creation, it has been awarded 28 times, and unlike other Royal Society medals such as the Royal Medal, it has never been awarded to the same individual multiple times. As a result of the criteria for the medal most of the winners have been doctors or other medical professionals; an exception was Frederick Warner, an engineer who won the medal in 1982 "for his important role in reducing pollution of the River Thames and of his significant contributions to risk assessment". - comma after medal For the quotes, if the period is apart of the original statement/quotation it needs to be in-between the quotation marks Its not stated in the lead who was the first recipient of the award. Can a footnote be implemented to explain why there was No award in 1994?--TRUCO 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC) All done; I'm afraid it doesn't give any reason why there is no award, it is simply missing a year (or pair of years, rather). I'll stop with the FLs for a while then, heh; I've got other things to do as it happens. Ironholds (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Then what you just told me should be integrated into a footnote, because it leaves the reader in question. In addition, can an image be added?--TRUCO 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) The Royal Society building, maybe; there isn't really an option for a picture of something medal-related at the moment because I forgot who the medal is named after and cannot find that info. Reasoning added. An image of the recipient? An image of the award itself? Something related to the Royal Society. For the footnote, it should be something like An explanation as to why no award was given this year is disclosed by the Royal Society.--TRUCO 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ..'has not been disclosed'? Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Ooops, thats what I meant. :)--TRUCO 00:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC) All done. Ironholds (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "in recognition of distinguished contribution to the medical sciences generally." Logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotation mark.
• "One winner has also won a Nobel Prize; Barry Marshall, who was awarded the Buchanan Medal in 1998 "in recognition of his work on discovering the role of Helicobacter pylori as a cause of diseases such as duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer, gastric cancer and gastritis-associated dyspepsia" and won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005." Semicolon should be a colon.
• "who won his in 2008 "for his outstanding " Can you eliminate the "his ... his" repetition? Maybe change the first "his" to "the medal".
• The image caption should not have a period. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Don't use a three-column reflist, they break on some browsers.
• Refs 8, 10 and 14 need format=PDF added to their citation templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  All (sources and comments) done. Ironholds (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• comment. I think the notes column would look better with the contents centred and the lead split into 2 paragraphs for easier reading.Yobmod (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Have you thought of linking the years to "xxx in science" articles. I don't use them, but presumably someone finds them useful, and they ccan be useful places to compare all the awards of one year.Yobmod (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• but since 1990, the medal has been awarded every two years instead. no need for either the comma or the "instead"
• unlike other Royal Society medals such as the Royal Medal - link to Royal Medal perhaps?
• "for his important role in reducing pollution of the River Thames and of his significant contributions to risk assessment" -- a bold quote. I think perhaps a reference is necessary.
• Because some of the entries have an emdash in the ref column, it appears as if he is they are all completely unreferenced. Perhaps the archive page can be referenced each time instead?

Nothing else. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• All done except the last point; could you clarify "he"? Ironholds (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  They idea is that the "general" refs cover those without third-party references; if I reference the general ones for those with missing marks I'll get a horrible blue abcdefghijklmn...so on thing at the references section. Ironholds (talk) 09:12, 11 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [59].

---

2008 World Series of Poker results

The next go at an FLC from WP:POKER. This list has a completely different format than previous ones, so I'm not sure what to expect here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Needs a link in the lead to 2008 World Series of Poker

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• All images need to be in their correct place. The photo of Hinkle should be within that section (Event 2), not right above it.

Not done. I ended up having todo that due to formatting issues. When I put the images below the break for the individual event, there was lot of over lap of images pushing into the next event. See this for an example. By putting the images first, I kept the images correct and was able to improve the formatting.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What? That example is pushing the images way too low, below the information. They only need to be below the header, which will not overlap. And this is part of WP:MOS#images. Put the photo within the relevant section, not the one before it. Reywas92^Talk 18:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Pretty good. I don't see any other major problems. Reywas92^Talk 15:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The 2008 World Series of Poker was the 39th annual World Series of Poker (WSOP). - "2008 World Series of Poker" is not the title of the article, so it should not be bolded. I would recommend linking it to the proper article (without the bold). done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) As has been the WSOP custom since 1976, each of the event winners received a championship bracelet in addition to that event's prize money, which (after the casino's rake) ranged from $87,929 to $9,119,517. - the first part is confusing how about "As a WSOP custom since 1976," done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Is it correct to capitalize Main Event? Yes a quick web search will validate that 90+ percent of the cases which use WSOP and Main Event will capitalize it. It isn't a main event, it is the Main Event.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ; the Main Event was resumed on November 9, and concluded with the heads-up final between Peter Eastgate and Ivan Demidov the next day. - remove the comma done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Omaha is version of poker wherein each player is dealt four hole cards, must use two of them in conjunction with three community cards to make the best possible five card hand. - the comma should be replaced with "and" done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Considering that 55 entries are listed, a more thorough summary should be given IMO to the list. Query I actually considered adding a glossary section wherein I defined the terms in a little more detail, do you think that would be helpful? If so, should the glossary go at the start or end of the list? No not really, thats what links are for. In this statement I meant that because there are 55 entries (55 things listed) it is best to summarize these 55 things in the lead/prose (writing)--TRUCO 17:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I'm not really sure I agree/am on the same page here. Perhaps I'm being a little dense, but with 55 events, if I were to summarize them all, wouldn't that would essentially create a list of poorly written prose? Event 1 was a $10,000 Pot-Limit Hold'em event won by Nenad Medic. Event 2 was a $1,500 No Limit Tournament won by Grant Hinkle. Event 3 was a $1,500 Pot-Limit Hold'em event won by David Singer. Seems very redundant and counter the purpose of having a list. Would create some very dry prose, that wouldn't be, IMO, befitting the best WP has to offer.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I meant like a small brief prose summary of the events, not necessarily summarizing each one, like summarizing the most significant ones and a brief summary that can say something about most of the 55 events.--TRUCO 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I think the second paragraph already does this. On a similar point, wouldn't it make sense to switch around the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs? The explanation of the events should come before the summary of the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC) In a way, I guess. But its fine since this is a big list. Dabombs comment should be resolved before I cap and support.--TRUCO 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Done---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 17:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Whoa there... :S Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Is the Whoa There because of the name change or did I miss something ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 19:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC) No, it was the name change. That was ... unexpected, to say the least :) Dabomb87 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Consistency is needed in the entry dates: a comma is needed after the "Month Day" followed by the "Year" (add comma in between for all entries) Done---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 06:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC) done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Some of the images need to be decreased, some are very large like the Mike Matusow one. What about this?--TRUCO 17:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) In the key: Denotes a bracelet winner. The first number is the number of bracelets won in the 2008 WSOP. The second number is the total number of bracelets won. Both numbers represent totals as of that point during the tournament. - needs to be reworded because the first sentence is not a complete clause. done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) What place they finished - who is they? done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) The people who made it to the final table - wouldn't it be "players" versus people Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) For the references, the publisher is not WorldSeriesofPoker.com the publisher is "World Series of Poker" No the work is World Series of Poker, the publisher is Harrah's Entertainment. When I wrote it out originally, I missed the work, so I added it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) In ref #24, why is the ref have the publisher of Harrah's Entertainment and not "World Series of Poker" (the first one in that ref) Harrah's Entertainment is the company who owns the WSOP. See above.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Some of the {{cite web}} templates aren't filled out properly, but I'll let the source reviewer check those out, because at a glance some of them aren't filled out correctly like the difference between the "Work" and "Publisher" field.--TRUCO 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Feel free to comment on those issues yourself, you don't need my consent. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Why thank you, I think I will ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) What about the rest of my comments?--TRUCO 17:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I haven't forgotten, I didn't work on WP much last night... and most of the other changes are the types that I need to atually work on (EG some of the changes I can do at work during quick five minute breaks... but the rest... hopefully this evening.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "All events but the $10,000 World Championship No Limit Texas hold 'em Main Event, the most prestigious of the WSOP events, ended by July 15." How is the most prestigious?
  • ??? I'm not sure what your question is, but the Main Event is easily the most prestigious of all poker tournaments.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Prior to"-->Before.
  • done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "and made three final tables, as recipient of the Player of the Year Award." Unclear, did he win the bracelet and make the tables because he received the Player of the Year Award?
  • Reworded---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "At the other extreme, Phil Helmuth, a Poker Hall of Famer, set new records for the most WSOP cashes (68) and most WSOP final tables (41)." That opening clause is a bit confusing, what do you mean by "At the other extreme"?
  • Reworded---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "concluded with the heads-up final" Is there a link to "heads-up"?
  • done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Most of the tournaments played at the WSOP today are variants of Texas Hold 'em."-->Most of the tournaments played at the WSOP are variants of Texas hold 'em.
  • done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Phil Helmuth"-->Phil Hellmuth
  • Fixed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "7 card stud"-->seven-card stud
  • Fixed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "in contrast to poker variants like"-->in contrast to poker variants such as
  • fixed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "draw where each player "-->draw in which each player
  • done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Omaha is version of poker" Missing "a".
  • done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• WP:CAPTION, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end.
  • Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Roland de Wolfe"-->Roland De Wolfe
  • Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "J.C. Tran"-->J. C. Tran
  • Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Galfond after winning the $5,000 Pot-Limit Omaha w/Rebuys." Don't use shorthand such as "w/". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://web.archive.org/web/20061123021244/http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue21/clark0906.html a reliable source?
  • Two Plus Two Publishing is arguably the biggest poker publisher in the world. It was founded by Mason Malmuth and has published books by almost all of the major poker writers. The cite is so well respected, that poker blogs on the cite would have the value of a blog written by an editor or writer for a major newspaper/tv station/etc. An online magazine that bears the name of Two Plus Two, would be one just as reliable as (if not more so) than All-in Magazine or Cardplayer Magazine or Bluff Magazine. (Heck, the cite has so much prestige, that I once cited a comment from a Forum post!! Granted, the comment was made by Mason Malmuth and was a post explaining current legislation they were engaged in.) In short, 2+2, is without a doubt one of the top publishers on poker.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Publications should be in italics. For example, ref 4, "CardPlayer.com" is unnecessary. Just put Card Player Magazine. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • In this case, CardPlayer.com is the work, CardPlayer Magazine is the Publisher.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 12 needs a publisher.
  • Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Nice lead section. It introduces the game well, and I could understand it, even though I've never played a game
  • Thanks---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• All events but the $10,000 World Championship No Limit Texas hold 'em Main Event, the most prestigious of the WSOP events, ended by July 15. Perhaps say when that finished too because if it finished after July 15, wouldn't that be the last day of the competition?
  • Reworded. The competition was during the summer, but one event was suspended until November.
• that event's prize money, which (after the casino's rake) ranged from $87,929 to $9,119,517. perhaps say here which games' prize totals were $87,929 and $9,119,517.
  • Done---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Since this is a World Championship, it might be worth mentioning that prize money is in US Dollars?
  • It was already in the key, but added to the lead.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Over past decade -- probably supposed to be "Over the past decade"? Also, although this page is one-year-specific, "the past decade" may seem aged (and even incorrect) in five or ten years.
  • Done---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Or it may include variations on the rules -- I may be wrong, but I don't think sentences are supposed to begin with "Or"
  • Done---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps check with User:Ealdgyth, but I think some references may need re-formatting:
  • Contacted Ealdgyth for guidance.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman}
  • References should use the same date format as in the prose of the page, in this case mmmm dd, yyyy, not the ISO yyyy-mm-dd format
  • Refs such as #1, where the publisher is given as WorldSeriesofPoker.com, need only be "World Series of Poker". Linking to the Wikipedia article is preferred but not required IIRC. I think that should be the work, too, with Harrah's being named as the publisher
  • Names of websites (Pokerpages.com, Pokernews.com, Pokerlisting.com etc), should not be italicised, per WP:ITALICS
  • Refs 7 through 61 have three references in each reference. At one of my FACs I was told not to bunch citations into one reference. I don't know if this has changed though.

Otherwise it looks okay. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Done---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 23:17, 11 February 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 18:02, 14 February 2009 [60].

---

List of Los Angeles Clippers head coaches

Nominator(s): SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone?

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The Clippers the oldest team to have never been to the NBA Finals. - "are" is missing Dabomb87 accidentally removed it. Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The team plays its home games at the Staples Center since 1999. - this should be "The team has played its home games at the Staples Center since 1999." Dabomb87 reworded. Just wait for his reply on this before reverting it. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I'll wait then.--TRUCO 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry, both errors result from my failure to preview the changes. Should be good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The Clippers are owned by Donald Sterling, and current head coach Mike Dunleavy, Sr. is their general manager. - an elaboration to the difference of the GM to the HC should be elaborated or at least have GM linked. Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The lead should state who was the first/most recent head coach. Umm...it does... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Oops, I missed that.--TRUCO 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Tables and references check out fine. --TRUCO 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)}}

• Support - problems fixed by WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 03:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets all criteria, and I fixed all issues that I saw myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support As a NBA Wikiproject regular, I can say this is an excellent list—Chris! _ct 04:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - this list meets all the criteria as far as I can see, is properly referenced, and is well-constructed. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:43, 13 February 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 21:15, 10 February 2009 [61].

---

List of Olympic medalists in short track speed skating

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²²

Based on the List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing and List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing, except with many of the kinks and flaws already worked out. This is a WikiCup submission. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The first Winter Olympics, held in 1924, included Speed skating, but the first official short track speed skating events were not held until the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, France. - 1)decapitalize Speed 2)In the "city, country" link, France shouldn't be linked since its a common country Done. The results of those events are not considered official and are not included here. - instead of here, how about "in this list"? Done. For the 500 metre and 3000 metre table, how about using a format with the bullets and indented bullets (like the country in the first bullet and the medalists with indented bullets) I gave it a try with the 5000 table below. What do you think? That's perfect.--TRUCO 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Is it possible to add who the first medalists and most recent were for each event?--TRUCO 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I'm assuming you mean in the lead, and I don't think it's really necessary (especially since we would have to list at least 16). -- Scorpion0422 19:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC) That's fine then.--TRUCO 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Experimental medal table with bullets Games Gold Silver Bronze 1992 Albertville  South Korea (KOR) Kim Ki-hoon Lee Joon-Ho Mo Ji-Soo Song Jae-Kun  Canada (CAN) Frédéric Blackburn Laurent Daignault Michel Daignault Sylvain Gagnon Mark Lackie  Japan (JPN) Yuichi Akasaka Tatsuyoshi Ishihara Toshinobu Kawai Tsutomu Kawasaki 1994 Lillehammer  Italy (ITA) Maurizio Carnino Orazio Fagone Hugo Herrnhof Mirko Vuillermin  United States (USA) Randy Bartz John Coyle Eric Flaim Andrew Gabel  Australia (AUS) Steven Bradbury Kieran Hansen Andrew Murtha Richard Nizielski 1998 Nagano  Canada (CAN) Eric Bédard Derrick Campbell François Drolet Marc Gagnon  South Korea (KOR) Chae Ji-Hoon Lee Jun-Hwan Lee Ho-Eung Kim Dong-Sung  China (CHN) Li Jiajun Feng Kai Yuan Ye An Yulong 2002 Salt Lake City  Canada (CAN) Eric Bédard Marc Gagnon Jonathan Guilmette Francois-Louis Tremblay Mathieu Turcotte  Italy (ITA) Michele Antonioli Maurizio Carnino Fabio Carta Nicola Franceschina Nicola Rodigari  China (CHN) An Yulong Feng Kai Guo Wei Li Jiajun Li Ye 2006 Turin  South Korea (KOR) Ahn Hyun Soo Lee Ho-Suk Oh Se-Jong Seo Ho-Jin Song Suk-Woo  Canada (CAN) Eric Bédard Jonathan Guilmette Charles Hamelin Francois-Louis Tremblay Mathieu Turcotte  United States (USA) Alex Izykowski J. P. Kepka Apolo Anton Ohno Rusty Smith

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)TRUCO

Comment "South Korean Yang Yang (A) is one of six athletes to win five medals in short track speed skating." should be "Chinese Yang Yang is one of six athletes to win five medals in short track speed skating."—Chris! _ct 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that she is from China. In regards to the (A), it is used to differentiate her from her fellow speed skater Yang Yang (S). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, I support.—Chris! _ct 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I found it interesting that the German version was also featured. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Prior to"-->Before.
  • Done.
• "The men's and women's 1500 metres was" "was"-->were, we are talking about two things here (men's 1500 and women's 1500).
  • Done.
• "A total of" Redundant.
  • Done.
• "Eric Bédard"-->Éric Bédard
  • Done.
• "Francois-Louis Tremblay"-->François-Louis Tremblay
  • Done.
• "Ahn Hyun Soo"-->Ahn Hyun-Soo
  • Done.
• " Jin Sun-yu"--> Jin Sun-Yu
  • Done.
• "Chun Lee-kyung"-->Chun Lee-Kyung
  • Done.
• "Kim Yun-Mi"-->Kim Yoon-Mi Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.

Sources

• Ref 4 needs format=PDF added to the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose, there is no need to change the style of the medalists in the relay events! We have hundreds of Olympic pages which list the medalists in team competitions NOT in this style. All Olympic page had and have an established style up to now... Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not exactly a major issue. What's wrong with it? I think it makes the table neater, more organized and easier to read. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer something like this instead:

Experimental medal table with indents

Games	Gold	Silver	Bronze
1992 Albertville	South Korea (KOR)      Kim Ki-hoon      Lee Joon-Ho      Mo Ji-Soo      Song Jae-Kun	Canada (CAN)      Frédéric Blackburn      Laurent Daignault      Michel Daignault      Sylvain Gagnon      Mark Lackie	Japan (JPN)      Yuichi Akasaka      Tatsuyoshi Ishihara      Toshinobu Kawai      Tsutomu Kawasaki
1994 Lillehammer	Italy (ITA)      Maurizio Carnino      Orazio Fagone      Hugo Herrnhof      Mirko Vuillermin	United States (USA)      Randy Bartz      John Coyle      Eric Flaim      Andrew Gabel	Australia (AUS)      Steven Bradbury      Kieran Hansen      Andrew Murtha      Richard Nizielski
1998 Nagano	Canada (CAN)      Éric Bédard      Derrick Campbell      François Drolet      Marc Gagnon	South Korea (KOR)      Chae Ji-Hoon      Lee Jun-Hwan      Lee Ho-Eung      Kim Dong-Sung	China (CHN)      Li Jiajun      Feng Kai      Yuan Ye      An Yulong
2002 Salt Lake City	Canada (CAN)      Éric Bédard      Marc Gagnon      Jonathan Guilmette      François-Louis Tremblay      Mathieu Turcotte	Italy (ITA)      Michele Antonioli      Maurizio Carnino      Fabio Carta      Nicola Franceschina      Nicola Rodigari	China (CHN)      An Yulong      Feng Kai      Guo Wei      Li Jiajun      Li Ye
2006 Turin	South Korea (KOR)      Ahn Hyun-Soo      Lee Ho-Suk      Oh Se-Jong      Seo Ho-Jin      Song Suk-Woo	Canada (CAN)      Éric Bédard      Jonathan Guilmette      Charles Hamelin      François-Louis Tremblay      Mathieu Turcotte	United States (USA)      Alex Izykowski      J. P. Kepka      Apolo Anton Ohno      Rusty Smith

Sorry no, I would not prefer the change to this style. To bring this list to featured status there is no need to change the style which is used on (all?) other Olympic pages. If we want to change the style we had to discuss this topic not only for this page but for all Olympic pages (and these are hundreds). And I think we had to do this on the WP:Olympics talk page? Up to now I have never read that the common Olympic style is not neat, organized and easy to read? Please see e.g. Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics. I think it is necessary and desirable that all Olympic pages have the same style? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said the common style is bad, I just think this version is an improvement. Is there any reason why you are against the current style other than maintaining the status quo? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that I think it is not to prefer to have different styles on the Olympic pages. It was and is a hard work for only a very few editors to bring all the Olympic pages in line. To establish a new style on only this page destorys a long work and makes confusion. And again, I don't think that there is a need to add dots or spaces. So please allow me again to ask to reestablish the common style. Kind reagards Doma-w (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about just one space then for the individual athletes? That way it would be similar to the old style (but still not a huge difference) but still differentiate between the nation and the athletes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:) First I still do not think that this is the right place for this discussion. Second I am sure that I can not decide this alone! And if there is not a huge difference why we do not keep the established style? Isn't the flag shown in front of the nation enough difference between the nation and the athletes? Please see also e.g. Athletics at the 2007 Pan American Games or 1930 British Empire Games. All these pages had to change the style? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted for now, but I do think you are over-reacting to this. If you think about it, 4 of 57 medalist pages are now within FL standards, but would that not make them inconsistant with the old standards? Should you ever not make potential improvements simply to maintaining the status quo? No. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not involved with this, but quality always trumps consistency or maintaining the status quo. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scorpion! Every improvement is welcomed. But is it an improvement? Is it better quality? Again, if you want to change the style please discuss this on the WP:Olympics talk page. I remember that one of the members of the WP:Olympics started last autumn a guideline for these kind of pages. As far as I know the work is still in progress. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Due to the list being currently wrong (I guess this may have been accidental from when you were fiddling with what tables to use). I noticed the one capped above didn't match the article's list. Looking at the 5000m for example the reference does not state the names listed currently in the article. It lists the ones capped earlier in this FLC. I didn't check any further than that but I urge you to double check the information as we don't want to go featuring the wrong stuff! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) As a side note I personally prefered the stylistic change to the table suggested earlier.

This is a simple but pretty embarassing case of human error. When I went back to the old version of the table, I decided to do it the easy way and copy and paste the table from an old version. Long story short, I accidentally copied the results of the women's 3000 metre relay into the section for the men's 5000 metre relay. It has been fixed now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I guessed as much, anyway no harm done I just figured the best way to get your attention and stop the wrong version being promoted was with an "oppose". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

• The only questionable thing I could find is listed is should "Chun Lee-kyung" be Lee-Kyung? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  Chun Lee-kyung is Korean and they list their names in reverse (Korean name), so Chun is her family name and Lee-kyung is her given name. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry I'll clarify, I knew that what I meant was should the K be capital like it is for their main article? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, you are correct. Fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:08, 10 February 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 21:15, 10 February 2009 [62].

---

Rumford Medal

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk)

Another of my Royal Society lists. To anticipate a query about the use of numbers (3) rather than words (three) in the nationality section of the lead; the biggest numbers are large enough that using words isn't appropriate, and I didn't want to apply two different standards to the same area of the list. Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "First awarded in 1800" Comma after this phrase.

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Since its creation" Comma after this phrase.

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• The source link for File:Benjamin Thompson.jpg is dead.

  and by source link you mean..?

  [63] Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  Oh right, the external thing. It was uploaded in 2005, so that isn't suprising; it is currently hosted directly at commons, although I suppose that doesn't count. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  We need a source link to verify the image, just as we do with content. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  I have replaced the source at commons with a working one (diff). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with some of what Truco says below, especially on finding third-party sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  The best I can do with third-party sources is to find notices of individual awards from whichever institutes the winners work at; would that be acceptable? Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  Sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out abbreviations such as IOP, NNB and NNDB.
• Italicize publications such as The Daily Telegraph. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) For one the article needs to be broken into sections (the list itself) Can you explain why? Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Because of WP:SECTION, the table should be in a section called "Recipients" or something like that.--TRUCO 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Oh right; I thought I had that, it must have got lost in the moves from article to sandbox and sandbox to article; my apologies. Ironholds (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC) The Rumford Medal is awarded by the Royal Society every alternating year for 'an outstandingly important recent discovery in the field of thermal or optical properties of matter made by a scientist working in Europe'. - the marks you're using should be quotation marks "", in addition the period should be inside the quotes First awarded in 1800 it was created after a 1796 donation of $5000 by the scientist Benjamin Thompson, known as Count Rumford, and is accompanied by a £1000 gift. - 1)Comma after 1800 2)Since this is an international list, the currencies should be linked 3)The last part about the gift should be a new sentence because it doesn't tie in with the rest of the first part of the statement Since its creation the medal has been awarded to 100 individuals, including Rumford himself in 1800. - comma after creation The medal has been awarded to citizens of the United Kingdom 53 times, Germany 17 times, France 14 times, the Netherlands 7 times, the United States 3 times, Italy twice and once each to citizens of Australia, Hungary, Luxembourg and New Zealand. - 1)Well regarding your comment above, the numbers below nine should be spelled out if its going to be like this 2)Unlink the countries, they are too common On the first point, Ironholds specifically said that he wrote them out that way to make the comparable quantities the same (per WP:MOSNUM). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I get that, but per MOSNUM, if its gonna be like this, number 0-9 should be spelled out because they are relatively smaller.--TRUCO 22:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The most recent winner was Edward Hinds in 2008, a physicist from the United Kingdom who was awarded the medal 'for his extensive and highly innovative work in ultra-cold matter'. - quotation marks should be used Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to be substantially expanded to summarize the list more and more about the history of the medal and how it is regarded, and a summary of what professions the medal was awarded to. Dividing it by profession wouldn't work; they're all 'scientists' of some sort of another. There isn't much of a 'history'; unlike the Royal Medal which has gone through various stages, this one has stayed stable. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Gotcha.--TRUCO 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The quotation marks need to be added instead of ' marks. Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) You need to fix this on another couple of your FLs also. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't Ångström still sort with A? Take that up with the mediawiki people, not me. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Why? You can fix it, use the {{sort}} template.--TRUCO 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I can? How, exactly :S. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Like that :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks! This is your domain, as it were :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Unlink the countries in the table, maybe the use of {{flag}} would be better. Will unlink now. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The image caption needs a full stop No it shouldn't, that is not a complete sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I believe for the purpose of sorting, the entries where no award was given, the colspan should be avoided and columns for the No award should have emdashes instead, because the nationality doesn't sort properly like this. Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) There should be at least one third-part source, not just one primary source. Good luck finding it? Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, I meant third party source.--TRUCO 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Oh I know, I just meant they are rather thin on the ground. The discussion above with Dabomb has set out a way to get them. The citations for individuals; would you like me to create a 'notes' column to stick em in? Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC) What the new refs?--TRUCO 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Indeed; I was thinking I could find news posts and whatnot to stick in and verify that person X won the award. Now that I think about it I am unlikely to be able to find most of those on the net; would it instead be alright if I linked them to the main text of the article as additional verification that the medal is awarded for X, worth Y, sponsored by Z, so on? Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC) You don't necessarily have to find it for all of them, just some, at least to have diversity, and the ones that you can't find will be fine sourced with the general reference.--TRUCO 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC) In addition, those references may work better as general references instead of specific ones to source the table.TRUCO 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Mm, I'm now thinking my second idea was better, if that is alright with you. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC) What needs to be done is make the original sources from the primary sources into general references like they are in this FL reference section. Then in the new notes column, add emdashes (the longer dash) to all entries that don't have a specific ref. In addition, the notes should not be sortable.--TRUCO 22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Mhm, I meant to do those but got slightly distracted, I'll be on it in 20 mins. Ironholds (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Done. Is there anything left for me to do? All the different lines and indents has me confused as to what is left. Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC) You have to add the dashes to all blank entries in the notes column.--TRUCO 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Done. Is it support/close off comments time yet? :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I love this process; every time I get told something different :P. Last time I was told 'you must have them in the column for the rationale, general sourcing just isn't good enough!' Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Well first let me ask you, is the entire list sourced by those 4-5 references?--TRUCO 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Indeed; it wasn't a criticism of you but rather of the system. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Followup:Add emdashes to the remaining blank columns in the notes.--TRUCO 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - someone was eager for this support :P (All problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  Well I just find that if the contents of each section aren't capped when they are dealt with I get confused. My first FL had about 2 pages of that stuff, and by the end I was so confused over what had/had not been done it failed like a bitch. Ironholds (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

*Oppose for now - per my concern with NNDBs reliability (originally raised at Hughes Medal FLC). NB. This is a good reason not to have many lists from one topic as candidates, as many of the problems may apply to all lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Will do in the afternoon. Ironholds (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Other comments Check your nationality demonyms. I believe "Luxembourgian" refers to the language. I think the nationality is "Luxembourger" (have a look in the Luxembourg infobox) I'd prefer more information in the references (e.g. ref 25, I had no idea what Mimas was, so had to search, eventually found that is was a data center. Try using work and publisher fields and wikilinking them more (e.g. work=[[Archives Hub]] |publisher=[[Mimas (data centre)|Mimas]]) The names are the most important thing on this list. I'd widen the name column so that they don't wrap onto two lines. List 1986: "Wilhelm Röntgen and Philipp Lenard" as "Philipp Lenard and Wilhelm Röntgen" for two reasons. First it is alphabetical, and secondly that is the order they are listed by the Royal Society. Rationales: they should be consitent with the caps they start in – currently "For", "for" & "In", "in". I recommend lower case them all. Well I'm quoting them, so the caps situation is the caps situation on the RS listings. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Righto, all done but the quotes. Quotes are quotes and all; they should be verbatim. Ironholds (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Further comments For "No award" I'd sort it as zzz, so it always appears at the bottom. I'd still add more fields/info to some of the refs as it can help establish reliability/notability Ref 20: "

• Support. All my issues (and minor nitpickings) have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This is the main article for this award, not a "List of winners", yes? I am suprised that there is so little to write about a 100+ year old award. I really think the introduction should be longer and give more information, or this should be retittled to "List of...", so that a future article on the award in general can be written.Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• There really isn't any more information available, either from the royal society or elsewhere. It isn't like the Nobel or the Turner; while a highly respected set of awards it is an "internal" set; the only coverage comes from news reports of the organisations who employ the winners, and even then it is normally parotting the Royal Society website. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 10 February 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 21:15, 10 February 2009 [64].

---

List of ECW Tag Team Champions

Nominator(s): TRUCO

I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria, and is modeled after the List of WCW World Tag Team Champions FL. Any concerns will be addressed, co-nom with User:ThinkBlue.--Truco 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Note that there are two dab links: script and Middletown, New York. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks.--TRUCO 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "a promotion which had numerous subsidiaries" "which"-->that. Fixed,--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "mid–2003" Should be a hyphen, not an en dash. Fixed.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "The title was won in Japan and in 8 American states, and was won mostly at live events."-->The title was mostly won at live events in Japan and in eight American states.**Fixed.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "were the final wrestlers to hold the championship"-->were the final wrestlers to have held the championship Fixed.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "while the Dudley Boyz' eight reign" Do you mean "eighth reign"? Yeah, silly mistake. Fixed.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "while the championship was vacated five times due to decisions made by ECW. " What does this have to do with The Dudley Boyz holding the most reigns as a tag team? Very true, removed.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "Overall, there 51 reigns." Missing a verb. Verb added.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Can you make the tables in the "List of top combined reigns" section sortable? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Done.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out "WWE" in the general ref.
  • Done.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• The book ref is missing a title.
  • Title added.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 2, add format=PDF to the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Quick comments For "Wrestler name (#) The number represents the amount of times the wrestler has held the title individually" -> this is a bit confusing as if they regain the title with the same team again their number doesn't increase. Reword to something about how many teams the individual has won it with. Can you make N/A in "Days held" sort to the bottom not the top. ("*" might work) Your change wasn't what I meant so I eventually fixed it myself. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC) (I apologise, re-reading that comment it sounds really arsey, it wasn't meant like that at all, I just meant that I didn't know how to fix it myself. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)) Its okay =)--TRUCO 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Similarly with the other N/A fields can you sort them to the bottom under sorted text ("zzz" or something) In ==By wrestler==, shouldn't "A.J. Petrucci" sort by Petrucci, not A.J. This still needs doing for the two summary tables at the bottom, you just did this on the main one. Oops, fixed.--TRUCO 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I saw a note on your talk page from Dabomb87, I will try and review this fully later. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks so much, and I'll be awaiting that review, but these quick comments are now fixed.--TRUCO 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Comments The lead says "different tag teams, a duo of wrestlers using ring names," but I notice one of the winners was a trio (Chris Candido, Johnny Hotbody, and Chris Michaels) Fixed. --TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Entry 39: What was the event the singles match took place at? Event added.--TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Entry 43: "Buh Buh Ray and D-Von<br/>(TheDudley Boyz)" -> need a space after "The", but also all the others are just "Dudley Boys" so is the "The" meant to be there? I forgot to remove this one.--TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Not needed - but you could modify {{ECW Championships}} to include this (and other winner lists) by making it say "Tag Team (winners)" Done.--TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Question: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations says that abbreviations should be spelled out if they are not well know. So this page should possbily be moved to List of Eastern Championship Wrestling Tag Team Champions. I realise that this goes against the existing FLs but I can't find anything that says it should be abbreviated, as it is not a commons abbr. Not necessarily because per WP:ACRONYM, if the said subject/topic is best known by their acronym (In order to determine the prominence of the abbreviation over the full name, consider checking how the subject is referred to in popular media such as newspapers, magazines, and other publications.), which it is per [65]. In addition, in wrestling, promotions are strictly referred to by their acronym on most occasions. Also, the official name of the stated championship is "ECW Tag Team Championship" not "Extreme Championship Wrestling Tag Team Champions" [this is the literal version, but not the accurate version].--TRUCO 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Glad this conforms with guidelines, as I thought we might have to move it for policies sake. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah.--TRUCO 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC) More comments Entries 25, 27 say "(The Dudley Boys)"; 29 says "The (Dudley Boys)"; 35, 37, 39, 41, 43 say "(Dudley Boys)". - be consistent Fixed. I thought I removed those already before the FLC, I guess not.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 45 says "(Impact Players)", 48 says "(The Impact Players)" - consistency again Fixed. I thought I removed those already before the FLC, I guess not.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 31, "Little Guido and Tracy Smothers<br/>(Full Blooded Italians)" and 50, "Little Guido (2)and Tony Mamaluke <br/>(Full Blooded Italians)" should probably sort together by name. Fixed.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 50, "Little Guido (2)and Tony Mamaluke - space after (2) Done.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Random linking for events. Lots of events link to Extreme Championship Wrestling#Tradition. Why? Examles being "Bloodfest: Part 1", "Double Tables", "Return of the Funker", "Three Way Dance", "Gangsta's Paradise", "Hostile City Showdown", "As Good as it Gets", "Better than Ever" Because in sortable tables, linking is an exception to WP:OVERLINK. In addition, those events don't have respective articles because they were random events held by ECW before it produced pay-per-view events, so they are un-notable to have an article. The link to their tradition covers these events as being random named live events before ECW produced pay-per-view events.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Its not the overlinking I'm worried about, its linking to a section that has no mention of any of these events. I suggest just using the names of the events not linked to anything. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Done.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) An overall issue it consistency with sorting names. It seems to be a bit random. I'm don't think sorting by wrestlers real names instead of their wrestiling names is a good idea, as this is not what a would reader expect. I fixed what appears to be the rest of the sorting issues. They are sorted by their ring name, some wrestlers used ring names, others did not, so they sort by their real name while others did with their ring name. See how it works at List of WCW World Tag Team Champions.--TRUCO 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Following up on this. Entry 43 sorts differently to the other Dudley Boy ones because it is missing a sort tag. Done.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Even more comments Why is it "Lance Storm (3)" as his third win is the same pair as his second, so it is covered in reigns (maybe it should be (2) instead) Because Storm won a separate title reign with Chris Candido at entry #33, making it 3 reigns individually in total.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, but the note says "The number represents the amount of times the wrestler has held the title individually with different tag teams." and this number is 2. So it should be changed accordingly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Why do "Cactus Jack (2) and Mikey Whipwreck (2)" have twos after their name. Same pair as won it the first time so it covered by reigns. Done.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Umm. No its not, I think you may have forgotten. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I guess I did.--TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Entry 38: "Sabu (3) and Rob Van Dam" - no (3) after Sabu as only won with 2 different tag teams - also reigns here should be 2 not 3 i think. No because Sabu won his first reign with The Tazmaniac at entry #13, thus 3 reigns individually.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, but the note says "The number represents the amount of times the wrestler has held the title individually with different tag teams." and this number is 2. So it should be changed accordingly. Additionally it is the second reign of the pair so reign coumn should be 2 not 3. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) "The Tazmaniac" won in entry 9 & 13 - second occurance needs a (2) Done.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Umm. No its not, Did you forget to press save? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I guess I did.--TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) You forgot this again. :s Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Entry 49: "Yoshihiro Tajiri and Mikey Whipwreck (3)" - it should be (2) after Whipwreck pending the above change, about him being double listed for a pair. Whipwreck won his first reign with Cactus Jack, and his second with Jack, and this is his 3rd overall. This (#) represents their individual reign overall.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) No the note says (#) represents reigns with different pairs. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Title "Reigns" should possibly be "Reign" - as Reigns seems to mean how many the pair have had (i.e. 8 for all Dudley Boys entry) whereas Reign gives a better feeling of what regin it was. Changed to "Reign"--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Please check the numbers: I only checked one but it was wrong - the combined days of " Buh Buh Ray and D-Von" add up to 291 for me. Please go through all these and check them. Okay, I fixed them.--TRUCO 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Additionally 46: Should be Tony Dreamer (3) 5: Should be Johnny Hotbody [without the (2)], and then 7: becomes Hotbody (2) not (3) Entries with "New Jack" have a double space before his name. What do you mean?--TRUCO 503 16:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC) It was easier to fix myself. Basically an additional sort key gave an additional space (as shown in here). Anyway this is done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see now. Thanks.--TRUCO 503 19:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC) For 30: It is New Jack (2), because it is his 2nd reign with different pairs (but third overall) Similarly Kronus should be (2), because it is his 2nd reign with different pairs (but fourth overall) 42: "Balls Mahoney (3)", it is not the third different pair he won with (third overall), it is the second pair he won with so should be (2) Combined days, By team: " A.J. Petrucci and Doug Stahl" 283+0 is not 284. Done.--TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) "Sabu and Rob Van Dam" 119+125=244 not 243 Done.--TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) "Buh Buh Ray and D-Von" ranked fifth, but 291 is bigger than both 284 and 243, they should be second. You mean third? =P--TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Yes I did. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I've checked the "By team", please check the individual ones. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry you had to go through all this trouble, but I meant that note to be as "individually" (in general), so that should resolve your comments on that. In addition, I didn't create the table, so I'm not to aware of the way it was formatted. --TRUCO 503 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I oppose this change. This changes the entire meaning and brings a whole heap of different problems. It would mean you would have to also change all the pairs who won multiple times to "Buh Buh Ray (8) and D-Von (8)" for example. This would cause lots of changes to be required. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Sigh. That's not what it means, this is a standard for all tag team championship lists, like List of WCW World Tag Team Champions. The number represents the amount of times the wrestlers has held the title individually overall, however, it is only noted when he has won it with a different tag team partner. For instance, lets say D-Von (of the Dudley Boys) won it 7 times with Bubba, but then won it with Tommy Dreamer (his first different tag team partner), it would read like D-Von Dudley (8) and Tommy Dreamer, and then if he won it again with Bubba it would read like Bubba Ray (8) and D-Von (9) because as a tag team they have differentiating number of reigns, do you understand?--TRUCO 503 16:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry but if that is the existing standard it doesn't work and needs to be changed. The note in no way conveys that information to the reader. If you explained a scenario, gave someone the desciptive note I am sure they would have no idea when and where to use the numbers. You can't use one set of rules for people in multiple tag teams and a another for those winning in only one team unless it is explicitly clear. I appreciate that you have worked hard on this list (trust me after all my reviewing I don't really want it to fail) but this needs resolving. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Oops. I didn't save the correct revision, how about now?--TRUCO 503 16:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Ok, I now think I understand fully the system you are trying to use. I would reword the note though. How about "The number represents the individual reigns of a wrestler, when this is distinct from the tag team's reigns". If this is what you meant please let me know and I can recheck all the numbers (although please allow me time as this is not the most interesting job in the world :P) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC) That's exactly what I meant. Note reworded. Okay =) (I'm really sorry you had to go through this trouble, it would have been less errors if I created the table, but I did not, ThinkBlue did.)--TRUCO 503 19:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, I've struck all the issues that no longer apply. There are two issues remaining in the at the top of the "Additionally" section. After those are resolved I will cap all this (basically reset my review) and go through the numbers again. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, those are now done. Thanks, again.--TRUCO 503 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Second review of numbers 33: "Chris Candido (2)", third individual title - should be 3 18: "Raven (2) and Stevie Richards" - no 2 after Raven as it is the pairs second win and the reigns coincide I am happy with all the numbers after these fixes :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Done all.--TRUCO 503 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) By individual Lance Storm: 203+48+31=282! Nowhere near 417. Grunge, Rocco, Saturn, Rocco are correct Chris Candido 42+46+203=291 A.J. Petrucci 283+0=283 Stahl 283+0=283 Sabu & Van Dam are correct For these I am assuming that the "days held" column has the correct numbers. If there is a cite for these tables then maybe those are wrong, either way something is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Done all. I didn't make that table either, so I'm not really aware of that, the "by individual" and "by tag team" tables were added during this FLC, so I'm not aware of their stats. Sorry about all the issues.--TRUCO 503 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. This is probably the most thorough FLC review I have ever done (click show!) and every issue was resolved to my satisfaction. The only thing I haven't checked explicitly is the numbers for the "days held" column. However using this tool I checked a random sample and all were correct. Therefore I will now support this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:50, 10 February 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 Gimmetrow 23:50, 7 February 2009 [66].

---

Leverhulme Medal (Royal Society)

This was an easier one; I've tried to fix problems that were raised in my earlier nomination of the Rumford Medal. Enjoy. Ironholds (talk)

Resolved comments from Truco

Quick-Fail/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The Leverhulme Medal is awarded by the Royal Society every three years 'for an outstandingly significant contribution in the field of pure or applied chemistry or engineering, including chemical engineering". - the name of the article should be bolded not just part of the name, either write its entire name and bold it or just don't bold it all. In addition, why is this article called ____ of the Royal Society" and the other medal list doesn't have that name. See my reply to Chris below. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to be expanded like it was in the Rumford Medal list. Tried to do so; anything else? Ironholds (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC) First/most recent winner/significant winners?--TRUCO 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Most recent was already there; I've added in the Nobel Prize winners but not the first winner, since he was also one of the Nobel winners and I'd be repeating myself. Ironholds (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The table should be formatted correctly as it was in the Rumford Medal list. How is the table not formatted? Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) See the notes column of your other FLC and this one.--TRUCO 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC) They appear identical to me. I've got a bloody massive screen, though, so most things look different. Could you be a bit more specific? Notes section check, refs in it check, em dashes check, 3-column referencing check.. what is wrong?Ironholds (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Yeah, now they do :P--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The references should be formatted correctly as it was in the Rumford Medal. Done. Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) This list was just expanded, it is unstable for FLC at the moment.--TRUCO 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)}}

• Support - I did a general copyedit and my problems were fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent! Just to keep you on your toes I'll be posting another one in about an hour :P. Ahh, the joys of being a student post-exam season.Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all that Truco has to say except for the last. Articles are only considered unstable if "It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, ". However, the lead needs significant expansion, an image also would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; significant expansion is not something that makes it 'unstable'. Significant expansion followed by an edit war with a user who doesn't agree with said expansion would be unstable. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Why is "of the Royal Society" a part of the article title for Leverhulme Medal? Shouldn't it just Leverhulme Medal, similar to Royal Medal, Darwin Medal etc?—Chris! ct 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC) There is another medal called the Leverhulme Medal, so Leverhulme Medal acts as a disambig page. I'd be quite happy to move this to the 'proper' title since we don't have an article on the other one. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Then I suggest you move it to Leverhulme Medal (Royal Society); so that the name remains as ____ Medal with a disambiguation at the end.—Chris! ct 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Done and done. Ironholds (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support looks good —Chris! _ct 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support In this edit, I fixed everything that I would have normally commented on here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 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 Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [67].

---

List of foreign-born United States Cabinet Secretaries

Based on my experience with this FL, I believed this list fulfills the FLC criteria.—Chris! _ct 00:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I made a few copyedits, and, as with the female list, you've done an excellent job! All you need to do is make the tables centered; just add style="text-align:center;" to the head of the tables and then remove the align="center" from within them. Also, in the cells listing two presidents, please add a semicolon or comma to separate the links. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make everything in the table centered?—Chris! _ct 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Everything shouldn't be pushed over to the left. It would also be nice if the column order was the same as the Female list: Party to the right of the administration. In addition, not a single article links to this list. I recommend you add links from the people listed to the list, as well as a See Also from the Cabinet and Female articles. And if you wanted there's nothing wrong with more pictures. Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty busy right now and will probably get to your comment later today/tomorrow. Thanks—Chris! _ct 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done all except centering every column. I try to do that (using preview) and I don't like how it look with everything in the column centered. I want to see what other think first.—Chris! _ct 02:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "who were born outside of the present-day United States." Anytime you have "outside of", always delete the "of", as it is redundant. What do you mean by "present-day"?

"Present-day" means today.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• i.e. anyone born in an area which was at the time outside of the union is included, provided it has since joined as a state (or commonwealth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.146.140 (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Irish-born James McHenry, who was appointed by Washington as Secretary of War in 1801 and served the same post in John Adams's administration" Comma after here.
• "Albert Gallatin, born in Switzerland, became the third foreign-born members" "members"-->member.
• "including German-born Oscar Straus and Mexican-born George Romney, father of former Governor of Massachusetts and the 2008 Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney." Needs a citation because it is WP:BLP information.

Will get to this tomorrow.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The Department of Treasury has had the most foreign-born Secretaries" Comma after here.
• "each have had two."-->have each had two.
• "while the others"-->and the others
• "Since most foreign born Cabinet members are not natural-born citizens, meaning that they were not born in the United States or born aboard to American parents," Use em dashes (—) instead of commas.
• Explain the italics. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think note d is pretty clear at explaining that.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done all except those that I have responded to.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I Support, but the list definitely shoudl have more pages linking to it. Only one article links here. Reywas92^Talk 00:54, 6 February 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 Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [68].

---

BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award

This is my third list for a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic. I believe it now meets the criteria. Per this I think I'm also meant to mention I am participating in the WikiCup, but I had already started this topic before entering so that fact is largely insignificant to this submission. Thanks in advance for comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Personally, I'd like to see the name column sorted properly by surname, not by nationality first then surname.
• Perhaps have a separate column for nationality, then drop the "by nationality" section as redundant.
• Also, the "by sport" is redundant to the main table, and I'd drop that as well.
  • Sorted the sorting. Sorry it was an old issue from when nationality and name columns were combined. I am reluctent to immediately unmerge those columns as I merged them following a suggestion by Chrishomingtang at another FLC. If people really want them unmerged I can do it, I'd just like to see what the consensus really is first. The "by sport" section is there for consistency across the topic, as while it may be easy to count them here, other awards that have been given a lot more times would be difficult to count (e.g. this award). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bencherlite^Talk 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Since then nine of the ten winners have been British; the exception being South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius, who won the award in 2007. - if horse trainer is linked before this, why not paralympic sprinter? Unlinked horse trainer to avoid 4 consecutive blue links of "South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius" which looks bad. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) What you could do is just unlink South African and leave the other links, its not as bad.--TRUCO 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Two recipients have not played sport professionally, they are Jane Tomlinson who won in 2002, and Kirsty Howard who recieved the award in 2004 aged nine years old. - 1)Wouldn't it be a sport? 2)Typo on "received" 3)remove the aged part since its not really important since there isn't an age limit, if you have to leave it, reword it to make it seem notable Done, Done and Removed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) How about expanding the lead a bit to add more on the other recipients who actually played sports? Will do tomorrow. Done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Not that its a hassle, but the "by nationality" table doesn't need it since there are only 3 entries and they are already in descending order This is for consistency again as it is part of a topic. WP:FT? recommends "The structure of the articles is similar, with the same section titles and order where possible". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Oh, I'll let it go this time then.--TRUCO 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Jane Tomlinson was an amateur athlete who competed in Marathons, and Triathlons – these represent sporting disciplines of Athletics, Swimming, and Cycling. - no need to capitalize Marathons or Triathlons--TRUCO 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Helen Rollason was the first female presenter of Grandstand and after being diagnosed with cancer helped raise over £5 million to set up a cancer wing at the North Middlesex Hospital where she received most of her treatment." Split these sentences: "Helen Rollason was the first female presenter of Grandstand. After being diagnosed with cancer, she helped raise over £5 million to set up a cancer wing at the North Middlesex Hospital, where she received most of her treatment." -Done
• "Since then nine"-->Since then, nine -Done
• "the exception being South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius"-->the exception is South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius -Done
• "Two recipients have not played a sport professionally, they are Jane Tomlinson who won in 2002, and Kirsty Howard who"-->Two recipients have not played a sport professionally: Jane Tomlinson, who won in 2002, and Kirsty Howard, who -Done
• "Geoff Thomas, who won the award in 2005, raised money by cycling the 2,200 miles of the 2005 Tour de France course in the same number of days as the professionals completed it." If he is not a professional cycler, what does he do? -Done, well spotted
• The different notes systems are confusing (n 1 and n 2, then a) -Standardised
• "both Cricket and Rugby union at a professional level." Are you sure that these sports should be capitalized? -Uncapitalized
• "for fundraising and raising awareness of multiple sclerosis, since being diagnosed with the disease in 1999." Comma not necessary. -Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I have now fixed the above. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 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 Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [69].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple

I am nominating this awards list for FL status because I believe it qualifies and I have made several improvements to the list based on suggestions made in the peer review process. -Another Believer (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I peer reviewed the article and I now find it up to FL standards per WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I participated in the article's peer review, and believe it to be of FL standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=9107 a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the ChartStats reference with everyHit.com, the UK Top 40 Hit Database. I hope this helps! -Another Believer (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Everyhit has not been shown to be reliable either. See this discussion. To determine the reliablity 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 reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible I could just site this source? The Guardian is reliable as far as I know, and it indicates at the bottom of the article that "Fast as You Can" reached a chart position of #33. -Another Believer (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good enough. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done! -Another Believer (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it works. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 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 Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [70].

---

New York Islanders seasons

iMatthew // talk // 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The New York Islanders are an American ice hockey team that compete in the National Hockey League (NHL). - the statement about the competing in the NHL should be in the following sentence, this should state where they are based, considering its never mentioned in the prose Since 1972, the team has played its home games in Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. - this sentence makes it seem like there was a previous venue, how about stating that 1972 was their inaugural season, or along the lines of that In 36 completed seasons, the team has won four Stanley Cup championships and has qualified for the playoffs 21 times. - is there a specific link to the NHL playoffs? They have played more than 230 playoff games, and won more than 130 of them. - repetition of more than, replace the second occurrence with "over" As of the end of the 2007–08 season, New York had won more than 1,200 regular season games, the 14th-highest victory total among NHL teams. - link to this season? The Islanders were founded in 1972, and won their first out their four consecutive Stanley Cup championships in 1980. - needs rewording to "The Islanders were founded in 1972, and won their first out of four consecutive Stanley Cup championships in 1980." Since then, the team went as far as losing the Conference Finals in 1993 to eventual Stanley Cup champion Montreal Canadiens. - wouldn't it be "champions" not champion? Since then, the Islanders entered a period of decline, qualifying for the playoffs once from 1994 to 2001. - 1)reword the first part of the sentence, its too repetitive with the previous way the sentence began. 2)the from should "between" and the to should be "and" What I meant in 1)Was that both consecutive sentences began with "Since then" which is repetitive.--TRUCO 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The Islanders have never won the Presidents' Trophy, although they led the NHL in regular season points three times before the league began awarding the trophy, winning the Stanley Cup in two out of the three seasons. - the last clause of this sentence needs to be a new sentence or in after a semi-colon and beginning with "they won the..." What's verifying Note C? See one down. iMatthew // talk // 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Are the notes in the tables verified by the general references? Yes. iMatthew // talk // 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Note: GP = Games played, W = Wins, L = Losses, T = Ties, OTL = Overtime Losses, Pts = Points, GF = Goals for, GA = Goals against, PIM = Penalties in minutes - why is this needed if the table key does the same thing? In addition, some of these should be placed in the key--TRUCO 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Done with everything. iMatthew // talk // 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Some of the things in the key I placed above are not in the table key.--TRUCO 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Done with your comments. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Note A: "The Rangers were placed in the Clarence Campbell Conference's Patrick Division." Did somebody copy that note from the Rangers list I worked on, by chance? Also, the general reference for Hockey Database has a typo: "Hockey Datebase". Good luck! Giants2008 (17-14) 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with your comments. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "the team has won four Stanley Cup championships and has qualified for the playoffs 21 times." Comparative quantities should be written the same way.
• "their first out four consecutive" What does "out" mean?
• "Since then, the team went as far as losing the Conference Finals in 1993 to eventual Stanley Cup champions Montreal Canadiens. Since then, the Islanders only qualified for the playoffs once between 1994 and 2001. " Very choppy prose; repetition of "Since then" is annoying. "went as far as" is ungrammatical.
• "regular season points"-->regular-season points
• "The Islanders last qualified for the playoffs in 2007, while their most recent playoff series victory was in 1993. "-->The Islanders last qualified for the playoffs in 2007; their most recent playoff series victory was in 1993. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good although note Giant's comment on the typo. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with your comments. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 12:53, 30 January 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 Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [71].

---

List of World Series of Poker Ladies Champions

Ok, let's see how well I learned my lessons from my first FLC attempt. Here is my second go at an FLC. Tell what I need to do to get this to the next level.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]
  • I still suggest you remove the infoboxes, since, well, they're infoboxes. I don't think WP:MOS negates this, but it just looks kind of bad on the article. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 07:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily opposed to it, but let's see what others think... I kind of like them because it gives a little more info about the champions... but if the consensus is to remove it, then I'll take them off.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Removed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
        • You can still have pictures... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Truco asked to have them removed...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
            • No, I said remove the infoboxes, the images could remain with subcaptions.--TRUCO 15:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Added back in---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
                • The second one should be removed, it messes up the format. One picture is fine.--TRUCO 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • I moved it, howz it look there?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • Its irrelevant there, but its better.--TRUCO 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - many prose and content issues The World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet is considered the most coveted non-monetary prize a poker player can win. - the name is already spelled out before this, no need to spell it out again Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Since 1976, a bracelet has been awarded to the winner of every event at the annual WSOP but titles won prior to 1976 are still counted as "bracelets". - comma before but Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Remove the infoboxes, they are not representative of the list, the same can be said with images and subcaptions Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The first World Series of Poker was not a freeze out tournament, but rather an event with a set start and stop time with the winner determined by secret ballot. - 1)Use acronym 2)link to freeze out tournament? Both Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) In 1973, five-card stud was added. - link/explanation as to what this means per WP:JARGON Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) In 1977, an the first Ladies only event event was introduced in the form of $100 buy-in Stud Poker Tournament. - 1)"a" not an 2)link to buy-in or elaboration? Both Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) By 2007, the popularity of the Ladies Event had grown to the point that it became the first Ladies only event to have a prize pool greater than a million dollars. - before this, the currency was represented with numbers and the US dollar sign, be consistent with the formatting of money Done, but I'd like other people's input here... I'm not sure I like this change.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The Ladies played Seven Card Stud for the event's first two decades, but have been playing Texas Hold'em since 2001. - link to Texas Hold'em Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Between 1991 and 1997 Isaacs set an event record by finishing in-the-money five times. - 1)comma after 1997 2)Explain/link finishing-in-the-money? per [[WP:JARGON] done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Due to complaints from mothers the event was moved to a different day in 2004. - comma after mothers done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Potential conflicts with Mother's Day, no longer exist as the WSOP's new owner, Harrah's Casino moved the event from late spring to the summer. - 1)Remove the first comma 2)comma after Casino 3)Well is it "early, mid, or late" summer, since you stated that it was move from late spring done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) This week long event is held at Caesars Palace and is designed to equip women with the tools compete at the World Series of Poker. - add "to" before compete at the done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) In 2007, Sally Anne Boyer, the Ladies Champion similarly participated in the camp. ---> "In 2007, Ladies Champion Sally Anne Boyer similarly participated in the camp. done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship. Patty Till finished in third place at the 2008 Ladies Championship. - how about merging these like so.."The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship, including Patty Till, who finished in third place at the 2008 Ladies Championship." done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The person who won the Ladies Event. - should be "Ladies Championship event" done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Remove the periods in the first, second, third, fifth, and seventh entries in the key, they aren't complete sentences done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Each year is linked to an article about the WSOP World Series for that year. - this should be a footnote not in the key done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Tournament Prize is the amount of money they won for winning the Ladies Event that year. - should be "The amount of money they won..." done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The ref column should not be sortable done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The money columns should be center aligned done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Jennifer Tilly was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in Bullets over Broadway.[36] Tilly is known as the Unabombshell because of her dating Phil "Unibomber" Laak.[37] - how is this relevant to the list? Removed Unibombshell and tightened up her being an academy award nominee.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Svetlana Gromenkova, the 2008 winner, borrowed Anthony Rivera's "lucky" sunglasses. Rivera had won the Half Omaha/Half Stud Championship earlier in the week.[5] - once again, how is this relevant? Removed---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) On June 10, 3 events awarded bracelets, including the Ladies event. This was the first time in WSOP history that 3 people living in the same city, New York, won bracelets on the same day.[5] It was also the first time that a new "excessive celebration" penalty was implemented to minimize disruption from exuberant players. - numbers 0-9 should be spelled out not in # form Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) How reliable is the pokerroom.com?--TRUCO 19:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC) It's not one of the pages I regularly visit, but it is one of the older and larger poker cites on the web. I would say that it would be on par with a PokerStars/FullTilt/UltimateBet websites, as that is what it really is, an online casino. For this, I would trust it (plus, it is a fairly well known story that is often cited on poker shows.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The ref is fine, but the images should come back (only the images not the infoboxes).--TRUCO 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Added images back in.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GaryColemanFan

Comments from GaryColemanFan

• Is it necessary to show who participated in the 2008 tournament? Won't this information be outdated soon? I'm not sure what it adds to the article.

????I'm not sure where/what you are referring to here? The only place where somebody from the 2008 tournament is mentioned other than the winner, is when I'm talking about the "WSOP Academy Ladies Only Poker Camp," which is a camp designed to coincide with this tournament.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the section in the key that states: "† Denotes player who participated in the 2008 WSOP." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reworded, what I was looking for was something to indicate which players were still active. So I changed the wording to reflect that.

I don't know if I'd consider it necessary, but I'm sure some people would find it helpful. It certainly doesn't hurt anything, so I'll cross that out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nani Dollison's lifetime winnings need a second look. They should be consistent, and I'm assuming that lifetime winnings shouldn't be lower than the winnings from a single tournament.

Fixed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a new problem here, as it now states that she won $622,904 in both 2000 and 2001. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, was rushed due to my son waking up from a nap... he's in bed now, so I fixed it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reason that Barbara Enright's name can't be centered?

Fixed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• The list of men's champions gives additional information (winning hand, number of entrants, etc.). Would that information be appropriate here? There is some extra space in the table, which would allow this to fit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The women's event has been as well documented as the Main Event. It has only been in the past few years that it has started to emerge as one of the pre-eminent events at the WSOP. When it was first added, it was added as a gimmick to get more women to play poker (I wish I could find the source where I read that!) But anyway, the first tournament was only a $100 buy in, and frankly the WSOP doesn't even know how many people were in the earliest tournmanets let alone the winning hands. I could add a column for the number of participants, but about half of them would be empty and I figured it would be better not to include it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean that the women's event has not been as well documented as the Main Event. I was expected that was probably the case, so feel free to ignore this comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant. Not as well documented. Many of the earlier Ladies events we don't even know who the runner up was or how many people were in the event.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• The "Notes" section has a formatting problem. The notes read a,[b],c. There should be consistency. The corresponding "a" seems to have been removed when the infoboxes were taken out, so it doesn't link to anything in the prose or table. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The World Series of Poker (WSOP) is the "the oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most media-hyped gaming competition in the world".[1] It is held annually in Las Vegas." I think that there is a way to merge these sentences: "The World Series of Poker (WSOP), held annually in Las Vegas, is the "the oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most media-hyped gaming competition in the world".

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "prior to"-->before.

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "but rather an event with a set start and stop time with the winner determined by secret ballot" Is there a way to eliminate the "with ... with" repetition?

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "the first Ladies only event"-->the first Ladies-only event

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Jackie McDaniels won that event to became the first Ladies Championship." A couple things wrong here: wrong verb tense, and one can't become a "Championshiop".

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "only three players"

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "of color," Check your logical punctuation here, the comma should be outside the quotation marks.

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Traditionally" Comma after here.

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship" Can you verify this?

reworded---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Sally Anne Boyer similarly" "similarly"-->also.

no longer applicable, reworded section---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:CAPTION, images that have captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods.

done Made into sentences.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.pokerroom.com/newsroom/news/592/ reliable? We may have discussed this last time, but I didn't check.

Yes we did, the poker room is an established gaming casino and one of the oldest/largest poker cites on the web. I would not rank it as reliable as a magazine, but for this story, which is pretty well known in poker lore, I believe it is reliable. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 36 (the last one) needs a last access date. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 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 Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [72].

---

Timeline of the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season

I am nominating this timeline article for featured list candidacy because I feel it satisfies the criteria. While not being a great follower of hurricanes/tropical cyclones I've based this of many similar lists, capturing the same comprehensiveness. I believe the lead is sufficient, the timeline image accurate, and the timeline itself to be complete, also accompanied by images. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TRUCO

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The season officially started on June 1 2007, and finished on November 30; however Subtropical Storm One formed outside the official timeline on April 21. - 1)remove the comma before and 2)I don't think the season began in 2007?? Done - Removed comma and really can't believe 2007 wasn't brought up at peer review. It produced a total of seven storms, less than the average of ten usually formed throughout an Atlantic hurricane season; while four of the storms went on to become hurricanes. - the semi colon isn't right, it should be a comma Done - Changed to comma. Tropical Storm Danielle made landfall at the Delmarva Peninsula on the Virginian coast on 25 September causing minimal flooding. - 1)consistency with the date formatting (Day Month) (Month Day) Done - Changed to month-day. Its not clear in the prose which was the first storm formed "officially" (not Subtropical Storm One), and the last one formed. What I meant by this is that you should add in which was the first storm to "officially" begin in the season, and the last storm to "officially" finish the season.--TRUCO 15:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I understand what you meant. However, how doesn't subtropical storm one count as an official cyclone? Sunderland06 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Subtropical Storm One counts as the first tropical cyclone. However, Andrew was the first named storm. 17:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Right, I've added Hurricane Frances to ending the season, but I think I've made it clear which one started it. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) But, Subtropical Storm One formed outside the official timeline on April 21. - so the first storm of the official timeline should be noted.--TRUCO 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Right, I know what you mean now, I've added it in. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Tropical Storm Bonnie strengthens to Hurricane Bonnie - "into" not to Done - Changed to that. The season officially ends in November, but the reader is left in question as to what happened to Tropical Storm Frances after it becomes extratropical, since it formed in the 1992 season. Done - Added disspated after becoming an extratropical gale. Why not add the 1992 Pacific season in the See also section? Done - Added. --TRUCO 03:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 19:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Jason Rees

A very well written timeline but the only thing i can see wrong with the timeline is that there are brackets obscuring the UTC times eg (1800 UTC).Jason Rees (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed these. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Local time needs to be added in to the timeline Jason Rees (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added all these times in now. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Theres was just one mistake with the local times so i have changed it and i now Support this article -Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "started on June 1 1992" Comma after "1". Done - Added comma.
• "however Subtropical Storm One" Comma after "however". Done - Added comma.
• "It produced a total of seven storms" Done - Removed redundancy.
• "caused severe flooding over southwestern Florida and Cuba" "over"-->in. Done - Changed to "in".
• "When Andrew struck Florida and Louisiana through April," What do you mean by "through"? Comment - In the month, simply changed to "in".
• "to hit the United States with damages estimated around $26.5 billion, while killing 68 people."-->to hit the United States. Damages were estimated to be about $26.5 billion and 68 people were killed. Done - Changed to that.
• "coast on September 25 causing minimal flooding" Comma after "25". Done - Added comma.
• Inconsistencies, sometimes you say "weakens into " but other times it is "weakens to". Done - I've changed all "to"s to "into"s. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 3 needs format=PDF added to it. Done - Did that. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Cyclonebiskit 18:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Cyclonebiskit (talk)

Comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) Comments

• Several of the storms don't have where they formed in relation to land. Comment - While reading the reports on the NHC website, some did not mention where they formed.
  • I'll give you the locations shortly. Cyclonebiskit 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That would be brilliant thanks. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

TD One- formed 220 mi (355 km) northwest of Havana, Cuba

TD Two- formed 305 mi (490 km) southeast of Bermuda

Andrew- formed 775 mi (1,245 km) southwest of Brava, Cape Verde

Bonnie- formed 345 mi (555 km) east-northeast of Bermuda

Frances (as an EX-low)- formed 475 mi (765 km) southeast of Bermuda

Hope that helps :) Cyclonebiskit 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers a lot for that Cyclonebiskit, I've added them all in. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the units are in nautical miles, which is generally discouraged. The units for an Atlantic based article should be in imperial with metric conversion in parenthesis Done - There is miles with kilometers in brackets.
• I'm just wondering as to why there are so many wind speeds compared to other timelines, not that I find anything wrong with it, it just seems strange Comment - Not sure really, I saw it in a timeline NuclearWarfare was working on and decided to use it, as I'm not very common with the usual method.

Other than those few things, this is a very well made timeline, especially since it's your first WPTC article. I hope to see more of your articles in the future for the project :D Cyclonebiskit 00:25, 31 January 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 Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [73].

---

NWA Hall of Fame

Another professional wrestling hall of fame list, its pretty much based off its sister list. Any comments will be addressed.--TRUCO 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments The following comments have already been addressed pre-FLC, but I will post them here for convinience:

• "National Wrestling Alliance (NWA)" You already defined the abbreviation in the bolded phrase.
• "The Class of 2005, the inaugural inductees into the Hall of Fame did not have a formal induction ceremony," Comma at the end of this phrase should be a semicolon.
• "There were no inductees in 2007 due to the NWA planning an international expansion to the promotion." The noun + -ing structure ("NWA planning") is ungrammatical. Reword.
• "which also included"
• "Kai is the only woman to be inducted into the Hall of Fame."-->Kai is the only woman to have been inducted into the Hall of Fame.
• "Overall, there were 21 inductees; two managers, commentators, and promoters, and fifteen wrestlers." "21"-->twenty-one.
• "The NWA Hall of Fame logo (2008-)" Hyphen should be an en dash.
• Fix the dab. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Done all.--TRUCO 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, but reviewers' opinions on this one would be welcome. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Publications should be in italics (The Sun, Ref 4). Also, what makes this a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Well, The Sun is a tabloid, which is generally not reliable on Wikipedia. But the author Paul Heyman is a prime and reliable individual in the world of professional wrestling. He is the former owner of Extreme Championship Wrestling, worked for World Wrestling Entertainment for many years, and now reports for The Sun, so I find his work reliable. He also has connections with people in WWE, as he states in other reports.--TRUCO 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Could you provide a source or something that says Hayman did all that you said he did? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• About him and ECW, its in his book The Rise & Fall of ECW. About him in WWE, he states it in his report.--TRUCO 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to meet WP:SPS, but I would still like other reviewers' input. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think the source meets the requirement on WP:V.—Chris! _ct 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/Bios/heyman_paul.html gives a good biography of Heyman, and it confirms that he has been a major player in the WWF, WCW, and ECW. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments For some reason, there is a large white space above the table. I think the images are too large and they push the table down.—Chris! _ct 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I don't see that on my browser [Firefox 3], are you referring to the white space due to the table of contents box creates, if not, then it must be your browser.--TRUCO 15:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I know why this happen. The table width is set to 80% and the images don't have enough room, pushing the table. Do you mind removing the set width on the table?—Chris! _ct 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, done.--TRUCO 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I support—Chris! _ct 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, could you comment on the above source issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 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 Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [74].

---

List of Atlanta Hawks head coaches

Been a week since my last active FLC. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The team began playing in 1946 as a charter member of the National Basketball League (NBL), and joined the NBA as part of the NBA-NBL merger. - doesn't the NBA-NBL have a link to its merger? Nope. Only the ABA-NBA merger does. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I was gonna say redirect it to a specific section, but there is none available in any of the related articles.--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The Hawks won their first and only NBA championship in 1958, but has never returned to the NBA Finals in 47 years. - since its already elaborated that they have only won their only title in the NBA, reword the second part of the sentence to ", and they have not returned to the NBA Finals since then" or ", and they have not returned to the NBA Finals in 47 years" Done own rewording. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) There have been 26 head coaches for the Hawks franchise. The franchise's first head coach was Roger Potter, who coached for seven games. - repetition of franchise So? I don't get what you mean here. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I mean reword the second franchise to like "team" or "organization", franchise is too repetitive. Reworded second one to team, though I kind of regret it because on the NHL head coaches article, I use team since WP:HOCKEY split their franchises by name (ie. List of Dallas Stars head coaches). -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Red Auerbach, Red Holzman, Hannum and Lenny Wilkens are the only Hawks coaches to have been elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach. - 1)comma before and 2)So these individuals are the only coaches to have been inducted in the Hall of Fame for their position as "coach" in entire NBA history? That's how this sentence reads Done first one, but I don't get what you mean on the second. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I mean that by the wording, it sounds like the coaches in that sentence are the only coaches in NBA history to be elected into the Hall of Fame as a "coach"--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) It says right on the sentence that, "[they] are the only Hawks coaches to have been elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach." -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Okay calm down sir.--TRUCO 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Achievements column: 1957–58 NBA champions - should be "NBA Championship (1957-58)" Both way works. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Per consistency with other FL's.--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I don't think it matters, though some of my featured lists also have this wording. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) They may have passed before this new format began, because the column reads "achievements", which infers that the individual won a specific achievement, which is not "NBA Champions" but the "NBA Championship"--TRUCO 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC) In the refs, the Basketball Hall of Fame is linked, yet the National Basketball League is not, consistency is needed I think you meant National Basketball Association, so I think I done what you requested. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's what i meant.--TRUCO 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC) --TRUCO 03:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 18:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Atlanta Hawks are an American professional basketball team based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Hawks play"-->The Atlanta Hawks are an American professional basketball team based in Atlanta, Georgia. They play...

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "names since its inception; they were called"-->names since its inception; it was called

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The Hawks won their first and only NBA championship"

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Alex Hannum is the only head coach to have ever won an NBA championship with the Hawks"

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Auerbach, Holzman, and Wilkens were also named one of the top 10 coaches in NBA history in 1996."-->Auerbach, Holzman, and Wilkens were also named as 3 of the top 10 coaches in NBA history in 1996.

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fix the dab.

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Both image captions need rewording:
  • "Current head coach of the Hawks, Mike Woodson, has coached the Hawks since 2004."-->Mike Woodson has coached the team since 2004.
  • "Hall of Famer Red Auerbach coached one season for the Blackhawks."-->Hall-of-Famer Red Auerbach coached the Blackhawks for one season.

Done both, though Hall of Famer is usually spelled without dashes. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support
  • NBA-NBL merger? There was no such merger. Reword a little.

• Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• He's referring to the BAA-NBL merger. The resulting league was called the NBA. Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• The leagues weren't merged, the NBL just defunct. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 23:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• • ...as 3 of the top 10 - ...as three of the top 10?

It should be "three of the top ten" or "3 of the top 10", though I prefer the second choice. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 03:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice seeing you back on Wikipedia. Hope you'll get your Wikiholistic ways back. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry to complicate things, but the Hawks actually started out in the NBL as the Buffalo Bisons. They moved to the Tri-Cities midseason. The Hawks' website doesn't mention this for some reason, but here are a few sources: [75], [76], [77]. Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add that part because I didn't have a reference, and they never played as the Bisons. I'll clear up the sentence just in case someone is gonna comment on that again. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 07:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Added. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 07:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure they never played as the Bisons? Where did you read that? Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the sentence. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• A few more comments

• The Hawks won their only NBA championship in 1958, and they have not returned to the NBA Finals since the 1960 NBA Finals. Why not just say, "they have not returned to the NBA Finals since 1960"? I don't like the repetition of NBA Finals.

• Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Did Roger Potter coach the Hawks while the team was in the NBL? If not, the article should clarify that he was the first head coach after the team joined the NBA.

• Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why not include the NBL seasons in the list? This might require some more research, but I'm pretty sure the book Total Basketball contains that information. Zagalejo^^^ 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because the potential featured topic that I will be working on is List of NBA head coaches (now a redirect, so no bother wikilinking the article). If WP:NBA agrees on adding the NBL seasons, I'm fine with that, but right now, consistency is what I, and maybe the WP:NBA, want. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's not that important, I guess, but other articles (eg List of Indiana Pacers head coaches) do include ABA seasons. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think it was maybe because the ABA was merged into the NBA. Also, they have an internet source for ABA seasons. If you can get references for the NBL seasons, I'll put it on the list if you really want it on the list. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• The second paragraph (especially the fifth sentence onward) seems a little choppy to me. Is there any way to improve the flow? Much of that information is already available in the list, so perhaps we can simplify things. You could just say, for example, that five Hawks coaches have been elected into the Hall of Fame, rather than listing all of them in the lead. Thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's four by the way. Listing them aren't that bad, as long as it doesn't list like more than five at max. How is that going to improve the "flow" though? I'm not very experienced with the creating sentences (barely passing my English class), so any help from you would be great. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, my bad. There are five Coach of the Year winners. Anyway, we wouldn't automatically improve the flow by doing that, but we would reduce the wordage and make it easier to merge similar ideas into single sentences. I'll have to think about this a little more, though. I don't have any quick fixes in mind. Zagalejo^^^ 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I took a stab at it. Did I remove too much? I deleted the sentence about the coaches who have spent their entire careers with the franchise, since that's not a particularly meaningful statistic. Many of them were just interim coaches. Zagalejo^^^ 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I still think game wins is better than games won. ;b It doesn't really matter, as long as it has featured list criteria. Thanks for being dedicated to trying to make Wikipedia better! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 05:45, 28 January 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 Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [78].

---

List of tallest buildings and structures in Tokyo

I have been working on this list for quite awhile. I overhauled it substantially a few months ago and have been tweaking it ever since. Based off of similar tallest buildings featured lists, I think it meets all FL criteria: it's comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. Let me know of any concerns so I can address them ASAP! --Torsodog^Talk 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Prose More doubling the height of Japan's previous tallest building—the 17-story Hotel New Otani Tokyo—the Kasumigaseki Building is regarded as Japan's first modern high-rise building, rising 36 stories and 156 metres (512 ft) in height. - Remove More and start the sentence with "Doubling" Oops, weird typo. Corrected. A 610-metre-tall (2,003 ft) tower known as the Tokyo Sky Tree is also under construction in the city. - comma before known and after Tree Done. When completed, the structure's height will surpass Tokyo Tower's by 277 metres (909 ft) making it the tallest free standing structure in Tokyo and Japan. - comma before making Done. This list of the tallest buildings and structures in Tokyo ranks skyscrapers and free-standing structures in the prefecture of Tokyo, Japan by height. - FL's are discouraged to begin as "This is a list of ____" or "This list of _____" The tallest structure in Tokyo is Tokyo Tower, a lattice tower that rises 332.6 metres (1,091 ft) in Minato and was completed in 1958 - and was should be , which was (notice the comma) Done. Tables/List This height includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts. - comma before but Since the second clause after the but is not independent, I don't think a comma should be used here. Also, I copied directly from other FLs (e.g. Vancouver). Although a link is present, a small sentence should be given to explain what Ward means in the prose. Tallest all residential building in Tokyo and Japan. - is the all suppose to be there? Yes, though I think it should probably be "all-residential" (as in it is the tallest building that is completely devoted to residential housing). The notes like 16th-tallest building in Japan. - need to have the full stops removed because they are not complete sentences and are fragments. I was a bit confused on the rule here because other FLs kind of change what they use. Thanks for letting me know though! All removed. Tallest free-standing steel structure in the world. 20th-tallest tower in the world. Tallest structure in Japan. Tallest structure in Tokyo. - these type of notes should either be in a full sentence format or need to be separated with commas/semi-colons I opted for the semicolon. In the first section, one of the images needs to be removed because it leaves too much white space in between the next section This is really very dependent on your resolution. In the resolution I use, they fit perfectly, much like the List of tallest buildings in Vancouver. Image caption: The Kasumigaseki Building was the first modern office skyscraper to be built in Tokyo and was the city's tallest building until 1970. - well when did it first become the tallest building? Added year built. The existing structures in the first section should sort by rank in the same way the others do, like using the {{sort}} template, have it sort according to its height with the others in the # column. Wow, I didn't even realize this! It got all messed up when I threw those pesky mdashes in. Thanks and fixed. I would make the references into one column because not all browsers support 3 columns, see {{reflist}}.--TRUCO 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC) The reflist was too long with only one column, but I did removed the 3 in favor of 2 columns instead. Thanks for all the help! I still have to go back and add a few things to the prose (namely reword the first paragraph and add the bit about what wards are), but other than that I think I addressed all of your other points. Let me know if you have any thing else! --TorsodogTalk 19:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) My comment about the intro sentence that states "This list of ____" needs to be addressed. Once you're done with the prose comments, notify me.--TRUCO 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

We don't start lists out as "this is a list of..." anymore. Take a look at List of tallest buildings in Vancouver for a suggestion. Also, in the title, "structures" seems redundant and isn't consistent with other similar lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd, almost all of the tallest buildings FLs start out with the "this is a list of...", but I will happily change it. Also, the structures portion is consistent with lists for cities that contain tall structures. See:London, Salford and Manchester. If this is also changed for some reason, however, let me know. --Torsodog^Talk 22:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We have moved away from that robotic repetition of the article's subject in the past half-year, most of those tallest-building FLs were promoted before. On your second point, no need to change it if it is consistent with others. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well I've switched up the first paragraph quite a bit and added a few more bits into the lead. I hope this addresses your concern! --Torsodog^Talk 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "second tallest overall structure"-->second-tallest overall structure
• "Overall, of the 25 tallest buildings and structures in Japan, 18 are located in Tokyo."
• "height limit of 31 metres until 1963 when " Comma after "1963".
• "in favor of a floor area ratio" Shouldn't it be "Floor Area Ratio"?
• "Doubling the height "-->Double the height
• "Tokyo is broken into two sections" I think "divided" would be better here.
• "are located within"
• "tallest free standing structure"-->tallest free-standing structure
• Add a note about the equal signs in the list, as in List of tallest buildings in Vancouver.
• "42th-tallest building in Japan"-->42nd-tallest building in Japan
• "42st-tallest building in Japan"-->42nd-tallest building in Japan Dabomb87 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• All done! --Torsodog^Talk 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Quite a few of the sources need publisher information. Examples only: Refs 93, 95, 99, 100.
• Ref 104, add format=PDF to the citation template.

• Added PDF tags. Removed refs in question in favor of more reliable sources with publishers. --Torsodog^Talk 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent buildings list comparable to others. Reywas92^Talk 01:47, 1 February 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 Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [79].

---

List of Muni Metro stations

My first FL nomination or maybe in a featured process of any sort. This is a continuation of the trend of bringing San Francisco Bay Area rail station lists here for FL consideration. —kurykh 08:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

I helped write this list and am satisfy with it, but I still have some comments. 9 subway stations -> nine subway stations Done. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The opening year of Balboa Park Station needs a ref Done. Should the refs be shortened somehow? —kurykh 01:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Consider adding more info about stations to the lead (eg. ridership in stations) I have looked far and wide, and this information isn't even available. There is ridership per line, but not per station. I will keep looking though. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC) It is more helpful to order the metro lines based on years open rather than alphabetically. And add a note to explain this similar to List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations. (just ignore the first part if lines are already ordered based on years open) The problem is that unlike many other systems, Muni Metro line names have remained constant for the past century or so. The other articles seemed to have it sorted by years because of their names changing after every extension. Many descriptions regarding Muni Metro, formal or not, are done alphabetically, and it would be strange to do otherwise. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Ok—Chris! ct 00:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Chris! ct 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - boy oh boy I love metro stuff. So, some comments, from overcast Cusco...
  • Any reason that the Castro line is excluded from the map?
    • The official Muni Metro map that the list's map is based off of does not have the S Castro Shuttle line on it. —kurykh 06:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • ¨...stops that consist from a traffic island or a sign painted on a telephone pole..." doesn´t read well to me..
    • Done. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • BART should be explained before being used as an acronym.
    • Done. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is Castro stuff in italics?
    • Because the Castro line is a line with limited service.—Chris! _ct 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Fine, but forgive my ignorance, where is that stated in the key or in the text? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Added—Chris! _ct 22:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No need to superinflate the image sizes of the stations - i think you´re forcing the image sizes to 270px, no need.
    • Fixed by Chrishomingtang. —kurykh 06:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Surface stations Platform col does not sort correctly.
    • Fixed by Chrishomingtang. —kurykh 06:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Good work, not too far off I reckon. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, Rambling man basically read the review in my mind :P. I have the same concerns raised by TRM, I can support once those are done because this is excellent, but those few problems.--TRUCO 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Support - meets WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Muni Metro is a light rail system serving San Francisco, California"-->Muni Metro is a light rail system that serves San Francisco, California.
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Muni Metro serves 173,000 passengers a day, making it the second busiest in the United States" Secpnd-busiest what?
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The system consists of nine subway stations, 24 surface stations" Comparable quantities should be written the same way. Either make them both numerals or both written out.
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Four of the stations"
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• The backgrounds should not cover the whole row, only the "Station" column. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, other similar FLs have backgrounds covering the entire row. Leaving this the exception would be strange. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So then, we change the others. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. —kurykh 19:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• On several refs, you spell out abbreviations, which is good, but you never actually use the abbreviations by themselves. I think that those parenthetical abbrevations should be removed.
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Refs 1, 8 and 15 need format=PDF added to them.
  • Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• What makes http://world.nycsubway.org/us/sf/muni-streetcar.html a reliable source?
  • Removed; other sources suffice. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 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 Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [80].

---

List of number-one albums of 1999 (U.S.)

I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Efe

Comment(s) by Efe You still failed to include the longest-running album of this year. --Efe (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC) I found this reference on Billboard [81], but I think it refers to "Smooth" on the Billboard Hot 100. Frcm1988 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Like this. "Hey Ya!" continued its pole position in 2004, but is credited as one of 2003's longest-running singles. --Efe (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Ah! Here is a better proof. Jagged Little Pill first topped the chart in 1995, and reappeared at number one the following year. Billboard credit it as 1995's longest-running album by a female artist. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I didn't understand your point at first, but then I realize that you refer to the longest-running "number-one" album of the year. First I thought that you were refering to the number of weeks in total the album spent on the chart and I thought that some of the other albums spent more weeks on the chart: Spears and the Backstreet Boys. Sorry my mistake. Added Sorry for the vague comment. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) "The Billboard 200, published in Billboard magazine, is a weekly chart that ranks the 200 highest-selling music albums and EPs in the United States." Its kind of redundant. --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Removed 200 "There were 23 number-one albums on this chart in 1999, including Garth Brook's Double Live, which spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart starting in early December 1998." Wondering why you first mentioned the album? I mentioned it first because is the first number-one album of the year, and the only one that started its chart run at number-one in 1998. OK, no probs. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) "debuted at number one with 670,000 copies sold in its first week". The significance of this, too. --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC) It's the second biggest sales opening for an album in 1999, but I can remove that part. Removed "Pop singer Britney Spears peaked at number one with her first album ...Baby One More Time" Maybe a little bit rephrasing because it seems that Spears is the one who peaked on the chart. Maybe "Pop singer Britney Spears' first album ...Baby One More Time peaked at number one". --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Changed "I Am…, the third studio album by rapper Nas, was originally planned as a double-disc concept album comprised of autobiographical material, but was scaled down and released as a single disc after some of the tracks were leaked." This should not be here because the intro is the analysis of the list. --Efe (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I added that part for a little context on the album, but it can be removed, what did you suggest: I Am…, the third studio album by rapper Nas, stayed at the top of the chart for two weeks and has been certified double platinum by the RIAA.? Much better. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Done Frcm1988 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Issues addressed. --Efe (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose w/ Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) There were 23 number-one albums on this chart in 1999, including Garth Brook's Double Live which spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart starting in early December 1998. - comma before which Done Flesh of My Flesh, Blood of My Blood by American rapper DMX, debuted at number one with 670,000 copies sold in its first week,[3] making it his second album that debuts at the top of the chart. - 1)unlink American 2)Remove American since the list is American 3)debuts should be debuted Done American pop singer Britney Spears peaked at number one with her first album ...Baby One More Time for six non-consecutive weeks. - remove American Done TLC's third album, Fanmail, which was the year's top selling hip-hop album,[6] stayed at number one for five weeks and won the Grammy Award for Best R&B Album at the 42nd Grammy Awards. - 1)unlink hip-hop, common genre 2)stayed would sound better as "remained" Done I Am…, the third studio album by rapper Nas, was originally planned as a double-disc concept album comprised of autobiographical material, but was scaled down and released as a single disc after some of the tracks were leaked. - 1)unlink rapper, for one it is too common of a genre and two it should have been linked earlier 2)A link to leakage in this context is needed. Done The album stayed two weeks at the top of the chart and was certified double platinum by the RIAA. --> The album stayed at the top of the chart for two weeks and was certified double platinum by the RIAA. Done Certified as diamond by the Recording Industry Association of America,[5] it made her the youngest artist to reached the ten million sales mark and the top selling female act of 1999. - the acronym is needed for the Recording Industry Association of America in a (RIAA) form. Shouldn't the full name be mentioned at least one time? Ricky Martin's eponymous set achieved sales of six million copies, making it the year's top selling album by a solo male artist. - other singlers have their genre listed, why not Martin? Done Millennium by American boy band Backstreet Boys spent ten weeks at number one on the chart, selling 1,130,000 copies in its first week of release, - 1)Remove American 2)unlink boy band Done American nu metal band Limp Bizkit, released their second album Significant Other, which debuted at number one and sold over five million copies by the end of the year,[9] also helping push Limp Bizkit's first album past the platinum mark. - 1)Remove American 2)The link to this genre can stay since its not as common 3)the comma should be made into a semi-colon and the other part of the sentence should go after with the rewording of ..."this helped push Limp Bizkit's first album past the platinum mark. Done Christina Aguilera self-titled debut album was released in the summer of 1999, the lead single "Genie in a Bottle" shot to the top of the singles chart for five weeks, helping the album reach the number one position in September,[15] and selling five million copies by January of 2000. - 1)Genre for Aguilera 2)the link to her self titled album should be piped linked as "self-titled album" not just album 3) Full stop after summer of 1999 Start next sentence with "its lead single" 4)shot is wordy, "ranked" works better 5)the helping should be "which helped" 6)Remove the of between January and 2000 Done Fly by the country music group Dixie Chicks peaked at number one for two weeks, making them the first country group to reach the top of the Billboard 200; - remove the link to country music, common genre Done Human Clay, the second album by American post-grunge band Creed became a hit, entering the charts at number one and selling ten million copies over the next two years. - 1)Remove American 2)comma after Creed Done Santana peaked at number one for three weeks with Supernatural, his first number-one album in 28 years. - genre for Santana? Done Breathe, the fourth album by country artist Faith Hill, entered the charts at number one upon its release in late 1999, and its title track became Hill's biggest hit, topping the country and the adult contemporary singles charts;[20] the album sold five million copies by the end of 2000 and won the Grammy Award for Best Country Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards. - 1)full-stop needed after in late 1999 2)late 1999 needs a dash in-between 3)Start the next sentence with "It's title track..." Done Born Again by The Notorious B.I.G. was the second posthumous album by the rapper to reach number-one on the albums chart, and the seventh posthumous title to reach the top during the 90's - the 90's should be spelled as "1990s" Done The list needs to be renamed to "List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 1999" or "List of number-one albums in 1999 (United States)" or "List of number-one albums in 1999 (U.S.)" The change is alredy being discussed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts. The see also section belongs before the references. Done With this amount of prose errors, a peer review would have worked better here, FLC is not a substitute of PR.--TRUCO 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC) The article had a Peer Review, unfortunately it didn't receive much feedback. Sorry for the inconveniences. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Its sad to see that PR don't get enough attention.TRUCO 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - comments resolved to meet WP:WIAFL. I would still like to see the article renamed.--TRUCO 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "which spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart starting in early December 1998."-->which, starting in early December 1998, spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart.

• Changed

• "TLC's third album, Fanmail, which was the year's top selling hip-hop"

• Removed

• "in the summer of 1999" Don't use seasons; use months instead.

• Done

• "late-1999" No hyphen necessary.

• Removed

• "making them the first country group to have reached"-->making them the first country group to reach

• Changed

• Spell out RIAA.

• Is it necessary to spell the name again, I already put the complete name: "Pop singer Britney Spears's first album ...Baby One More Time peaked at number one for six non-consecutive weeks. Certified as diamond by the Recording Industry Association of America." Frcm1988 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 3, change the title to sentence case. Web page titles should not be in all caps.

• Changed

• Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as RIAA.

• Done

• Ref 19 should have Billboard linked since all the other instances are linked. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done

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 Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [82].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 (United States)

I am listing this here at FLC because I feel it meets the criteria, having been edited extensively and peer reviewed. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, meets WP:WIAFL. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Published by Billboard magazine, the data are compiled by Nielsen SoundScan based collectively on each single's weekly physical and digital sales, and airplays. - the data are compiled isn't right, it should be "the data is compiled" See Wikipedia:Peer review/Hot 100 number-one hits of 2003 (United States)/archive1. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, you are right.--TRUCO 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Both Knowles and 50 Cent dominated this year's chart. 50 Cent's first number-one single "In da Club" and Knowles' second number-one single "Baby Boy" both topped the Hot 100 for nine straight weeks, becoming the longest-running number-one singles of 2003. - dominated is in a way a point-of-view, reword. In addition, the first period can be changed into a colon Do you have any suggestion what word to replace? Added column. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Something along the lines of ..had the longest charting singles...--TRUCO 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Revised the line. --Efe (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Seven collaboration singles topped the chart in 2003, setting a record for most number-one collaborations in a calendar year since the onset of rock era in 1955; - "the" needs to be added before rock era Added the. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) With the combined chart run of "Get Busy" and "Baby Boy", the latter in which he is featured, Sean Paul became the most successful Jamaican-born artist in terms of chart performance in Hot 100. - add "the" before Hot 100 Added the. --Efe (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC) During the year, nine acts achieved each a first US number-one single, either as lead artist or featured guest. - I don't know whether this is an English variation or not, but the word "a" should be added before "lead artists" and before "featured guest" Added only one a. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Unlink the wikilinks in the image captions, its WP:OVERLINK I think its important to provide links to captions. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Its fine.--TRUCO 21:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC) With the amount of white space, I would add a couple more images. Will add two. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) [83] is not a reliable website--TRUCO 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Author is reliable. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) How reliable is Bill Lamb? Because the publisher About.com has been found unreliable.--TRUCO 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC) I have found a better source, and I would be happy to remove About.com if you can provide me a link where this site is being discussed, so that I'll stop using the site should it be proven unreliable. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I would talk to User:Ealdgyth because they specialize in proving sources reliable, and she is the one who checks them at WP:FAC. For now I would remove it, and the other source should cover for it.--TRUCO 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC) The thing about About.com is that anyone can write for it and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight; the reliabilty of individual pages depends on whether the author of that article meets WP:SPS as an expert. OK, I'll remove it. Anyway, I have two better sources. --Efe (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 16:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Why terms linked in the caption, when they are already linked in the lead and the table?

• I see no problem with it. Its just that they are linked because they're in the lead. And it has been a sort of guideline to have links in the table. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the linking in the lead or table. I don't see why they are necessary in the captions either. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Same query above. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• "there were 11 singles that topped the chart, in 52 issues of the magazine" No comma after "chart".

• Is it superfluous? I think it has sense? --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is a grammar thing. Don't put the comma after the main clause when a dependent clause follows. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're right. I have checked my guide. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• "During the year, nine acts achieved each a first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest."-->During the year, nine acts achieved a first US number-one single as a lead artist or featured guest.

• Used each for clarity, and per PR. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "either as lead artist or featured guest." Why is this phrase repeated at the end of the second paragraph?

• Because Sean Paul is only a featured guest in "Baby Boy". --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "longer than any single to have topped this year"-->longer than any single to top that year

• "to have topped", IMO, is a better phrasing. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Hip hop duo"-->Hip-hop duo

• hip-hop and hip hop are acceptable. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "three weeks of which "

• For clarity again? Unless its redundant. I would be happy to remove it. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is redundant. Look at the larger context: "nine consecutive weeks, three weeks of which" What else could you be talking about? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, removed. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• "at number one combining "In the Club" and "21 Questions"."-->at number one with "In the Club" and "21 Questions".

• Clarity again. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "to have topped the chart"-->to top the chart

• Per above. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "which charted for eight straight weeks in summer" Don't use seasons; use months instead.

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Changed as suggested. But I see no problem with it, actually. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Only pending issue is the about.com thing above. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Note An IP editor has left a comment on the article article's talk page that states the images squeeze the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the screen resolution of his computer. --Efe (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - With regard to the references. The publisher date goes "year-month-date", but the retrieve date goes "date-month-year". — R² 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's how the template is formatted, I think. --Efe (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — R² 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - All good. — R² 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it alright if we move the list to "List of..." as a couple other lists have been moved now? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been agreed in a discussion on the project's page. Go ahead and thanks in advance. --Efe (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Letting you know here that I will move your other lists too so that the precedent is clear. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually raised a discussion at the project's talk page for others to generate a guide in the moving of these lists. --Efe (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I left comments over there; if nobody raises a concern I will probably move the other pages by the end of the week. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Efe (talk) 01:17, 3 February 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 Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [84].

---

List of New York Islanders award winners

iMatthew // talk // 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice to see a different type of sports list, but there are many problems. These are just from the top:

• I'm not sure about the title of this article. How about: List of New York Islanders awards and accomplishments, a la Portland Trail Blazers accomplishments and records?
  • There is already a List of Calgary Flames award winners. I think it's fine. iMatthew // talk // 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The team has won the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl trophy"
• "Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier, and Mike Bossy are the team's most decorated players, with all three winning the Calder Memorial Trophy once." You say they are the most decorated and then you say that they have won a trophy? What is the criteria for "most decorated"? Instead, say how many awards/achivements that they have won. The sentence construction is also awkward with the noun + -ing.
• Prune this redundancy-plagued phrase: "In addition, they have also won other various awards"
• "Other management personnel to be inducted"-->Other management personnel who have been inducted
• "General manager" Why is this capitalized? Also, it would be more useful if you pipe linked this to the "Sports teams" section in that article.
• Whenever a year range is preceded by "from", do not use an en dash. Example: "from 1972–1992"-->from 1972 to 1992.
• "In its history" Another redundant phrase; when else could they have won these awards?
• "Bryan Trottier, Denis Potvin, and Mike Bossy are some of the Islanders' most decorated players" In the lead, you say they are the most decorated. Now you say that they are only of the most decorated players. Which is it? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• I will come back for more comments later. One thing: Fix the dabs. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The New York Islanders have retired six numbers. Of the six retired numbers, five players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame." Confusing. Readers who don't understand these things will be confused over retired numbers and players.
• "One of these is for Al Arbour, Islanders head coach for 19 seasons."-->One of these is for Al Arbour, who was the Islanders' head coach for 19 seasons.
• "Another banner is for Bill Torrey, General manager of the Islanders from 1972 to 1992."-->Another banner is for Bill Torrey, who was the general manager of the Islanders from 1972 to 1992.
• "Potvin recorded 310 goals in 1060 games for the Islanders, while Bossy recorded 573 goals in 752 games." "while"-->and.
• In the "All Star Games selections" "Year" column, change the header to "All Star Game" or something like that.
• "33 All-Star Games have been held since the Islanders arrived on Long Island, with at least one player representing the Islanders in each year, but the 2001, 1999, and 1979 games." Don't start sentences with numerals; the noun + -ing ("player representing") structure is awkward.
• "The All-Star game has not been held in various years" "various"-->several.
• "Mike Bossy played a franchise high"-->Mike Bossy played a franchise-high

Still not there yet. Find a copy-editor (User:Maxim or User:Resolute) to look at it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. I'll ask Maxim later. iMatthew // talk // 16:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've done a copy-edit this morning on request. Resolute 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: This article needs to be linked on the navbox (no need to stall promotion over it though). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• For the Hockey-Reference sources, Hockey-Reference is the work and Sports Reference LLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure, thanks for the comments. Will get to as soon as possible. iMatthew // talk // 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done with everything. Thanks. iMatthew // talk // 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is it just me or is this article uncategorized? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Its uncategorized.--TRUCO 23:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. iMatthew // talk // 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Several teams offer internal team awards; i.e.: The Molson Cup for the Canadian franchises. Do the Islanders have any such awards? Resolute 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of (or could find, anywhere). iMatthew // talk // 16:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just kidding! I found one, and added it in. iMatthew // talk // 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, good add. Support meets WP:WIAFL, well written. Resolute 06:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Following league realignment in 1981, they then captured the Prince of Wales Trophy as Wales Conference playoff champion consecutively from 1982 to 1984. - wouldn't it be "the" Wales Conference playoff champion? Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier, and Mike Bossy have won four to five awards each, with all three winning the Calder Memorial Trophy as rookie of the year in their first NHL seasons. - have won four to five awards is badly worded. How about saying, "have won at least three awards"? Other management personnel who have been inducted include Al Arbour, who coached the Islanders for his entire career, and Bill Torrey, who held the general manager position from 1972 to 1992. - be consistent, state from what years Arbour coached Trottier and Bossy have both won the Conn Smythe Trophy once, awarded to the most valuable player of the playoffs. - add "which is" before awarded The All-Star game has not been held in several years: 1995 and 2005 as a result of labor stoppages, 2006 because of the Winter Olympics, and 1979 and 1987 due to the Challenge Cup and Rendez-vous '87 series between the NHL and the Soviet national team respectively. - comma before respectively--TRUCO 17:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Done. iMatthew // talk // 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL, in addition, I participated in this article's peer review, so I find it up to standards.--TRUCO 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - One minor thing though, in the table for Individual awards there seems to be a stray cell between the Seasons header and the 1978–79 cell. I tried to remove it but couldn't. Perhaps it could just be colspan/rowspan playing up. This however doesn't effect my support. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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