Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2008

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 User:Matthewedwards 21:59, 30 September 2008 [1].

---

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R

I and WP:LGBT have completed working on "R" in the list of LGB people. There should not be any LGB person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with R that isn't on here, though of course articles are being added all the time. References have been provided for every entry, and images are all CC or GFDL. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolve comments of Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments Per WP:BOLDTITLE, the bold part of the page title in the opening sentence shouldn't contain wikilinks Done. Why do we need two A-Z navigation tables? I've removed the top one. "See homosexuality and bisexuality for criteria that have traditionally denoted lesbian, gay and bisexual ([LGBT|LGB]]) people." Can this be recast as a real sentence, or put the links in the "See also" section I've removed this sentence as self-referential, and linked "homosexuality" later on. WP:DASH, for year ranges, an endash is used instead of hyphens Done. What is the dates column? Date of Birth to Date of death, or the years the people identified as being gay? Birth and death. The "b." on so many of them makes that obvious to me, but I'm waay to close to the list. I'm open to suggestions on how to clarify that to new readers. Hmmm. It could do with being reworded, but I'm not sure what to suggest... Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC) The profession column is a bit bulky. Why not just "musician", "director", "actor", etc? Also, for people where there is two professions, such as "Activist, writer" for Vito Russo, why does Activist have precidence over Writer in sortability? Almost all of them are simply professions, though I've removed the stray band name to make them cleaner. For the most part, if there is more than one profession listed, it's in the order of "notability" from the person's article. For instance, David Rakoff is known mostly as a writer, though he's been on a couple of tv episodes and in a couple of plays. Thus "Writer" first, "actor" second. The notes column should be left solely for the references Disagree. Whether they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual is also a "note". The "L", "B", "G" need explaining. I'm assuming they stand for "lesbian", "bisexual" and "gay", but a FL shouldn't let the reader assume anything. Perhaps they could be put in an "orientation" column? There's a footnote in the column heading that explains that. There is, I didn't see it before. I have to ask though, why does the reference need to state that each person is verified through a reliable source? This is one of the criteria, so it is implied that the list is verified through reliable sources. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC) That note is there (and the required ref) because the original lists went through several AfDs. One of the concerns at the AfDs was that the list not be a random assortment of people *thought* to be LGB, but that each entry be sourced. Since it was such a contentious issue through those processes, the note was added. It's probably self-referential, and therefore frowned upon by Wikipedia guidelines, but there ya go. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Use ca. and fl. for people who's dates are not exact Fixed the one "fl." Gabriel Romero appears to be Mexican, not Mexican-American Fixed. Sorting doesn't work on the names. It doesn't seem to be done alphabetically by either surname or Christian name. Fixed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No spaces between citations and what they're citing per WP:CITE

Fixed.

Including col headings... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.

• Thumbs should have upright per WP:MOS#Images

I have no idea what this does. Is it required? What is it for? MOS:Images doesn't say.

Well that section of MOS keeps changing! Anyway, in general the upright modifier is used for portrait images and, if they look okay with forcing the size, no "px" parameter should be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand, but I've added the "upright". There were no px parameters.

• Dates don't sort correctly.

I'm not responsible for how the sort code works. :) It *does* sort living people by birthyear, and following those, dead people by birthyear. Should I try using {{sort}} for the living people? Or remove the "b."?

I know you're not 100% to blame for this, ;), but right now it needs fixing. The birth years should sort regardless of dead or alive. I would get rid of the b. Oh, and the Dates heading is a little odd. Lifetime would be more appropriate... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the {{sort}}, but now it's going to be *very* confusing for newbies to add entries. But it sorts correctly.

• Not sure of the benefit of making Profession sortable - it's free text.
• Refs 5&6 are footnotes rather than references.
• I'm sure Ealdgyth will be along soon but in the meantime, make sure all web refs have accessdate - e.g. ref 13.

Fixed.

• Be consistent with linking - ref 55 has a wikilinked accessdate while refs 54 and 56 don't.

I can't - well, some of the refs are made using {{citation}} and some with {{cite web}}. Those aren't consistent. I can convert all the refs to one citation template, but is that necessary?

WP:CITET and WP:CITE say not to mix the two different citation template styles because they are rendered in different formats. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh <sigh> - why can't Wikipedia come up with a standard? :) I've fixed these to all be {{citation}}. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 82 has a bare URL...

Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Any chance you can start the list without "This is a partial list of..."? FAs don't start with "This is an article about..." so we're trying to avoid FLs doing that too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I have no idea how to reword that. Any suggestions? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe just moving the first para to become the last para of the lead and discuss sexuality in general as the opening sentence. Also, remove the spaces between the ? and [5]... If you feel it's going to be difficult for newbies to add entries, have you considered adding a hidden comment in the list? Just an idea... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support—I wonder whether it's reasonable to reduce the size of the O'Reilly pic, which impinges on the table and breaks up the nice line of the pics. No big deal, though. I agree with TRM that a more engaging opening could be thought of. Tony (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. The "upright" parameter (see above) wasn't added to Rangayan, Reilly, or Ronson since those pics are square. Now, as you say, those overlap the table and I see the others have been shrunk quite a bit. The Rambling Man, is that parameter required? Because I'd rather have the pictures at the slightly larger size than they are now. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's little wonder this part of the MOS seems to change subtly every time I look at it. In my (humblest of humble) opinion, I'd force the landscape images to upright as well. The key thing is that, once being represented at this size, are the images still useful? If so then great, if not then (according to MOS) you'll be entitled to force them. In which case, we may end up back where we started, in which case I'm sorry for wasting our time! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "upright" to the last three. IMO, the images are too small like that, but what do others think? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.glbtq.com/
  • http://www.notesfromhollywood.com/
  • http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv.html
  • http://www.nndb.com/
  • http://www.pridesource.com/index.shtml
  • http://otakuworld.com/
  • http://www.historicalnovelsociety.org/solander%20files/glimpse_of_a_strong_greek_light_.htm
  • http://www.overblow.com/?
  • http://www.gay.com/home.jsf
  • http://gender.eserver.org/rosenfels/HPCP.htm
  • http://www.broadwayworld.com/
• Current ref 45 (Vivinetto, Gina "Have a Gay ...) lacks a publisher.
• Some of your website references lack last access dates (current refs 58, )
• http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/culture.aspx?articleid=665&zoneid=5 deadlinks
• http://www.nlgja.org/halloffame/marlon_riggs.htm deadlinks
• Current ref 99 (Homosexualtiy the ..) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 114 (Broadway Book of the Month..) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 121 (http://aubonsketch.ifrance.com/ruquier.htm) Should note that it's in French.
• Same for current ref 122, which should note its in German.
• http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/032405canSenate.htm deadlinks
• http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/007/#pegnorman deadlinks
• http://empressoftheworld.com/faq/ redirects

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ealdgyth. I've made the publisher, accessdate, and deadlink changes. I've removed references (and even a couple improperly sourced entries) from NotesFromHollywood.com, AndrejKoymasky.com, NNDB, HistoricalNovelSociety.org, Gender.eserver.org, and BroadwayWorld.com. For the others:

• glbtq.com is professionally written and edited
• PrideSource is an award-winning weekly newspaper with a 15-member full-time staff
• OtakuWorld - doesn't need to be WP:RS. The reference is for Jennifer Diane Reitz - that's her own webside with a bio about herself.
• The Overblow article was originally printed in BackToTheRoots.be, a Belgian magazine. I don't know the WP:RSness of that magazine, but since the article is an interview with and about the musician himself, the reference is good.
• Gay.com (owned by PlanetOut.com is a professionally run news organization.

If you have any questions about those last five, let me know, but I'm reasonably sure they either pass WP:RS or don't really need to. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the status on the links? Ealdgyth, have they been resolved appropriately? Gary King (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:56, 30 September 2008 [2].

---

List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers

Based upon List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers, a FL, RyRy (talk · contribs), Rlendog (talk · contribs) and I wish to co-nominate this article for FL. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

conoms: RyRy (talk); Rlendog (talk)

• Comment MoSDASH issues in the lead image caption. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed --Admrboltz (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - As someone who's worked on other articles of this type, I am impressed by the multiple reference (which all seem fairly reliabe), and the detailed introduction. Very good article! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from NapHit

Comments

• "Dring this period" - typo

•  Fixed -- RyRy (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Tom Seaver won 6 starts and got 5 no decisions" - generally numbers below 10 should be written out

•  Fixed -- Rlendog (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Years should be centrally aligned, as should the decisions column

•  Fixed -- Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just out of interest why is "(III)" next to sportsman's field

•  Fixed -- RyRy (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Change one of the two colours to help users distinguish between information

•  Fixed -- Used 3 colors - one for World Champion, one for NL champ; and one for making playoffs but not World Series. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Are there no more free use images that you could use?

• I've checked, and there are no more I could use. -- RyRy (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• You have formatted the ref for baseball reference why not the rest, by format I mean link the publisher

•  Fixed -- (I think) Most of the refs are published by the New York Times, which is linked in its first usage. I also added a link for the first usage of MLB.com in the refs. Baseball Almanac is not linked, since there is no Wikipedia article for it to link to.Rlendog (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also New York Times should be in italics to achieve this change the publisher part of the ref to work

•  Fixed -- RyRy (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall it looks pretty good NapHit (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 2 (Box Score...) is lacking a publisher.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed --Admrboltz (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Great work!--LAAFan^sign _review 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think the image needs to be addressed. The caption needs another comma before "being." But the image itself is throwing me off. There isn't a single photo out there of a Mets opening day starter in a Mets uniform? The photo will throw people off because it says "Mets opening day starters" but the image we're using is of him as a Brave. Additionally, I'm not so sure about its free use. Essentially, the photo is a screenshot of the scoreboard which seems like it would be fair use since what's displayed on the screen is the Braves' work. I think a more definite free use image should be used (there are free images of Pedro and Johan on their articles). Metros (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Done -- The image has been removed. Rlendog (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Link ballpark.

•  Done -- RyRy (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The New York Mets are..." vs "The New York Mets have used 19 different Opening Day starting pitchers in its..." - consistency of plural/singular approach to the Mets.

• Think I have got it --Admrboltz (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "won six starts and got five no decisions" - hate the "got" bit - consider a reword?

•  Done - Reworded to "won six starts with five no decisions" (alternatively we can use "won six starts and earned five no decisions") -- RyRy (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Opening Day 2000" - is this some sort of official title? if not, "...in 2000"

•  Done -- RyRy (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• " reigning the 1969 and 1986 World Series champions." - is this US phrasing? It doesn't read well to a BritEng - winning those championships would make sense, "reigning the ... champions" just seems odd to me.

• Reworded --Admrboltz (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• "those years during the NLDS" - rephrase please.

•  Done -- RyRy (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Consider making ref 1 just a general reference.

•  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Pitcher name doesn't sort by surname as I'd expect.

•  Done -- It should sort now. I wish there was a way to do this while maintining the link to the specific player's page, rather than going through a disambiguation page.Rlendog (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

-- Figured out how to address the disambiguation and sort. So now both work. Rlendog (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid small fonts - no need.

•  Done -- RyRy (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• New York Times is actually called "The New York Times"

•  Fixed -- RyRy (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support -my concerns now dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 20:56, 30 September 2008 [3].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Aerosmith

Gary King (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Whole first para is fascinating but it's all about their discog, not their awards. Considering they've got 31 awards per this list, the lead should be much better focused.
• Funny, never struck me before but "Overall, Aerosmith has received 31 awards from 62 nominations." is a load of old bollocks presumably since Aerosmith have been nominated for hundreds of awards, right? Did we ever strike hard and say what is the strict criteria for inclusion here? All these award FLCs seem to have arbitrary inclusion tactics employed... Gary, I trust you, what do you think?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I like to focus on their discography to give a background of when they released albums, what albums they released, etc. And then in the second paragraph, talk about some of the awards there. If an award has an article then I consider it notable. I think I've got all of the awards presented by notable awards ceremonies listed here, but if you can point me to some more then I'll be glad to check them out. I don't think Aerosmith received as many awards from smaller awards ceremonies, because back in their day, there weren't as many. Nowadays, every major music magazine publication seems to have their own awards to hand out. Gary King (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The Academy Award nomination wasn't for Aerosmith. It is a songwriters award, and Diane Warren wrote that song, Aerosmith performed the track on the ceremony, but the nominee was Diane.
• for the rest of the list, congratulations, very good job. Jaespinoza (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, corrected Gary King (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support as long as the years are centrally aligned NapHit (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 22 September 2008 (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 User:Gimmetrow 22:57, 30 September 2008 [4].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Muse

"Muse" is treated as plural per British convention. Nominated by User:Andre666 and Gary King (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk)

Comments by NapHit (talk · contribs)

• "Muse have also received five awards" is also necessary think it should be removed
• The year's in the table should be centrally aligned
• Maybe add a comma before the third reference, remember reading that references should be ideally placed after punctuation

Other than these issues, the list is very good, well done NapHit (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing the "also" as the first sentence talks about one award; the second sentence talks about another award, so they are linked with the "also". I have changed "Muse" to "the band" though to avoid repetition. I've center-aligned the years. Also, references don't always have to be after punctuation; they must only be after punctuation if there is punctuation, meaning they should never directly precede punctuation marks. Gary King (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work NapHit (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The first time I did the alignment it was wonky; it should be good now though. Gary King (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose - the lead and Cr 3...

• Similar to Metallica - the lead is discog-heavy - focus on the awards, particularly since they've won so many in such a short space of time.
• Cr 3 once more - inclusion criteria? BT Digital music awards not notable for their own article etc etc etc - you know it already...
• Expand BT to BT Group Plc per the article title.
• "celebrate the most popular music videos" - peacock.
• Ref 1 - which particular The Star is it?
• Ref 12 - we don't normally link blogs.
• Ref 22 - title seems a little odd.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "recognized" - ised... BritEng for Brit Group please!
• Ref 20 and Ref 21 are both Q mag right? But they have different publisher/work combos...

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sources don't appear to really verify the stuff that it is supposed to be verifying. For example, sources #20 and #21 support Muse winning best live act in 2006, and 2007, but none of the other Q nominations or awards. naerii 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sources #18 and #19 only verify the 2008 NME awards and nominations, and none of the other NME stuff. The title for #18 is misleading as it links to the 2008 rewards and Muse didn't win Best British band in 2008. I think this article has issues from when I gutted it of the unreliable musewiki sources that appear to not have been replaced. Source #17 only verifies the 2007 mtvU awards, not the 2005. The same with #16; it only verifies the 2007 MTV Europe awards, and no others. I don't know if this is considered a big deal, but I feel like if we're sourcing the awards at all, it should be done properly. I'm kind of surprised people above are supporting without checking the sources properly ("sources look okay"?); I guess it means that it's an insignificant issue? I would go through the rest but I'm tired right now and I don't know if this is even worth pointing out. naerii 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Naerii, please have another look now :) Gary King (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments I know I am co-promoter of this, but I need to point a couple things out which I cannot find.

• Lack of references
  • "Best British Newcomer" nomination at the 2001 BRITs;
  • "Best British Band" nominations at the 2003 Kerrang!s;
  • "Best Live Act" win at the 2006 Kerrang!s; and
  • "Best Act in the World Today" nomination at the 2008 Qs.

That is all :) Andre666 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those; I added references for 2001 BRIT Awards and 2003 Kerrang! Awards; the rest already have references. Some of the references cover more than one award (for instance, one says something along the lines of "Muse, who won X award last year"). Gary King (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's cool, nice one! You can do one of those resolved comments collapsed tables if you like. Andre666 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2008 (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 User:Gimmetrow 22:57, 30 September 2008 [5].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Metallica

Gary King (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - unbelievable, I can't find any flaws and meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 13:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Band has been nominated for Q Award, Radio Music Award (not sure if they won, or not), and a Meteor Music Award (not sure if they won this either). LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  Added Gary King (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose mainly the lead...

• Kerrang awards should be linked in the infobox.
• Similar to other comments I may have made in the past, 1/2 of the lead is a discog. For a band with 19 wins in these awards, I'd expect more about the awards (per the list title) than the discog.
• " with five of them" - perhaps it's my addled brain, but I'm not sure the "with" is needed here.
• " outstanding achievements in the record industry." says who? cite it, reword it, you know the score.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright all done. Second lead paragraph expanded significantly. Gary King (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "They have also received" - Metallica has been singular until this point.
• Same for "they were not nominated for another Juno Award"...

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes; all done Gary King (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support my issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the title refer to what the award is made of, or the band? :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Finally, an "awards" page that I can support. Great job, though I'd remove the second link to MTV Video Music Awards in the lead.--Crzycheetah 02:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  Done Gary King (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [6].

---

List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge

Created as a jumping off point, as there are a large number of notable people who have been either Senior or Second Wrangler. The list is complete with all records from the University archives. Mrh30 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. It seems to satisfy all the necessary criteria: the prose is grammatically correct, it has an informative introductory section, it's comprehensive, well-structured, complies with the Manual of Style, it's visually clear and makes appropriate use of portraits and other pictures, and it's not under dispute. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - not exactly compliant with the criteria nor the MOS yet, but a few comments will help it on its way.

• Don't like the title much - perhaps "List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge" or similar - the parentheses in the title are undesirable really. Done
• "This is a list of the people..." - we've moved away from starting featured list content like this. See some of the recently promoted FLs for some ideas. Done
• Is a wrangler capitalised or not? The title of the list capitalises it while the first sentence of the lead doesn't. The article about wranglers here on Wikipedia doesn't appear to capitalise wrangler, nor senior/second wrangler. Done

The official University records capitalise the word, so I am standardising on that. Mrh30 (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Non experts are unlikely to know what a Mathematics Tripos is - I know you've linked it but you could explain it here too, especially since the lead is so short. Done
• "but went on to great things after graduating" - not encyclopedic, very much POV. Stick to the facts. Done
• Is there a reason that order-of-merit is hyphenated here? Most other places I see order of merit without hyphenation. Done
• You mention Optimes at the end of the lead without explaining it. Done
• As you've split the table, it renders the sorting a little redundant - I'd merge the tables. Done
• If you insist of keeping the tables separate, make the columns from table to table the same width. Done (no need to do anything now!)
• Names should sort by surname, especially as you have a number of wranglers without known forenames, so you should look at using the {{sortname}} template. Done
• MOS breach - image captions which are sentence fragments should not have a full stop. Done
• MOS breach - references with page ranges should use the en-dash, not the hyphen to separate them, per WP:DASH. Done
• Portrait images should take the upright parameter per WP:MOS#Images. Done
• Any reason not to link the colleges? Done
• Was Caius still Caius and not Gonville and Caius for all their wrangling success? Done

I've used Caius as this is the common name for the college. Several of the colleges either technically change names (Catharine Hall -> St Catharine's) or are known by a name that's different to their 'real' name (Jesus). I guess putting in the linking overcomes this issue? Mrh30 (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the full name of the college at the time of the award of the wranglership, linked, should be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and in most cases this is probably the best thing to do. The problem is that no-one is going to understand what you're talking about when you quote the name of a college as being 'The College of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint John the Evangelist and the glorious Virgin Saint Radegund, near Cambridge' and it arguably adds less to the article than calling it by the name everyone knows it by (and indeed is the title of its article) Jesus College, Cambridge. Mrh30 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, compromise - add a footnote? You say it's the name "everyone knows it by" - Jesus I'll give you, Caius, perhaps not. It takes a little of being "in-the-know" to realise that most Tabs drop Mr Gonville... how many tourists, without their guidebook, would know that? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started hyperlinking. I'll go with whatever is the current WP article title. So Caius become G&C, whereas Jesus stays as it is. Mrh30 (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• 1792 - Palmer - is that St John's?  Done
• You have multiple winners of some positions so the col headings should be wrangler(s), right? Done
• The lead could take advantage of the fact that St John's and Trinity seemed to lead the way in this. Done

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Can't check links as the link checker tool is down. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cmments

• Put the table in its own section  Done
• {{clear}} the first image so that it doesn't squeeze the table to the left

This surely isn't a problem once the section heading is added? Mrh30 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support

• I think the lead is still a little weak for a list of such magnitude.

I've expanded it further, giving some more justification for the significance of the list, and the people in it. Is it heading the right way? Mrh30 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you like any more? I'm just wary of it becomming waffly and overlapping with Wrangler (University of Cambridge). Mrh30 (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fine now in my opinion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Some captions link the Wrangler, some don't - be consistent. Done
• Don't like in-line links as you have for footnotes 8, 11 and 15 - any chance you could reformat them per {{cite web}} or similar?

They're already using cite web. I'm not clear what you would like changed about them. Do you just want me to put a few more details into the template (accessdate etc)? Mrh30 (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be preferable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [7].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Neptunes

"The Neptunes" is treated as plural in this article. Gary King (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.

Otherwise sources look okay. Can't check links as the link checker tool is down. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Unbelievable, again, I can't find any flaws and meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 13:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - inclusion criteria are key...

• "...is the name of the American..." why not just "is an..."?
• "where Williams " - who he?
• Again, not sure how you selected the awards. BMI Urbans, Source and Vibe awards don't appear to be Wikipedia-notable right now... What's the defined scope for inclusion?
• Are Billboard not the publishers of Billboard? (question..)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All done. I have removed the non-notable awards, also. Gary King (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry Gary, but I'm going to have to bring up the title again. I feel it could be confused for being similar to Jupiter Awards, Saturn Awards, and The Mercury Award or Mercury Prize. List of Saturn Awards, for example, would be a list of the types of Award they give out. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  ✔ Gary King (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [8].

---

Chimaira discography

Cannibaloki 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Comments:

• Lead section
  • Do not link "American"
  • "a extended play" -> "an extended play" or "one extended play"
    •  Not done "a extended play" is a advice of The Rambling Man
      • I don't think so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • At Opeth FLC you said: "The "one video" in the lead - is this a video album per the infobox?" Cannibaloki 18:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, well "a video album" because the word after the indefinite article (the "a") starts with a consonant (the "v" of video) and in this case it should be "an extended play" because the word after the indefinite article starts with a vowel (the "e" of extended) - does that make sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Ahhh, okay teacher! Cannibaloki 15:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done Cannibaloki 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "which sold 10,000 copies" needs a credible reference
  • "was successful in the United States." also needs a reference, e.g. a chart position ref.
    • I removed this information, because there are no sources.
  • "After an internal crisis, the band moved on from Roadrunner and signed a new deal with Ferret Music." needs a reference
  • The types of release (i.e. studio albums, extended plays...) could be linked, though I'm not sure if this is essential
  • The picture in the infobox should be of the whole band
    •  Not done This information is new to me! There are NO rules about the images, since it is related to band.
• Studio albums
  • The Norway chart position column needs a reference; find it at norwegian-charts.com
  • Catalog numbers should ideally be small; use <small></small> tags
    • Only ideally, just because I implemented this way of use them. (← hehehe) Cannibaloki 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Other than that the list is looking good; the references are mainly reliable and credible, and this seems set out nicely. If you want me to make the changes instead of making you do them all, I would be happy to help. Andre666 (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of your comments are (in my opinion) optionals, but I used many of them. Cannibaloki 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• Their first release was the independently issued debut EP, This Present Darkness, which sold 10,000 copies and was successful in the United States. - what made it successful?
• For resurrection on the Norway charts, you should place ref 9 as the main ref as the other releases did not chart in Norway.
• This release contain two discs; the first disc is a DVD, and in the second disc includes a remastered CD version of This Present Darkness EP. - source for this? (Video album)
• In the lead, most discographies list the charts the albums have been released on and their peaked positions.

--S_RX 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All of your comments were adressed. Cannibaloki 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Cannibaloki 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my comments have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria.S_RX 20:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support When are you goin to nominate the Iron Maiden discography and Megadeth discography? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose

• Caption doesn't need the full stop.
  •  Done removed (don't was me that added!)
• Add (EP) after "Extended Play".
  •  Done Hmm.
• "the band released their next album The Impossibility of Reason, the album peaked at" - "...Reason and peaked..."?
  •  Done reworded
• "...issued in 2005, and peaked at number 74..." - "2005 which peaked..."
  •  Done reworded
• "After an internal crisis" - explain please.
  •  Done I think, but maybe needs grammar cleanup
• "the original drummer Andols Herrick joined" - "Andols Herrick rejoined..."
  •  Done reworded for a better way...
• "making their best ever" - "the band's highest chart position..."
  •  Done reworded ("...their best ever..." ←hehehe) Cannibaloki 17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [9].

---

List of Calgary Flames head coaches

What's another sports list, eh? Based loosely on List of Vancouver Canucks head coaches, which is a current FL, I believe this list is at the same level. I look forward to all feedback. Resolute 01:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• He was hired June 14, 2007 and is entering his second season behind the Flames bench in 2008–09. - "He was hired on June 14, 2007.
• Keenan is one of the winningest coaches in NHL history, and won his 600th career game in 2007–08 behind the Flames bench. He is one of six coaches to reach the 600 win plateau - winningnest is not a word.
• The lead should state who was the first head coach, the middle head coach (like the median coach), and the current coach and other coaches with significant accomplishments.
• Decrease the size of Playfair's image.

--S_RX 23:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done, done, done and not done (yet). Playfair's image appears as the same size as Sutter's on both of my computers, and does not interfere with the article layout. Is there an issue being caused on your screen that I am not seeing? Resolute 00:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It goes beyond the section where the table is located, it goes into the see also section.--S_RX 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It does at that, but I did not see that as a problem since it does not interfere with any text or formatting. I'll make I have made some changes though. Resolute 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - comments resolved to meet FL Criteria.--S_RX 02:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- K. Annoyomous24

• Comments
  • The fixed the image problem on the key (problem only on IE), but second picture goes all the way to the References.

• I hate IE... I'll have to play around with the images a bit to find a way to keep them from screwing with alignments and from bleeding over into subsequent sections.

• There we go! An unnecessary columns template was causing the issue. That's been fixed.

• • Shuold talk about Mike Keenan, the current head coach.

• There is already a paragraph about Keenan in the lead.

• • Need full stop in the sentence, "Statistics are correct through the 2007–08 NHL season".

• Fixed.

• • Add Jack Adams Award to Darryl Sutter's Awards and milestones.
    • He didn't actually win the Jack Adams. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I dont think milestones should be on the table, but since it is, needs the exact date of the occurrence.

• Removed. The only real milestone listed is Keenan's 600th win, which is in the lead section.

• • Delete the See Also section as I don't think you need one. Also, the only articles related to this one is the top 2, but I still don't want the section.

• Removed the bottom three listings, but the list of head coaches of the Atlanta Flames is directly relevant.

• • No reference for the coach were elected into HoF, and the coaches who spent their entire careers with the Flames at the NHL level.

• Fixed the three coaches who only coached the Flames at the NHL level. Johnson's induction to the HHOF is already cited in the lead.

• • The "Key" should look like the key in my feature list nomination, List of Vancouver Canucks head coaches, but you have the W–L and it's the Flames.

• The keys are nearly identical, with the only real difference being that I use winning (points) percentage rather than a point tally. I've never heard of a coach being judged by points earned with the team.

-- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 06:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. Resolute 15:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well done on the FLC. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 17:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I think its a well done list. Don't necessarily agree with K. Annoyomous24 in that the Key should be changed, I actually think the key on the other feature list should be changed to this one as WP:HOCKEY discussed awhile ago that we wanted to have W-L % in the tables for coaches. I think the See Also section is needed, however only for the top two links. -Djsasso (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit

• Comments Very good list, just a few concerns:
• "The Flames arrived in Calgary in 1980 after transferring from the city of Atlanta, Georgia, where they were known as the Atlanta Flames from their founding in 1972 until relocation." - Think this should be referenced

• Fair enough. I didn't think this statement would likely be challenged, but a reference has been added.

• "entering his second season behind the Flames bench in 2008–09." change this to "entering his second season as Flames head coach in 2008−09", some users (me included) might not understand what "behind the bench" refers to

• Fixed

• "He is one of six coaches to reach the 600 win plateau." change to He is one of six coaches to win 600 matches." add "over 600" if he has

• reworded

• I would like to see a reference column added to the table, you could then move the references next to the symbols into this column

• A column for three references seems superfluous to me. The rest of the chart is supported by a general reference. Would it serve to rename "awards" to "notes" and move the three refs and two notes over?

The references column would include references for all the coaches not just for the three who currently have references, see List of Phoenix Suns head coaches to see what I mean NapHit (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The list of coaches and their stats are all sourced to the Flames media guide via a general reference. I personally don't see the need for a redundant listing for every coach. Resolute 14:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• The images don't need full stops

• Fixed

• Yes they do; the captions are complete sentences. I fixed them. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all NapHit (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Resolute 20:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great list, well done NapHit (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "... the current coach of the Flames, the 13th person ..." why not "current and 13th person..." (or similar) - you avoid repeating coach and Flames that way..

• Good idea. Changed.

• "600 win " hyphenation required.

• Changed... damn I need to figure out where hyphens belong and where they don't, heh.

• "behind the bench " - call me dumbass Brit, but what?

• Guess that is a bit of a colloquialism. Reworded

• Don't think you need to link cancer.

• doh, delinked.

• Lead and captions have season formats as XXXX–XY while Coaches table has XXXX&ndashXXXY?

• Generally, I use the xxxx-yy format to denote an individual season, and xxxx-yyyy to denote a time frame. I can revise if it is preferred all be the same.

• For consistency, note B should have a full stop.

• Fixed (stop)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the comments! Resolute 14:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• I added the full stops back to the image captions since they are complete sentences.
• "600 win milestone" needs a hyphen between "600" and "win".
• "Doug Risebrough, Dave King, Pierre Page, Brian Sutter, Don Hay and Greg Gilbert all failed to lead the team past the first round as the Flames failed to win a playoff series during those years." Repetition of "failed".
• Note A needs a comma after "thus" and change "has"-->had.
• Note B needs a full stop at the end. Change "Prior to" to "Before", it's simpler. Could we have a source for this statement? That shouldn't be too hard to find. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• All comments should now be addressed. Resolute 16:58, 28 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [10].

---

List of Florida Marlins Opening Day starting pitchers

I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• When playing at their home field of Dolphin Stadium, the Marlins have a record of five wins, four losses, and three no decisions (5–4). - wouldn't it be (5-4-3)?

Corrected --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• When they are they away team - typo? they-->the

Fixed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Infact, Dontrelle Willis is the only Marlins' pitcher in franchise history to start on Opening Day, but never on an Opening Day at Dolphins Stadium. - seems a bit trivial to me.

Looking back, you're right. I removed it. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 23:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - comments resolved to meet FL Criteria.--S_RX 02:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from NapHit

Comments

• "franchise's sixteen seasons." use digits when number is over 10

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• "have a record of seven wins and five losses(7–5)." space needed between losses and the brackets

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The years should be centrally aligned and so should the decisions column as well

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall looks very good NapHit (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support - minor points

• "has only had to play " -> has only played?

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "When they are the away team" -> As the away team?

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• " Opening Day losing streak for starting pitchers was the three losses that came on Opening Day " no need to repeat Opening Day in my opinion - "...that came in ..."

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid small font in the (2) etc.

Done, although I personally think the smaller font looks better. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of this discussion, I have changed font size back to small. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [11].

---

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2002

I am submiting this list because I feel is ready to achieve FL status. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Comment, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) I noticed that you've been hyphenating "number one" wrongly sometimes. The phrase only needs to be hyphenated when it's used as a double adjective, not when used as a noun ("List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2002", but "Spanish singer-songwriter Enrique Iglesias peaked at number one for the fifth time on this chart"). If you need help with this, leave a note here; I'll be watching this page. The article is otherwise good. I did make some small fixes. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Would you help me with that? Jaespinoza (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Done on all Top Latin Albums articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Support --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• Spanish singer-songwriter Enrique Iglesias peaked at number one for the fifth time on this chart with Quizás while Colombian performer Shakira, Mexican norteño band Los Tigres del Norte and rock band Maná released their third chart topper, respectively. - comma after Quizas, and a comma after Norte.
• I recommend making the reference columns into one because not all browsers can handle two column references.

--S_RX 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • ALL DONE!!! Jaespinoza (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - comments resolved to meet FL Criteria.--S_RX 02:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support plus...

• Move image to the very top and expand - WP:MOS#Images says you can go up to around 300px if required.
• "...is a chart that features ..." -> link the "chart" to "record chart"; you could even call it a record chart.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • DONE! Jaespinoza (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [12].

---

List of Colorado Rockies Opening Day starting pitchers

I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - It looks great and identical to the Seattle Mariners' one, but this one is more short and sort does not meet CR4, but in a way it does since it is listing over 10 items.--S_RX 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from NapHit

Comments

• Numbers above 10 should generally be in digits
• Years should be centrally aligned, and so should the decisions column

Cheers NapHit (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done and done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Prose needs some work.
  • "on two Opening Days.[1] Those four are" → "on two Opening Days:[1] "

Dome --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• • "all of the other games" → "the other games"

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest unlinking the years in the lead as it is not immediately obvious that they link to season articles; they can be continued to be linked in the table, however, as it is more apparent.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• The entire lead is cited using only one reference; the same reference does not need to appear at the end of nearly every sentence. I suggest just using it once at the end of every paragraph.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support as long as the following points are corrected...

• "...pitcher to ever start ..." -> "pitcher ever to start..."

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Except for " I'd prefer "With the exception of..."

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "... once in 1993 and mlby|1994..." - missing a some template braces here.

Corrected --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't use small fonts.

I'm sorry to ask aout this again, but do you want me to make the references larger? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the repeat appearances (2) etc in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this discussion, the text should be left as it is. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Armando Reynoso is the only Rockies pitcher ever to start on Opening Day in Colorado's former home of Mile High Stadium."

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The longest ever Opening Day winning streak for Rockies starting pitchers is three years,"

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The Rockies starters have only lost twice in two consecutive years, once in 1993 and 1994, and once from 2002 to 2003." Only is POV. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:53, 28 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [13].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Feist

Gary King (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from S_RX

• Comments from SRX
  • Nomination
    • No reason for nomination :p?
  • Lead
    • Feist has found success at awards shows in her native Canada, receiving nine awards from eleven nominations at the Juno Awards. She received five awards from five nominations at the Juno Awards in 2008, including Single of the Year for "1234", Album of the Year for The Reminder, and Artist of the Year. - since these are related the second one would benefit by reading like "There, she received five nominations in 2008, including....etc." or something along those lines because Juno Awards is getting repetitive.--S_RX 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good point; done. I (almost) never have a nomination statement :) Gary King (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support from SRX - after a minor flaw I pointed out, the list meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 14:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Hmm, this is borderline on title really - 9 juno awards only, all other noms failed... perhaps this should be time to consider "nominations and awards" otherwise you should rename it List of Feist Juno awards as the failed noms don't really match the title?
• " Bobby Dazzler" - worth clarifying if this is a record label or an individual.
• "...Juno Awards. There, she received..." - not keen on starting with "There..." with respect to the awards...
• "She has also received four nominations from the Grammy Awards, including Best Pop Vocal Album for The Reminder and Best New Artist in 2008, but has yet to win a Grammy Award." - ok so you probably want to refocus the sentence on the Grammys but repeating "Grammy Award" in this sentence reads awkwardly.
• Juno Single of the year is overlinked.
• Can you clarify how dose.ca is WP:RS please?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, borderline title I suppose but it's still accurate. "Awards" is a superset of "Juno Awards" so it should be okay, I think. I figured Dose might get questioned; anyways, it's a Canadian music magazine; Dose (magazine). Gary King (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you object to moving it "..nominations and awards"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved Gary King (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Third bullet: Cr. 6.

• We're told she's Canadian at the opening. Why then "in her native Canada"?
• "Also" is getting a work-out here. The second one could go.
• I find the fragmented structure hard to take. Can't all be conflated into the one table, since there's a column for the award. The single-sentence lead for each mini-table would be better in the opening lead. Tony (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All done. I removed the second "also". This list format is like the other awards lists that have been promoted before, so I think a larger discussion is needed before I will change it. Gary King (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments *About the Grammy Awards. She was nominated for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance with 1,2,3,4 not as Feist.

• On the first paragraph (lead section) this sentence is "All four albums were released with the Arts & Crafts record label" is used twice very close to each other, a rewrite should work there.
• For the rest of the list, very good job, Jaespinoza (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - currently I would oppose on not being comprehensive.

• Feist has won the Shortlist Music Prize. [14]
• Also had a MVPA Award nomination (possibly win). [15]
• And INDIES Awards (Independent Music Awards). wins noms
• You Forgot It in People and Broken Social Scene are included as a Juno wins, but they are really awards for Broken Social Scene not Feist. I personally don't think you can include them. As it would be like listing Take That awards within a Robbie Williams awards page. Not to mention that there are other Broken Social Scene nominations (2 Juno, 1 Polaris) not mentioned on this list.
• four nominations from the Grammy Awards - the nominations are from National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, probably you want something like "She recieved four Grammy Award nominations"
• Ref 9 has no publisher

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All done. I've added Shortlist, but not the MVPA and Indies (which I had before) because they aren't notable enough to have their own article, so I chose not to include them. I was wondering whether to include Broken Social Scene awards or not; you're right, so I have removed them. Reference 9 has a publisher but it's italicized because it's a magazine. Gary King (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - following on from what Rambo's Revenge is saying, the criteria for award/nomination inclusion in this list, per Cr 3? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The title should be "List of awards won by Feist"; "List of Feist awards and nominations", to me, sounds like it's awards given out by Feist. However, this does present my minor, nascent crusade with an interesting question - should it be "List of awards and nominations awarded to Feist" or something like that? Sigh. --Golbez (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Eek. We have both. [16] - actually, we have "List of <Group or Person> awards" and we have "List of awards and nominations received by <Group or Person>". Personally, the latter makes more sense, but that's just my opinion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• "Inside and Out" in the "Juno Awards" section is whacked.
• Otherwise, looks good. I Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Feist is a Juno Award-winning Canadian singer-songwriter from Amherst, Nova Scotia." What makes the Juno Award more important than any other she has won?
• "Feist has received 8 awards from 18 nominations." MOS:NUM on numbers under 10
• Could you rename it in line with other award and nomination lists?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Juno is a Canadian award, and she is Canadian. Plus, it's either that or the Shortlist Music Prize, which I wouldn't consider as popular. The rest are done. Gary King (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:14, 29 September 2008 [17].

---

List of The Open Championship champions

I am nominating this list for featured list status, as I belive that after an engaging peer review, this list meets all the criteria necessary to be a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

• Minor grammatical point - the Vardon, Morris and Taylor captions are all missing a comma after the word "who".

Done

• The list of winners in the main article (The_Open_Championship#Winners) includes the amount of prize money collected by the winner. Could that not be included here?

No because it's original research, and there are no references which support this

How about this? [18] --Jameboy (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can probably tell I'm reluctant to add the prize money, especially since the other two lists; List of Masters Tournament champions, List of U.S. Open (golf) champions don't have it, and I'm not sure it's necessary, the main aspects of the list are the champion, score, and the course, which are all included, and I'm not sure prize money comes into this it just seems a bit trivial NapHit (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In a very general sense, I agree with you that sporting prize money is fairly trivial and not always worth recording. However, given that (for example) the European Order of Merit is decided by total prize money won, it would seem to me that prize money is very important to golf and therefore worth including here. I'm not really a golf fan (I'll watch The Open but that's about it) so forgive me if this perception is wrong. --Jameboy (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm still not convinced, yes there is a European order of merit, but the person who wins that generally wins the most competitions therefore winning the most money is not that important in a sense, especially when talking about majors as to win a major is considered to be the best thing a golfer can achieve in their lifetime, unless your Tiger Woods, also there is no prize money info available for the other majors and I believe the lists should be consistent if they are going to be a featured topic, therefore including prize money on one list would be inappropriate NapHit (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• He is Pádraig Harrington in the image caption, but Padraig Harrington in the table. Be consistent.

Done

--Jameboy (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I've addressed them all NapHit (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In the main article list (The_Open_Championship#Winners, soon to be replaced by this list, I presume) there are footnotes for those golfers who became naturalised citizens of the United States. Could you include those here? --Jameboy (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• First two sentences of lead could be cited?
• Claret Jug (golf trophy) seems to be capitalised elsewhere and has this nifty link so you could use it?
• " a Gold Medal" - why is this capitalised?
• "Up until 1870..." - Up is redundant here.
• "...winning the championship six times during..." - "the championship" is redundant as well.
• "His son Tom Morris, Jr. is the ..." - I'd be tempted to comma before and after his name.
• You mention "over 72 holes" - is it worth stating that this is conducted as 4 rounds of the same 18 holes with, perhaps, the pin position being relocated on each green each day?
• Link par in the lead.
• In the opening sentence of the lead, why isn't The part of the wikilink? The competition is called "The Open Championship" right? Check the captions etc for other instances of this if you agree...
• Can you assure me that the footnotes are referenced?

Yes they are all referenced, the playoff ones are in the respective reference NapHit (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 73 has an incomplete date.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressed all your comments NapHit (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://golfmajorchampionships.com/
  • http://www.antiquegolfscotland.com/antiquegolf/history.php3?itemid=69

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've removed the golfmajorchampionship ref, and replaced the antiqe golf scotland one, with an official site ref instead. NapHit (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Willie Park, Snr.'s article mentions a championship belt - was this awarded more than once? was it awarded together with the Claret Jug or instead of it?

The championship belt is mentioned in the lead NapHit (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lehman's not English.
• The notes aren't referenced?

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, they've been addressed NapHit (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing : is it "Snr", "Sr", "Snr." or "Sr."? Same for Jr. At least be consistent with the same person. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rectified this NapHit (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just move the Multiple champions section into the table. For example, Tiger Wood's last championship should look like this, "Tiger Woods (3)". If done that, I'll Support. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 04:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not, I think the table looks cluttered like that, and prefer the multiple champions table which is clear and easy to read, and it also saves users moving up and down the list to find when so and so won there second tournament. NapHit (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

May you please explain to me why it would look cluttered. You can also save more time than the Mulpitle champions by just sorting their names. Just please do this for a better WP:FL? criteria #4, Structure. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 04:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is easier for the reader if it is in one table as the information is to hand, and they don't have to go searching up nd down the table, also I've made the table sortable as I think that was what you were suggesting above NapHit (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever than, I'll Support. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• The sortability of the "Course" makes sense to me. The sortability of the "Location" less so. A suggestion is to use the {{sort}} function to sort that column by country & city, rather than sorting as free text.
• Does the second column need a header? And I don't know MOS:FLAG, but that column may be in violation.
• See if there are more pictures? Having them on the side there is wonderful, but having them run out (when you're scrolling down) is disappointing :)

I conditionally support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done everything you requested except for more pictures, which I think are unnecessary as there are more than enough pictures already, and I think they should only be within the champions header, Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 07:51, 26 September 2008 [19].

---

List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers

I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Tie in baseball? It's interesting and needs to be explained better given that there is no such page here at Wikipedia.

Changed link, I'll try to figure out why that game was a tie --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Update:I've found a source explaining the tie and have included a brief description and reference in the lead. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Currently, the table covers the left side of the images because these images are too big. I am leaning towards opposing because of this problem.

Really? I'm not having that problem on my cumputer. Maybe someone who is can help me out a correct the sizes, because I'd just be guessing what the correct size would be. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • You were forcing a 200px image size to all images.--Crzycheetah 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • A huge over-reliance on one source. How many times did you cite that Baseball-reference page? 60? Try finding some other websites if possible.

I'll try to find alternative sources to include --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from NapHit

Comments

• Full stops are not needed in the images

Again, what does that mean? (sorry) --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Years should be centrally aligned and so should the decisions column

Done and done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• references 2, 6 and 7 shouldn't be all in caps

Fixed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good NapHit (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support - can we avoid use of small fonts in the table? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there an official policy on the matter? The small font was removed from List of Florida Marlins Opening Day starting pitchers, but personally I think it is more visually appealing when it is smaller. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to weight up pure aesthetics versus accessibility. Some may find smaller fonts harder to read. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread about this this at WP:ACCESS a few weeks ago. The thread is here. It was merged with this one, which is a few months older. The answer, in short, was "resize your screen". I doubt this is what you're looking for, TRM, and neither was I. :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• You use ref 1 seven times out of eight in the lead. Slow down, use it at the end of paras or major sections!

Fixed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "home field" in the caption - I'd prefer a linked ballpark because it's not just the field (in the literal sense) that's relevant here.

Caption now reads "[[Fenway Park]], Boston's home [[ballpark]] since {{mlby|1912}}". --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is "Opening Game" capitalised? (Just checking...)

In the article on Opening Day and other lists like this one, it seems to always be capitalized. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "57 different Opening Day starting pitchers in its 107 seasons" - needs a context, perhaps "As of 2008.."?

Added --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Although in modern baseball ties are almost " - comma after baseball.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "was declared a tie due to darkness, at the time" - en-dash instead of comma.

Changed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "had been lacking appropriate lighting" - "lacked adequate lighting"? (to reduce the redundancy in the sentence a bit?)

I agree your version is much better, changed wording. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "post-season" - I thought you US types didn't hyphenate this but happy either way.

Yeah, it seems to vary. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• All the captions for images beside the list should have a full stop.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me, well written, well referenced and no obvious mistakes. If I find anything I'll add it (or just go ahead and fix it).   jj137 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 07:51, 26 September 2008 [20].

---

List of Tampa Bay Rays Opening Day starting pitchers

I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• All scores need the en dash.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Only should be as late as possible in the clause: "No decisions are only awarded to the starting pitcher if the game is won or lost after the starting pitcher has left the game."—after "lost". I'd put "No decisions" in quotes, since it won't be familiar as a compound term to non-experts.

Done and done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Opening Day starts"—"opening-day starts", et al.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• MOS breach: "wasn't".

Changed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• "was still" Tony (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from NapHit

Comments

• Opening Day game (Alverez has two losses, Kazmir has one lose and one no decision). - remove parentheses and put a semi-colon after game

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Tampa Bay beat New York 8–3 " - I know who mentioned the yankees in the previous sentence but I would use Yankees instead of New York to avoid confusion with the Mets

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Years should be centrally aligned, and so should the decisions column

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Full stop not needed in the image in the lead

I'm not familiar with the term "full stop". What do you want me to do? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers NapHit (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - can we avoid use of small font in the table? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this discussion, it should probably be kept. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The MOS says you can beef that lead image up a bit, up to 300px.

Enlarged --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• ""No decisions" are awarded to the starting pitcher if the game is won or lost, only after the starting pitcher has left the game." - so, if his team is winning or losing before he leaves the mound, he gets a win/loss? Just checking...

If he's winning before he leaves and then the team loses he gets a no-decision. If he's losing when he leaves and then his team wins, he gets a no-decisiom. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "opening-day " - I thought we were sticking with "Opening Day"?

Corrected --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Opening Day game, Alverez has two losses, Kazmir has one lose and one no decision" reads awkwardly, and "one lose" is awful. Suggest a full stop after "game" and then replace the comma with "while" and the "lose" with "loss"?

Corrected --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "opening day" - consistency please.

Corrected --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Tampa's traditional home of" - what do you mean by traditional here? Their actual or one by tradition which has alternative connotations?

Replaced "traditional" with "actual" --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from blackngold29

"The only Rays' pitchers to have won an Opening Day game.." is OK, but usually the usage of "only" implies a small number, which verges on POV. It's not a huge deal, but "The Rays' pitchers to have won an Opening Day game.." sounds better to me. Changed to "Tampa Bay pitchers that have won an Opening Day game..." --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC) "a combined 2–2 at home.." should be "a combined 2–2 record at home.." Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC) The refs are fine, but as the Rays only date back to 1998 it would be cool if you could find additional cites for each pitcher. I would assume there is some newspaper from the Tampa Area that has articles online. Blackngold29 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Added another reference --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Obviously one of the shortest histories in the Majors, but a great start to build off in the future. Good work. Blackngold29 22:22, 25 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 07:51, 26 September 2008 [21].

---

List of Zulu War Victoria Cross recipients

Hello, another Victoria Cross recipient list for your perusal. I think this meets all the criteria and follows in the wake of List of Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross recipients. The naming of the list could be up for discussion as with the Mutiny list. I believe that Zulu War is correct for this list, not Anglo-Zulu War as it is a list about British people within this conflict, and the British call this the Zulu War. That said, I am very open to changing it if it is specifically requested with a convincing rationale. So, here we go again, thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments—The prose needs copy-editing. Here are issues in the first half; please get someone to scrutinise the second half.

• Woody, I wonder whether the dates column could be widened at the expense of the units column, to minimise wrapping? Pity the squash is for one small image in the table section, but I can see why you've placed it there.
• Only some C'th countries? Which ones were/are excluded, as a matter of interest?
• "Orders"—upper-case there, but not for the other terms?
• Comma would be nice after "1857", and then "when" might be more natural, juxtaposed with the year rather than the location.
• Comma after "Isadlwana"? The longer a sentence, the more likely such semi-optional commas are used.
• Remove "successfully". "It" refers to the garrison or "This action"? Tony (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed the image now, I had no squashing on my browser, indeed quite the opposite, hadn't bothered to check at low-res. Is it ok now? In terms of Commonwealth countries, at the time it was open to Commonwealth soldiers serving with the British, but not to Commonwealth serving on their own. This was changed eventually and recently three countries have created their own medals. See Victoria Cross#Colonial awards and Victoria Cross#Separate Commonwealth awards for detailed information: I think that is far too detailed to go into here. Tony, if you are going to use the script on this, please remember it is a sorting table. What is top once, won't be for the others. Now, to be honest, the place column looks stupid, either link them all or none at all. Personally, I prefer all. I will look around for another ce. Woody (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Woody, I have a large high-res monitor. Safari windows normally open over less than half the screen (unless you change the size, which it will subsequently repeat for new windows). The inner text display window is 21 × 29 cm. I'm sure other set-ups are similar. I'm sorry to see the small image go, although I guess it's readily recoverable in sibling lists and articles. But the problem is still there: the relationship between those two columns needs to be forced so that the white space wasted in one can pay for no or little date wrapping in the other. How is this done, so I can specify next time (column-width management is quite a common problem in FLCs)? Why not simply specify the wording you provide above C'th etc in a footnote. The "some" was a little mysterious! The sorting table is fine, isn't it? The script was fixed in that respect quite a while ago. Tony (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) PS OK, I agree about the some vs all in a table, and will avoid that function in FLCs from now on. Tony (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • The "highlighted" refers to everybody pretty much: overegged by the military/government/press/country to cover up the failure at Isandwlana. Countries tend to gloss over their failures and glorify their victories. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Something needs to be specified or cited. Tony (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I have pulled the sentence altogether and added in a cited quote that is totally unambiguous. That do it? Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Looks nicer if you put the general references in alphabetical order by author.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The other two don't have authors, they have publishers, so I have used that for authors. Thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Well constructed list that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my few concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I'd prefer to see the general refs before the specific ones.
  • Is that an en-dash between Anglo and Zulu in second para of lead? Is that right (I can't remember...) or should it be a hyphen?
  • 1200->1,200, same with 4000 etc.
  • Link Royal Warrant?
  • Max Arthur's ref, include a pp for the page range for consistency.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All done, thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 07:51, 26 September 2008 [22].

---

Extreme points of India

Saw this article today, and decided to clean it up and list it on FLC. Note: References to this topic are unavailable. Because of the nature of such a list, I had to cite Google Earth coordinates. I believe the coordinates and boundaries of Google Earth are reliable enough to merit referencing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about google books. Is it possible that you could also site a book (surely there must be an atlas that contains this information). Also, it would be great if you could align the table widths. And is this the write name for the article? Would "Extreme geographical points of India" be better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FTR, the article title is consistent with the titles of many related articles, such as Extreme points of Earth and the other articles in the categories Category:Extreme points of Earth and Category:Extreme points by country. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - interesting idea, very interesting! References may be an issue. However, I'll skip that for now and just head for review of content.

• "This is a list of ..." - no, please, start with something engaging. Remember our FAs don't start with "This is an article..." so FLs should do the equivalent.
• Four para lead is too much for an article of this length - go for two, max.
• I think you'd be entitled to wikilink India and Pakistan in the lead.
• And, since it's geographically interesting, you could also link PR of China?
• "...administered by India, by is disputed by ..." - English goes astray here a little...
• "eastern-most" and "northernmost" - to hyphenate or not to hyphenate, that is the question...
• "centre-most" - is this for real? Can you tell me what this means for a land mass that is irregular in shape? Is it the average lat/long derived from the extremes? Is it notable or is it just OR? Presumably you could end up with an average height as well?
• UT probably needs expanding in that table heading.
• Don't like the bold in the North, South etc.
• Probably worth a note somewhere to state that co-ordinates are given in decimal lat/long using (presumably) WGS84?
• Keep accuracies of geo-locations the same.
• Lowest point seems to use both a hyphen and an en/em dash?
• All references should use {{cite web}} and have accessdate, title as a min..

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. My PC suddenly went kaput two hours back, not sure when I can address the above. Currently using a laptop > Bluetooth > GPRS to connect; so very slow. Just like to clarify:

1. The latest MoS rules against linking India, China and other well-known entities. You'll find it on the latest signpost (Sorry, can't wikilink... will take me ages to do that)
   • I would think that, in an article on geography, linking the other countries is useful, since it leads to information on their own geography, borders, etc. It's not like saying "He went on a pilgrimage to India in 1973", where a linked India adds nothing. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
     • Quite so, that's what I'm getting at. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Lowest point, not sure if anything can be done... seems to be a problem with {{convert}}. Would have to raise it there.
3. About the accuracy, Kuttanad precision would have to be skipped, since its not a point, rather a region with varying depths. Also not sure if mentioning the insignificant zeroes would help.
4. Centre-most is real. Not sure how they derived it, but you can check the source (Nagpur district collector's office website), or Google "Nagpur centre India"
5. I didn't think citeweb was necessary for google earth, seemed like an overkill. But, ok, I'll do it, wouldn't hurt.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my system is back up. Replies:

1. I've made all the changes as suggested above
2. Managed to get a reliable source for the coordinates (Manorama Yearbook) -- But this only cites the coordinates as per India's claim.
3. Posted a query on Template:Convert on the dash/hyphen thingy.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Will you do one for Australia? Tony (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, after this gets featured and all issues sorted out. Australia is lucky, it has the pole of inaccessibility field that can also be added, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments redux (on this version)

• The lead is still a little on the light side. WP:WIAFL criterion 2 would seek an "engaging lead" etc etc so can you work on this?
• Southernmost extreme point's longitude appears to be one less d.p. than the others.
• It's possibly worth mentioning what negative means in terms of these co-ords, i.e. +ve lat = northern hemisphere, -ve lat = southern hemisphere, +ve long = east of Greenwich meridian, -ve long = west of GM.
• Refs don't need to sort and should be in numerical order unless there's a really good reason not to list them in numerical order.
• Blank cells worry me - e.g. the two blank Bordering entity cells - it's obvious to you, as an expert, but it's worth footnoting or n/a or similar in there for the rest of us.
• Your first col is "Heading" - is "Centre" really a heading?
• You're aware of it but highest within India is referenceless.
• Full stop at the end of the footnote.
• 3 refs (4, 8 & 10) have rogue ]'s.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fixed all, and split the "most central" into a new section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the extremes used to determine the most central point are determined, or it is dropped entirely. Without those specifics the notations is downright useless. Circeus (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Could you clarify what you mean? Are you saying that I need to either remove the central point OR mention the methods used to arrive at that value? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Think I have got you, and have removed the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Do you still oppose the nomination? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I so rarely comment on FC noms anymore I tend to forget when I do. support Circeus (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the correct name of the article is Extreme geographic points of India. Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[23] suggests that we currently use "Extreme points" for all of these. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• I'm not sure the usefulness of sortability for these tables. Most are free text, so sorting them makes no sense. The only ones that *would* make sense are the "Heading" and/or the coordinates. Since both of those are sort of equal, there's really no point. Just my opinion. I'll Conditionally Support. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the unnecessary ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:21, 25 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 07:51, 26 September 2008 [24].

---

The Simpsons (season 3)

This is the final season of the Simpsons' classic era that isn't an FL. All concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? ok Nergaal (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? We may have an equal number of edits, but I did a lot of the restructuring on the article, including adding the DVD releases, awards and I might have reformated the table (I honestly can't remember). You're more than welcome to co-nom it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure new characters should fall under the development section; maybe rename the section "Production"? Nergaal (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Excellent work by Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs), as usual. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

is this a support vote? Nergaal (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with "hidden", or "Easter-egg" year links is that none of our readers will bother to click them. The two in the opening sentence: are they worth keeping? At least if they're in a table, there's a slight chance that they might be followed. Some WikiProjects (notable music and now apparently film in the near future) are deprecating such links. The way to go appears to be to reword one of those links so it's explicit, and the reader of course can access all of its siblings through that link. Tony (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments of The Rambling Man

Comments

• "were exeutive produced " - typo.
• "the previous season by James L. Brooks, Matt Groening and Sam Simon. This season won..." - "This" season could be confused now.
• Lead could use expanding a little - it's a long list and you've only got one medium-ish para.

The lead contains the gist of everything that the article contains except for plot of the season - which doesn't really matter for Simpsons since it tends to be a status quo. Also, it has similar lengths to other FL seasons. Nergaal (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Six Emmy awards for one category - the relevant article here says "six voice actors from The Simpsons shared the award." - which is it?

Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance supports the idea of a total of 6 awards for one category. Nergaal (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• DVD regions 2 and 4 just redirect to the same article as Region 1 so just link the first.
• Sorry for my ignorance but what is a holdover?
• "who had decided to leave the next season" - both of them? so perhaps "both of whom had...". And leave when next season? before it, during it, or at the end of it?
• Bush is linked twice in successive sentences.
• I'd merge the last two paras of Production as it gets a little "trivia"ish otherwise.
• "agreed to guest star and were recorded over a period " - and whose appearances were recorded?

I don't have access to the ref. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not what I mean - just reword "agreed to guest star and whose appearances were recorded over a period..." The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

k then Nergaal (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• "published a list of their 25 " - its 25?
• Avoid the relinking in the synopses, Rich Moore for instance.

You mean in the directors/writers columns? Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• "but is in the end very happy " - "but is very happy in the end"
• Michael Jackson is linked twice in one synopsis.
• "which Lisa signs up for." - for which Lisa signs up.
• What's Akira?
• " it isn't " - avoid contractions.
• "influence to her son." - influence on...
• hyphen or en-dash in production code?
• hyphen, double hyphen in 42-7 synopsis - both should be en-dash I suspect.
• SLH? Use the full name unless you add an abbreviation (SLH) after the character name.
• " prison-pen pal " - I imagine this should be "prison pen-pal"?
• I'd link easter egg appropriately.
• ref 9 could use another p for pp.
• Turner reference (pg. 39) should just be p. 39 for consistency.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yee, how there is something to work with! Thanks RM, Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused which of these you're not doing... and why.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I rewrote teh replies. I believe I have solved all the issues except the one with a not done check (i.e. not done yet, and I hope I will get help) and the 3 I've replied to (where I need some clarification). Nergaal (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Very well done indeed. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 22:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support – My only complaint is about the space (or lack thereof) to number of episodes (at left), starting in the number [45 – 10], in my monitor are all "squashed". Cannibaloki 00:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Confusion of series & season. This is an american show and should use AmE not BrE. In AmE series refers to the show as a general, whereas season refers to the regular run of episodes - see TV program#Seasons/series. There are quite a few instances where you should use season not series. e.g. "with the series receiving six Emmys" should be "with the season receiving six Emmys" etc.
  • I think in that case, series (referring to The Simpsons, not the season) is the right word.
• The "aired during season four as holdovers" still has a [clarify] tag after it and an extra fullstop. I think you still need to explain what a "holdovers", I can probably guess but shouldn't have to.
• Are there any refs for the DVD release dates, Region 1 could be covered by [46] but the others are unref'd
• Does the last sentence of the reception "section" need to be in a seperate paragraph.
• There are quite a few {{cite web}}'s where you have listed the work= as the publisher=. e.g. Daily Variety, Entertainment Weekly etc. should be the works not the publishers. For example Time Inc. is the publisher of Entertainment Weekly.
  • Fixed.
• You could link TV Shows on DVD.com in ref 46.
  • Done.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead seems a little too short when compared to other FLs about TV seasons

the other Simpsons season FLs seem to have the same length. Do you have any suggestions to what to add in there? Nergaal (talk)

• {{infobox tvseason}} now says to use {{start date}} and {{end date}}
  • Done.
• "who would executive produce 22 episodes the season," or "who executive produced 22 episodes the season,"? I personally don't like the pseudo future tense thing that's going on
  • Done.
• "Their first episode was "Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington" and felt a lot of pressure." Their first episode as show runners, or as writers? And pressure with regards to what?
  • Done.
• "They would also run the following season and Jean would return as executive producer in season 13." or "They also ran the following season and Jean returned as executive producer in season 13."?
  • Done.
• "holdover episodes." jargony perhaps?
• "Two episodes that were aired", I think
  • Done.
• "actually executive produced the previous season" is this missing a "during", maybe?
  • Done.
• "as the speaking voice of Leon Kompowsky." what other kind of voice is there ;)
  • See the rest of the section, his singing voice was provided by another actor.
• "Carlos Baeza and Jeffrey Lynch would both receive their first directing credits this season." simply received will do. "Both" is completely superfluous
  • Done.
• Perhaps link Bush's quote "and a lot less like the Simpsons." to Simpsons family?
• "Jon Lovitz at 8" MOS:NUM rule on numbers smaller than 10
  • Done.
• "a category which is juried rather than competitive." can this be explained more?
  • There's really not much more to explain.
• {{episode list}} now has fields for DirectedBy= and WrittenBy=. If these were used, they'd free up Alt1= and Alt2= for any potential future use
  • Done.
• Other than the fact that the other season pages don't, is there a reason why EpisodeNumber= and EpisodeNumber2= isn't being used for the series # and season #?
  • Not sure.
• The episode table heading has "Original title (top) Alternative title (bottom)", but I don't see an alternative title given for any episodes
  • Done.
• "Guest star: Michael Jackson (under the pseudonym "John Jay Smith")", but earlier it say "One of Jackson's conditions for guest starring was that he voiced himself, but a sound-alike would receive credit." Which is it, a sound-alike, which would imply a real person, or a psedonym, which is just a fake name?
  • It's been fixed.
• "Lisa's nightmare–The Simpsons visit Morocco and find a monkey's paw that makes all their wishes come true – with dire consequences." (and the other Treehouse of Horror descriptions.) WP:DASH -- don't use unspaced endashes here. Place spaces on either side, or use unspaced Emdashes. That said, I think colons would be better. The second dash in the line I just quoted is fine, but I think it would be more aesthetically pleasing if it were an unspaced emdash.
  • Done.
• Summary for "Flaming Moe's" -- Every sentence starts with "When Moe"
  • Done.
• References aren't actually needed for plot summaries as they are self-referential. By that, what is said can be verified by watching the episode
  • Yeah, but the references don't hurt.
• Ref [47] needn't be used to verify each language in the DVD, as it's used beside the "Set details" header
  • Done.
• "Set Details" and "Special Features" are headings, so only the first word needs capitalising, per WP:HEAD

done.

That's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:34, 25 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 07:09, 25 September 2008 [25].

---

List of railway stations in Greater Manchester

This list has been worked on by various members of the Greater Manchester WikiProject, and attempts to follow the example set by similar lists of London Underground and West Midlands stations. I have notified the other major contributors Joshii, Jza84 and Mr Stephen, and the project itself, of this candidacy. I believe the article is comprehensive, well-referenced and defines its context and scope appropriately. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I like... but...

• Lead is four short paras, would do better as two (pref. 3) bigger, more extensive paras - and a little too many blue links there. Consider what's most relevant to this type of article - i.e. link the rail stuff, the Greater Manc stuff but otherwise be judicious...
• Any reason why the first main section heading doesn't appear as a standard main level heading?
• "Northern Rail is the predominant train operating company." - I suspect this needs explanation - either tell me what you mean by predominant (i.e. passenger miles? passengers carried? ) or provide a citation which directly references this quote.
• Three consecutive paras in lead start with "Greater Manchester" which, while accurate, detracts a little from the engaging nature of the lead.
• Para 2 of lead could be flowed better - currently it reads like listprose - factoid after factoid...
• Any reason why we've got three years of entry/exit data? Why not just one with arrows and a reference for the previous year?
• Managed by col - you need to link Northern Rail each time as the table is sortable so the links could appear in any order.
• Why is platforms col so much wider than Open year (which probably ought to be called Year opened)..?
• Advise you centrally align platform and year cols, and right-align cols with loads of numbers like the entry/exit cols.
• Currently the sorting doesn't work on, say, entry/exit 2002/3.
• Footnotes - numbers below ten should be written in text and these footnotes should be referenced.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see a railway related list. Comments

• I think that you should make clear that Liverpool Road station is no longer open otherwise people may wonder why it isn't in the list.
• I am also not sure that the sentence about the East Lancs Railway is relevant to this list (which as about open National Rail stations).
• The paragraph about there being two halves to the network perhaps implies that the lines from Victoria are not connected to the rest of the national network.
• You are not going to thank me for this but the station usage data for 2006-7 is available and should really be included. You have already modified the list to just cover just the last two sets of data and I think that this is about right.
• Platforms - You have included the Metrolink platforms for Altrincham and Navigation Road but not for Manchester Piccadilly or Manchester Victoria. If I might suggest that the data should just be for the platforms that serve the National Rail services with a note saying that a particular station also has Metrolink platforms.
• Ardwick has two platforms not one.
• The lead says that there are 98 stations but I counted (I think) 100.

Boissière (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All my comments have been addressed - Support Boissière (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both for your comments so far. Changes, responses etc. so far (which I will add to where necessary):

→Corrected wrong format for section header.

→2002/3 data removed. See below as well.

→Northern Rail linked on each occasion in TOC column.

→Changed name of the year opened column; can't see any way of narrowing the Platforms column, although I think it looks a bit better now that the numbers are centred.

→Alignments changed as suggested in years, platforms and usage columns.

→The sorting seems to work on the first and second clicks, then goes wrong on the third and fourth clicks, then works again and so on. I don't know how to correct this glitch, which I have seen before on other tables.

→Footnote wording has been corrected as suggested, and references added.

→Liverpool Road clarified and referenced.

→Removed the East Lancs sentence.

→Metrolink platforms info has been changed as you (Boissière) suggested.

→Yep, Ardwick was an error; it has a two-faced island platform. Corrected.

→I think I'll have to put in a footnote about the 98/100 stations. There are indeed 100 in the list; the source says 98, but from looking at the map on the GMPTE website I can see this is because they are not acknowledging the existence of Reddish South and Denton, the "ghost stations" which only have one train per week. I'll think of an appropriate way to word this.

Other things I haven't covered yet will be attended to shortly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The sorting on numbers of entry/exits doesn't work because the sort treats the numbers as text. You could try {{nts}} for helping out here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

→Sorting now corrected for both columns of data.

→2005/6 and 2006/7 data now used. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from SRX

Comments

• • The north side's services radiate from Manchester Victoria providing Inter-City transport to West Yorkshire, the North East and Liverpool as well as local suburban services to Rochdale, Oldham and Wigan. - does "Inter-City" need to be capitalized? Also, is "inner-city" meant here?
  • The other thing I don't like is that ref 8 and 9 are used over 27 times, can't other sources be used to reference what 8 and 9 are citing?

--S_RX 23:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

→"Intercity" is intended: services run to other cities such as Leeds and Liverpool. Capitalisation could be improved, admittedly: I will put in "intercity" instead. I'm concerned about adding a wikilink because these are separate from the well-established InterCity brand.

→The referencing comment concerns me. The books used are the two definitive sources for the often troublesome issue of station opening dates—in particular Butt, which covers every station that has ever existed in Britain, incorporating opening dates, changes of name, closure dates etc. The info in the Greater Manchester-specific book (Brackenbury) matches that in Butt in all cases, such that refs [8] and [9] are essentially interchangeable wherever they appear. Unlike on the similar West Midlands and London Underground lists, there are no websites which give a comprehensive list of opening dates for GM stations ... although even if there was, the data would probably be derived from one or both of these books anyway. In some cases (e.g. Mills Hill, Brinnington), books in my personal collection have been cited as opening date refs; these corroborate the dates given in the other books. I have reached the limit of the usefulness of those books now, though: they contain no more opening-date information. I'm not sure what more I can do on this. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If I can chip in here. The fact that a lot of referencing is from a single source is common to many featured lists. For example, the recently promoted List of solar eclipses in the 21st century uses a particular web page from the NASA web site to source a lot of the info on that page. The various sports lists also tend to use a single source for much of their content. For many topics (including transport) there are one or maybe two sources that are considered authoratative (sp?) for a particular area. Boissière (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my comments have been resolved, mostly issues on my understanding of the subject, meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 20:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

→I have restructured and rewritten parts of the lead, which I hope covers all the points raised above that had not previously been attended to. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Would be nice to spell out abbreviations the first time they are used in the footnotes (GMPTE, FWT, ATOC, etc.)
• What makes http://www.thetrams.co.uk/ a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

→GMPTE and ATOC done. FWT doesn't actually stand for anything (see [http://www.fwt.co.uk/index.html here); it's just a brand/trading style used by the Cook Hammond & Kell Group.

→I have used the Light Rail Transit Association website instead. This is a "proper" society, incorporated as a limited company at Companies House, which publishes a magazine which the website supplements. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• Remove the sorting option from the "Lines served" column - it's free text and doesn't need sorting.
• I don't understand the green/up arrow -- red/down arrow, or in fact the "Annual entry exit" column at all. Does it mean 358 more people entered than exited the Ardwick statio in 2005/6? Could you note that with an explanation somewhere?

Otherwise, looks good. Well laid out, looks properly sourced. I Conditionally support FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

→Sorting removed from that column.

→I have added a footnote with the explanation of the arrows, showing that it means a year-on-year increase or decrease in pax numbers. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hm. Well. Looking at List of railway stations in Essex and List of railway stations in Wales, they don't have the up or down arrows on those. I see what you're going for, but that arrow confuses me - it says "Bolton had roughly 2 million more users" to me. Or 2 million more entries than exits. The other lists have "station users" for both sets of years - the entry/exit column header you have is confusing to me.
• Furthermore, I'm not sure how encyclopedic those numbers are. If it really is "users", then I can see having one set of numbers, to show how much use the station gets. But having both sets I think is overkill.
• One other request - is there a station map like A (New York City Subway service) or List of railway stations in Dover? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

→Odd: I thought the up/down arrows had been used on some other stations lists, but having just checked, I can see they aren't! Anyway, I've removed them. Re two years of data vs. one, other lists of this type seem to go for two by default, and having two gives more benefit as it shows trends rather than just static info. Having two was suggested above as being about right by Boissière (previously there were 3 years of data!)

→I don't think there is a map available on Commons or WP; also it would be very complex indeed and would probably overwhelm the article. The network is quite large and complicated. Perhaps I could provide an External Link to the GMPTE's network map? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I Support this FLC. A map would still be nice - even a thumb of one - but it's not a show stopper :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 07:09, 25 September 2008 [26].

---

A Perfect Circle discography

Wikiproject Tool nomination. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Reduce 13 to 10 peak pos.
  • Remove: UK; FIN; SWI; (please remember is not required, only a suggestion)
• Countries are out of order
• !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| → ! style="width:3em;font-size:75%"|
• RIAA & CRIA → US & CAN
• no links for release dates;
• "—" denotes releases that did not chart. → "—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country. (or something like)
  • inside the table!
• Singles:
  • !align="center" rowspan="2"| '''Year''' (?) → ! rowspan="2"| Year
  • !align="center" rowspan="2"| '''Title''' → ! rowspan="2" width="200"| Title
  • !align="center" colspan="4"| '''Chart positions''' → ! colspan="4"| Peak chart positions
  • !align="center" rowspan="2"| '''Album''' → ! rowspan="2"| Album
  • |align="center" valign="top"|— → | align="center"| —
• DVDs → Video albums;
  • Video information → Video details
  • Certifications
  • "Counting Bodies Like Sheep to the Rhythm of the War Drums"
  • "Weak and Powerless" (Tilling My Grave mix)
• Music videos
  • Same width of singles table;
  • Director (?) are missing names and references!
• External links
  • Perfect Circle A Perfect Cirlce (?)

Cannibaloki 19:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks so much for the detail in your review. That was quite helpful! (I hope it's okay I struck out what I completed. Revert me if not.) I opted to keep the chart positions, hopefully that's okay. Although they didn't chart so well, they did chart in those countries, so I believe it's worth a mention. For the Music videos section, it reads "same as singles table", what are you referring to? As for the director info, I completely forgot I'd not finished that. I'll be on it tomorrow! Last thing, about the external discog link... template seems to be borked? I did it manually. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the only spot I could find the directors was on the details of aMotion on Discogs.com. Is that good? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I reversed part of the change you made here to narrow the column; it caused "Counting Bodies Like Sheep to the Rhythm of the War Drums" to appear on three lines at lower resolutions. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 11:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem.

Support Looks good to me now. Cannibaloki 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image:A Perfect Circle.jpg does not have a a fair use rationalle for this page. Also, after reading the page it is improperly liscensed, I don't believe that the image may be used on Wikipedia at all. It is liscensed as a screenshot from a music video and may only be used for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question. I don't believe it is a screenshot from a music video as the source is Amazon.com. I don't believe the rationalle that a copyrighted image may be used because the band is on hiatus and may break up. Please see WP:RAT. This image should DEFFINITLY be removed from this article, if not from Wikipedia completely. REZTER ^TALK ø 16:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • While I'm not going to become too histrionic, I would agree that the FU rationale for an existing group whose members are all alive is inadequate. Jennavacia, I'd advise you remove it from the list. Rezter, if you feel so strongly, I advise you tag it for deletion. The removal from Wikipedia of this image is beyond the remit of this FLC. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I updated the license and added the rationale. I'd not uploaded the image and did not pay close attention when I looked over it. Sorry about that. Uhm... is it okay for me to leave it until the results of the IFD? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
      • For sure. Let it dwell - we'll see. I strongly encourage reviewers to examine the list, not the image. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
        • IfD closed, image kept. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Many of my comments would have been mentioned already, but I do have one thing to mention to give my support..
    • In the features for Video albums, it is unverified: should either be sourced or removed.

--S_RX 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• So, you just want me to put the DVD info on there? Cite the sleeve or back cover or whatever? I'll try to find someone that has it. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

• I Support this FLC. Looks well reffed, presented per standard, nice job. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments close, but not quite support...

• I'd merge the first two paras - the first single-sentence one doesn't really need to be out on its own.
• "Troy Van Leeuwen (Failure) " reads strangely unless you know Failure is a band - perhaps link or reword.
• "both of whom had been involved in the production in both albums" both both - reads awkwardly.
• Shouldn't the album titles in "Emotive was certified gold five weeks after its release, and aMotion a month " be italics?
• Is it worth mentioning the band's genre in the lead? Most links seem to imply Alt rock?
• What does (Contest Winner) mean after the music video Blue?
• Ref 18 isn't specific. And even using your instructions I don't seem able to get the desired result...
• Ref 1 has wikilinked accessdate, none of the other refs do.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• All issues have been addressed. - Yohhans ^talk 14:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you're linking Primus etc, you should link Smashing Pumpkins and Marilyn Manson.
  • Good point. The reason these are unlinked is because the lead had been modified for prose and all these bands had been mentioned previously. We just forgot to relink things further below. I've fixed every instance I can find. - Yohhans ^talk 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• And probably Tool.
  • Done. - Yohhans ^talk 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Still not keen on the indirect reference (ref 18) - no way this information could be derived from somewhere else?

Otherwise we're nearly there. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I agree it is a poor way of doing things, but looking at other FL discographies, they either cite this website and don't give instructions, or they refer to the book that is published containing this information (which I do not have access to). I'll see if I can modify the POST so that it takes you directly to the information. - Yohhans ^talk 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Cool. It's a nuance of php search results that means a direct URL seems to be hard to find from time to time. Anything you can do to make the reference more direct (or find an alternative) will be much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I tried turning it into this: http://www.everyhit.com/searchsec.php?artist=first&artistcontent=a%20perfect%20circle&songtitle=first&titlecontent=&format=A&songpos=40&earliestmonth=01%2D01&earliestyear=1947&latestmonth=12%2D31&latestyear=2008&sortby=songdate, but to no avail. It keeps throwing a warning, and I have no idea what header information I'm missing. I'm not sure there is a direct way to get results from everHit.com. Aha! How about using acharts or Chart Log UK? Which source would you prefer? Downside of the latter is that you have to do a ctrl+f for "A Perfect Circle", but on the upside it shows the chart positions of the other two albums. - Yohhans ^talk 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Not sure. I've seen Zobbel and acharts used - does WP:DISCOGS give advice either way on whether one is more RS than another? Either way it's better than a non-specific reference as long as it's RS. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
          • See response to Matthew. - Yohhans ^talk 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Is "brainchild" a specialist word? Does it need linking to brainchild maybe?
  • Specialist? I was under the assumption that it was a fairly commonplace word. It is just a more formal way of saying that Howerdel is the brains behind the operation. - Yohhans ^talk 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You're probably right. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Glad you see it my way. *evil cackle* What? FLC is not the place for evil cackles? Well, in that case, I will leave this as, "I'm glad we agree." - Yohhans ^talk 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Some heading in the peak chart position link to articles for charts, such as ARIA Charts for AUS, but others just link to the country, such as AUT. Record chart has links to articles if you're not sure what they are
  • Good catch on this. The reason these are linked to the country is because no article exists for that chart on the English Wikipedia. Would you suggest linking to the proper subsection in the Record chart article, delinking the country altogether, or leave as is? For reference, if we follow the example of existing featured discographies, then the links would just point to the country. - Yohhans ^talk 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think Norway's album chart is VG-lista. You could pipelink to Record_chart#Sweden etc. I'll leave that for you to decide. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I changed Norway and the Netherlands to their proper articles. The rest were piped to the Record chart article. - Yohhans ^talk 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 9 "Billboard.com via Allmusic" may be achieved by the work= and publisher= fields of {{cite web}}
  • Will let Jenna address this as she did (virtually) all of the referencing for the article. - Yohhans ^talk 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't use cite templates unless I'm doing Harvard referencing. I removed the .com and italicized Billboard, as that's what using the template would have done, and it would be inappropriate to italicize a website. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Works for me. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 18 -- Same concern as TRM. Can a better reference be found where the reader doesn't have to do the work? acharts say their information may be wrong, here, so I wouldn't advocate using them. http://www.zobbel.de/ looks like a bedroom project. I'd be happier if they said where/how they gather their information. ChartsPlus and Music Week may be better. There's also NME and Broadcast (magazine). Finally, there's the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums.
  • As far as I can tell, there's no way to obtain a link to charts via any of these options. Is Chart Stats an acceptable substitute? - Yohhans ^talk 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That appears to be okay. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Changed it to the charstats site then. - Yohhans ^talk 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:55, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [27].

---

List of George Michael awards

Gary King (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• SupportComments
• About the Grammy nominations. "Father Figure" received the nom in the same year Faith won for Album of the Year (1989). The link for the Grammys on the nomination for "Freedom 90" should be for the for Grammys of 1992, and for "Dont Let The Sun Go Down On Me" (1993). "Amazing" (2005). Jaespinoza (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All done. Some of the years were a single year off because some of my references called the awards of that year the previous year or the current year depending on their preference, so I just ended up sticking to using one resource so that it was consistent. Gary King (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from S_RX

• Comments from SRX
  • American Music Awards
    • Like I said in the Ciara one, I would recommend decreasing the parameters of the table to make it fit in between the infobox to reduce the white space.
  • Overall
    • As I also said in the Ciara nom, you can link things over and over again in tables per WP:OVERLINK as it helps sometimes (the reader).

--S_RX 22:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I decreased the image size which should shrink the whitespace. I only want to link the first mention of each album/song/etc. in the awards sections so that there isn't too much overlinking. Gary King (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support from SRX - My comments have been resolved and meets the FL Criteria. Less whitespace is good and WP:OVERLINK state otherwise, but not mandatory to follow.S_RX 23:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's an unfortunate tendency in the leads of FLCs to use "in his native [country], having announced the nationality at the opening. This should be avoided.
• See MOS on spelling out numbers: "fifteen" yet "100" and "49"? Tony (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per my comments here and there and elsewhere, what are your defined criteria for inclusion - once again you have included an awards ceremony that doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Cr 3 needs a defined scope. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all non-notable awards. Gary King (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The title should be "List of awards won by George Michael"; "List of George Michael awards", to me, sounds like it's awards given out by George Michael. --Golbez (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [28].

---

List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers

I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support from SRX
  • Meets the FL Criteria and follows the same format as the List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers FL.

--S_RX 22:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

En dashes—Please read about them at MOS. Tony (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from NapHit

Comments

• "have used 4 different" - four should be written out

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Years should be centrally aligned and so should the decisions columns

Aligned --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The link to "The Northerner" leads to a disambiguation page

De-linked --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers NapHit (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "one Diamondbacks opening day each" - Opening Day?

Changed to "have started one Opening Day each" --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Don't like the small font (for appearances), very difficult to read.

Are you refering to the table? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 9 is a work rather than a publisher isn't it? And you can add the date too.

Added an ESPN reference to go along side that one, added dates for all references that I could. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [29].

---

List of Ciara awards

Gary King (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

'Comments

• In the first paragraph you do not mention that the single "Oh" (also from Goodies) peaked at number two in the Billboard Hot 100.
• And also about the first paragraph, that info maybe could be a better fit for a list for her discography, correct me if I am wrong.
• For the rest of the list, congratulations, great job. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's also appropriate for her discography, but I think it's acceptable here, too. It gives a background to her most successful songs. Gary King (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Jaespinoza (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from S_RX

• Comments from SRX
  • American Music Awards
    • I would lower the parameters of the table to make it fit in between the infobox to decrease the huge white space in the middle.
  • Overall
    • Per WP:OVERLINK you can link the subject over and over again in the tables.

--S_RX 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support from SRX - my comments have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria in my eyes.--S_RX 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Where are the inclusion criteria for the list? Cr 3 necessitates a "defined scope" for instance why have you included Soul Train Lady of Soul Music Awards when Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about them?
• "outstanding achievements " peacock POV unless it's a quote.
• "that honors the best in black music and entertainment" ditto.
• "1995 by Kanya King MBE and Andy Ruffell" is the MBE necessary? If so, link it. And who's Andy Ruffell?

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All done. Removed non-notable awards and copyedited some of the text. Gary King (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The title should be "List of awards won by Ciara"; "List of Ciara awards", to me, sounds like it's awards given out by Ciara. --Golbez (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [30].

---

List of Slipknot awards

An article I believe meets the FL criteria and up to par with other award lists. REZTER ^TALK ø 22:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Not one single reference for the lead? I'd suggest the following (from just the first few sentences) have references... It may be possible to reference it all from one decent WP:RS, but you need something here.
  • "band from Des Moine, Iowa."
  • "Originally formed under the name of The Pale Ones in September 1995.."
  • "The band began recording songs in early 1996, during which time Steele left due to his Christian beliefs."
  • "He was replaced by Craig Jones, who moved to samples..."
    • Well I didn't think I needed references considering all of those claims are referenced in the main Slipknot article, however I can provide sources very easily. On Slipknot discography we don't source the history of the band. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
      • That doesn't make it right. Each article in Wikipedia is stand-alone. Please reference the claims. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
        • OK I have sourced the history of the band. REZTER ^TALK ø 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...left due to his Christian beliefs." - which "Christian beliefs" say you can't be in a band? Needs explanation.
  • I've expanded it. REZTER ^TALK ø 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Unlink dates.
  • Done. REZTER ^TALK ø 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• "received 6 awards" - six.
  • Done. REZTER ^TALK ø 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Maybe you could work in the lead first paragraph, the band's name is at least five times in that single paragraph.
  • OK made a few changes. There's now only 3 mentions in the first paragraph. REZTER ^TALK ø 21:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• For the rest of the list, congratulations, very good job. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It looks very good now. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from S_RX

• Comments
  • In 2008 then band released their fourth album All Hope Is Gone, the single "Psychosocial" brought the band their first MTV Video Music Awards nomination for Best Rock Video. - somehow these sentences don't connect, no transitions or connecting verbs like "and/then, etc."

--S_RX 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • OK I've changed it around a bit. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - comments have been resolved to meet FL Criteria.--S_RX 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Article makes no mention of Slipknot's win (s) / nomination (s ) at Metal Hammer Golden God Awards. Here's one win, and one nomination. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your suggestion, while lookign for more noms and wins for those wards (which I found none of) I found some noms for Total Guitar awards too. Added. REZTER ^TALK ø 19:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.ents24.com/web/news.html?id=00000631 a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to justify a source as reliable TBH. I found it while searching on http://news.google.co.uk and kind of figured that those are select sites and are kind of considered reliable. I know there's an article for the site (Ents24) and that states that it's one of the leading sites in the entertainment industry in the UK. WP:RS states that "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and beign that the Kerrang! awards is a UK based thing I'd expect one of the biggest websites related to entertainment in the UK to be deemed reliable. REZTER ^TALK ø 13:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• Is it really necessary to have five (Grammy) or six (Kerrang) citations for the two short sentences of each section? If possible, could you find a source that sums those up?

• I'm afraid it is necessary because I don't have soruces that list all of their nominations and wins, only seperate ones for seperate years. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Overall, I Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely a good-looking and interesting list. One question which I feel needs to be asked of all these award lists, what is the scope of the contents? In other words, is this list every single award Slipknot have been nominated for or won? I doubt it, so I'm interested to see how the inclusion criteria is defined. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's pretty much every award that they've won that I'm aware of and have found from my sources. I also searched for all awards listed on this template and listed the only ones I found. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The title should be "List of awards won by Slipknot"; "List of Slipknot awards", to me, sounds like it's awards given out by Slipknot. --Golbez (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not disagreeing, but as per List of Korn awards, List of Linkin Park awards, List of Metallica awards, and List of Rage Against the Machine awards that style of naming seems to be the norm. Blackngold29 01:14, 24 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 18:14, 20 September 2008 [31].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Ludacris

Gary King (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure what the relevant naming conventions for music awards are, if any, but "List of Ludacris awards" is a rather misleading title for those not aware that there is an artist named Ludacris, as it will be easily misread as meaning "list of unthinkably stupid awards". --erachima talk 06:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  I can see how there could be confusion; however, the other awards lists have the same article title, such as List of Korn awards, List of Natasha Bedingfield awards, and List of Good Charlotte awards, so I'd like to follow that convention if possible. Gary King (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't see a problem with the title at all.
  • Hmm, I hadn't thought of it the way the concerned editors above and below me clearly did. Yeah, it probably needs clarification. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Moved Gary King (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Link Yeah! the first time in the lead.
• Huge whitespace below the TOC for me in Safari.
• " awarded for outstanding achievements" - usual comment - is this peacock, quote or OR?
• Ref 9 could have a date added.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree with the names (see Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Laziness/repetition in names) How about List of awards and nominations received by Ludacris? "List of Ludacris awards" sounds like Ludacris is an award-giving body, like MTV VMAs, or Grammys, as in "List of Grammy Awards", or "List of MTV Video Music Awards". It wouldn't be difficult to move other award related FLs to new pages of similar new titles. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  If we've got a few people behind it then I'd be willing to change it; right now, though, I can't tell if it's the more popular title or not. Gary King (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - based on meeting the FL criteria, but I think a move is necessary since it sounds like Ludacris is an award itself.S_RX 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Nice, clean list which is comprehensive. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Very fragmented; no chance of conflating into a single table? Tony (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well could be done, but again, there are dozens of previously nominated FLs that use this format so I'd rather stick with this format unless we have a big discussion on changing it. Gary King (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• http://de.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=c32e25f6-32e7-432c-a43b-65aba7835c3b deadlinks
• http://fairfield.edu/pr_1107ludacris.html deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay, other links checked out with the link checker tool.

Both done. E! Online has had a huge update recently where most of the URLs on their website don't work anymore, gah. Gary King (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 18:14, 20 September 2008 [32].

---

List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan

A new list I recently created. I believe it meets all the FL criteria, but I welcome any constructive critiques, suggestions and improvements. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Admrb♉ltz (talk)

• Comments from Admrb♉ltz (talk) (15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
  • business loop disambiguates to the wrong article
  • "forming a major artery for Michigan and even Canadian traffic.." - theres an extra full stop before the reference
  • "There have been at least eight state trunkline highways in Marquette County" - at least? Is there not a definite answer to this?
  • "across the UP crosses Marquette County as well." - I know what the UP is but you have not defined this abbreviation yet in the article.
  • Year Created - This is fine if there were to just be one date in the field, but in the former routes, this is not mentioned. Maybe rename this column to "Years active" and then add –current or something to the active routes
  • decommissioned should be avoided, replace it with former.
  • Delink Michigan Department of Transportation in ref 2 please.
  • The table header mentions towns, but the table says municipalities, pick one and stick with it please.

• • • I've redirected business loop to Business route which is a much better redirect for it anyway. Stray period removed. The ambiguity over number arises from the fact that there have been two trunklines in the county have that have been renumbered to their current numbers (M-15 -> US 41, M-45 -> M-95) and the fact that "state trunkline" includes US highways, leaving no official term for a trunkline that isn't a US Highway or an Interstate. I'll clear that up as best as I can. I should have cleared up the other issues as well. Ref 2 does not link directly to MDOT, but uses the name of a predecessor agency. In other FACs I've done, MSHD has bee pipe-tricked to the MDOT article on first mention and not linked after that. This was done here to maintain consistency with the practice in the linked articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - per resolved comments. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 23:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment - can you make the space between the n and the number for the notes nonbreaking? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't. It's the way that the <ref group="n" name="cn"/> code makes it. This is the first time I've used the notes function, so if you have suggestions, I'm all ears. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 18 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 18:14, 20 September 2008 [33].

---

Paul Kelly discography

I believe that this passes the criteria for a featured list and I think that it should be recognised as such. Dan arndt (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Preface: I based my initial work for this discography on the Australian ones that have reached FL status: Powderfinger discography, Silverchair discography and Delta Goodrem discography.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid starting with "This is a list.." as featured articles don't start with "This is an article.." do they? However, see the three FL discographies above.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid bold links in the lead. However, likewise. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• " Australian rock / folk music" - spaces before and after the slash? Changed sentence to use a comma instead. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I know it may be difficult but "Paul Kelly" appears eight times in the opening para of the lead making it hardly engaging. I wonder if a footnote would be of use here? Footnote used: it lists his Bands by chronology.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• "major studio releases" - what's a "major" release? Studio albums that are not EPs?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Reworded sentence. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• " band Uncle Bill and Professor Ratbaggy by Professor Ratbaggy a dub reggae group formed with members of his Paul Kelly Band." - wow, the most confused sentence I think I've ever seen...! Seriously, a little rejig required here to remember who "his" refers to, maybe a comma or two... You got me there - what was I thinking! Sorry about that one: reworded the sentence, hopefully it scans better.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why is remix albums in the infobox if there are zero? Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• No images? Added the Long Bay Gaol image (same as in main article).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• No need to wikilink dates of release.

I have a problem here. See MOS:DISCOG, which are only guidelines, thus not compulsory, but do expect full dates of releases to be wikilinked.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tony1 has recently delinked some of the overlinkage in this article, in doing so the release dates for albums have been delinked. I have indicated at Tony1's talkpage that the situation here was subject to review and that you had not yet indicated whether these release dates must be delinked. I have requested a reversion on those release dates while you consider your decision on this, but I don't intend engaging in an edit war on this issue. It is somethng that needs to be resolved by WP:MOSNUM and MOS:DISCOG.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tony1 has changed the entry at MOS:DISCOG so that it now aligns with WP:MOSNUM. Hence, the changes made to this article will now stand: the album release dates will not be wikilinked.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates unlinked by User:Tony1.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why the big gaps between the colon and the colour of certification?

Not sure of this, I use Firefox and see no big gap: it could be a wrap problem? I need to look at this on other browsers and see if I see the problem on them.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm now using IE, and the gap is definately bigger. I'll try to fix it soon.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reconfigured each cell with an entry in the Certification column, hopefully the gap is no more than a standard space. I'm back on Firefox so I don't actually see any difference. If it's still no good, I'll have to try something else.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've checked on Firefox, IE and Safari: gap seems OK now.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Don't overlink AUS and NZ - the table isn't sortable. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Several blank producers. Not good. Either footnote or resolve. Found the others on Australian Rock Database, also verifies the other producers already listed.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Roll on Summer EP is bold an unlinked. The EP before and after is bold and linked - probably only need to link one. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Is it just me or are footnotes a to h finished with a comma? Should be a full stop, each footnote is independent of the other. You're right they were commas, but I'd prefer full stops there too, so I don't know where I got the commas from.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• What does "-" mean if "—" means a release which didn't chart. It was a typo, I'm assuming it was for "Beautiful Feeling" single? (NOTE: I've separated this comment from the rest of your original sentence.)Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• And on that note, can you prove that every single single/album you've used that annotation with has been released and failed to chart in every country?

In a footnote (#l) I've got the McFarlane ref (#1) to indicate that Gossip and associated singles were his first International releases (North America and Europe). allmusic biography (accessible from first ExtLnk) confirms this. Australian Rock Database (ref #4) confirms many of the international releases but concentrates on albums/EPs and is not good for all singles. Other single releases are being tracked for International labels to confirm their release into those markets. For any non-releases, I'll change the "—" to " " with a greyed background to indicate non-release into that market.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In fixing up the footnotes problem, I've created a whole Notes section (see below for rationale). By doing so, I've changed the order of some references, hence comments above may relate to old numbering.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice at Pink Floyd discography (also an FLC) they use

"—" denotes releases that did not chart or weren't released in that country. within the last row of relevant tables. Would this be acceptable here if all singles' countries of release can't be proven?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Directors missing. Added a footnote to indicate lack of knowledge of these.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Nevertheless, I am still searching for them anyway.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Soundtrack notes - some end with full stops some don't. Should all end in stops now.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 12 has a rogue ]. I wrapped a nowiki around the word Import enclosed in square brackets: I hope this resolves the problem.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Summary I believe I've covered all the points indicated above, except

Three video directors' names are still missing but covered by a note as suggested.

"—" denotes releases that did not chart. - some singles releases may not have entered the US market, I'm still checking for international record companies, if unable to find these in the next 2 days I'll use the following instead:

"—" denotes releases that did not chart or weren't released in that country. I hope that will be acceptable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Finished off on both of these points. Couldn't find the names of those directors and so will leave the note to indicate lack of knowledge. Changed definition of "—" to the latter form which should cover non-releases into US market for the singles table.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

• Comments
  • No image? Added the Long Bay Gaol image (same as in main article).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Throughout the prose the band "Paul Kelly band" is referred to as such, why isn't it "the Paul Kelly band?" Must be an aversion to "the", I've put a few in there: hope it helps.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph should be cutdown, and can be cutdown. Only the work that has charted on the top 10 or a top 15 should be noted not all of them, as charting on #36 is non-notable. If all of it is necessary to keep, split into two paragraphs. Yes, a very good point. I've cut down some of the content and split it into two paragraphs.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC) If required, further cutbacks can be made. (Now I sound like your local politician!)Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "—" denotes releases that did not chart. - this should be incorporated as a row into the table.
  • The table should be modeled after the table used in Lostprophets discography (not an FL, but the table is used by other FL's)

I'm assuming this is a heads-up for the previous point (btw, thanks: it helps to know what it should looke like) or is there additional work that needs to be done to the tables?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Some of the notes on the live albums need to be sourced. Reference supplied.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Has any effort been done to find the directors for the videos in 1993, 1997, or 2001?

I've done a number of searches over the last two weeks, but I have only found inferential possibilities so far. e.g. At Other People's Houses, a fansite, I found the names of videos some with directors & some not, but I've only put in those that are verified by the videography ref given in the article. Still working on this.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a footnote to indicate lack of knowledge of these, initial reviewer (above) indicates this would be acceptable. If not acceptable to you I can delete the video entries from the table until a director's name can be found.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I feel that the notes under each section should go into the footnotes section, as that is what it is for.

The footnotes section was only just added in response to a suggestion from the initial reviewer (above) regarding over usuage of Paul Kelly in the Lead. I will move the rest of the footnotes there soon.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now moved the footnotes down to the Footnote section. May have to add more footnotes.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the Footnotes section: there was no linking (backwards/forwards) to multiply-used notes. So I've set up a new Notes section and I am learning to separate explanatory notes from the References section already present - I've never tackled this before so bear with me; nesting refs within notes was a revelation. I've got the first four or five footnotes converted and have left the old Footnotes section until I complete the conversion. Because of this process it has changed the order of the old refs. I will be continuing with the conversion - just thought I'd better keep you appraised of the interim nature of the current article.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Finished converting the Footnotes to Notes with a separate Notes section placed above References section. Hopefully it now has full linking. I have deleted the previous individual Footnotes and associated Footnotes section that was created earlier today as it did not work too well. I'm sorry for the interruption of your reviewing with this additional editing but I believe it follows on from the previous reviewer's suggestion of adding a footnote for Paul Kelly's various bands and your request for all Footnotes to be placed in their own section (where they should be).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary I believe I've covered all the points indicated above. Unless there's more to follow up with the Lostprophets discography comparison, or you want the video directors named or the relevant entries deleted. Furthermore the "—" denotes releases that did not chart. within certain tables may be replaced by "—" denotes releases that did not chart or weren't released in that country. if acceptable by initial reviewer (decision still pending).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Finished off on this review. Used latter definition of "—" without feedback from first reviewer: hopefully it will be acceptable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

--

S_RX 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my issues have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria.--S_RX 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Dates—It's not so much that you don't need to autoformat dates, but that such is deprecated at WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting. I've updated the discog guidelines, which I note are a proposal only. Tony (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with going along with WP:MOSNUM (and your new edit of MOS:DISCOG) over earlier MOS:DISCOG guidelines, I only thought the latter was an exception to the former and didn't realise it was outdated: thanks for the clarification.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Questions - Why are the certifications columns so wide, and why are some of the cells in the tables blue while others have em dashes? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

certification columns have been re-sized - the blue cells represent those singles that were not released in the US and hence did not chart in the US. Dan arndt (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://hem.passagen.se/honga/database/k/kellypaul.html

Some 110 articles cite Australian Rock Database (ARDb), see wikipedia search result. ARDb is a listing of Australian rock artists as edited by Magnus Holmgren, it contains substantial information on their albums (including different types of releases in different markets), band members, record producers/labels and projects for these artists. Some of the 110 articles found above are GA (I helped write three) and I have used ARDb. It is run independently of the artists' control although they are sometimes acknowledged as sources for the information. I believe it is a reliable source. It would be difficult to find another on-line resource for this sort of information about Australian rock bands.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Government sponsored site Australian rock music lists Australian Rock Database as a resource for information on the Music industry.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.mvdbase.com/index.php?

Only 91 articles use mvdbase.com mostly discography articles. In particular, Powderfinger discography is an FL and was cited above as one of my starting points.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.amws.com.au/pk/bio/1997.html

Australian Music Web Site is an internet site which relies on its accuracy for sales and information.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.discogs.com/

Will replace this ref with a better one if necessary.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Found the liner notes for the album and they agree with the discogs entry on this particular album, I have left the discogs ref as it is now only a back-up to the liner note ref.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.sanity.com.au/

Answered below by Dan arndt.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.ourbrisbane.com/whats-on/gig-guide/paul-kelly

A site sponsored by Brisbane City Council, which is independent and reliable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Pick one, either put the author's last name first or their first name first in the references, but be consistent.

Authors names have been added to those references that have been used. Sanity is a music store. Dan arndt (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I've consistently used, last name, first name for authors in the references but that editors are given as first name last name:. Throughout I use the cite web, cite news or cite book forms as applicable. Could you point out an e.g. where this has been inconsistent? I may have missed one.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Is it possible to seperate the Compilations table into "Live albums" (Live...Live at the Continental) "Compilations" (Songs from the South) and "Live DVD's" (Ways and Means, Live Apples) to provide a bit more detail... I've tried myself but not that up on wikitables and don't want to muck up your great work. DISEman (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that it is possible to separate the Compilations table, but I'm no wiz with wikitables either and it would take awhile. I'll have a try at it on my sandbox later today but can't promise it'll get done today.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Some 'FL' discographies such as the Powderfinger discography do not split them into various tables but I do not others do - guess it is simply a question of style and what the user considers looks good. Dan arndt (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at splitting the tables, have a look, see which you prefer.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 18:14, 20 September 2008 [34].

---

List of Timbaland awards

Gary King (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary, can't you start working on pages for some better artists? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Like who? Out of all the ones I've submitted, I think List of Arctic Monkeys awards is the best band. List of Rage Against the Machine awards is good, too. I listen to almost any music genre and have a huge music library so I think I cover a lot of genres :) But if you've got requests, I'm all ears. Also, some of the bands I wanted to work on are already at FL. A lot of older bands are great, too, but it's harder to find references for older awards ceremonies and such, which is why a lot of these are contemporaries. Gary King (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://ca.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=4d6197fd-b867-4068-a123-81fe6861e3b7&entry=index deadlinks
• http://ca.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=cf6e7b89-ea85-4c51-8c30-6d13222715a0 deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like E! Online redesigned their website since I last used those references (they still work in Google's cache). I replaced them with an MTV link and with a link directly to the awards' website. Gary King (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Do you reference Timabaland's real name anywhere?
• "awarded for outstanding achievements " ditto from before - peacock, quote or OR?
• "recognizing the people and the work of popular culture." - this sentence is dross and I presume it's a quote.... cite it?
• I'd expand the description of the official site to ensure we know it's Timabaland's official site, not Timbaland's award's official site.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Great list overall, two thing I would like to point however, in the lead you mention his nominated work, but in some lists like this they mention the work and if it was nominated for an award.
  • I find the link to Timbaland in the sections redundant because its in the lead and the subject is himself.

S_RX 21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The second comment is a matter of preference, in my opinion. So is the second; I link the first mention of the artist again in the awards sections. Gary King (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• Nice work. List looks to be properly sourced, well linked, and well laid out. My only request would be for another picture, if at all possible.
• Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that second picture would be placed :) The Infobox provides a nice place for one, but that's about it. I have bolded your support declaration above to make it more obvious. Gary King (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 18:14, 20 September 2008 [35].

---

Los Angeles Lakers seasons

I am nominating this article for FL with Chrishomingtang as I peer reviewed the article and believe it is ready for nomination. This article used the New York Yankees seasons format and was mostly created in my sandbox. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - An outstanding and great list that meets the FL? to the fullest extent, great work to all editors.--S_RX 23:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support - I worked to bring the Yankees seasons list to featured status, and it's now being used as a model for other FLCs. As a result, this FAC reviewer has decided to make a special guest appearance at FLC (Come to think of it, I did review and support a golf list a while ago, but haven't reviewed anything here since.). Only having to review two paragraphs of prose is a nice change of pace as well. Here goes...

• The various awards won need to be cited. There are two good ways to do this. You can reference pages that list the award winners, or use Basketball-Reference pages on the individual players and coaches.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 03:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Should the Lakers' time in the National Basketball League be included? It may be confusing to the readers to say that they originated in Detroit, when that isn't reflected in the table.

I didn't include the NBL side as both of the featured lists (here and here) don't show it because I can't find the references to do so. I want the lists to be consistent. If you want me to add it on, and if other users also want it added on, I will do so. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 03:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Couple of reference nit-picks: Capitalize the publisher in reference 4 to match the other similar references. Also, remove the apostrophe from National Basketball Player's Association in ref 63.

DONE! the NBPA's name is with the apostrophe. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 03:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Lakers' 1972 title could be mentioned in the prose, even though it came against the Knicks. :-( Come to think of it, their run in the 1960s isn't mentioned either. I know they couldn't break through during this time, but a sentence on these two topics would be a nice addition.

I would try that if I have time to do so, but right, now, I'm just fixing the little things. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 03:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I add a line about the 1972 title.—Chris! _ct 01:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It will take you a while to work on these, so let me know when these are done and I will review the prose then. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Back for the promised prose review.

• "The Lakers popularity soared in the 1980s by winning five championships during a nine year span with the help of superstar Hall of Famers... Apostrophe for Lakers'. Hyphen for nine-year. By would be better phrased as "when they won". And watch the POV with "superstar". Saying the people in question are Hall of Famers should be enough.
• Second paragraph: "the most finals appearances..." Capitalize finals?
• "The Lakers also hold the record for the longest consecutive win streak (33) in U.S. professional team sports beginning on November 5, 1971 and ending on January 7, 1972." The organization of this seems a touch off. I would go with "The Lakers also hold the record for the longest winning streak (33) in U.S. professional team sports; the run started on November 5, 1972 and ended on January 7, 1972."
• Have the Lakers missed the playoffs fewer times than any other NBA team? If so, that would be nice to have at the end of the second paragraph, if you can cite it. If not, consider adding the total number of NBA seasons at the end. That would make the statement more powerful without any POV concerns.
• Photo caption: "Jerry West has been to 9 of the 29 NBA Finals appearances made by the Lakers." I recommend something like this: "Jerry West played in nine of the Lakers' 29 NBA Finals appearances"

That's all from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE ALL! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 23:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit

Comment You need to include symbols in addition with the colours per WP:ACCESS NapHit (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I seriously dont get what you mean? Please explain it back to be in a more clearer version. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c]

Where you have used colours to highlight certain seasons, achievements you need a symbol such as an asterik (*) along with the colour, such as used in this list. Hope that clears up the misunderstanding NapHit (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look here, here, here, and here, and you click on any of the lists that have a blue link, I'm for sure none of them use symbols on theirs. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but most of those lists are not up to this standard, on lists such as List of Denver Nuggets head coaches the symbols are used in addition with colours, so I see no reason why it can't be used here NapHit (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that List of (Team name) head coaches lists put the symbol on but I am trying to be consistent with the other (Team name) seasons lists. Lets just wait until other users reply to this topic. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like an example, take a look at New York Giants seasons, a page that I will nominate soon. There are a half-dozen symbols that I use, so just pick some that you like. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Done —Chris! _ct 05:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Good work NapHit (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The symbols confuse me. What does "*" mean? How about "#"? And I have no idea how to even make the ¤ symbol on my keyboard :) In any case, perhaps expand the "Table key" to include symbols?

I show that in the color legend.—Chris! _ct 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So both the color and the symbol indicate the same thing? I (personally) don't like that. It's confusing. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, per User:NapHit above, both symbols and color have to be used.—Chris! _ct 05:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• It would be extra super wonderful if I could sort by "Win %" or any of the columns. I don't know that it's particularly possible for two reasons:

1. The rowspan "Regular season" would have to go
2. The two overlaying rows - "Minneapolis Lakers" and "Los Angeles Lakers" would both have to go. Or it would have to be two different tables.

For those reasons, I'm not sure it's worth it. But it *would* be neat to have sortable :)

Done —Chris! _ct 21:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Mind adding the "Season" table so people can return to the original order? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do—Chris! _ct 05:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I guess that's it. I'll Conditionally Support if you add the symbols table. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully Support. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:55, 20 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 18:14, 20 September 2008 [36].

---

List of UEFA Super Cup winners

I'm nominating this list for featured list status as I believe it meets the criteria, it is factually accurate, well referenced and has undergone a peer review which addressed some concerns about the list. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=797469.html deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the dead link NapHit (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "..UEFA Cup established in 1972. ..."consider a comma after Cup or add "which was" in there.
• "The last Super Cup contested between the winners of the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup Winners' Cup " - you're repeating the last sentence almost completely - perhaps "The last Super Cup in this format..."?
• I would state clearly that you mean A.C. Milan in the lead, so as not to cause confusion amongst non-experts.
• Not sure Italy needs to be linked really.
• Update current champions - I thought this was Zenit St Petes beating Man Utd?
• Last para is a little, well, clunky. Two non-related (bullet point almost) factoids. Can you improve the readability?
• "The UEFA Super Cup which the winner receives" - not keen -maybe something like "The trophy awarded to the winner of the UEFA Super Cup competition"?
• Not keen on the repeated headings between 1985 and 1987.

I agree but the only reason it is there is because the 1986 final was not a two-legged match, therefore it would not work under the home and away headers, it could be listed under the home and away headings, but could confuse readers, especially when the final was held in Monaco. NapHit (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is the location "Monaco, Monaco" really required?

Just Monaco now NapHit (talk)

• Russia should have a win in their col after this year's match.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressed all your comments, Cheers NapHit (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• is there a reason why the tables are not the same width?

They are the same width

• you forgot to color the 1972 entry.

Fixed

• I am confused to why is the 1986 entry only a single -legged one and why does it have the ! type headings right before and right after it?

The 1986 is a single legged because there was only one leg instead of two, if you click on the note titled f in the notes section all will be explained. It also has a different table because, it was held at a neutral venue therefore no team was home or away, making the normal table useless, so this one is used to clarify things

Ah ok. but still, because it is the only one like this I would still add a summary row for the sake of similarity with the other rows. Nergaal (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've repeated the original row at the top underneath the single match final, which I think clears any confusion NapHit (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• for the nations table you probably want to add a column with the number of teams per nation

Not sure what you mean here, but the winners and runners-up column represent how many times teams from the nation have won and lost the competition

I mean to have a column showing how many different teams won at least once/were runners up. For example Italy would have 4 different teams that won at least once. Nergaal (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't think this is necessary, the winners and runners-up is the most important thing, not how many different teams have been runners-up, I think it would make the table confusing if this information was added NapHit (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• no need to overlink teh publishers in the refs section

This is common in most featured lists, there is nothing wrong with linking the refs

Nergaal (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I've addressed them NapHit (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments General support, but just a couple of small things. I think I am also meant to mention that I contributed significantly to this list

• My main point is to look at the wikilinks in the "Location" column. I see two options:

1. If you don't want to link everything, the current wikilinking is inconsistent. A few examples
   1. 1972 - "Amsterdam, Netherlands" (both linked) & 1973 - "Amsterdam, Netherlands" (only nl linked)
   2. In 1993 - Italy is linked twice in "Parma, Italy" and directly below in "Milan, Italy". But in 1994 it is "Milan, Italy" with neither linked.
   3. Single-legged - "Monaco" & "Stade Louis II" are linked on very row.
2. Personally I would wikilink it all. The overlinking MOS states an exception for tables: "Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own". Which surely means if you are going to assume the reader doesn't know where Italy is anywhere in the article you should assume it in every row.

From my experience, overlinking is only permitted to tables that sort, which the first table does not. So I'm little reluctant to link the the whole lot, but I have adhered to what you said before suggesting linking the whole article, so hopefully we can reach a compromise NapHit (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• My other point would be to change the contrast of colours between the green and blue to make them more clearly different, as at the moment they are quite similar.

Done

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Sortable tables need everything that is linkable to be linked each time. Some would argue that non-sortable tables don't need this. Just out of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, happy to compromise on the linking. I think that all four colours could still be more distinct but it is not something to oppose on. My only remaining issue is in the last paragraph of the lead "The 1972 final between Dutch team Ajax and Glasgow's Rangers", shouldn't it be "Scotland's" Rangers, as looking from a worldwide point of view it may assume a knowledge where "Glasgow" is. Good work on this list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed to Scotland, thanks for spotting that NapHit (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

• I can't be the first person to not know what "Two-legged finals" are?

Added something in the lead

• Why are the column headings repeated after 1985 and 1986?

Because the 1986 final was a single match held at a neutral venue, therefore it does not conform to the header at the top, and to avoid confusion the header is repeated underneath, to signify the other finals were not single matches NapHit (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• For "Results by teams" and "Winners by country", are both those "winners"? Or "wins"? In other words, did Italy win the cup nine times? Or have nine teams that won?

Italy had nine teams that won the cup, I've changed the title to results by country, if this helps

• UEFA Super Cup doesn't need to be in the "See also" - it's already linked at the top.

removed

• As a personal preference (you don't have to do anything about this), I would think that "List of UEFA Super Cup winning managers could be added to the {{UEFA club competition winners}}? Just a thought - then it wouldn't sit alone in the "See also" section :)

there is already a template for the winning managers, so it would be pointless to include it there

I wouldn't add the *template* for winning managers. What I meant was adding a *link* to the "List of .. winning managers" to the "UEFA club competition winners". But like I said - that isn't really a part of this FLC :)

• -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments they've been addressed NapHit (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Fully Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:07, 20 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 18:14, 20 September 2008 [37].

---

The O.C. (season 2)

Listing as following a recent peer review I now feel it is of featured standard. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC).

Comments

• Current ref 20 (How to spend $20) http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=9145 what makes this a reliable source?
  • Comment. I would say it is reliable. The cited comment refers to a review by BoxOfficeProphets (and David Mumpower) who has gained third party coverage in more reliable publications such as CNN and USAToday. [38][39][40]. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• A couple of refs are lacking last access dates (Current refs 27, 28, 30)
  •  Done. Checked sites and added dates. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 29 (PRISM awards) is lacking a publisher.
  •  Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 57 (The OC Complete Second Season) is lacking a publisher
  •  Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.dvdorchard.com.au/ProductS1TV.asp?CS=1&LN=603130&PND=116483&NoCache=0%2E8581049 (current ref 59) is lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
  • Comment. Have added its publisher. As for WP:RS, there is no australian Amazon (e.g. amazon.com.au). DVD Orchard is a major australian DVD retailer, and used in the same way as Amazon is for the US & UK dates. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• First and second para start virtually the same - can't this information about the airing date/channel be combined?  Done
• "Focus was on..." - The focus of the series was on? Just doesn't read quite right for me yet..  Done.
• twenty-four ->24?  Done
• "provided "a day in the life" of the show" - I think that's clear from the title so perhaps you could rephrase, maybe a "fly-on-the-wall doc spending a day on the set"... or whatever it was?  Done, behind-the-scenes look at the show
• "seven disc" - just a feeling but should that be hyphenated?  Done
• Use of ref 6 in the Crew section is odd - three sentences in a row then nothing more - does [6] ref the whole para? If so just move it to the end of the para. If not then you'll need refs for those things not covered by ref 6.  Done, it covers the first three sentences.
• "Incidentally Donovan returned..." - why incidentally?  Done
• "guest starred " another candidate for hyphenation?  Done
• "downfall" - a little extreme - perhaps just stick factual and say lack of popularity?  Done
• In fact, this downfall is used twice, I'd suggest fixing them both.  Done
• Avoid relinking writers, directors etc in the synopses.

 Question: I know I brought this up before on another FLC but WP:OVERLINK says tables are except from this. Whilst I noted that you said this is commonly interpreted as "sortable tables" shouldn't a consensus for change be reached at MOS first? I realise your the FLC director and you've probably seen alot more overlink cases than me, I just thought someone should raise this point. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this is just a suggestion. Either way it shouldn't stop anyone supporting. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• "something unimaginable." - are we allowed to know what?  Yes, seeing as you asked nicely.
• Why is Code in Production Code capitalised?  Done
• "she stays in power - even if Caleb" - hyphen? en-dash would be better...  Done
• "SnO.C" - eh? ✗ Not done It's the official name of the winter ball, and here is a RS for it.
  • I'm not saying it's not official, I just don't know what it means, and that's concerning. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done, I see what you mean. That should be better now.
• Cory Martin redlink - stubify?  Done
• Remove the space before note [A]  Done
• Do the use of those flags meet WP:MOSFLAG?

 Question: I guess from the comment I need to remove them, but can you explain exactly why. There use is in a table, it doesn't break up prose, and they are accompanied by the country name. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted you to check with WP:MOSFLAG to see that the use of the flags was appropriate. If you think it is, that's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• First EL - rogue apostrophe...

 Question: I am no english expert, hence me asking. I would have thought it was a possesive apostrophe as The OC Insider belongs to Warner Brothers, or has my memory of English grammar rules failed me again. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I get it. Your grasp is fine. I see what you mean now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked a couple of questions on your comments, but addressed the others. Thanks for taking the time to review this list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have adressed all your comments now. If the overlinking is a preference I would leave it as it is. Another reason for this is they transclude to "List of episodes", and when an episode is cited a direct link to the episode in the list is given. e.g. in {{cite episode}} the field "number=" is used with [[List of The O.C. episodes#ep36|36]] to give its position in the list like this. I also think the use of flags is justifiable under policy. Thanks once again for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN's comments

• 2nd sentence - is that eastern time? There are a couple of other time references, too - check those for timezones?  Done
• Overall, I Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I've added time zones next to the times. I'm not sure if there is a standard style for this so I did what I thought was appropriate.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 11:58, 19 September 2008 [41].

---

Mastodon discography

previous FLC (12:31, 7 September 2008)

Cannibaloki 05:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by S_RX

• Comments
  • In 2001, Mastodon released their debut album, the five-track EP Lifesblood through Relapse Records, followed by the first full-length album, 2002's Remission. - how about, In 2001, Mastodon released their debut album(an EP), Lifesblood, followed by the first full-length album in 2002, Remission; which were all released by Relapse Records.
  • After a tour promoting the previous album, they released their second full-length Leviathan, issued in August 2004 - what was the previous album?
  • In February 2006, Mastodon released two records—first a compilation of their early recordings, titled Call of the Mastodon and shortly after the DVD The Workhorse Chronicles. - add a comma after the word "after."
  • Released as part of the Reptilian Grindcore Picture Disc Series - is this note about the Ep really necessary?
  • Peaked at number 15 on the Danish charts—Top 40 Singles. - this note about the singles is not really notable, 15 is not as notable as cracking the top 5.
  • This single appeared on the Billboard Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks at number 33 - this one too.
  • The only album with vocalist Eric Saner - notability?

--S_RX 21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that, all of your comments were adressed. Cannibaloki 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - All comments by me have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria.--S_RX 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • WP:BOLDTITLE
    • I'm afraid about this.
  • I would condense to two paragraphs. The second is just one sentence, so put it with the third.
    • Amen
  • Table for Extended plays uses a notes section, while the table for Singles uses section foot notes. I think there should be consistency between them.
    • Hã?
  • Perhaps for the music videos table, put the refs in their own column.
    • Good idea!

Cut code from edit window

{| class="wikitable" border="1" |- ! Year ! width="175"| Title ! Director(s) ! Ref. |- | 2003 | "March of the Fire Ants" | rowspan="2"| Chad Rullman | rowspan="2"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=15780|title=Mastodon Complete Work on First Video|date=2003-10-07|publisher=blabbermouth.net|accessdate=2008-08-25}}</ref><br><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=25009|title=Mastodon Complete Work on New Music Video|date=2004-07-22|publisher=blabbermouth.net|accessdate=2008-08-25}}</ref> |- | 2004 | "Iron Tusk" |- | 2005 | "Blood and Thunder" | rowspan="4"| Jonathan Rej, Tom Bingham | rowspan="4"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=33405|title=Mastodon Complete Work on New Music Video|date=2005-02-25|publisher=blabbermouth.net|accessdate=2008-08-25}}</ref><br><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=47022|title=Mastodon Complete Work on New Music Video|date=2006-01-18|publisher=blabbermouth.net|accessdate=2008-08-25}}</ref><br><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=57346|title=Mastodon: "The Wolf Is Loose" Video Posted Online|date=2006-08-29|publisher=blabbermouth.net|accessdate=2008-08-25}}</ref><br><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?artist=1228325&vid=120621|title=Mastodon - "Colony of Birchmen"|date=2006-11-07|work=Music Videos|publisher=MTV Networks|accessdate=2008-08-25}}</ref> |- | rowspan="4"| 2006 | "Seabeast" |- | "The Wolf Is Loose" |- | "Colony of Birchmen" |- | "Capillarian Crest" | Adam Rothlein |<ref>{{cite album-notes |title=Blood Mountain |albumlink=Blood Mountain (album) |bandname=[[Mastodon (band)|Mastodon]] |year=2006 |notestitle= |url= |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |pages= |format=CD back cover |publisher=[[Reprise Records]] |publisherid=44450-2 |location= |mbid= }}</ref> |- | 2007 | "Sleeping Giant" | Roboshobo |<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?artist=1228325&vid=163101|title=Mastodon - "Sleeping Giant"|date=2007-07-17|work=Music Videos|publisher=MTV Networks|accessdate=2008-08-25}}</ref> |}

That's it from me. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that your comments are resolved, I am sure? Cannibaloki 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How about changing the lead paragraph to:

This is a discography for Mastodon, an Atlanta, Georgia-based heavy metal band formed in 1999 by guitarists Brent Hinds and Bill Kelliher, bassist and vocalist Troy Sanders, and drummer Brann Dailor. Mastodon has released three studio albums, a compilation album, five extended plays, three singles, a video album, and eight music videos.

Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning - don't start "This is a ...." - featured articles don't start "This is a..." so FLs shouldn't either... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

50 Cent discography, Bloc Party discography, Carrie Underwood discography, The Corrs discography, Deftones discography, Depeche Mode discography, Echo & the Bunnymen discography, Feeder discography, Foo Fighters discography, Godsmack discography, Goldfrapp discography, Gwen Stefani discography, James Blunt discography, John Frusciante discography, The Libertines discography, Maroon 5 discography, Metallica discography, Natasha Bedingfield discography, Nirvana discography, No Doubt discography, Powderfinger discography, The Prodigy discography, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, Silverchair discography, Slayer discography, Smoking Popes discography, Tool discography, Uncle Tupelo discography, and Wilco discography all start with "This is the" or a variation thereof. Perhaps they should be reworded as that does seem to violate WP:SELFREF. Also, I estimate about 3/4ths of all the featured discographies disregard WP:BOLDTITLE. Though only a guideline, I thought all letters of the MOS were to be followed for featured content. If discogs are exempt from this, that should be noted. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The standards around here have changed (improved, we hope) significantly in the past three months or so. Existing featured lists which violate the current WP:WIAFL should be fixed or taken to WP:FLCR. Discogs are not exceptions to these rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: Can't stay mad forever. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

The inclusion of the references in a seperate column (noting previous comments) looks messy - It really should follow the same format as other discographies in this respect i.e. Foo Fighters discography, Powderfinger discography, Bloc Party discography, Nirvana discography etc. Dan arndt (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 11:58, 19 September 2008 [42].

---

List of New York Rangers head coaches

This seems to meet the FL criteria, so I'm going to give it a try. Feel free to leave comments with anything that needs to be fixed. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nominator.   jj137 (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support (as co-nominator, although I hate the Rangers.) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 22:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments - Looks like this list will pass due to the !votes! of the nominators...
  • I don't like how the lead doesn't explain who the first coach was, a few of the greatest coaches who have actually helped the Rangers get somewhere with their careers, and the current coach is not mention.
    • Fixed, I added in the names of the first coach and the current one.   jj137 (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead of mentioning which coaches went to the HoF, mention the history of the coaches in the lead since that is the only bit of prose.--S_RX 23:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- K. Annoyomous24

Comments

• In the prose:
  • Should mention the first and current coaches of the team.
    • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Should mention how many coaches were in the team.
    • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Mike Keenan is not the 31st coach.
    • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Should fix the problem with the image on the key.
  • What is the problem? Just curious, I'm using Firefox (it may be be different for different browsers) and don't see anything wrong.   jj137 (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Just download Internet Explorer and you'll know. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 23:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove the "See also" section as there is nothing related to this article except for the List of NHL head coaches.
  • Removed all of them except for the one you named.   jj137 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Should put more pictures in the article
  • I think we have enough (and free images that would fit here are extremely hard to find...).   jj137 (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• All the terms should be in ####–## form. (ie. 2003-04–2007-08 --> 2003–08)

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I thought the Rangers won the Stanley Cup 4 times? Why is Mike Keenan is only coach who has that Achievement on the list?
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• On the list, put en dashes on the # of coaches who coached more than twice.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Tom Renney is still the Ranger's head coach so instead of putting the last year that he coached, put the word "present".
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• There will be more when I see them...

-- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
More comments

• Needs more images
  • See comment above.   jj137 (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Need to fix the seasons as they are not sorted properly. Look not just at the coach register, but click on the coaches and see the seasons.
  • Could you elaborate? I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Thanks.   jj137 (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Make "Ref" into "Notes".

-- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 01:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE ALL! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 03:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Lucky I fixed the table for no apparent reason as I don't get anything except for a thanks. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 03:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was just asking for clarification, as I wasn't exactly sure what you meant you said the seasons "weren't sorted properly."   jj137 (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

One more comment You should include symbols in addition with the colours per WP:ACCESS. For example, change {| class="wikitable" style="font-size:90%;" |style="background-color:#FFE6BD"|. |- |to |- |style="background-color:#FFE6BD"|'''†''' |- |}. Hope you get what I mean. This time, I'm not helping you. MFC should know. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, got it. Should be all set now. Thanks for your (once again) in depth review! Something coming to your talk :-) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 01:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Support By the way, Thanks again for the awesome barnstar! -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 3 (Stein, Michael) deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to find an alternative. I see several, although none are reliable. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 23:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The team is commonly referred to as its famous nickname, "The Broadway Blueshirts" - by needs to replace as
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• "In the 1993–94 season, he led the Rangers into a Stanley Cup championship.[22]" - remove into and just leave to
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• In the key, there is no need for the colours to be in a box so remove the colorbox thing, also the symbols don't need to be bold
  • I fixed the color box thing, but left the symbols bolded, as it seems more appropriate for them to be left bolded.   jj137 (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Some of the terms in the table do not have en dashes, 1953-54 is an example of this
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• You have the symbols along with the colours in the key, but not in the table, this needs rectifying
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• You can remove .com from the hockey-reference citations, it's not needed
  • Actually, it might be best left there, considering the site calls itself "Hockey-Reference.com" and not "Hockey Reference".   jj137 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Only the name of the site e.g. Hockey Reference is needed not the .com, as this just refers to the domain NapHit (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, what I meant is that if you look at the main logo for the site on the main page (which is basically what the site calls itself), it says "Hockey-Reference.com", not "Hockey Reference". I'll change it anyway, though, because it is pointless to keep the .com, as you said.   jj137 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Done, I removed all of the .coms.   jj137 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps NapHit (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 15:48, 17 September 2008 [43].

---

List of Denver Nuggets head coaches

Worked on this article in my sandbox then moved it. Added image for one of the coaches, though, he only coached the team for less than a year. followed the format for List of San Antonio Spurs head coaches which I had created a few months ago. --Gman124 ^talk 23:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from S_RX

{{{2}}}

• Support - my comments have been resolved and meets the FL Criteria after my resolved comments.--S_RX 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

Comments from Killervogel5

• "in anticipation of moving into the NBA"→"in anticipation of moving to the NBA"

Y --Gman124 ^talk 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The name Nuggets won, their new logo was a miner discovering an ABA ball." Two choices: either the comma needs to be changed to a semicolon, or remove the comment about the logo and merge the beginning into the previous sentence. The logo is trivial to the article anyway.

Y --Gman124 ^talk 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1976, the ABA folded, and the NBA decided to admit four ABA teams into the league, with the Nuggets being one of them, along with the San Antonio Spurs, the Indiana Pacers and the New York Nets."→"In 1976, the ABA folded, and the NBA decided to admit four ABA teams into the league, including the Nuggets, the San Antonio Spurs, the Indiana Pacers and the New York Nets."

Y --Gman124 ^talk 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since this team originally starts with a different name, it should be made very clear in the lead that you are referring to the history of the franchise, not just this incarnation of the team. Examples: "There have been 19 head coaches for the Nuggets franchise."

Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The team's first head coach was Bob Bass, who led the team to the division semifinals in which they lost to the New Orleans Buccaneers."→"The team's first head coach was Bob Bass, who led the team to the division semifinals, losing to the New Orleans Buccaneers."

Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "the NBA Coach of the Year award for the 1987–88 season."

Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Larry Brown is the only member of the franchise that has been inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach."→"Larry Brown is the only Nuggets coach to be inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach."

Y Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1976 Brown coached the Nuggets to the team's only ABA championship game." - comma after 1976.

Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Brown, Issel, Hanzlik, and Evans have played and coached for the Celtics." - completely irrelevant to the article. Remove.

Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "As of June 2008 the current coach of the Nuggets is George Karl." - comma after 2008.

Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Footnote 1: "Thus" should be followed by a comma.

Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Use consistent formatting. Either use "W-L%" without a space or "W-L %" with a space; I prefer the former.

Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• References should be to "Basketball Reference" as the publisher, not to "basketball-reference.com". Also, "National Basketball Association," not NBA.com.

Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Change the reference titles so they match the actual titles of the webpages they link to. Example: "Doug Moe's Coaching Record" links to "Doug Moe Coaching Record."

Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• No reason for the Spurs coaches template at the bottom of this article.

Y added the nuggets' coach template in place--Gman124 ^talk 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The Denver Nuggets are a basketball team that currently plays for the National Basketball Association (NBA) franchise."→"The Denver Nuggets are a basketball team that currently play in the National Basketball Association (NBA)."

Y --Gman124 ^talk 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This change was not made. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I have fixed it now. --Gman124 ^talk 12:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Review by Killervogel5

Much better. Support from Killervogel5

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Could expand the first paragraph.
  • Bernie Bickerstaff coached from 1995–97, and then Dick Motta coached from 1996–97. If Bickerstaff coached till 1997, shouldn't Motta's term start at 1997, not 1996? You need more of an explaination, I'll tell you.

I fixed the error.—Chris! _ct 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

-- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 20:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks like a quality list, and I can't see any errors or omissions that were not caught by the reviewers above. Resolute 01:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Though, I still want the first paragraph to be expanded. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 03:00, 17 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 15:48, 17 September 2008 [44].

---

Joel Turner discography

Self-nomination. I am the sole editor (except four minor edits) and have created the list in a month. I believe it meets all attributes of the featured list criteria and I'm willing to address all concerns for support. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from S_RX

• Comments
  • This is a discography of Joel Turner, an Australian, multi-platinum hip-hop singer and beatboxer. - horrible way to begin the lead, this is more than often avoided for FLC, it should not begin "This is a ______ of _____" It should simply say "Joel Turner is an Australian multi-platinum...."

I agree and have made the necessary changes. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • As of September 2008, Joel Turner has released two studio albums, one video album and six singles. He has also released numerous music videos, and collaborated with various other musical artists. - no need to link "As of September 2008" nor is there a reason to say "As of.." Because these two sentences are so related, they should be linked somehow, like "singles, in addition to numerous music videos...etc."

I agree and have made the necessary changes. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Turner came to prominence after auditioning in the first season of Australian Idol in 2003. - this is the only prose that talks about his prominence, is there any other reason how he rose to prominence?

Yes, strangely enough this is the only reason he rose to prominence. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • His debut album, Joel Turner and the Modern Day Poets, was released in 2004 in collaboration with hip-hop group, the Modern Day Poets. - How about "His debut album, Joel Turner and the Modern Day poets, was released as a collaboration in 2004 with .....etc."

I agree and have made the necessary changes. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The release was a commercial success with platinum certification by the ARIA and produced four top thirty singles, including number-one single, "These Kids".[2][3] - four some reason, I find the comma after "single" is unnecessary.

I agree and have removed the comma. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • He embarked on an extensive national tour whilst making various television appearances. - why is this relevant to the list?

It is not relevant, I have removed the sentence. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • He released a non-album single, "All Night Long" in 2007, which remains his lowest charting single. - and how did it chart (i.e. Number 50?)

It charted at #38; I have made the necessary changes. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The album failed to chart, yet it produced top forty single, "City of Dreams".[6] - "top forty single" is getting repetitive and very broad, you should really say the exact charting position.

It charted at #38; I have replaced "top forty single" to "which charted at #38". Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Turner is currently working on his third album, whilst making occasional television appearances. - why is the TV appearances relevant?

It is not relevant, I have removed "whilst making occasional television appearances". Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • These paragraphs to the lead are very short and should be combined to about two of them.

I agree and have merged the paragraphs. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Throughout this article, a dash ("—") in the Charts cell indicates that the selected release did not chart. - now there is no problem in using this as a new format, but you should follow the other format of discographys, where they place a similar note under each table.

I agree and have made the necessary changes. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The format of the tables is also non-complient with the regular format, see other lists like Lostprophets discography (not an FL, but follows the format of other FLs) to see the format.

I agree and have made the necessary changes. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• For now I must oppose.--S_RX 01:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for you comments and !vote, I hope I have addressed your concerns and would like to achieve your support. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks way better, but I still feel there needs to be more about himself and his career in the prose. Also, did his albums and singles only chart on the AUS charts? If not, all the major charts should be added.--S_RX 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I will try to expand the lead and prose in ten to twelve house, but there is not much more about himself and his career. Yes, his albums and singles only charted on the AUS charts; just a "national artist". Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - after the many fixes it looks more better and meets the FL criteria, but I dont fully support it due to the fact that it should have been peer reviewed before being brought here, and due to the many comments that were needed to be fixed, but a support is a support :)--S_RX 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SRX. When I edit other discographies, I will make sure I use this format and peer review them beforehand. Your comments have been very helpful. Thanks again! Hpfan9374 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, Ealdgyth. Its a very handy tool. Hpfan9374 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• There are several codes for you copy and paste at Joel Turner discography, edit this page to see them. ↓

• DVDs → Video albums
• "—" denotes releases that did not chart. → (?) all did charts
• Discogs is not a reliable source

Cannibaloki 06:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I have made necessary edits, yet I have chosen not to use the codes, as the previous format has received support for featured-list status by User:SRX. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments The grammar in the lead is a bit clumsy, for example:

numerous music videos - clearly there are six videos

Indeed, I have changed "in addition to numerous music videos" to in "addition to six music videos"

including number-one single - including a number one single

Changed. Thanks.

when was second album released - released in 2005

I have included the release year of the second album, in the sentence.

yet it produced single - yet it produced a single

Changed. Thanks.

In the Singles Table replace non-album single with single-only release. Dan arndt (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made all the necessary edits. Thank you very much for your comments Dan arndt, you are improving both the article and my knowledge.

Additional Comments

• In the article on Joel Turner it states that "These Kids" achieved double platinum status (in the article on the single it states that it achieved close to triple platinum) - could this not be referenced & included in the Singles Table

The statement in the article on Joel Turner is incorrect. The single has been certified platinum status. I have referenced this and added this statement to the singles table.

Did any of the other singles released by Joel Turner achieve any significant certification?

No, no other singles release by Joel Turner has achieved any significant certification.

A number of references indicate that the respective albums and singles charted on the AIR independent charts - could these not also be included on the tables.

I am trying but I cannot seem to find any peak positions, they are mere chart listings. I have tried [here]; yet as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style guideline, Wikipedia:Record charts; "component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart". And as most (all except one) releases entered the main charts, thus I don't believe the AIR independent charts should be included within the discography.

Were any of the albums/singles ever released overseas or were they only AUS releases?

No, none of his albums/singles were ever released overseas.

Dan arndt (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much comments again. The only problem is with the AIR independent charts. Hpfan9374 (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image in Infobox - could you provide a caption indicating where the phto was taken and the date.

Dan arndt (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Have created a caption in the infobox, "Joel Turner performing at South Bank Parklands in Brisbane on December 9, 2007.".

• Support with two comments:

• It is mentioned that Turner came to prominence following an audition for Australian Idol, yet he never made the show. Perhaps it would be good to make mention of this, and the fact that he performed at the Grand Final as the "best of the unforgettables"?

The fact that Turner came to prominence following an audition for Australian Idol is stated in the lead "Turner came to prominence after auditioning in the first season of Australian Idol in 2003." The fact that Turner performed at the Grand Final is also stated in the lead "to coincide with his performance at the finale of the second season of Australian Idol."

• It seems odd to me that mention is made of his lowest charting single. While several that charted higher are not mentioned. I'm not sure anything really has to change with this statement, it just jumped out at me.

Turner's lowest charting single was only mentioned as it was released as an independent single and thus was not included on any albums. Higher charting singles, "These Kids" and "City of Dreams" are mentioned.

Anyway, good work. Resolute 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your support and comments. Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Refs 2, 3, 5 and 6 need to have their dates sorted out so they're not in ISO format for the reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your comments, The Rambling Man. I have edited refs 2, 3, 5 and 6 and they are now in ISO format. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 15:48, 17 September 2008 [45].

---

Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season

Another timeline. I think now that I've had two similar FLCs, I have these articles down to a science. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't like "Below is a ..." - try not to worry to much about getting a tidy bold title, instead go for a really catchy, engaging lead.
• "...information on a storm that was not operationally warned on..." -reads oddly - two "on"s together and it's not 100% clear (to me!) what "operationally warned on" means.
• "...United States; and the first..." - not sure a semi-colon is really required.
• "But activity was slowed ..." - I always try to avoid starting a sentence with "But..."
• "...only the second such event on record. " - what was the actual event? A storm that lasted a month? Or until January? It's not 100% clear.
• "The year 2006 begins..." - no need to repeat 2006 (in my opinion).
• "winds.[5]).[nb 1]" - rogue parenthesis I think?
• Gordon's "extratropical" is linked - why? It's unlinked both before and after...
• July 21 wind speed needs conversion.
• Not sure you need to relink nautical miles every time it's used.

That's ya lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Done with everything. Thanks! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - article is well-done, although I really don't agree with the date bolding, its an eyesore. But otherwise, well-done.Mitch32^(UP) 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Removed bolding, thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, agreed, the list is well done. One clarification requested though: You state in the lead that TS Zeta was only the second such event ever recorded as existing across two calendar years, implying this includes all parts of the globe. In the list itself, it is stated that it was the second such event in the Atlantic. Which of these statements is the most accurate? Resolute 02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:48, 17 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 15:48, 17 September 2008 [46].

---

List of Governors of Alaska

previous FLC (12:25, 31 August 2008)

I've fixed almost all of the comments before (except left-aligning the names, I'd like more input on that; all names, even lt. govs?), and so I renominate this. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the names, I think that they should be left-aligned. There aren't enough Lt. Govs to make it a problem. Gary King (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • And to clarify, only the names (commanders, governors, lt. governors, presidents) will be aligned, everything else (dates, parties, numbers) will be centered? --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally I'd like to see all columns left-aligned; the only center-aligned columns should be those that have contents that are the same width. That would include "Notes" and "Terms"; perhaps "Party" also. Gary King (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The table in the lead should have the numbers centrally aligned
  • Whole table centered, to match the columns in the tables.
• The colours underneath the Governors of Alaska sub-heading should be put into a key, which should be placed after the lead, before the list of governors starts
  • I disagree; it would be out of place there, since it would not be useful again for most of the article. Color is not needed at all to understand the header table, but it does help with the lower table.
• Also the colours require a symbol to used alongside them, to aid visually impaired users
  • No, they don't. Each row is accompanied by a party identifier, which is what the color refers to.
• The notes section underneath the Governors of Alaska table should be placed the reference header, and use letters
  • You need to read the previous FLC, this was explained there. They are footnotes for the tables above, and not citations; this way, we keep references and citations separate. The two should not be mixed, and I see no point in shoving the references to the bottom of the article when they're perfectly happy there below the relevant tables.
• The References don't need letters, this is only for notes
  • You'll have to show me where in the manual of style it is mandated that I can't use the cite templates for citations. --Golbez (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps NapHit (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, looks good to me; great work once again! (and sorry for missing the nomination the first time around) —Salmar ^(talk) 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm personally not a fan of a chart as the lead image. Would it perhaps be preferable to use the image of the current governor in the lead, and move the chart closer to the list of state governors?
  • I could be open to that, yeah. That, or the seal of the governor, if one is available.
• That a governor was elected representing the Alaska Independence party is quite interesting, especially given America's two party system. Could it be explained somewhere how this came about?
  • Other people have proposed a summary of party movements in these lists, but the problem with that is that they tend to be derivative research (i.e. just explaining what the table says), and any further analysis would be original research without a source. For example, would I have to mention and explain every time someone other than D or R won an election? I agree with folks that it's a good idea to have a summary, and yes, even mention some notable cases like this one (or Ventura in MN, or Warren in CA, who was nominated by all 3 parties), but I'm not sure quite what to say. And if omit the summary but mention only the AIP, it seems like I'm singling them out as being weird. Any ideas?
• I'm leaning towards supporting this either way. Regards, Resolute 02:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I assume based on your comments that you are looking at this globally, i.e., the articles for all 50 states. I think it is a case by case situation. As far as this article is concerned, it could be a simple statement along the lines of "Two people have served as state governor twice, William A. Egan and Walter J. Hickel, the latter of which had nearly 32 years between his terms. Hickel's second term was the leader of the Alaskan Independence Party, who's election came about following the controversial nomination of Arliss Sturgulewski by the Republican party." That may not work well, but it's a thought. I do favour a different lead image though. The seal of the governor would be ideal, if it is a free image. Resolute 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Eh, good point, that works; I do manage to mention Schwarzenegger in CA's intro. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [47].

---

List of Rage Against the Machine awards

Gary King (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "...American rap metal band..." → "...American band..." (already is specified below of text—"The band is noted...");
• "The band's members are rapper..." → "Their formation consists of vocalist...";
• "Rage Against the Machine has released four studio albums, all with the Epic Records record label..." → "They has released four studio albums, all through the record label Epic..."

Cannibaloki 22:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I did some copyediting on the last point. I don't agree with the other two. Gary King (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks very good to me NapHit (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Do you really think the "from left to right" thing on the caption for the image is actually needed? I knwo it's only stylististic but it jsut looks messy in my opinion.
• I agree with the points Cannibaloki raised too the intro needs a little copyedit.
• Shouldn't there be somemention of the awards themselves in the lead isntead of just the small sentence that sums them up?

Basically; I'd support the articles promotion if the lead in was copyeditted and expanded. REZTER ^TALK ø 18:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I still believe that the first few sentences need some work and Cannibaloki's comments are a good solution. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Most of my comments were (stubbornly – delayed) resolved. Cannibaloki 05:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Support my worries have been resolved. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:35, 14 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [48].

---

Sunderland A.F.C. seasons

I am nominating this article for featured list candidate because I think it is up to the criteria. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.thestatcat.co.uk/default.asp a reliable source?
  • StatCat is a comprehensive database of Sunderland A.F.C. stats, covering every game ever played by the team, it is only edited by the owner of the website, it was discussed in this FLC here, and Struway2 also had comments on the StatCat. I think it is reliable because it is comprehensive and more accurate then other statistics websites, such as this which is generally unreliable for some stats, and can also be missing some player pages, meanwhile StatCat has every Sunderland player page back into its very beginings. It is attributed in many websites linking to its individual player profiles; [49], related site, [50]. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption is a fragment so lose the full stop. Done - Removed full stop.
• "Sunderland won their first Football League championship just two years after joining the league in the 1891–92 season. They won the Football League First Division on three occasions in just four seasons; in 1892, 1893 and 1895, separated by a runners up spot in 1894. " - could use some work in my opinion as you sort of repeat the first sentence (most of it) in the following one. And I'm not keen on the "separated by..." (and runners-up should be hyphenated).
• First few sentences in the lead read a bit awkwardly for me - like a list of facts instead of really good, compelling prose. Suggest an independent copyedit.
• "Sunderland entered The Football League in 1890" - this comes waaay after you describe them winning it so it's a little oddly placed. Commment - I mentioned it there as it was the first season they got relagated and when the long stay becomes relevant.
• What is "Sheriff of London Charity Shield"? It's worth explaining this because it appears to be quite different from the regular charity shield. Or perhaps just the predecessor? Done - Added a footnote.
• Quite a few redlinked top-scorers. Seems a shame they don't even have stubs? Comment - I'm gonna create the rest.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 1890-91 you have points total of 23 where 2W + D = 25 ?? Done - Corrected.
  • Think you'd better check this one with your sources.
    • This is a mistake on the sources behalf, as they had 10 wins and 5 draws, so it is defiently 25 points, but was listed as 23 on the season page.
      • Statcat 1890-91 says 2 points were deducted for playing Doig, an ineligible player. FCHD confirms the 2-point deduction.
        • Ah I see, thanks for pointing it out. :)
          • So perhaps it would be informative to add a note explaining why the number of points isn't what the reader might expect?
            • Done.
• If it were me, I'd link every occurrence of each top scorer, so the reader doesn't have to search for a clickable name Done - Linked all.
• Perhaps put your RSSSF Leading Goalscorers source as a citation for the bolded players key entry rather than under general references, then repeat it at note G Done - Changed.
  • I'm confused now. Now I've actually looked at the RSSSF page, I find that your listed goals and bolded years for Johnny Campbell differ quite markedly from theirs ??
    • I have used the data from the RSSSF page, in the 1895-96 season the top scorer of the league was John Campbell (footballer born 1871) not the Sunderland player John Campbell (footballer born 1870) which made it quite confusing.
• Footnotes E,F,G,H,N,O,P,R,S need citing. Would be good if the matches could be linked to match reports, ideally non-Sunderland sources such as BBC, Sky or broadsheet newspaper websites. Note P particularly needs the promotion due to Swindon's illegal payments citing. Done All referenced.

hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• • Sunderland Association Football Club should be like this: [[Sunderland A.F.C.|Sunderland Association Football Club]] - Comment - Linking is reall only neccessary once, at the beginning of the lead, I would see it rather pointless to link other instances.
  • The key should be above the table, not below. Done - Moved to above.

-- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good overall. A copyedit to make the prose a tad less choppy would be nice though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:19, 11 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [51].

---

List of Billy Talent awards

Gary King (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Don't like "2x platinum" etc in the prose for the lead - can you write it as English? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay done Gary King (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• "Both Billy Talent and Billy Talent II have been certified by the Canadian Recording Industry Association as three-times Platinum and two-times Platinum respectively.
  • -"Both" because that kind of denotes they recieved exactly the same.
  • Wouldn't it be better to be like "triple platinum" and "double platinum" instead?

Otherwise, good work. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good points; both done. I have to keep the "double" and "triple" in mind for the future as I'm used to saying "two-times" I guess. Gary King (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - well referenced and written list. REZTER ^TALK ø 16:07, 13 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [52].

---

List of solar eclipses in the 21st century

This is a comprehensive list containing all 224 eclipses predicted to happen this century. Predictions come from a well-known expert in the employ of NASA, and are precise and definite enough that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. The list is rather large at 95KB; I think that it's best as one list rather than multiple, but comments on this are welcome. (should it be split by decade? 50 year period?) I think that the column order is logical, but again comments on this are welcome. Finally, I'm aware that the areas might be overlinked, but I think it's justified here as the list is pretty random-access: the line of interest will always be the next eclipse, and users will probably want to click on links in that line (although perhaps the common ones like North America, Asia, Africa etc. don't need to be linked?). Also, the list is sortable, so there are multiple "tops of the list". Thanks for looking. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• First off, good to see you at FLC Mike!
• Avoid starting the lead with "This is a list of solar eclipses in the 21st century" - more imagination required these days. Featured articles don't start with "This is an article about.." so avoid it here too.
• "During the period 2001 to 2100 there" - you need to remember you're talking to everyone, so say something like "Between 2001 AD and 2100 AD..."
• "2 of which will be off centre" - two of which will be off-centre? And what does "off-centre" mean?
• Explain (or link) totality, GSFC (before you abbreviate), hybrid eclipse...
• Convert the path width to imperial for us old-fashioned types.
• [2] is used everywhere - make it a general reference.
• "Central Duration" - duration.
• What's "greatest eclipse"? and "path width"?
• Perhaps need to explain that a partial eclipse doesn't have a path width for non-experts?
• " magnitude of the eclipse (the fraction of the sun's diameter obscured by the moon)" - how can this exceed unity?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking your comments in turn:

• Thanks!
• How's that?
• Ditto
• I've tried to explain this; does it make sense?
• I've linked to Solar_eclipse#Types; is that sufficient?
• Will do, but it will take a short while... Now done. Mike Peel (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm never sure about general references; I prefer to indicate where they are used, even if that is everywhere. Otherwise it makes it more tricky to work out which bits of an article aren't actually referenced.
• If I get your meaning right, then this is fixed
• Hopefully explained
• Actually, I think it does. But it's sufficiently large (and hence common) that it's not normally given.
• If the apparent size of the moon is larger than the sun. It's possibly more of a mathematical concept, but it will affect the duration (and area viewable from) of the maximum eclipse.

Thanks for your comments. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is a nice-looking list, logically constructed, and well-described. I have checked only a couple of the sources, but am trusting the check reported earlier. --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [53].

---

Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records

previous FLC (22:24, 19 February 2008)

• Link checker tool

I am renominating this as I think I have dealt with all the problems highlighted in the previous FLC. The things I have not remedied: record transfer fees received; I have not found a single source that collates this, as such, it would be original research to a point. I also don't see the complete relevancy for this, the record transfer fees paid is hugely relevant, fees paid not so much. So, here we go again. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• How leads read for FLs has now changed, so it should need to start something like "Aston Vila Football Club is..." or something. But that's basically already there with the second paragraph, so what needs doing is a bit of reordering.
• "InterToto Cup" - "Intertoto".
• Also, the link is wrong.
• No needed for "Winners" beside it, as it says this directly below.
• "1981(shared)" - "1981 (shared)"
• Maybe when the club was runner-up in a competition could be included in the "Honours" section?
• All dates need unlinking, I found this out myself a few days ago.
• I'd put "against" rather than "v.".
• How many caps did Steve Staunton get? And who for?
• Maybe "Record transfer fees" could be renamed "Record transfer fees paid" for clarity, despite there being no section for record fees received.
• Need some full stops in the "Managerial records" section.
• References needed for "First manager/secretary of the club" and "Most successful manager".
• "in 1930–31 season" - "in the 1930–31 season", which needs doing for the rest of the seasons.
• "Division One / 1969–70" - perhaps "Division One and the 1969–70" instead?
• First League Cup match?
• "League: 69,492" - "League game: 69,492".
• "Cup game: 76,588" - "FA Cup game: 76,588".
• "the European Cup which" - comma needed
• Think it would look better if the contents of the "Round", "Country", "Home result" and "Away results" columns were centralised.
• A key is needed to clarify what each of the rounds are.
• "Record by Competition" - "Competition" doesn't need to be capitalised.
• "Correct as of 29 July, 2008" - out of date I assume?
• Maybe this table could be made sortable?
• "For" and "Against" are a bit unclear - "Goals for" and "Goals against" instead?

A fair bit. Think a peer review would have been best. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your winners comment. In terms of dates, it is still optional until our MOS warriors stop warring over at MOSNUM, so it isn't obligatory to unlink just yet. (v.) is a common and well-used term and is used in other FLs. I think including runner-up would cramp it somewhat, and isn't that important, and potentially devalues the "Winner" links due to it being cramped. The / is used in a number of places and is used for consistency (and is perfectly valid grammatically). The League Cup match was already there (v. Huddersfield) but an unclosed ref tag was hiding it. Only thing outstanding is aligning the columns, I am not sure about them, waiting for further input from other reviewers. Woody (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

More comments Fair enough with those you haven't chosen to do, they were more of personal opinion. But we'll see on the alignment issue eventually.

• What I'm referring to is "Intertoto Cup Winners" - the "Winners" seems redundant when it says they won it directly below.
• Full stop needed after "for the Republic of Ireland".
• Ref 44 needs converting into a footnote.
• The "Total" row in the "Record by competition" needs to be made unsortable.
• I think this table should also have its contents aligned in the centre, but you can wait for what others think.
• Perhaps a "Record by location" table could be added?

Cheers. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Done the Intertoto, done full stop, done ref 43, made unsortable. How do you mean record by location? I can't see any in any other stats FLs? Villa have only ever been at Villa Park since 1896... Woody (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're in the process of getting those done. And this is what I'm talking about. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, I had done them in a different tab and forgot to save! Is records by location that neccessary? I am sure I could rustle one up, just not sure that it is that informative? I will see what other reviewers think. Thanks for all your time. Woody (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Update: Added in the runners up into the Honours section now, thanks. Woody (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

More comments Not far off now.

• "League titles" should just be "League" now.
• I'd say using reference [4] after the final honours of the different sections is a bit redundant with it being provided at the end of the sententce at the beginning of the section.
• "Charity Shield" - should be changed to "Community Shield".
• Could the "Record transfer fees paid" table be made sortable?
• Do you know the "Record League Cup win"?
• Or the "Record League Cup defeat" or "Record European defeat"?
• Don't think reference [37] mentions their attendance against Liverpool being their record Premier League attendance.
• Could you find the highest attendances at Villa Park in the League Cup or in Europe?
• Or the lowest attendance at Villa Park in the Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup or Europe?
• The figures in the "Total" row of the "Record by competition" table could be bolded.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done League, removed redundant referencing, haven't changed the Charity Shield as it was been called the Charity Shield when they won it, made table sortable, added League Cup win and European defeat, done the bolded totals, switched the ref to programme notes which took me a while to find in my loft. I haven't been able to find the records for the other ones. I could go through the records for each season, but that would be synthesis/OR as it I cannot find them explicitly stated anywhere, and I could get it wrong. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"4&ndash1" needs fixing for the "Record European defeat" you added. Fair enough with the Community Shield. Could any of your Villa books explicity state the "Record League Cup defeat", or the record highest/lowest attedances? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Woody's away at the minute, I fixed the 4-1 typo though, Struway2 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No they don't; believe me, I have looked! One of the books has all of the records at the back over 4 pages so that is easy to check. I have gone through the A-Z book and cannot find any of the record attendances broken down by competition. That information simply isn't available to me through printed media, and the internet has proved paritcularly barren when it comes to finding reliable sources (or even unreliable ones) that state any of those requested. There simply is nowhere else available to me to look at. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• More comments
  • Reference needed for the "Record European win".
  • Reference [35] needs converting into a footnote.
  • Could the record League Cup defeat not be worked out using FCHD?
  • "UEFA CUP" - "CUP" doesn't need to be capitalised.
  • My opinion is it seems quite "wonky" really to have the highest attendances in three competitions and only the lowest in one competition. I'd consider only having the record highest and record lowest for equality, but that's upto you really.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Done the first 4, though I suspect the FCHD crosses into the murky WP:SYN/WP:OR boundary, though I think it is an acceptable source. In terms of the attendances, I don't think symmetry is a neccessity here. Personally, I think the larger the number of those records available, the better. It includes all the available information, though I do understand your viewpoint. (Sorry for the late replies but I went away for the week). Thanks again for the time you have spent reviewing this. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support If you feel it would be pretty much impossible to get those record highest and lowest attendances, then nevermind really, I feel it meets the FL criteria anyway. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.englandfootballonline.com/index.html
    • Well used, and well trusted site. Professionally run and even recommended as a ref by FOOTY.
      • 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.toffeeweb.com/
    • Removed Woody (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • http://web.telia.com/~u27301997/start.html
    • Removed Woody (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.heroesandvillains.net/
    • Removed (turns out it was completely wrong as well) Woody (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 23 is lacking a publisher

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Added publisher, removed three, commented about one. Woody (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed last remaining questionable ref now. Woody (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments quite a bit, I'm afraid, much of it minor stuff:

• Lead. Unbold club name.
• Do you need to link the year they moved to Villa Park?
• If linking years, why link 1982 to 1982 in English football when the others are yyyy in association football?
• Last sentence doesn't need to mention Aston Villa's first England players twice
• Relevance of Young being the 66th? if the most recent, say "66th and most recent". As he's not mentioned in the international section, he needs a source.
• You need a line saying "All figures are correct as of..."
• Suggest reducing the size of the displayed table of contents
• Image caption: century doesn't need capital
• Honours. League Cup not a senior league honour
• Is any of the bolding really necessary (see MOS:BOLD)?
• Team picture image captions are fragments so don't need full stops
• Player records. Perhaps add a See also List of AVFC players
• For me on a 1024-width screen, the players' names in the tables wrap. If you adjusted the column widths a bit (this and this have 6, 20, 12s and 14), the League Cup heading might wrap but the names won't
• The # column in the goalscorers table doesn't sort properly (because of the 10=). It gets to reverse order, but won't go back
• International. I prefer while to whilst, but that may be just a matter of taste
• Much overlinking in this bit (McParland linked 3 times, etc)
• Don't need to repeat whilst an AV player for Southgate, the heading note already defines the scope
• Does "in a World Cup" mean "at a/the World Cup Finals"?
• Transfer fees. The notes for the undisclosed fees belong in the footnotes section (and "Milners" needs an apostrophe)
• Clubs should be left-aligned, and West Ham should be West Ham United
• Ashley Young image caption doesn't need a full stop. Perhaps rephrase to something like "Until August 2008, Ashley Young was Villa's record signing.", in which case with a full stop
• Managerial records. Ramsay overlinked
• Club records: Goals. Typo in fewest conceded...
• Overlinking in goals and points sections
• Matches. First European match. In what comp?
• Record European win. In what comps, and put "and" rather than "/"
• Check for missing full stops at ends of lines in the Matches sections, there are at least 2 but my eyes aren't as young as they were :-( also after v for versus
• Record league defeat. Here you call it the First Division, but you've been calling it Division One
• Attendances. FA Cup. Don't need to repeat FA Cup in match details. Do need consistency for round names (either 6th as you have here, or first as you have in Record FA Cup win)
• Villa in Europe table. Your rounds column has e.g. "2R" but your key has "R2". I'd prefer to see that column centred
• Flags column. WP:FLAGS#Accompany flags with country names says flags should always be accompanied by their country name, at least when first used. It doesn't bother me so much in the small player tables where they're mostly British anyway (though it probably should :-) But in this there's no real reason why the MoS shouldn't be followed (and here as well, which I might change in a minute :-)
• I'd probably put Deportivo La Coruña rather than just Deportivo
• Scoreline columns should be much narrower, the same width as each other, and centred. Could just head them Home and Away, and leave out "result".
• Footnote E would do better as a * or similar symbol in the table key, or as a note above the table as here
• Record by competition. Numeric columns should be either lined up arithmetically (like in player infoboxes) or centred. And the widths need sorting out
• Footnotes C and D need sources.
• Refs currently 3 & 4. If you put publisher=Aston Villa F.C., it'd be both consistent and informative
• Ref 12. Write out IFFHS in full, so we ignorant readers know what it is
• Ref 14 has FA, ref 40 has Football Association (FA). If you're going to abbreviate, do first occurrence in full then abbreviate later ones.
• General refs. Spell out Aston Villa F.C., not AVFC.
• Do you use Martensson's database as a reference still, or have you just not removed mention of it?

hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• (copied from the previous FLC :-) The club article MoS recommends including second places while accepting that For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places. So although you wouldn't include runners-up spots in the corresponding section of the main club article, I do think it would be appropriate to include them here.
• Fewest points in season. the 29 pts one, prefer repeating "and in the 1969-70 season..." rather than just the "/"
• You could include the pretty attendance graph from the Villa Park article
  • I have done all but three of those. I don't think that the runners-up are neccessary or relevant here. I think they would devalue the "winners" that are there at the moment. It might get a bit crowded. I couldn't fit the image in, it kept wrapping and clashing, and it looked out of place underneath the matches sub-heading. That and the "/": I have kept that in as frankly, I prefer them and think they look better. Personal opinion though. Thanks for all your time reviewing this. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • following on from above.
    • Not convinced about the runners-ups being irrelevant
    • Perhaps add a note at the foot of the (appearances) tables to say what "Other competitions" includes. Done, but it'd be clearer in normal font size.
    • (in the international section) Countries should be linked to their football team, not the country itself. You missed this one

• Flags column (Villa in Europe). Done, but I changed it to use the {{flag}} template instead of {{flagicon}}, this generates the country name automatically, which makes it easier for future updaters to follow (and widened the table to stop things wrapping); if you don't like it, please change it back.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, I saw your edits to the article: they look great thankyou! I missed the international ones, done now, removed the small text. I am not convinced about the runners up, I don't see the need for it and I haven't been persuaded... Thanks for your time. RegardsWoody (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Update: Added in the runners up into the Honours section now, thanks. Woody (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, assuming you decide whether or not a player's name should be wikilinked in his image caption, and de-link Mellberg or link Young accordingly. well done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilinked, thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

• I found various sources for the Curtis Davies transfer, quoting the fee variously as 8, 9 and 10 million (for the references, see the Curtis Davies article itself or West Bromwich Albion F.C.). If you're saying that the source quoting 8 million is a more reliable figure then you should say why that source is more reliable. --Jameboy (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• See these diffs. Essentially, I have removed him from the table because the sources differ so much. I don't think it is correct to include him in the table given the speculative nature of the fee. Milner is more certain as the media were unequivocally stating that his was the club's record transfer, so that is on a much surer footing. (Sorry about the tardiness of the reply, I was away for the week). Regards. Woody (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, a few more things I've spotted, having looked at it more thoroughly.

• For the youngest & oldest player, would it be possible to mention which competition each record was set in?
• "From" (club) column in "Record transfer fees paid" needs consistent alignment (I'd suggest left-aligned)
• Adding a results section for European football only seems like a strange inclusion and something I probably wouldn't expect to see here. It seems kind of arbitrary to include results only from Europe and not from domestic football (space issues aside). Does it need to be there?
• Returning to the transfers, I'm not convinced by your reasons for including Milner but not Davies. The reference in the Milner article (from The Guardian) gives Milner's fee as £12m, which differs from the £10m in the footnote here, so I don't see it as being any more certain. Whether quoted as a record fee or not, is still undisclosed. I think you should include both Milner and Davies in the table (with footnotes) or omit both (with explanatory text/footnotes). --Jameboy (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have done the first one, the second one is already done (is it not done for you? It renders correctly as far as I can see), I have removed Milner from the list and wrote about him in the intro para for that section. In terms of Europe, I feel that it is important to have them listed, Europe is above the other competitions in terms of standards and is well respected and wanted in terms of information. I know it is otherstuffexists, but it is included in other FLs. I also note that this has already been promoted, so any further comments should probably go on the article talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - With all the above issues accounted for, I can see no reason why this doesn't meet the Featured List Criteria, quality work. Sunderland06 (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [54].

---

List of Björk awards

Gary King (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• A comment about Bjork MTV nominations. Do you have any refs to support the 2008 noms? Because on the 2008 MTV awards article she does not appear in the Best Female video field. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  Strange; I haven't edited this list in over a month so I can't recall why those nominations are there. After reviewing this page, it looks like they were not nominated, so I have removed them. Gary King (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox has 48/11, lead has 45/11.
• Personal opinion but the whole of the first para just mentions in passing she's a BRIT award winner, the rest of the para is about her discography. Second para starts with album sales (again, not really awards) before becoming more relevant. I'm not suggesting removing all this useful info but the lead just doesn't seem all that relevant to this list? Perhaps expand to talk a little more about the more significant awards?
• Ref 14 can have a date added, and the work is Daily Telegraph.
• Are Brit awards called Brit (per the publisher you provide in links 6 to 8) or BRIT awards per your lead and relevant section?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done them all. I assume that BRIT (all uppercase) is the official naming but over time it's evolved to "Brit"; there's a discussion here about it. I'm trying to be consistent by having it all uppercase for now. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Gary, did I miss something? The publisher in refs 6 to 8 is called Brit and the rest of the article uses BRIT. Doesn't look consistent to me! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah fixed Gary King (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Gary, see WT:FLC#Laziness/repetition in names. Perhaps consider renaming the article? No other comments Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I'd like to garner some consensus first before renaming it; if I rename this one then I would probably rename future ones, too. Gary King (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another comment
• Once again for the MTV awards. Is she the award recipient for "Bachelorette" and "Its Oh So Quiet"?, I know that Donovan Davidson and Michael Rooney won for each, respectively and for "All Is Full of Love" the Glasswork team won Special Effects. But I think she only received the award for Breakthrough Video, is this correct?.
• For the rest of the list, congratulations, very good job. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  The reference at [55] says otherwise. Gary King (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, great job. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support – Interesting work. Cannibaloki 14:59, 14 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 05:22, 14 September 2008 [56].

---

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2001

I am submiting this list for the FL status because I think is ready to achieve it. Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Ricky Martin,[3][4] Marco Antonio Solís,[5] Conjunto Primavera[6] and Los Tigres del Norte[7] hit the top spot for second time on their careers, respectively. - "the" second time. FIXED!

Other than that it looks good in my eyes, great work.--S_RX 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - great, meets C2 & C4 are satisfied and so is the rest of the FL Criteria.--S_RX 14:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Another great list. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 8 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 05:22, 14 September 2008 [57].

---

Moons of Jupiter

Major contributors: user:Nergaal, user:RandomCritic, user:Kwamikagami

I believe that this passes the criteria for a featured list. Comments are welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved suggestion from Crzycheetah 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest a withdrawal. There is a peer review for this page that was opened on August 31st, at least wait for some comments over there before nominating this page here. The talk page of this page is a mess as well.--Crzycheetah 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what those two have to do with a FLC. Read the FLC criteria again before giving suggestions. The PR was closed before this nomination was started, and I did not submit the the talkpage for FLC , but the list itself. Nergaal (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I suggest withdrawing and placing this page at PR again; get some comments there, then re-nominate here.--Crzycheetah 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviews only work if someone responds to them. What can someone do if peer reviews go unresponded? Serendi^podous 11:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviews are supposed to be a central place to gather reviews, meaning the person who places an article up for Peer Reviews still has the responsibility of actually finding reviewers; they can do this by contacting people they have worked with, or perusing the Volunteers List at the Peer Review page. The Volunteers List separates people by the topics they are interested in reviewing. Gary King (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And User:Ruhrfisch is doing a damned good job on trying to ensure all PRs have at least one major set of comments within 3 days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

to gary: I already contacted people who could have been interested in this at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System even before posting the PR and I still did not get any responses and the PR was open for about 4 days. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume Rambling Man's suggestions below have resolved this problem. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image is too small to make any sense out of it.
• Caption is a fragment so remove the full stop.
• "Dozens of much smaller bodies that revolve ...." - not 100% clear that this "smaller" is with reference to the Galilean moons.
• "starting with the end of the 19th century" - you mean their discovery started at the end of the 19th century?
• "At least another 14 small bodies have been discovered over the recent years raising the total number moons of Jupiter to 63.."
  • At least 14 more? so is the total 63 or "at least 63"?
  • Why is 63 in bold?

I thought it might be relevant to bold out the number of the moons, but I geuss that is not really consistent. Nergaal (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• "span over a wide range" - vary widely?
• "from the largest object in the Solar System outside the Sun and the eight planets (Ganymede)" - I'd rework as "from Ganymede, the largest object..."
• "that barely have 1 km in diameter" - "that are barely 1 km (x miles) in diameter" - i.e. reword a bit and convert for imperial unit guys and gals.
• "3000 times more (almost three years)"
  • 3,000
  • Reinforce earth years here (since you mentioned Jovian days just before).
• "...that Jupiter spins (retrograde rotation)." - rephrase so it's something like "...spins, a motion referred to as retrograde rotation."
• Why is Galilean moons in the caption in italics?
• "...in 1974,[11] By the .." -full stop needed.
• "time Voyagers reached Jupiter, a number of 13 moons" - explain Voyagers for the non-expert, and "a number of" is redundant.
• "but lost until 2000." - needs explanation.
• "and average 3 kilometres in diameter, with the largest having barely 9 km across" - average of 3km (and convert), and "largest being just 9km (convert) across"
• "The Galilean moons and their orbits around Jupiter." - no need for italics or full stop.
• "and instead being referred in the" - and instead they were referred to in... as..
• Avoid "etc."
• " in the 20th, " 20th what?
• "..while the rest of the moons, numbered, usually..." - "...moons, usually numbered..."
• "overwhelming majority" - peacock/pov
• What is IAU? Expand it before using the abbreviation.
• "V-XIII" - use the en-dash for ranges, not the hyphen.
• " from XXXIV (Euporie) on are..." - on is redundant.
• "Some asteroids share the same names as moons of Jupiter: 9 Metis, 38 Leda, 52 Europa, 85 Io, 113 Amalthea, 239 Adrastea. Two more asteroids previously shared the names of Jovian moons until spelling differences were made permanent by the IAU: Ganymede and asteroid 1036 Ganymed; and Callisto and asteroid 204 Kallisto." - no references for these.

Refs for renaming? Because the names speak for themselves why there is a "name conflict". Nergaal (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Groups section could do with being made more prose than bullet points.

But this is a list, and grouping by bullet points presents the information in a more eloquent manner. Nergaal (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, not to worry too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Did you say anywhere how long a Jovian day is in terms of Earth days?

The point with the Jovian days was to say that they spin faster than the planet itself, not that they take x hours. I guess it is not obvious what I meant to say so I am open to suggestions. Nergaal (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just worth putting into context what a Jovian day is in Earth hours I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is this article in BritEng (disk) or USEng (favorite)? Whatever you choose, be consistent.
• Order citations numerically unless there's a really good reason not to.

I am not sure which ones are you referring to. If you are talking about the ones in the table, then the latter have a lower number because they were already used in the text (i.e. this is what reflist does). Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant [27][17][28] - you can reorder the references in the wiki markup so it says [17][27][28]. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "... is "tight",..." - why in quotes? who said this?
• "are so far believed to be each isolated in their own group" - doesn't read well at all.

how about now? Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Pronunciacion" is not English.
• Is this pronunciation guide IPA? It doesn't say.

The key right below pronunciation provides a link to the the IPA for English. Isn't that enough? Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• " from shortest to longest" - not when it's resorted - drop this sentence.
• Caption "...The position on the vertical axis indicates its orbital inclination—he satellites..." - he satellites? Plus this caption is way too long.

how about now? Nergaal (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• No need to bold Io, Ganymede in the table. If you want to obey WP:COLOR, I'd add an asterisk or dagger on these.

is the dagger now ok? Nergaal (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is. But the grey cells should have the same WP:COLOR rule applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the table on colorblind-mimickers and to me it is fairly obvious that the backgrounds are split into: white, light grey, darker gray, darked gray with daggers. Why isn't this enough? Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "127 690" - should be "127,690" etc.
• Diameter is usually a single value - so "60×40×34" etc needs explaining.
  • This has not been noted (i.e. even a footnote would work). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why is discovered left aligned while eccentricity right aligned and diameter central aligned?

is there a quick way to align all the values in a column without having to go through all the 63 entries per column? Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember off the top of my head. I hate tables! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sortable tables need to relink wikilinks on each occasion as they could be first in the list depending on how they're sorted.

grrr.... I just unlinked them because I thought reviewer would comment about overlinking... Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Order and Label, what do they mean?

text says that they are ordered by semi-major axis. label is somewhat explained in the text. The problem is that I don't know how to make these clear without having a huge title in those columns. Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes could be used for this purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think a negative orbital period needs explanation for non-experts, and should there be a space between the minus sign and the value e.g. - 1077.02?

one of the two references in the article explains that it is retrograde. I had that as a note, not a ref, but then, the notes section would have a single entry... Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• What does ? mean in the Group?

not surely known. how should I say that so I keep the column tight? Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the key? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Are all 5 external links necessary?

This many comments exemplifies why peer review is a recommended approach before FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support—I see that it's been cleaned up a bit from the comments above, but my first thought was "who did this page"? Excellent work; hope to see more of you here! Tony (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). Excellent work. Just a few comments:

• "Only 8 of Jupiter's moons are regular satellites, with prograde and nearly circular orbits that are not greatly inclined with respect to Jupiter's equatorial plane." I find "only" a bit POV.
• "Both physical and orbital characteristics of the moons vary widely." How about: "The moons' physical and orbital characteristics vary widely."
• "The practice was that newly discovered moons of Jupiter to be named after lovers and favorites of the mythological Jupiter (Zeus), and since 2004, also after their descendants." Missing a word, I think.
• "This is currently the most of any planet in the Solar System, but additional tiny, undiscovered moons may exist." Per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Precise language, "currently" is not preferred. Use "as of so-and-so year..."

Great work overall. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these awkwardnesses. I assume the only was used as a introductory word because of number, but numbers below 10 are to be spelled anyways. The others should sound better also. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 05:22, 14 September 2008 [58].

---

List of Olympic records in athletics

It's been a while for me to try a list but since the 'lympics are done and dusted now, this list is suitably stable (well, at least for four more years or unless a doping scandal hits...) and I've enjoyed researching it. The biggest challenge was to find up-to-date references for the older records, but a combination of IAAF and Olympic references have been used where required. Let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I don't think the key at the top on the article should be in small text. It is hard to read.
    • Agreed, that wasn't my idea. Fixed.
  • I don't like the large white space between the men's record and the women's record
    • Well I didn't like the way you'd rearranged the images, if the white space is too much then I'll remove one of the images.
      • I just want to help. You can arrange it any way you want.—Chris! _ct 19:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I didn't mean to appear ungrateful and rude, I'm sorry! I've removed some of the images so no massive white space issues remain. Thanks for your comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The last sentence in the lead should have a reference
    • Not really - it's obvious from the table and each record there is cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

—Chris! _ct 00:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 19:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Great list. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The athletics events which… - I'd use commas in this sentence
    • Not 100% convinced but I've added them - see what you think.
  • Can you name the 24th event that men do, but women don't?
    • Not that straight forward as men do decathlon, women do heptathlon, and men do the 50km walk which has no women's analogy. Any way you can think of making that snappy enough to read well in the lead? The information is all in the table after all.
      • you can squeeze this information somewhere in that third paragraph to save readers' time. That paragraph is quite short, anyway.--Crzycheetah 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I've squeezed the info in, hopefully appropriately. Let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • …broken but illegally - Maybe, it's British grammar that I don't understand, but it sounds a little oxymoronic to me.
    • Not convinced British grammar has a part to play- the records were broken illegally. But, since it sounds like it doesn't appeal to the US-ear, I'll have a fiddle with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • It looks fine now. The key word is "later". --Crzycheetah 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that men run 110m hurdles while women run 100m hurdles can be mentioned in the lead.
    • See above - men do the decathlon and women do the heptathlon as well - there are a few of these and I'm not sure how much relevance that detail has in the lead about the Olympic records. Can you suggest an elegant way of introducing these ideas? I'll see if I can develop something... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In the men's table, you have the steeplechase after 400 hurdles while in the women's table, it's listed after 20km walk. How about consistency?
    • How about that. Probably how I inherited it. The table is sortable anyway, but I'll fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The ♦ row would be better italicized.
    • I don't like italics really. This is subjective - I had toyed with adding colour in the results column along with the diamond to emphasise the record, would that be better? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the confusion, I meant the diamond note "denotes a performance…". That one-row table looks unusual in the lead.
        • Okay, first off Gary made it 95% font size, which I undid, now he's put it in a table, which you want to undo and make italics. It's turning into a micro-edit war! I'll see what I can do to appease all editors. Cheers for the clarification nevertheless. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
          • • Hopefully where we are now works for everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • --Crzycheetah 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • …1988, Canadian sprinter - This sentence needs at least one more comma somewhere, preferably before "but".
      • Another comma added! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That 3rd paragraph remains very short. Maybe, you could expand/merge?
      • I've expanded it a little with some more detail on Beamon's record. Is it okay? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Just wondering, why link no event in the 1st para, but link long jump in the 3rd para?
  • Unlinked all, they're all linked in the tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• (Sorry to join in the edit-war :-) Suggest repeating the "♦ denotes a performance..." directly above both Men's records and Women's records tables. If the reader goes straight to the Women's records from the TOC they miss it.
  • Key repeated. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Would Record be a more appropriate column heading than Result?
  • Yes, and that's what it is now, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Are the flags in the Games column necessary? and are they MoS-compliant?
  • No. And you're right, they fall foul of the MOS under "Help the reader rather than decorate" in my opnion, so they've gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Struway! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, "Olympic records in individual events have been achieved at each Olympiad". Is that a fact? Struway2 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Almost certainly but you're right in your implication, ie. can I prove it? Not easily and it'll end up being a bit OR-ish so I've rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Also, note 10 needs a publication date, and you may want to clarify the first the time of using that Beijing 2008 is the official website of the 2008 games. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I would fully expect from the FL director, an exemplary job! Great work, Rambling Man! Support from Killervogel5

• Three minor things for TRM's consideration: (a) inconsistency in whether names are wikilinked in captions; (b) can you avoid using both "records" and "recorded" (set?) in Bolt's caption? (c) should "Decathlon" be given a capital "D" in the caption when "high jump" isn't similarly treated? Bencherlite^Talk 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Minor perhaps, but necessary. All fixed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed; support. Bencherlite^Talk 11:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Why not support an article that has nothing wrong with it and meets the FL criteria. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 20:04, 13 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 05:22, 14 September 2008 [59].

---

Nashville Sounds seasons

I believe this list meets all the criteria to become a featured list. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I peer reviewed this list and am proud to support it. Support from Killervogel5

Comments

• What makes http://www.thebaseballcube.com/index.shtml a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• DONE - All Baseball Cube references have been replaced. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "This list documents season-by-season records of the team from its inaugural campaign through 2008." not keen on this at all as a main sentence in the opening para of the lead - perhaps as a mini-key, like "statistics correct as of the end of the 2008 season".
• Expansion team probably has a wikilink which is useful for non-baseball/US sport franchise experts.
• You link Triple-A but not Double-A. Why not?
• "was marked by much success," - POV.
• " They won three " vs "It moved to " - be consistent with your pluralising.
• " the same mediocrity" - POV.
• Avoid the small text in the key.
• What's PS?
• Why is Record and Win% capitalised after PS?
• I think an explanation as to what a MLB affiliate is would be very useful to non-experts.
• What does "t-6th" mean? And "t-3rd"... etc
• 2006 -"Clinched American North Division title" while it appears they tied?
• What's PCL? and AA?
• Why is Franchise Totals capitalised?
• "Regular Season" vs "Post-season" - consistent caps/hyphens etc please.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• DONE. Triple-A and Double-A are both linked. Added note for affiliates and 2006 div title. I added abbreviations for the leagues (SL, AA, PCL) after the first time they were mentioned in the league. Is that OK, or do I need to do something else? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk)

Comment

• Symbols need to be used along with the colours in the table to aid visually impaired, who will not be able to recognise the colours. NapHit (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I understand what you mean; but, each row already tells what if any titles the team won. Wouldn't symbols would be redundant? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that a colour blind user would not be able to tell the colours, apart therefore the table to them would mean nothing, including the symbols would rectify this problem NapHit (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

DONE - Greek characters (αβγδε) added to aid the color blind. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I changed the symbols to more commonly used ones, great list well done NapHit (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 15:45, 10 September 2008 [60].

---

List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records

previous FLC (22:08, 28 February 2008)

I feel that this list meets the criteria necessary to become a featured list, after a peer review and addressing the issues from the previous nomination. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think you mean Liverpool Football Club as the publisher, not plain Liverpool, which would imply that the city is the publisher of the websites.

Done

• What makes the following sites reliable:
  • http://www.lfchistory.net/index.asp

This is the most reliable site for Liverpool F.C. info, the content is updated regularly and all content is checked by the official Liverpool F.C. historian Eric Doig, which I think makes the site very reliable.

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. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does http://www.lfchistory.net/aboutus_articles_view.asp?article_Id=112 cover the above?

Works enough for me to leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, hows that work? I think we're in borderline territory, and I'd rather other reviewers be able to see and decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this page would account for the website's reliability. Plenty of sources named there. – PeeJay 12:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 5 and 9, the Liverpool All-Time Greats book, needs to list the author and date of publication as well as page numbers. It also appears that the ISBN is not correct according to Google Books and World Cat.

Changed the book to a better book

• Current ref 31 needs page numbers

Done

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Adressed all your comments. Thanks NapHit (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Liverpool F.C. are an" - would be better to say "Liverpool Football Club".
• The lead says the statistics are correct as of 30 August 2008, but the most appearances table says 11 May 2008. I'd say the date should be removed from the table and stick with the one in the lead.
• I'd consider putting this in italics, to help show that it's not a piece of information relating to the list.
• Links are available for some Community Shields, e.g. 2001 and 2006.
• "Ted Doig" links to "Ned Doig", so this should be pipelinked or displayed as Ned.
• "Oldest debutant" is included, but "Youngest debutant" isn't?

Youngest player is basically youngest debutant

Of course...! Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Footnote [d] doesn't seem to work for me.
• "32 seconds, against Arsenal" - full stop needed.
• "Rush also holds" - I'd replace "Rush" with "He", there seems to be a lot of Rushs in those few sentences.
• "Top scorers" - could be renamed "Top goalscorers" to keep consistent with the "Goalscorers" section.
• Footnotes [c] and [d] should also be included in this table.
• Could a few more records be included in the "International" section? Like first capped player, most World Cup appearances etc.

I would include this information but I can't find it so unless someone else can, the section will have to stay the same

This will be able to give the most World Cup appearances. Do you think the Complete Record book will include any details on internationals? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Added most world cup appearances and goals and added first player to be capped by England from complete record book. NapHit (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Should mention who Roger Hunt, Ian Callaghan and Gerry Byrne won the World Cup with.
• "First manager(s)" - I'd change this to First managers, as we know the club started with two managers.
• Firsts - "First league match"?
• Wins - Bit more consistency needed with how the records are presented, e.g. "Record victory" then "Biggest league win" - from "Record" to "Biggest" and "victory" to "win". I'd use "Record" and "win" personally.
• Defeats - "Heaviest" - I'd use "Record".
• Goals - Could you include what division the team was in?
• Attendances - no highest league attendance?
• "Record lowest attendance" - is this in the league?

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the comments Matt, I've dealt with them all NapHit (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC) More comments Few more things I've spotted.

• "Most overall appearances" - I'd say "Most appearances in all competitions" is more suitable.
• "Most League appearances" - "League" doesn't need to be capitalised.
• "Most consecutive League goals scored at Anfield:" - "League" doesn't need to be capitalised.
• "Most first-team goals" - probably "Most goals in all competitions".
• "Most goals in a season" - I'd probably move this after "Most European goals", its current position seems a bit strange.
• I guess Pead doesn't have Liverpool's first international?

The first player capped for England was the first international

• I think it would probably make more sense to move "Most World Cup appearances while a Liverpool player" and "Most World Cup goals while a Liverpool player" after "First World Cup winners" - it would make more sense to show the first appearance at a World Cup first.
• "Dietmar Hamann, (Germany, in 2002)" - should probably do away with the parenthesis to be consistent with the rest of the list.
• I'd probably change "a friendly" to "a friendly match" to be clearer.
• Do you have any idea of what the club's first match was, so you could add a "First match" bit?

First match at Anfield was the first match, so changed to first match

• Was the "First competitive match at Anfield" the club's first match in the Lancashire League? If so, I'd probably display it as that.
• The "First League Cup match" happened before the "First European match" so should be displayed first.
• Other lists of this type have a "European statistics" section at the bottom, so what I'd recommend you do is create a section under this title and use the Main template to link to Liverpool F.C. in Europe.
  • Ah, but I see you're well on the way with this.

Yeh but that table is going in the main article not this list, so I think the link to the article should suffice

Mattythewhite (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with all your comments, Cheers. NapHit (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

More comments Nearly there.

• Beside the divisions that the honours were won, I'd mention what level that was, e.g. "(level 1)".
• Find it strange that the "UEFA Champions League record win" is included, but there's no "UEFA Champions League record defeat"?

The only reason that record is there is because it represents the biggest win in the Champions League not Liverpool's, I can remove it if you want. just think it's particularly notable that Liverpool hold the record win in the Champions League NapHit (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'd unlink it, as it seems a bit strange being the only competition wikilinked in this section. And maybe you could also add a footnote saying how it's the highest ever Champions Leauge victory, with a reference? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd shorten it down to just "Champions League" too.
• And why only the Champions League? Why not any other competitions?
• Wins says "Most league wins in a season" and Defeats says "Most defeats in a season". Is the latter for the league only?
• "Highest League attendance" - "League" doesn't need to be capitalised.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded to your comments, thanks Matt NapHit (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

More comments Last few things.

• I'd seperate "Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup" into seperate sections if they were different competitions.
• "the records for League and" - "League" doesn't need to be capitalised.
• "First capped player for England" - I'd be tempted to just label him as being the "First capped player" and mention him appearing for England in the text beside.
• "UEFA Champions League record win" - should be reworded "Record UEFA Champions League win" for consistency.
• "Ever-present refers to the player playing every minute of every match in the league and cup competitions" - full stop needed.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support It's great to finally be able to support this nomination, well done! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Fastest hat-trick: add date for consistency
• International: for Hughes and Hamann, take out brackets and say "Laurie Hughes, for England..."
• The dates in the transfer tables were automatically changed to U.S. format in a slightly premature implementation of changes to the date-sorting templates (you wouldn't have noticed if you have date preferences set). I've added the parameters to restore the day-month year format (while I was there, I also restored the transfer fees for Torres, Crouch and Keane to the sourced values)
• "Longest serving" manager by matches needs a hyphen
• Firsts: wikilink "a friendly" to something
• Rekjavik needs a "y" after the "e"
• Attendances: Wolves should be spelt out in full
• Would it be helpful for the league attendances to add the division?
• Are you sure note G is in the right place?
• Notes: maybe repeat the reference for note E

hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Struway, I've dealt with them all NapHit (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also (and having said the same elsewhere, it wouldn't be fair not to): The club article MoS recommends including second places in an honours section, while accepting that For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places. So, particularly as Liverpool F.C.#Honours does find room for runners-ups, think you ought to include them here as well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your help NapHit (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support well done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 15:45, 10 September 2008 [61].

---

List of Wolfmother awards

Gary King (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Another great awards list. Good job Mr.King, meets the FL Criteria.--S_RX 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Is "organized" Aussie English - I would head for organised...
  • "has received seven nominations from both the ARIA Music Awards, winning three awards, and the MTV Australia Awards, winning none" reads odd because of the clause after the first comma - can you reorganise?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 15:45, 10 September 2008 [62].

---

All-NBA Team

previous FLC (00:09, 28 August 2008)

I am re-nominating this list because I believe it has fulfilled all the FL criteria.—Chris! _ct 05:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

Comments from Killervogel5

• References are inconsistent. The correct website is basketball-reference.com, not basketball-references.com.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 22:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm also extremely disturbed by the fact that this list was re-nominated only five hours after its last failed nomination closed. It's a disturbing trend because it seems like peer review is being ignored in favor of repeated nominations. This has happened before with other NBA lists.

I am not aware of any policies that prohibit editors from re-nominating the list soon after the first one is closed. Also on previous nominations, no one, not even the FL directors, have told me that editors cannot nominate repeatedly. Anyway, I guess I will wait a bit before nominating again next time.—Chris! _ct 22:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't reference any policies, but to me as a reviewer, it looks like peer review is being ignored, like I said, and that concerns from previous nominations may be glossed over. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

People on the FLC discussion page told me I should wait 24 hours before re-nominating. I guess I will do that from now on.—Chris! _ct 00:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly appreciate it, thanks for understanding. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I will check other things later, but it's better than the last time I looked at it.
  • "The All-NBA Team is composed of three five-man lineups, a first, second, and third team, comprising a total of 15 roster spots."→"The All-NBA Team is composed of three five-man lineups—a first, second, and third team, comprising a total of 15 roster spots."
  • "The All-NBA Team originally had two teams, but was extended to three teams in 1988."→"The All-NBA Team originally had two teams, but was expanded to three teams in 1988."
  • "The top five players with the highest point total make the first team with the next five making the second team and so forth."→remove "top" and comma after "the first team".
  • "In the case of a tie at the fifth position of each team, the roster is extended." - "extended"→"expanded"
    • "potential for more extension in the event" - "extended"→"expanded"
  • "Ties have occurred only once in 1952," - it's a tie, so it should be "A tie has occurred only once in 1952".
  • "From 1946 to 1955, players were selected without regard to position, however, each team consists of two forwards, one center, and two guards beginning from 1956.[2]"→"From 1946 to 1955, players were selected without regard to position; however, each team has consisted of two forwards, one center, and two guards since 1956.[2]"
  • "are all tied for second most with ten.[3]" - second most→second-most
  • In footnotes:
    • Link Greek to Greece
    • Link Serbia
    • Move link to "Arabic" to the third footnote instead of the fourth and change it to Arabic language instead of just Arabic.
    • Link U.S. Virgin Islands.
    • Link United States

All done —Chris! _ct 03:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Support from Killervogel5

• Comments - My previous comments have been addressed, but a noticed a few more..
  • Unless I missed something, the column named "Teams" is unnecessary because I see that the players only belong to one team, so I don' think that is needed, unless I missed one.
    • There are several players which were named to the All-NBA Team from two or more different teams (Charles Barkley is a good example), so that needs to stay. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, just wanted to make sure.--S_RX 16:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The teams should be linked every time which is the only exception to WP:OVERLINK.

Before, someone told me I should not overlinked team names per WP:OVERLINK. And now you told me I should link all of them per WP:OVERLINK. Who should I listen to? Personally, I don't think the teams should be linked every time because it is redundant.—Chris! _ct 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

S_RX 21:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well citing WP:OVERLINK The same link multiple times. Redundant links make future maintenance harder. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own). So you can do what you want, but tables are the exceptions.--S_RX 16:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I can relink them but is it really necessary? It took me more than 30 minutes to clear the relinked last time and I really don't want to mess up them unless it is absolutely necessary to link everything.—Chris! _ct 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but it should be required, you can revert your edit that removed them and add it again. S_RX 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I do.—Chris! _ct 00:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done —Chris! _ct 02:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great job, I commend you for adding it again. I was about to say wikilink all mentions of the recipients, but because they are the subject and appear more than once and it is noted, it's not necessary. Meets WP:WIAFL.S_RX 02:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—Cr 6: there's something very untidy about the way the info appears in the tables, and will you consider a less glaring shade of yellow? Tony (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the color is glaring at all. In fact, this is the same yellow color that appear on all other NBA award pages. If you want me to use another color here, I will have to use another color on all other NBA award pages.—Chris! _ct 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris here re: the yellow; I've viewed it now on 4 different monitors and at several resolutions and I see no problems. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:59, 2 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 19:07, 8 September 2008 [63].

---

Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance

I'd like to address a few things. First, you will notice that some of the references do not cover everything in the table. However, such things are covered by the general ref to the official Emmy awards page. It does not allow you to link to individual pages, so one must do a search for the proper category (hence the individual citations). As well, I was forced to use Newsbank articles for some of the older categories. This is because 1) the afore mentioned problem 2) The table looked weird not having citations for every row and 3) have you ever tried finding free online articles from 1993? As well, I would be willing to merge the TV show & episode columns or remove the episode column completely. Have fun reviewing, and all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I think that the table is overlinked, it should be enough to have one link to The Simpsons and not have the rest of the list linked to the same name. Also to the network Fox, the same case. Jaespinoza (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Normally I would agree, but the FL standard has been to link every column in a sortable table, that way when a user sorts it, there won't be five rows of unsorted links, then one blue link. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - name column needs to sort by last name. --Golbez (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The_Plain_Dealer is an ambigous link. — Dispenser 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - it would be nice to see it expanded a bit, if possible. How/why was it created? Was there any predecessor? Is there a reason why it wasn't awarded in those two years? In the lede, it'd be nice if some more detail was given in the second paragraph. Right now it seems like it's really promoting the Simpsons. For example, maybe expand on people winning for live-action roles, since you mention it once in the first paragraph, then don't mention it again. Small little quibble: It is awarded to a performer - the first year was awarded to six people from the same show. Perhaps that could be re-worded. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Looks okay. Just one thing worries me: Some entries in the episode column are blank. I'm guessing some such as Unforgivable Blackness don't apply, so inserting an "N/A" or emdash would be a good way to show that it's not simply an oversight. However, the ones for Seth McFarlane in 2000, Hank Azaria in 1998, and Ja'net Du Bois in 99 should all have the episodes (since others winners from the same series have the episodes stated). At the moment it appears to be incomplete, and that is all that's stopping me from supporting. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, during that era they didn't have individual episodes, they used multiple. I could remove the column, wiuld that be better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Few things, series usually have episode names and some on here are missing like for Family Guy, which I know has episode names. Special episodes should also have a name, which I think should be researched as without it makes the table really unbalanced.
  • Another thing, you spell PBS in it's trademarked form, yet you spell FOX "Fox" and not in it's trademarked form of (FOX).

S_RX 14:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Like I said, I don't think they had nominations for individual episodes during that period. However, I decided to just remove the column for now. As for FOX vs. Fox, there have been many debates about it, and as far as I can tell, Fox is the most accepted version. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 12:32, 7 September 2008 [64].

---

List of submissions to the 72nd Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film

This is a self-nomination. The layout of the list is identical to that used in other similar lists that were recently promoted to FL. BomBom (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think its a little too identical? The first paragraph of the lead has been copied and pasted from List of submissions to the 74th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. I agree to base it on another list, but don't copy it directly. You should change it a little, even if it is just wording you change. Qst (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I have rephrased the first paragraph. BomBom (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, you've done a good job. Well done. Qst (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I think this is a very good page. On other Foreign Film Submission lists, the editor has elected to remove interesting trivia and information that might be of interest to people who are looking up this page. The header of this article includes interesting information specific to the year in question, making it more interesting and distinguishes it from the other "list" pages. Adtran - Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, great gob, Jaespinoza (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • Please avoid parentheses in the lead. (and so far only) & (which is spoken in parts of Nepal)
  • In the "original title" column, there are several inconsistencies:
    • In the "Bhutan" row, there should be Hindi letters, as well, just like the "India" row
    • In the "France" row, you're missing the Russian transliteration
    • In the "Nepal" row, why is there a French translation? It says that the film was in Tibetan, not French. So, where is the Tibetan translation?
    • In the "Russia" row, you have the Russian translation, but the film is in German, so there should be a German translation, as well.
    • In the "Vietnam" row, you have two translations in one line, shouldn't it be done similar to the "Nepal" row?

--Crzycheetah 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The parentheses in the lead section have been removed. The original titles of the French, Russian and Vietnamese entries have all been fixed. The only things "missing" are the original titles of the Bhutanese entry The Cup and the Nepalese entry Himalaya, both of which are in the Tibetan language. There's not much I can do with regard to this. The article has been placed for weeks in the Articles needing Tibetan script or text category. Moreover, I have checked the list of Wikipedians who speak Tibetan, and all of them only have a basic understanding of it, so they can't be of much help. Anyway, please note that a film's original title is not necessarily in the language that is predominantly used in the script. For instance, the original title of the film Himalaya, which was merely submitted by Nepal but was in fact a predominantly French production with a French director, is Himalaya - l'enfance d'un chef. This is the title that appears onscreen as well as on the film's promotional posters. I don't think anyone has ever bothered to find out what the "Tibetan title" of the film was, just as no one has ever bothered to find out what the "Aramaic title" or the "Latin title" of The Passion of the Christ was. Neither The Cup's official website nor Himalaya's official website contain any Tibetan title, so it's really not that important. BomBom (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 12:20, 7 September 2008 [65].

---

List of Korn awards

previous FLC (09:21, 25 August 2008)

Third time's the charm? Gary King (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I see no flaws and meets the FL criteria.--S_RX 21:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  Cheers, thanks. Lord knows I need any comments I can get :) Gary King (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, also. Can't find a single thing to comment on. Maybe I'm losing it! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:55, 6 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 12:20, 7 September 2008 [66].

---

List of Natasha Bedingfield awards

FLC before previous FLC (11:13, 3 August 2008)
previous FLC (16:20, 18 August 2008)

This failed twice because of lack of comments. Third time's the charm? Gary King (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.andpop.com/article/6785/

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

removed it; can't find another reliable source so dubious if it's actually true Gary King (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. A very good list. Jaespinoza (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment It's a little weird seeing that Natasha Bedingfield is listed under "Nominated work". Maybe that column should be renamed into "Nominee or nominated work". Otherwise, this is a fine list. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - meets FL? but I agree with sgeureka, consider renaming the column "Nominee" since she has been nominated, and she cant technically be "work."S_RX 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  Hm, well this is how it's been done for previous awards lists, the reason being that sometimes there will be works listed in the same column as the artist. Gary King (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  True, but nominee also refers to the nominated subject.S_RX 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  Technically "nominee" only refers to people. Gary King (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 12:20, 7 September 2008 [67].

---

List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers

I am nominating the list of Opening Day Seattle Mariners pitchers. I have chosen not to make the table sortable, as there are multiple stretches where the ballpark stays the same, and I didn't think that listing Kingdome or Safeco Field 5 or 6 time in a row would be visually appealing. The list is comprehensive for every season of the Mariners, including 2008. Additions will be required in 2009 and so forth and will be added as announced. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 08:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• OpposeComments for now,
  • Lists should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Decision" column should be explained a little more. What does "no decision" mean?
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Where's the * for the ADLS guys?
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see any * next to those guys in orange?
        • I removed the *, it was meant just to be the orange color --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Versus" should be "Opponent"
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Since you made the table sortable, which is great, you need to use {{sortname}} template in order to sort the pitchers by their last names.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • All "opponents" and "locations" should be wikilinked because of the sortable table.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Who are the Seattle Mariners? A couple of sentences are needed to explain who or what the Mariners are.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The last two images would be better placed under the Pitchers section and an "upright" parameter should be added per MOS:IMAGES
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The "years" in the table are linked to "YEAR in baseball", wouldn't it be better if they were linked to "YEAR Seattle Mariners season"?
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 20:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• • All stats in the lead should be sourced
    • All of the stats from the lead are just generated from adding the stats listed in the table below. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you still need to provide a reference to avoid violating WP:OR--Crzycheetah 20:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Would putting in a ref that said data taken from info referenced from tables be acceptable? --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Why not just put the ref you use for the table? By the way, it worries me a little that almost all info in this page is taken from one source.--Crzycheetah 01:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Cited lead, changed up the cites in the table. Some are dual cites, as the second cite doesn't show the end result of the game, just who is the starter. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be good if the image captions had different info than what we may already know from the table
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Can't you provide some interesting info on these pitchers?...such as any awards or achievements they had during the years they spent in Seattle.--Crzycheetah 20:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Hmm...these captions don't look right. Did any of those three guys make the all-star team? or win an award of some kind? If not, I guess you can revert to the pre
            • Reverted to original cites, per the comments from Metros. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 09:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks much better. The only remaining suggestion I have is to merge the last two paragraphs of the lead. Good job!--Crzycheetah 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Thanks! --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 10:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• US date format: comma required, please.
  •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Read MOSNUM on spelling out numbers; needs a consistent boundary.
  •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Past, not last.
  •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• I haven't the knowledge to tell whether the lead should be bulkier than this. Tony (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead, from what I understand, just has to be able to explain and draw the reader into the table. I believe the lead has accomplished this. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I find a lot of info. in the lead to be confusing to a lay person (I understand it fairly well as a fan, but there are a few areas with issues).:

• Are the trivia in the captions necessary? How does Randy Johnson striking out Wade Boggs relate to the article? Or Moyer's 2001 20-win season? This is especially unnecessary since neither of the two were the opening day starters of the year that the piece of trivia took place.
  • Was requested above --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the captions per Wikipedia:Caption (and a general preference). Take a look at a Featured List like List of New York Jets head coaches or List of Philadelphia Phillies managers. All the captions used in the list are describing the subject and his role.
      • And thats what I had, I had something like "xxx the Opening Day starting pitcher for the xxx and xxx seasons", but I was told to make it more interesting --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC) they have been reverted to their original cites, stating which years they were the Opening Day starting pitchers. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• "have in the past thirty–two seasons have used fifteen different Opening Day starting pitchers." Confusing sentence here.
  • Changed slightly --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Randy Johnson sentence has a few too many commas for my taste. It feels like an info. overload.
  • Reworded --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It's still an overload of information. Taking out the comma before Kingdome does not help, but actually hurts.
      • Re-reworded. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• The July 15, 1999 start for Moyer probably should not be in there. This list is for Opening Day of the season, not the opening of the new field.
  • Removed --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The way you've fixed that sentence created two "has..." clauses with no linking conjunction.
      • Wow, I must not have been paying attention... Fixed. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Overall, the Mariners have a record of six wins and four losses at the Kingdome..." This should probably have a "on Opening Day" in here (or "have an Opening Day record"), otherwise it reads like an overall for all of baseball instead of just this one day thing.
  •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• "and their Opening Day record for these three seasons was two wins and no losses between Randy Johnson (1995), Jeff Fassero (1997) and Freddy García (2001), all of which were won in Seattle." This needs to refer to the record of the starters. The "their" is referring to the subject, the Mariners, while the stats that follow are referring to the three starters. Metros (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reworked --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • That created another vague issue. It now states that "these three...have an Opening Day record of two wins and no losses." Their record is greater than that, but you need to reword it to reflect that you're talking about having a 2-0 record in those three particular seasons on Opening Day. Metros (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• All the issues I have are fixed, but I don't think I'll be supporting. I don't feel like this is featured content, but I can't quite put a finger on/describe why. Metros (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Lead image should have upright in it.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • " have in the past thirty–two seasons have had fifteen different Opening Day starting pitchers" - this is not good English.
    • changed to used, though open for suggestions --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Is Opening Day always capitalized? If so, check image captions etc for consistency.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Starting Pitcher should be pitcher in the table heading.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Made it to the ALDS" - doesn't read particularly encyclopedically to me.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOS#COLORS, don't use colours alone to designate a particular property, you need an asterisk, dagger etc as well as the colouring in the table.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Mariners record" shouldn't that be "Mariners' record"?
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "starts with a total of six starts," -spot the redundancies - "starts with six" says the same thing.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Prefer to see reference column centrally aligned.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "on Opening Day, compared to two wins and three losses at Safeco Field on Opening Day" - Opening Day overdose.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure of the relevance of the opening day stats and then going on to qualify for the playoffs - presumably some huge number of games are played in the interim?
    • You are right, but I found it an interesting tidbit that is verifyable, and in my opinion would draw the reader into viewing the table, and possibly the three seasons referenced. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals (current ref 4)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

Comments from Killervogel5

• "The Seattle Mariners, a Major League Baseball team, in the American League West division, based out of Seattle, Washington, have in the past thirty–two seasons have used fifteen different Opening Day starting pitchers." - very confusing, reads like a run-on, some seriously incorrect comma usage, grammatically speaking. Consider rewording to the following: "The Seattle Mariners, a Major League Baseball franchise in the American League West division, has used fifteen different Opening Day starting pitchers in its thirty–two seasons in Seattle, Washington." - keep all links, of course, and link franchise to the appropriate section in Professional sports league organization. Also, thirty-two, while incorrect with an en-dash, should actually be 32.
  • Switched to your wording --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• All numbers higher than ten (especially fifteen, written several times) should be written as numerals (15, etc).
  • see my response below. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Randy Johnson holds the Mariners' record of Opening Day starts with six starts," - saying starts twice is redundant, remove the second.
  •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Any reason why the records in the lead are all written out, i.e., two wins and no losses rather than 2–0?
  • MOSNUM is why I wrote them out, and I was told to keep all my numbers consistant rather than having small numbers written out and large numbers as just numbers. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Be that as it may, it is inconsistent with other featured lists. Additionally, with an article that has this short of a lead, many written out numbers looks like someone trying to stretch the text. I am, of course, not implying that it was your intent to do so; however, it may appear as such to certain eyes. I still believe it needs to be changed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made what I believe to be some final minor, but necessary, changes to the lede. I would like to see if there is further support from other reviewers before I commit. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I made it 0 wins and 2 losses so that a lay person could appreciate the information. Yes, I know what 0–2 is, but not everyone knows what 0–2 is. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I fully understand your reasoning; however, saying "wins, losses, wins, losses" again and again is redundant. Therefore, I've disambiguated at the first occurrence (10 wins, 11 losses (10–11)) and it should no longer be an issue. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 11:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Works for me :) --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral from Killervogel5

• Comments
  • Overall looks good but I don't like how the key looks like, the word decision should be removed and the key should read from left to right, i.e. (left column) W| (right column) Win.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • IMO, because in the lead it states how many times pitchers have been the ODP, multiple appearances should be noted, like within parenthesis i.e. Glenn Abbot (2).
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Not quite, I didn't mean the lead, I meant in the table, it wont be needed in the lead.--S_RX 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done, added key item as well --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Almost, but I meant like in chronlogical order, i.e. The first time you dont need to place the number of times, the second time you would place (2), the third (3), and so on, not the total # of times over and over. Another thing instead of saying (X) say (#) (on the key).S_RX 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
            •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

S_RX 14:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better, Support meets FL?S_RX 15:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Nice lists, perfect! ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with calling any article PERFECT, I believe that the changes will let me support this list. Cheers for it remaining open so long. Support from Killervogel5

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 User:The Rambling Man 17:02, 5 September 2008 [68].

---

List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania

I recently created this and I feel it meets the FL criteria, has a good prose and list format, and any comments will be addressed.--S_RX 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you might be moving a bit too fast. The article was just created, it hasn't even been peer reviewed. And about the article, it's too jammed with all of the pictures. I don't think the pictures are necessary. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel a review was necessary as the concept was discussed by multiple editors and they agreed to it, I modeled the list kind of like after the List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C. lists, as they have pictures to present the matter, I feel pictures of the celebs help the matter, this is not like an ordinary pro wrestling list, which is how it should be treated. --S_RX 23:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe reduce the pictures, maybe rid of half of the pictures. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed a couple and cut down the size of them.S_RX 00:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The list has red links. -- K. Annoyomous24 02:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I don' think that should stop the article from it's FLC, red links just signify that the article hasn't been created and can be created.--S_RX 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this list should be called, List of celebrities involved in WrestleMania or something similar to that. -- K. Annoyomous24 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I moved it to List of celebrities involved at WrestleMania.--S_RX 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comments - this article would have benefited greatly from having another editor look over it before being nominated. In addition, since the nomination was made half an hour after the article was created, the stability is uncertain. I believe that it appears to be an image farm, as the right margin seems cluttered. The prose needs a copyedit, as there are some grammatical errors (sentence beginning with number, incomplete sentence, comma splice, other punctuation issues). I think the tables would be more useful if repeat appearances were given separate entries (eg. four for Pete Rose), as combining them makes it hard to sort and makes the "role" column difficult to read. Two of the redlinked names are misspelled. What makes Anderson a valet and McCarthy merely "in the corner", as they had exactly the same role? The "was" at the beginning of the Dawkins entry is inconsistent with the rest of the entries. Rose's profession is probably better described as "Player/manager for the Cincinnati Reds". Sports team names should probably be preceded by "the". Some of the entries under "Role" are sentence fragments but have periods at the end. The column names "Ref" and "Refs" should be replaced with "References". The "See also" section seems unnecessary, as the only term is already used and wikilinked in the prose. I'm still not sure if publishers need to be wikilinked every time in the References section; I personally believe that it makes it hard to read and that the repeated wikilinks don't add anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It was already copyedited by User:Nikki311. I change the instance about valets, I removed the See Also section and I removed the "Was" at the beginning of the Dawkins entry. For the comment about the repeated appearances, it will look redundant to make four repeated entries right next to each other with the same occupation over and over. I tried to span the rows and split the cells, but when you sort them the table messes up, so i'm not sure what to do from now. I removed a couple of the images, I don't know if that is any better. Also I checked the spellings of the red linked article and they are correct.--S_RX 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the spellings (unfortunately, WWE.com has terrible spelling). I still think it would be better to have separate entries for each appearance, as it would enable people to sort the table to see everyone who was at a certain WrestleMania. I'm not great with sortable tables, but the "Appearance" column is having trouble with WrestleManias 22, 23, and 2000 (it puts them first, ahead of WrestleMania I). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I separated them and added sort templates to the appearances.--S_RX 19:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Further comments: The prose has improved, but there are a few things that I would recommend: (1) "The WrestleMania franchise debuted in 1985 with WrestleMania I,[1] and has been produced annually since then." There are a couple of problems here: has the franchise been produced annually? Perhaps "and the event has been produced annually..." This would also take care of the other problem, which is that there is currently no subject after the comma, so a comma shouldn't be used. (2) "From its debut in 1985..." The article already states when it debuted. Perhaps this phrase could be removed and the sentence could just start with "Aside from professional wrestling performances..." (3) Back to back sentences begin as follows: "Celebrities involved in WrestleMania", "Celebrities involved at WrestleMania". More variety would help the prose. (4) What does "promoting a subject" mean? (5) I still really think "Ref" and "Refs" need to be changed to "References". If this doesn't leave enough room for pictures, how about "Notes"? As long as it's a full word, I'll be happy. In each of the descriptions of battles royal, "where" should be replaced with "in which". (6) They didn't appear at the event, but Bucky Goldberg and Vinny Ricciotti were mentioned in each of the WrestleMania Reports on WWF broadcasting leading up the event. During the reports, clips would be shown of Bucky and Vinny driving around in their taxis and commenting on the upcoming matches. I'm not sure that this warrants including, though (they are on SLAM! Wrestling's list of celebrities involved with WrestleMania X—although the site spells Vinny's name incorrectly: [69]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

With regards to two of your comments, if you look through some of our Featured lists, a "Ref" or "Refs" column is permitted when using "References" would produce unnecessary whitespace in the table cells and/or would possibly mess up pictures. Calling the column "notes" would mean that the "References" section would also have to be called "Notes". However, one table is "Ref", and the others "Refs". They should all be "Refs". With regards to "Celebrities involved in [or "at"] WrestleMania", with the new page name change, it should be "Celebrities involved with WrestleMania". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Personally, I'd rather have it called "Asparagus" than use a non-word. I'm willing to move on, though (but I do agree that there should be consistency). As for the second comment to which you replied, my concern isn't with the article title. My concern is that back-to-back sentences in the lead begin with almost exactly the same words: "Celebrities involved in WrestleMania events have come from a range of occupations, including singing, acting, professional boxing, and modeling. Celebrities involved at WrestleMania usually appear in non-wrestling roles..." GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Gotcha. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(1)That has been fixed, (2) That has also been fixed, (3) and this has also been fixed. (4) Means promoting a certain thing, like Raven promoted the Make a wish foundation. (5)Matthew I think responded to you on that note. (6)I'm not sure, I don't think so because there have been numerous times where people talk about upcoming matches and just appear on WWE TV (or WM TV) but it really doesn't count IMO.--S_RX 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Motörhead links in the article are currently redirects. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing major, but fixed.S_RX 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. However, I disagree that it wasn't major. Featured lists are seen to be as examples of Wikipedia's best lists, and something for others to aspire to, so having such mistakes is a big no-no. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but I meant major as in contrast to fixing a table/removing images etc.S_RX 22:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the redirect was fine. Read WP:R2D... we should all try reading WP:MOS and all other guidelines before thinking of reviewing an FAC. Feedback ^☎ 00:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a number of factual errors in the list. I'll try to get them fixed later if I can. -- Oakster  Talk  22:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it Oakster, I appreciate it.--S_RX 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://prowrestling.about.com/od/wrestlemania/a/wmcelebrities.htm

Well this is a part of the About.com website which I think is reliable here on Wiki no? If not, the writer Eric Cohen is featured on the Gazette of Colorado here. If that does not cover it, the Los Angeles Times also credits Eric Cohen here. According to this, his bio page his work has also been featured on CNN. Also this is the general credit of About.com. Is that enough for it's reliability?--S_RX 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 16 is lacking a publisher

Added publisher to ref 16.--S_RX 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Overhanging pics—On my large monitor, unless I manually widen the window size the pics down the right-hand side all cover up one or two columns. What's our policy on this? Tony (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC) PS like ... at what point do we advise the creation of a gallery instead? Tony (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It mus be your monitor because on my screen the images look okay and do not "overhang." I don't think a gallery is needed since they are images of the celebs, but its not like a gallery needed for like a building which presents the building itself. Plus if we had images of the celebs at the WM's then we could add a gallery but in this case it doesn't seem necessary as they aren't images taken at WM.--S_RX 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you were right, and I fix that problem it was a problem with the table's size.--S_RX 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Mr T's caption is a full sentence so add a full stop.
  • Fixed.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• "the forthcoming event" - I'd timeframe it (i.e. add something like "... in April 2009...")
  • Done.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• "including singer, actor, professional boxer, and model, among others." - among others is redundant.
  • Removed.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• You say Wrestlemania 23 but refer to the others by Roman numerals. Good reason or just inconsistent?
  • Because that is the official way WWE spelled out that year's WrestleMania. They did Roman numerals up to WrestleMania XX, then they spelled them out from WrestleMania 21 to WrestleMania 23, then they started again with the roman numerals with WrestleMania XXIV.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Cool, wasn't aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Though there have been exceptions where celebrities have had a professional wrestling role." yuck, don't start with "Though..."
  • Reworded.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• "23 years later" - sure that's not 22 years? 1985 to 2007...
  • True, fixed.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• "sang another rendition of "America the Beautiful."" - don't repeat the song - just say something like "another rendition of the same song."
  • Fixed.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• "At times, WWE has inducted celebrities into their Hall of Fame. Chicago Bears defensive lineman William Perry, wrestled a match involving other NFL football players." - No citations here. "At times..."? Be specific please, encyclopedic article demands good, referenced examples. And finally, what links these two sentences? They read awkwardly placed together this way.
• Centrally align references in the tables.
  • Well there have been several times and it would be redundant to list them all, which is why I added "For Example" to connect the following sentence, hope that covers that. The information is also sourced in the list, so I don't think sourcing it in the lead is necessary per WP:LEDE.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay but consider merging the sentences "...involving other NFL football players. In 2004, he was inducted..." to improve the flow. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Done.S_RX 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove spaces between citations per WP:CITE.
  • Done.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Because the table is sortable, make sure you relink everything you've linked each time, e.g. "Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena"
  • Why though? That column isn't sortable and is not listing but is a notes section. It's more of a prose than list type thing (the notes column)--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That column itself isn't sortable but once you sort the table by another of the sortable columns there's no guarantee that the linked instance will always come first. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I tried to do the best I could to relink those instances.S_RX 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Was involved..." - lose the "Was..."
  • Done.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Not sure of the relevance of genre for the musicians - is it really important to this list?
  • Yeah, it's like listing what team or profession the athletes play in.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Refs 36 & 37 are not working in the reflist.
  • I fixed that.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think a better page title would be List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania

I agree that it should be List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania because it just makes more sense in my point of view. -- K. Annoyomous24 00:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• •  DoneS_RX 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I recommend creating these redirects WrestleMania celebrities, and for every other redirected link, make duplicates but spell "WrestleMania" "Wrestlemania"
  •  DoneS_RX 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• How is "The WrestleMania franchise debuted in 1985 with WrestleMania I,[1] and has been produced annually since then. WrestleMania XXIV is the most recent production,[2] and WrestleMania XXV in April 2009 will celebrate the series' 25th anniversary.[3]" important to this article which lists involved celebrities?
  • Its like background to the list, like it explains wtf is a WrestleMania.S_RX 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Celebrities involved in WrestleMania events have come from a range of occupations, including singer, actor, professional boxer, and model" "Singing, acting, professional boxing, and modelling" are occupations, what is there now are not occupations, they're describing what a celebrity does.
  •  DoneS_RX 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• "31 athletes, 26 musicians, 20 miscellaneous, and 18 actors." Put the miscellaneous people at the end, and perhaps reword to "...18 actors, and 20 others from different backgrounds" or something?
  •  DoneS_RX 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Who says John Legend is R&B/neo-soul, compared to all the other similar genre singers who are listed as being "R&B/Soul"
  • Well that's the specific genre he works in, but I changed it to soul.S_RX 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Multiple sorting issues to be fixed
• {{sortname}} should be used instead of {{sort}}. It will allow for easier updates with each new WrestleMania event
• Eric Esch is sorted in the wrong place
• Stage names should be sorted by the first word.
• Raven-Symoné isn't sorted in the right spot, because her last name isn't Symone. Either sort her by her last name, or just by her stage name which would be "R"
• Limp Bizkit is sorted by "B". Should be sorted by "L"
• Run-DMC is sorted by "D", should be by "R"
• Snoop Dogg should be sorted by "S"
• Boyz II Men should be sorted by "B", not "M"
• Drowning Pool should be sorted by "D", not "P"
• Little Richard should be by "L"
  • All the sorting issues with the names is  DoneS_RX 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Raven Symoné is  Not done. She now sorts first but should sort by "R". The Rockettes also sort first in their column, but should be by "R"
• References 19 and 20 are fudged. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.S_RX 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Support All concerns addressed. Everything looks okay. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:56, 4 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:02, 5 September 2008 [70].

---

List of Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross recipients

Hello, another Victoria Cross recipient list for your perusal. I think this meets all the criteria and follows in the wake of List of Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients. A couple of points that I will tackle beforehand: The title: I realise this may be a bone of contention. I notice from the logs that this has been moved before. I believe that Indian Mutiny is correct for this list as it is a list about British people within this conflict, and the British called this the Indian Mutiny. That said, I am very open to changing it if it is specifically requested with a convincing rationale. ImagesIn previous FLCs there have been requests for more images along the side of the list. If images were placed on some of the more cramped VC articles, then they would get very cramped at lower resolutions. When I go down in resolution, there is simply no room to put them in other articles. With this article, I don't get that problem, but, it would create an inconsistency within the topic, and pictures of recipients are limited. Woody (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Everything looks good, but in regards to your comment about the title, why not say that the British called it this in the parenthesised part of "during the Indian rebellion of 1857 (also known as Indian Mutiny)."? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

DO you mean having the title as "...Indian rebellion of 1857..." and including Indian Mutiny in parenthesis? A reversal of the current situation? Why would we, anybody looking for VC recipients would be looking for it Indian Mutiny recipients, this is the common name for this from a British perspective. Or, have I misunderstood you? Woody (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant something else, but it has been addressed already. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe the campaign was called theIndian Mutiny Campaign so the title would be correct, one point I wondered about, is it worth putting the dates of the Mutiny into the article. (There is the link to the page but the dates could also be included) Was the award of 182 VC's unique ? it seems a lot for a short period of time. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead goes into the dates in detail; is there more that can be added to that? In terms of numbers by campaign, the First World War holds the record for the largest number: 627 in 4 years. The Indian Mutiny holds the record for the highest number in a day: "24 in the Second relief of Lucknow on 16 November 1857." I have added that into the article. Woody (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry must have missed the dates. Interesting about the highest number awarded in one day. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, any other issues with it? Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No other issues a very good article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "the Indian rebellion of 1857 (also known as Indian Mutiny)" and then "The Indian Mutiny (also known as India's First War of Independence, Revolt of 1857, or the Sepoy Mutiny)" while in agreement, seem in contention with each other in terms of the title of the list.
  • Shouldn't that r in rebellion be R?
  • "Indian Princely states " in the caption - this term isn't linked, nor is it expanded on in the article - what does it mean?
  • "reorganize" - BritEng seems most appropriate here so "reorganise".
• But those are picky. It's a fine list. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have put the Indian Mutiny before rebellion and capitalised Rebellion. I have linked List of Indian Princely States; basically India was split into hundreds of Princely States "ruled by semi-independent potentates." Fixed reorganise. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice article, excellent Lede, tables sort fine, no other concerns. Support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 16:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but I do have some comments:
  • For several entries, the dates are a little bit confusing. With Dighton Probyn, for example, is that range of dates (1857–1858), or is it a list of dates (like 1857, 1858)? There are several other entries—Charles Gough, especially—where there seems to be a list of dates, or ranges, even. Perhaps commas to separate listed dates (even though they're already on separate lines) and consolidating date ranges (to omit repeated years and months) might both help avoid any ambiguity.
  • Can the instances of {{cite web}} be updated to have unlinked dates to match the style in use in the table?
• Otherwise it meets all of the criteria, and compares favorably with other FLs and other VC FLs. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have made all the dates consistent including the refs, I have added in commas to all the multiple date recipeints: Probyn has a footnote which explains his unique dates. Thanks for the comments. Woody (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 03:39, 4 September 2008 [71].

---

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2000

I am submiting this list to the FL status, I think is ready to achieve it.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Another great list, though some flaws.
  • There where eleven number-one albums on this chart in 2000, starting with the greatest hits collection Desde Un Principio: From the Beginning by Marc Anthony, which spent a non-consecutive run of 13 weeks at the summit between 1999 and 2000. - wrong instance of "where" ---> "were". FIXED!
• MTV Unplugged by Colombian performer Shakira became her second chart topper on this chart, went on to win the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards,[4] and also received four nominations for the Latin Grammy Awards of 2000. - ", went on...." --> ", and went on..." "for the Latin..." ---> "at the Latin....". FIXED!
• I recommend making the refs column 1 column because not all browsers have the capability to read 2 columns. FIXED!.
• Nothing to deal with this FLC but someone should fix the template and make it more organized maybe with bullets and separate barriers.

--S_RX 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not clear whether or not it's still supposed to be part of any criterion (I did not follow at all the revision debate), but given that toping a major chart attest notability, it's obvious to me those albums should all have articles. Circeus (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE!: All the albums have their articles, and also I added succession boxes for every album. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I can support now. The only suggestion I can make is possibly a section after the main list to give performances in genre-neutral charts (e.g. the Bilboard 200 or Heatseekers), but that's not really necessary. Good job. Circeus (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 2 has the publisher of the site in the link title. Probably should be outside the link title for clarity. FIXED!
• Same for current ref 3. FIXED!

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "MTV Unplugged by Colombian performer Shakira became her second chart topper on this chart, and went on to win the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards,[4] and also received four nominations at the Latin Grammy Awards of 2000." Longish sentence, poorly handled. "MTV Unplugged, by Colombian performer Shakira, became her second chart-topper on this chart, went on to win the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards,[4] and received four nominations at the Latin Grammy Awards of 2000." FIXED!!
• Do we need a link for the common term "department stores"? See WP:MOSLINK. Unsure the link for "Spanish language" effort will help the reader; it's very heavily linked already, so weed where obvious, please. Capital S, and "album in Spanish" might be better. FIXED!!.

Generally, the prose needs a once-over by someone else. Tony (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "universe of merchants" huh?. FIXED!
• "This data is complied by Nielsen SoundScan from a universe of merchants that represents more than 90% of the U.S. music retail market." sounds very jargony, advertisey and PR-ish. FIXED!
• Actually, the first paragraph is a word-for-word copy of the website in Ref 1. Please re-write this so it is written by a normal person. FLC represents the best we have, not copies of other pages. FIXED!
• "starting with the greatest hits collection" -- change "starting with". FIXED!
• "at the summit starting in" ??. Answer: The album start at number-one since the previous year, should I put it or not?.
• "MTV Unplugged, by Colombian performer Shakira, became her second chart-topper on this list, went on to win the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards,[4] and received four nominations at the Latin Grammy Awards of 2000." Too long, and the "became her second..." needs rewording. FIXED!.
• The rest of the prose needs going over, too.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Great job' Support. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

More

• "spent one week at the top and but dropped to number 16 the following week.", I think. FIXED!.
• Add a link to the most relevant page at Number One, and possibly remove the hyphens?. Answer About this, another user (on another review told me to put the hyphens), should I remove them?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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