Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2007
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 1 oppose, though it was dealt with. Promote. Juhachi 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've given this list a thorough overhaul and think it is up to the same high standard as List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region, itself a featured list. Seaserpent85 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I see now that the Paris list got through in March of last year with only two references, surely there's more sources than that citing the heights of these buildlings and it wouldn't succeed now. In any event, the London list looks good even with five, and I'll likely support. -- Phoenix2 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I have a good amount of confidence in any list citing Emporis as a resource. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I am wondering though why the Paris list contains all buildings over 90m and this London list only has buildings over 100m. CheekyMonkey 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- For the Paris list, they seem to have decided to include the 100 tallest high-rises as a round number. There are fewer taller buildings in London (The 100th tallest is only 70m tall) so the list only includes buildings 100m and above as the unofficial accepted limit for skyscrapers. Hope that clears things up! Seaserpent85 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, well organized, good references. Resolute 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support.
- 1. Parts of the lead need to be rephrased to avoid statements that will date quickly.
- 2. The last paragraph in the lead contains peacock terms: "London goes through a high-rise boom" and "transform the London skyline". Unless you are quoting someone (worth quoting) who said this, then you need to be a bit more neutral.
- Done - all such terms removed. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- 3. You shouldn't say "Buildings that are currently under construction will be added as and when they are completed." as this is a self-reference and an instruction to editors that should be on the talk page. Simply define what your inclusion/exclusion criteria are.
- Done - first sentence already states it is a list of completed buildings os sentence in question removed. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- 4. The lead for the "Future high-rise buildings" has weasel words and inappropriate tone. Have a look at the Guide to writing better articles for some advice on tone. The statement "The table below shows all future buildings above 150m in height" cannot be true.
- 5. Unfortunately, ref 4 (SkyscraperCity) is a forum and not a suitable reliable source. Can you find another source for this section?
- Not done - Unable to find another source that is as up to date. Sentence removed. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- 6. Review your external links against the external links guidelines. For example, the forums and petition are not suitable. Any links already used as references should not be repeated.
- BTW: I've nominated the Paris list as a featured list removal candidate. Perhaps you can help bring this up to standard? I don't want to see it removed, but people look to Featured material as an example, so it needs to be a good example. Colin°Talk 13:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at the Paris list - as far as I can see the main problem there is the lack of sources. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support - this article seems to me to meet the criteria of comprehensiveness, stability, style and correct images. --Fritzpoll 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - What is the logic behind the "Other structures" section? Buc 08:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The "logic "behind it is that it lists all uninhabitable structures over 100m, which would otherwise be left out of the main list. Seaserpent85 10:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are they the tallest in london? Buc 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something here. Surely it's obvious that in an article named 'the tallest buildings and structures in London' is going to list the tallest structures in London? Care to elaborate what you mean? Seaserpent85 17:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are they the tallest in London or are the buildings in the list before that the tallest in London? Buc 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The first is a list of the tallest buildings in London and the second is a list of the tallest structures in London. I'm still unsure as to what you're trying to get at though - are you genuinely confused by there being list of tallest structures or is there something I'm missing here? Seaserpent85 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is the diffrence between buildings and structures? Buc 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's already explained in the article - it states "A structure differs from a high-rise by its lack of floors and habitability". To be honest, your questioning isn't very productive here - this is supposed to be somewhere where fixable issues are brought up. If you're trying to prove a point that there's something missing, then say it, otherwise it's just not helping. Seaserpent85 16:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- No just puzzled Buc 08:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is the diffrence between buildings and structures? Buc 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The first is a list of the tallest buildings in London and the second is a list of the tallest structures in London. I'm still unsure as to what you're trying to get at though - are you genuinely confused by there being list of tallest structures or is there something I'm missing here? Seaserpent85 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Minor Oppose Please either remove the red links, or if they are notable, create an article on them. See WP:WIAFL 1.a.1. .....Todd#661 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Done I've removed them but I'd juat like to point out that plenty of other FLs feature redlinks, surely it encourages people to make the articles? Seaserpent85 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- A small number of redlinks are quite acceptable. The list only had four. It would be great if articles were created for them and I hate to see redlinks turned black in an attempt to disguise a lack of links (which isn't the case here, but happens). I'd only support removing links if you were absolutely sure the buildings/structures were non-notable — they would be deleted if created. Removing links is not the wiki way. Colin°Talk 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Self-nomination. Diff. I think this meets he criteria and is as good as other sport related Featured lists I have seen.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent work, however, a couple of questions:
- How come you didnt use the full standard stat set for goaltenders - ie include losses, ties, SOLs?
- I am sure the red linked players will be a concern for some.
- Perhaps you could add a couple pictures of some of the Avs more notable players - Roy, Sakic, etc?
At any rate, I am inclined to Support this list as present. Resolute 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support quite a nice list. A Comment would be to include some way to represent players who were with the Nordiques and Avalanche, perhaps? Regardless, good work all around. Kaiser matias 06:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'll try to search for some pictures to use. I didn't use the full standard set for goalies because I was not 100% sure I could found that information for every goalie and because I'd have to have several columns and some of them empty, due to the facts that those rules changed in time. I think wins is the most important stat and that's what I put. Thanks--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 10:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've found 7 pictures to use, most of them of former Avalanche players. I searched on flickr and wikimedia commons, and even uploaded a picture image:Chris Drury.jpg there. If any of you knows where to find more or has them, help out. Thanks.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 10:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, good work. --Phoenix 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, nice list, however I'd prefer the highlighted blue to be lighter. --Krm500 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Seems a bit strange in an article about Avalanche players to have images of them not in Avalanche uniforms. Buc 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's either that or nothing. Unless you have some good and free to use pictures of Avalanche players in Avalanche uniforms, this is the best we can get.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 17:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- What's wrong with nothing? Buc 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- When it didn't have photos, people asked to put some. Not that it has, "What's wrong with nothing?". (I'm saying this with a smile) I understand your point, but I don't really see there's anything wrong with them wearing other teams equipment: they are professional players and it's better to have people see them that nothing at all. At least for me. I'd leave it as it is unless we get more Avalanche fotos or more people say to take them out. If I didn't live around 8000 km away from Denver, I'd take some photos of them just for this article. :P--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have some low quality images of some of the Avalanche, mostly from weird angles. I've been delaying uploading them, but if you want to use them, I will go ahead and do it. Kaiser matias 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If you can see the players well, that'd be good.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced. Images in the players own articles maybe but not in a list which merely mentions them. Also why some players but not others? Buc 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If you can see the players well, that'd be good.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- What's wrong with nothing? Buc 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- That didn't seem like a problem when List of dinosaurs was promoted. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sweden international footballers/archive1 was also promoted with pictures of only a few players, and with one in a uniform which is not of the Swedish national team (although they weren't there when it was promoted). I'm not sure of what you're not convinced of. Still, you can take them off if you want to. Just don't force me to do something I don't agree with, specially if does not stop the article from becoming an FL or collides with an important policy here. Cheers--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it would stop it from becoming a FL overwise I would have opposed. Buc 08:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 15:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Serte. Having images of the players doesn't do anything to damage the article; they only enhance it. And certain players are shown based on what is available. We can't just take any image that we want, so we have to use what we have. Kaiser matias 04:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I was working on a list of New Jersey Devils players on my sandbox with a different format, but if this passes, I'll change my formatting to match yours, since it's better anyway. Good job, lots of pictures. My only comment would be perhaps an inline citation to the individual stats of each player; even though it would make the list a little longer, it would help to avoid having to look through the external link to find each player. Otherwise, I support it. Anthony Hit me up... 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This list is descriptive, fully sourced and meets the FL criteria, as well as the standards set by the featured List of WWE Champions. MarcK 10:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was going to support, but I have two minor concerns.
- Could the notes about when the title was vacated be modelled after the List of WWE Champions?
- There are no sources in the lead. There should be at least one. Normally the lead not being perfectly sourced wouldn't matter to me, but since this is a list, the lead should be fully sourced.
- Other than that, great job on the list, well sourced (for the list portion) and once those two concerns have been addressed, I'll support this page. -- Scorpion0422 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Both problems fixed. MarcK 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then I Support this article. Good job! -- Scorpion0422 02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are three columns necessary for the references, I would think two is fine. --Phoenix (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- It has been fixed. -- Scorpion0422 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, support now. --Phoenix (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- It has been fixed. -- Scorpion0422 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- support Wow! ref in 3 figuers. Don't see that for lists very often. Buc 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Meh, they're all from the same website. "Wwe.com" as the sole reference would have effectively conveyed the same thing, but we all would have opposed on the grounds of no references. --Phoenix (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Suppport --十八 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/closure box Another list of birds based on the featured list of Puerto Rican birds, I believe this should be up to featured standard. (Any pictures of ovenbirds, antbirds, anthrushes, or antpittas to fill a little gap in the photographic coverage would be gratefully received). Yomanganitalk 11:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great job. You seem to have put alot of time and effort in. A quality bird list. —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Substancially similar to the recently (and deservedly) promoted New Jersey birds list. As an aside, whoever has been working on these bird lists should be commended. The recent ones nominated here have all been fantastic.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support, looks fine to me. -Phoenix 16:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment — Are there any more references? – Zntrip 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, Looks just as well done as the other list of birds featured articles.--十八 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, five support, zero opposes, one neutral. Promote. Daniel Bryant 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so the last time this page was nominated, the problems that came up were all dealt with: the lead was expanded, and it was copyedited. Based on the fact that it satisfies the criterian, I believe this list should become featured.
Support Per nomination. --十八 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
{{spoiler}}
- Support I can support this list. Jay32183 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support, along with a couple of minor comments:-
- "On October 27 2006, an OVA episode was released [...] staff that produced the television series produced the OVA as well. This episode is set four months after the events of the anime series during the Christmas season" — can I suggest that you de-abbreviate the first "OVA" (and therefore link it properly, without a redirect), as to avoid abbreviations which haven't been used prior in the text? That, or add the full link so it reads "OVA"; either would be perfectly acceptable. Done
- "This article contains the episode listing for all the animation produced for Kashimashi" — it should probably read "This is a list of episodes for all...", or similar, which is slightly less self-referential; regardless, it isn't an article, but a list, so the second word probably needs changing. Done
- "The staff that produced the television series produced the OVA as well" — probably a little too informal, and doesn't seem to flow well in my opinion. Maybe "The staff that produced the television series also produced the OVA" might be better, but this is my interpretation of that sentence, so feel free to ignore this point totally. Done
- "The main plot in the anime is the drama that relates from the three female main characters of Hazumu Osaragi, Yasuna Kamiizumi, and Tomari Kurusu, and their romantic struggles in a love triangle" — some linking would go well in this, I reckon - love triangle, romantic, and plot are three, possibly. Done (I do not believe plot and romance need linking as they are common terms) --十八 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- "during the Christmas season" — possibly as above, for Christmas season; need to remember not everyone celebrates/knows about Christmas. Done
- "On October 27 2006, an OVA episode was released [...] staff that produced the television series produced the OVA as well. This episode is set four months after the events of the anime series during the Christmas season" — can I suggest that you de-abbreviate the first "OVA" (and therefore link it properly, without a redirect), as to avoid abbreviations which haven't been used prior in the text? That, or add the full link so it reads "OVA"; either would be perfectly acceptable.
- Otherwise, a fantastic list. Daniel Bryant 08:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose it has screenshots. JuJube 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)- Comment Again, there is nothing in the FL criteria that says a list can fail to become a Featured List on the sole basis that the list has screenshots. Your objection has little weight behind it.--十八 07:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm aware of the trifecta of South Park/Avatar/OMG having screenshots and all that. I disagree with them, too. WP:FUC, criteria 3, makes it clear to me that long lists of screenshots are Bad (tm). Numerous anime screenshots have already been deleted (Sailor Moon, Eyeshield 21 and Naruto, for example) and there's no reason for this to be any different. JuJube 07:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Criteria 3 states: It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status. These images are appropriate as this is an episode list and are helpful in identification of the many episodes. Isn't it at least an acceptable copyright to include them per the fair use rationales the images have been given?--十八 07:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, it says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." I'm of the opinion that more than four screenshots in an article is too much. JuJube 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hold on a second; shouldn't that line taken from WP:FUC be more appropraite for articles instead of lists. Is this not why we have a separate process and separate criteria for Featured Articles and Featured Lists? Besides, all the screenshots in this list are of low resolution. The last line says to not use multiple images if one will serve the purpose adequately, but since we are talking about an episode list here, should there not be more images to serve the purpose more adequately?--十八 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm trying to have some on-point discussion about this issue in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots redux. From what I'm being told, there isn't really wiggle room here. Low resolution screenshots are fine as long as they're minimal. 50+ isn't minimal. JuJube 08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Okay, but who ever said this list had 50+? It has 13 last I checked.--十八 08:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm trying to have some on-point discussion about this issue in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots redux. From what I'm being told, there isn't really wiggle room here. Low resolution screenshots are fine as long as they're minimal. 50+ isn't minimal. JuJube 08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hold on a second; shouldn't that line taken from WP:FUC be more appropraite for articles instead of lists. Is this not why we have a separate process and separate criteria for Featured Articles and Featured Lists? Besides, all the screenshots in this list are of low resolution. The last line says to not use multiple images if one will serve the purpose adequately, but since we are talking about an episode list here, should there not be more images to serve the purpose more adequately?--十八 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, it says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." I'm of the opinion that more than four screenshots in an article is too much. JuJube 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Criteria 3 states: It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status. These images are appropriate as this is an episode list and are helpful in identification of the many episodes. Isn't it at least an acceptable copyright to include them per the fair use rationales the images have been given?--十八 07:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm aware of the trifecta of South Park/Avatar/OMG having screenshots and all that. I disagree with them, too. WP:FUC, criteria 3, makes it clear to me that long lists of screenshots are Bad (tm). Numerous anime screenshots have already been deleted (Sailor Moon, Eyeshield 21 and Naruto, for example) and there's no reason for this to be any different. JuJube 07:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Again, there is nothing in the FL criteria that says a list can fail to become a Featured List on the sole basis that the list has screenshots. Your objection has little weight behind it.--十八 07:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I know, but until the debate is resolved one way or the other, I don't think episode lists with screenshots should be featured. Absent any authoritative final statement on the issue, that's how I feel. JuJube 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, with comment. Now satisfies the criteria for a featured list. Two comments here:
- "Tomari later thinks she sees Yasuna and Hazumu kissing at the train station, and later that night, Tomari does in fact kiss Hazumu. " Is this correct? If it is, I would enforce it with a contrasting word like "Tomari actually kisses Hazumu instead". Done
- What is the "end state" here? That Hazumu has a romantic relationship with both Tomari and Yasuna? --GunnarRene 09:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Done and clarified
- Reply In episode 10, Hazumu is holding Yasuna after a panic attack at the train station and Tomari arrives and thinks she sees them kissing; this later gives her the courage to kiss Hazumu later that night on the pretense that Yasuna already violated their agreement at the end of episode 9; Tomari says this herself at the beginning of episode 11. The end state is a bit complicated, but not terribly so. At the end of episode 12, Hazumu gets with Yasuna; at the end of the OVA, Hazumu gets with Tomari after Yasuna wanted to be single from now on.--十八 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Tomari later thinks she sees Yasuna and Hazumu kissing at the train station, and later that night, Tomari does in fact kiss Hazumu. " Is this correct? If it is, I would enforce it with a contrasting word like "Tomari actually kisses Hazumu instead".
Oppose. Fails featured list criteria #3. Also, I'm not sure that the referencing is done well enough to qualify this as "one of the best lists on Wikipedia". --Ali'i 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)- Comment Images have been removed from Template:Japanese episode list so this list cannot fail criteria 3 anymore. And what is exactly wrong with the references given?--十八 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would have liked to see some of the references (the three external links at the bottom) incorporated into each episode block, but I won't oppose because of this alone. It's a nice little list. I'll remain Neutral for now. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Be that as it may, it's not common to see the episodes references in the list itself. I was patterning this list off of List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes and List of Oh My Goddess episodes btw and they have all the references at the bottom. Many recent FLs at least I have seen do this and do not have in-line references.--十八 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you were to use inline citations, it looks like it would just be in the heading of the original airdate column, because they all use the same source. Jay32183 21:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Be that as it may, it's not common to see the episodes references in the list itself. I was patterning this list off of List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes and List of Oh My Goddess episodes btw and they have all the references at the bottom. Many recent FLs at least I have seen do this and do not have in-line references.--十八 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would have liked to see some of the references (the three external links at the bottom) incorporated into each episode block, but I won't oppose because of this alone. It's a nice little list. I'll remain Neutral for now. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Images have been removed from Template:Japanese episode list so this list cannot fail criteria 3 anymore. And what is exactly wrong with the references given?--十八 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changing to Support since the screenshots are gone. The list is well done. JuJube 03:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Having already undergone a brief peer review, this is pretty much a self-nom. The structure of this article is heavily based on three existing featured lists, those of the football champions of Denmark, Sweden and England. There are some dandy photos of the teams from "way back when" and I believe the article currently has the qualities of a featured list. I look forward to hearing the opinion of the community! The Rambling Man 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support A well-constructed article which seems to meet all the necessary requirements, nice one! Just one slight copy-editing issue - I don't believe there should be a comma in the parenthetical comment "(each team played the other eight, twice)" ChrisTheDude 07:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've removed the text in parentheses because the information is given further into the article. I don't like text in parentheses in any case! The Rambling Man 07:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Well-written, concise, useful, nicely illustrated. --Dweller 08:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Just as good, or if not better, than those other featured lists you mentioned. I'm wandering about one thing though, couldn't you get the info for the top scorers for the earlier seasons? Mattythewhite 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd love to do that, but as yet I am unable to find citeable records of the capocannonieri for the early days... I'll keep trying but, in the meantime, no dice I'm afraid. Thanks for your support! The Rambling Man 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*Comment, the rows that say "Postponed due to xxx War" would probably look better with a colspan acros the whole table. Not sure, though, it just seems logical to me, -Phoenix 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)<
I'll go ahead and do this myself. -Phoenix 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Done y'all, yeahh baby. Support, by the way. -Phoenix 02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Phoenix, thanks for doing that, I had tried to do it myself curiously but succeeded in wrecking the table completely, so thanks for teaching me a lesson in colspans! The Rambling Man 07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Fix needed I copyedited the lead myself, being bold, where the language was unnecessarily obfuscatory. I think it reads clearer now. However, the lead itself needs to be expanded to comply with WP:LEAD. The lead should probably be expanded to include a brief introduction to the history of the championship, maybe a sentance or two. (The history section mentions the founding of Serie A; perhaps some attention in the lead to this event). Also, it would be nice if the lead mentioned superlative cases, such as which team has won the most titles. Once fixed, I will lend my support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)- I think I've expanded the lead a bit further, three paragraphs seems to fit the bill with WP:LEAD, I've added the inaugural winners, the current holders and the record holders, and noted when the tournament became Serie A/B. I hope this is sufficient to gain your support, but if not, please let me know what I can further do to improve the article. Thanks! The Rambling Man 07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support, although would it be possible to add some more references to the prose (especially some of the stats)? Daniel Bryant 09:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- DoneI've added a whole bunch of references now so hopefully your support is even stronger! The Rambling Man 11:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lead looks much better. I made a few more changes to it myself to clean up the language and make it more clear. I hope you don't mind. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This list meets all featured criteria. It's stable, accurate, well formated, and draws together info in a list format. Adding area and pop. makes it very useful. The format is roughly based on List of counties in Kentucky. I have an inquiry into the user who did that clickable map, and am hoping to get one for this page. Joe I 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive :-) Tompw (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support, as somone mentioned, I think I see a featured topic coming with these.
-Phoenix 22:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC) - Support but comment - Texas has so many counties, and they are so small in relation to the size of the state, that most of the locator maps are virtually worthless, a couple of red pixels. I know you probably didn't make the maps, but a longer-term project might be to replace these zoomed-in regional maps, with a wider view in an inset. --Golbez 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Users can always click on the image to get a large (screen-width) version. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did have the pics at 75px cause they are alittle large, but upped it to 100px. If you think I need to enlarge them alittle more, that's fine, but it'll only make the list longer. Joe I 03:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Users can always click on the image to get a large (screen-width) version. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Fix needed: While normally, a lead does not need inline references, this is only because facts and superlative claims made in the lead are usually referenced elsewhere in the article. In this list, however, several assertions about the organization, history, and power of the counties and their governments are made, with no clear reference as to where this information comes from. The second and third paragraphs, for example, make claims about how much power counties have vis-a-vis the incorporated cities, and on the adminsitration of said counties. No clear reference is given to confirm where this information comes from. Fix this and I will support this list. Overall, it is very good. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)- El Done-o Joe I 05:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support, though I caught one other thing. The lead uses the word municipality in two different definitions; in the first case it seems to refer to the "county-equivalent" used under Spanish rule, and in the second it seems to refer to modern incorporated cities/towns. Without context for each usage, it is unclear that these two terms refer to different concepts. All told, though, this list deserves FL status. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Changed the second one to cities and towns. Joe I 05:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support — Very nice list. – Zntrip 03:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- ^ The Buccaneers had the first overall selection for the third straight season and became involved in a trade with the Houston Oilers. In return for the first choice they gained Jimmie Giles, Houston's first and second round picks, and the 3rd and 5th round picks in 1979.
- ^ The Buccaneers had the first overall selection for the third straight season and became involved in a trade with the Houston Oilers. In return for the first choice they gained Jimmie Giles, Houston's first and second round picks, and the 3rd and 5th round picks in 1979.