Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2009

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:46, 31 March 2009 [1].

---

List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Archbishops and bishops

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk

Following the recent FL-achieving spin-off of List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government from the main FL List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, here's another for your kind consideration. Bencherlite^Talk 11:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Glyn Simon, who was a student from 1922 to 192" "In the twentieth century"-->In the 20th century "his 'Blue' for " Picky picky, but the quotes shouldn't be part of the link. Not a deal-breaker, but I would prefer if em dashes were used instead of en dashes, something I forgot to pick up on your previous lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Done. BencherliteTalk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)ca

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review Not very experienced with these but did some digging and it turns out "public domain" is a lot more complicated than I thought. Turns out being old doesn't necessarily make it public domain[2] and something being exhibited does not mean it has been published. Publication can start when the work was first reproduced.

Resolved image issues

*File:Alfred George Edwards.JPG – info is fine, but might not be PD due to no description of it when it was first published. Speedily deleted at Commons and removed from article. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC) File:BpSamuelPeploe.jpg – information all fine, but the NPG states you still need their permission. Seems, like the others, age might not cut and you need to find out when it was first published. After discussion at Commons it has been established that this was published and is thus in the public domain. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC) File:WilliamLloydBpOfStAsaph.jpg – missing author but source, and I think you need to show when it was first published.

• File:BpThomasCoke.gif – missing author & date, when was it first published.

As I mentioned before, I am not expereinced at this so if you can get someone experienced to tell me I am speaking a load of rubbish that is also fine. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh the joys of images. Will have a think and come back to this one. My first instinct, looking at WP:PD, is that this is a complete nightmare and I will probably just end up removing all the potentially offending images through an inability to fix. Bencherlite^Talk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(update) I have nominated the images for deletion at Commons (one speedily, as I uploaded it; the others for discussion, as they were uploaded by the same individual who seems to have rather a lot of deletion notifications on his talk page). One way or the other, the good people at Commons will take care of this, either by deleting the images or fixing the problems. Bencherlite^Talk 07:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(update to update) At present, 2 out of the 3 discussions are heading towards "keep, proof of date of first publication not required for PD". Which is interesting. Bencherlite^Talk 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - out of interest, why didn't you put all the clergy into this list? That would have seemed more sensible to me - rst20xx (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought that there was enough here for a list by itself. The other clergy would add another 130/140 names (there are another dozen or so articles that would need to be written before I could say that I had written articles on everyone included in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the Dictionary of Welsh Biography), and I had thought of making that a spin-off list of its own in due course. However, particularly in the light of recent developments at WP:FL?, if people think that all the clergy should be here, I'll see what I can do. Bencherlite^Talk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not too bothered but I would think it would be better that way - rst20xx (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments first up, no mention of the Boat Race, okay? Fine. Or else it'll be the Six Nations discussion, okay? Good... now, some comments...

  I have dual nationality and a third by marriage/fatherhood; it's a rare year when I don't win both the Six Nations and the Boat Race! Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  Lucky you. I'm just a Light Blue Angle. Nothing but disappointment for me... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Rst20xx has a reasonable point here. A more comprehensive list would include all clergy. Although I admit that arch- and -bishops are inherently more notable, where does one draw the line? So, I would consider adding the others. It may mean you need to start the nomination again because of the volume of info you'd add, but.... maybe worthwhile.
    • Yes, I'm tending to agree, though it'd be more like 160/170 names more added, i.e. nearer 200 in total, because a number of clergy on the main list are included in other groups e.g. writers / historians, because that was what they were primarily known as. Let's see what we can do for now, though, shall we, to ease the journey next time? Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't mind adding the rest of the clergy in. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Images which are portrait usually ought to take the "upright" parameter as well as the "thumb" parameter. This may make them similarly scaled horizontally (although I can't say definitively because it's so long since I used it...!)
    • Tried that on a preview just now, it doesn't. Can't find anything about the usage of "upright" at MOS:IMAGES. Doesn't seem worth it if it makes no difference, so have not done this. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I suspect the MOS has changed in the past five months. I need to revise. Forgive me, once more. Ignore that one... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you recapitalised the A for Archbishop in the title? (don't let me get into that again...!)
    • Ignore that, I was looking at a redirect, not the current title, mea culpa... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • No, you were right, I did recapitalise because Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) has the specific example "List of foos: Physics and chemistry", indicating that a capital letter is appropriate after a colon in the title of a sublist even when the word is not a proper noun. I think it looks neater, too. Thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Not convinced, got into a massive debate with Rlevse about Astronauts, or astronauts. Archbishop is not a proper noun, as you exemplify in your lead, nor is the capitalisation of non-proper nouns after colons grammatically correct (as far as I'm concerned)... I'm sure our naming convention is generally in good shape but, perhaps, just maybe it ain't right here... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "a dash indicates that the individual graduated from another college" for sure? You're positive they all graduated and didn't "conclude studies" per your earlier note?
    • Reworded to "moved to another college before graduating or concluding studies". Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Did not graduate: left the college without taking a degree" this may be a bit Oxbridge or just a bit picky, or maybe it's to help the non-Academia types, but is it not possible to take a degree and fail it (in common parlance)? "Left the college without attaining a degree"? Just trying to avoid "jargon"...
    • Someone's sharp today! I think that one takes exams and fails, but one can't take a degree and fails, but I've changed it anyway to "without obtaining a degree", which I hope works. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • " an approximate year is used for table-sorting purposes." - do you have any reasonable and citable basis for each estimate or is it your own idea?
    • If I had a citable date, I'd use it instead! It's based primarily on age and the standard length of degree courses. What I've been doing is e.g. where someone graduates at age 21 in 1971, then I put in a hidden date for matriculation of 1968 so that you don't get all the "?" sorting unhelpfully at the top. Or someone matriculates in 1965 and graduates sometime later, probably 3 years later in 1968, but no reference gives the year. The "OR" in both cases would be to put 1968 in plain text, of course, but is it still OR when it's (a) hidden and (b) said to be an approximate year for table-sorting only? I think it would decrease the utility of this and its companion lists to remove such information, but would welcome views. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • For sure removing your estimations would detract from the table. Leaving the note about your approximation leaves you open to accusation of OR. It's a hard one, for sure. I realise getting the citable dates may prove impossible.... Oh bother. I guess for the purposes of table sort and the fact you aren't "publishing" approximations, it can slide... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Might just be picky again, but "coxed the college boat" is a tiny bit trivial really here. A Blue is one thing, but coxing the college is another. Even I've done that...
    • Yeh, but it wasn't the Jesus College boat, now, was it?! Nevertheless, text "bumped" from the article (sniff...). Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • No it wasn't. It was for the oldest light blue college. Two Olympic rowers mind you... only one of them Canadian... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you being consistent with page references? I see some with p. and some without. I would hazard a guess it's the template you're using but....
    • yes, it's the poxy templates. {{cite journal}} doesn't use "p." or "pp." in its output; I'm reluctant to add the missing letters because I'd only have to remove them if and when the functionality is added to that template to make it conform with {{cite book}}, for example. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Understood. No problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Update: I asked at the template talk page why "p." and "pp." weren't added automatically, and apparently it's a deliberate choice because some citation styles don't use "p."/"pp." for journals, only for books. How helpful. So I've gone through and added "p." and "pp." for consistency, as it appears that this problem is here to stay. Bencherlite^Talk 08:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The Jesus College, Oxford category is unnecessary as it is a supercat of Alumni of Jesus College, Oxford category.
    • OK. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, despite the Thames thrashing, a jolly good effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review; let me know the bill, and I'll put it on my tab. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ha-bloody-ha. You're welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment to FL Director

I think we're done here for now. Consensus is that I should add the rest of the clergy to the list, rename it (TRM And I Can Then Discuss Some More cAPITAL lETTER issueS) and I can come back in a while. Suggest archiving this as I won't be able to get the clergy added whilst this FLC is in extra time. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How rude. But I suspect this a good thing. Shout at me immediately when you need a review... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 17:14, 28 March 2009 [3].

---

Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season

Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I am submitting this for FLC as i think that it meets the critera after a lot of reworking to include all of the Best track information provided by RSMC Nadi. - Please note that this is the first timeline to come to FLC from WPTC, that is outside the NHCs AoR. Jason Rees (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead This timeline documents all the storm formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, as well as dissipation during the 2007-08 South Pacific cyclone season. -- shouldn't it be "dissipations"? The South Pacfic Cyclone season officially ran between November 1, 2007, and April 30, 2008, although Tropical Depression 01F formed outside of these official parameters, on October 17 2007. -- Remove the comma between 11/1/2007 and 04/30/2008 The timeline also includes information which was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, & the Fiji Meteorological Service such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on, have been included. -- (1)the & should be spelled out (2)remove the comma before the &/and (3)comma before such as (4)Remove , have been included, the reader has already been told this Tropical cyclones between 160°E and 120°W and north of 25°S are monitored by the Fiji Meteorological Service who are the Regional Specialised Meteorological Center for the South Pacific. -- Comma before who There is an WP:OVERLINK (overlink) of Fiji Meteorological Service Within this basin both RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington both use the Australian Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale. -- (1)Comma before both (2)The acronyms need to be assigned as (RSMC) with their spelled out names earlier [do this for all] (3)remove the both from both use its repetitive January 20 Is there an article for "extra tropical"? If not, I find no reason to link it and have it a red link RSMC Nadi reports that Cyclone Gene has intensified into a Category Two Cyclone after emerges back into the Southern Pacific. -- add it before emerges February 4 RSMC Nadi reports that Severe Tropical Cyclone Gene weakens into a category two tropical cyclone -- Isn't Category Two Tropical Cyclone supposed to be capitalized? General comment of timeline I see an inconsistency with extra tropical, extra-tropical, and extratropical, be consistent RSMC Nadi issues the final advisory on Tropical Depression 16F as it moves south, towards TCWC Wellington's, area of responsibility -- remove the comma after Wellington's Can some of the images be resized or removed, the last image overruns its section limits--₮RUCӨ 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Ok i think ive caught all of your comments but please shout if ive missed one. Thanks for the Review Jason Rees (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC) The only thing is that the image in the February section isn't sized correctly. Its too small.--₮RUCӨ 01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Sorted Jason Rees (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• My issues have been resolved, but I want to wait for other reviews to see if I missed anything since this is the first type of "cyclone" list I've reviewed (I'm more used to "hurricane" lists), and I want to see if the timeline image and timeline itself is up to standards. I will give my support once this happens, you can notify me if I don't common with days of the next review.--₮RUCӨ 01:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments and weak oppose for now Leaning Support Cyclonebiskit 03:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• You only need to link the time zones once, not each time (pardon the pun) they're used.
• The 2007-08 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone year started on July 1, 2007 and ended on July 1, 2008. Doesn't make sense, it should be ended on June 30, 2008
• If possible, try and get exact formation distances
• When you're not referring to a place or name, everything should be in lowercase.
  • There are still several places where I see this as an issue.
• When stating the category of a storm, the number should be in numeric form, not words
• The units for wind speed should be km/h (mph)
• 2100 UTC, (0900 FST, November 23) - RSMC Nadi issues its last summary on Tropical Depression 02F as it begins to dissipate. summary -> advisory
• 2100 UTC, (0900 FST, November 25) - RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Disturbance 03F has formed. where did it form?
• 0200 UTC, (1400 FST) - RSMC Nadi upgrades Tropical Depression 04F to a Category One Tropical Cyclone naming it Daman. add a comma after cyclone
• 1200 UTC, (0000 FST - RSMC Nadi reports that Severe Tropical Cyclone Daman has reached its peak winds of 195 km/h (120 mph) which makes it a Category Four Cyclone on the Australian Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale. Why is the scale fully stated here and not when it's first mentioned?
• 0600 UTC, (1800 FST) - RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Depression 10F has formed about 485 k/m, (300 miles) to the west of Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu. k/m?
• c0300 UTC, [[1500 FST) - Cyclone Funa makes landfall on Espiritu Santo. random [[ floating around, the little c should also be in italics (if I remember correctly)
• 0300 UTC - The JTWC designates Tropical Cyclone Gene as Tropical Cyclone 15P (Gene). Missing a reference
• The end of the timeline should be in June not July

Overall its a fair start, but it needs quite a bit of work to be a featured list. Most of the issues above are minor, but they're numerous which is why I'm giving it a weak oppose for now. Cyclonebiskit 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok Cyclonebiskit ive sorted your comments out Jason Rees (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of my comments have been addressed but following other comments, this timeline still isn't ready. My oppose stands until all other comments are resolved. Cyclonebiskit 17:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Spell out "FST" on its first use, because the link doesn't explain what it stands for - Done Jason Rees (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• July 1: The 2007–08 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Year officially starts. is this UTC or FST? Unclear right now - Done Jason Rees (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Each entry needs to state the local date as well as time - DoneJason Rees (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see that this has been done: October 17: 2100 UTC, (0900 FST) - RSMC Nadi upgrades..., November 25: 0600 UTC, (1800 FST) - RSMC Nadi upgrades... etc etc Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops i must off misread your comments - i will get right to it after i have tracked down the latest advisorys on Joni.Jason Rees (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DoneJason Rees (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is there an article or articles to link to to explain the differences between a Tropical Disturbance, Tropical Depression, Tropical cyclone - I dont think theirs any articles for Tropical Disturbance or Tropical Depressions but there is one for Tropical Cyclone Jason Rees (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• More wikilinking on FST at the end of the timeline needs removing

That's all for now, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Matthew Jason Rees (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There is nothing blatantly wrong with this article, but it isn't up to the standard set by timelines that have been promoted to FL in previous months.

• "This timeline documents all the storm formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, as well as dissipation's during the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season. " This sentence should be moved to the end of the paragraph. done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "2007–08 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone year" "year"-->season, why is "Tropical Cyclone" capitalized?

Comment - the season does not start on July 1 the year does also Tropical Cyclone is capitalized per the Tropical Cyclone Operational Plan Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "outside of these - Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "information which was not"-->information that was not - Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "a total of 16 tropical disturbances, 15 tropical depressions, four tropical cyclones and three severe tropical cyclones formed." "a total of" is redundant. Comparable quantities should be spelled out the same, either all numerals (16, 15, 4 and 3) or all words (sixteen, fifteen, four and three) Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Fiji Meteorological Service who are the Regional Specialised Meteorological Center (RSMC) for the South Pacific."-->Fiji Meteorological Service, the Regional Specialised Meteorological Center (RSMC) for the South Pacific. Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "P suffix"-->"P" suffix
• "Saffir Simpson Hurricane Scale"-->Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The JTWC storms are referred to numerically, to avoid confusion, as the JTWC sometimes recognises a storm at a different intensity compared to RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington." Just very confusing, I don't know what else to say.

Im not sure how to respond to this as i feel it is important for most timelines outside the NHCs area of responsibilty. Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Juliancolton to look at this list, perhaps he can help. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Dates should not have leading 0s. For example, "November 01"-->November 1 DoneJason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The listed events should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens. See this sample edit. Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Tropical Depression ex Daman" What do you mean by "ex"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That was the designation applied by RSMC Nadi as most of the warning centers remove the name when they downgrade to a Tropical Depression Jason Reeas (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a hyphen after "Daman". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Ref 15 needs format=PDF added to it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - A decent start, but it does need quite a bit of work. Examples:
• The 2007–08 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone year started on July 1, 2007 and ended on June 30, 2008. - Why is "tropical cyclone" capitalized? Also, "year" → "season".
• The 2007–08 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone year started on July 1, 2007 and ended on June 30, 2008. The South Pacfic Cyclone season officially ran between November 1, 2007 and April 30, 2008 - First, I honestly don't understand what this is trying to say. Also, notice the typo?

Ive removed the year part Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The timeline also includes information that was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC), and the Fiji Meteorological Service, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on. - "Also" is misused here.

DoneJason Rees (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The JTWC storms are referred to numerically, to avoid confusion, as the JTWC sometimes recognises a storm at a different intensity compared to RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington. - I've read this four times, and I'm still confused. - Ive sorted this out now Jason Rees (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• The timemline itself is hard to get through. Nearly every sentence begins with "RSMC Nadi reports..."

As far as i am aware that is the standard outside the NHC AoR as you have more than one agency reporting in this basin Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• MoS breaches; en dashes where hyphens should be used.

Im Confused which should it be a hypen or an en dash when we are listing events Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strange image captions, like "The track path of Tropical Depression 01F" - track path? Jason Rees (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Done

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Make sure your dates are all formatted properly. I see mostly (year)-(month)-(day), which is good, but I also see an occasional mixture of other forms. Can you check all of your citations please? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DoneJason Rees (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 16:38, 24 March 2009 [4].

---

Skunk Anansie discography

Nominator(s): Marcus Bowen (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because, I believe the information is accurate and reflects the style of many other featured lists in Wikipedia.Marcus Bowen (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"This is the discography of Skunk Anansie" Featured lists don't start like this anymore. See recently promoted FLs, such as Rufus Wainwright discography, for better opening sentences. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up!, how long will it be until the nomination expires?Marcus Bowen (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

At least ten days. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose/Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

General comment

• Fix the dabs (as found with the toolbox checker tool at the right)

Lead

• This is the discography of Skunk Anansie, an English rock band whose members include Skin (Deborah Dyer), Cass (Richard Lewis), Ace (Martin Kent) and Mark Richardson. -- No list should begin with "This is a _____" It should begin with a sentence like "The discography of (band) consists of (data as in how many of each part in the discography) The members can be mentioned later, see other discography FLs as a point of reference "done"'
• The group formed in 1994 and disbanded in 2001, before they reformed in 2009.[1]. -- Remove the extra period after the ref "done"'
• They are named after the West African folk tales of Anansie the spider-man[2], with "Skunk" added to "make the name nastier." -- (1)Isn't Spider-man suppose to have the S capitalized since its a proper noun in the title? (2)The comma belongs before the ref "done"'
• The band in 2004, were named as one of the most-successful UK chart acts between 1952-2003 by Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums, with a total of 141 weeks on both the singles and album charts ranking them at #491. -- (1)[opt.] Comma before in and after 2004 (2)Comma before ranking (3)Its not clear whether Guinness ranked them 491 or if that's their rank on the charts "done"'
• Their longest running release is 1996's Stoosh album with 55 weeks and a peak of #9. -- (1)55 weeks of ....(what)? (2)On which chart was this on, please state "done"'
• After their 2001 split, Skin has embarked upon a solo career, still using Skin as her name. -- Remove the link of Skin, its already linked beforehand and goes against WP:OVERLINK "done"'
• After their 2001 split, Skin has embarked upon a solo career, still using Skin as her name. Her debut solo album Fleshwounds, was released in September 2003 and Fake Chemical State was released in March 2006. She has also provided vocals for a number of other acts songs. Ace released a low-key album, Still Hungry under the name Ace Sounds, which featured many collaborations including Shingai Shoniwa from Noisettes and Skye from Morcheeba. He then joined a band called Inner Mantra. In 2002 Cass recorded the album Scars with Gary Moore, and played bass and performed backing vocals. In the same year Mark Richardson has since been playing drums for Feeder after the death of their original drummer Jon Lee. -- this whole paragraph should not be in this article and is not relevant to the "band's" discography, just the members individual discography work. As a result, the lead needs to explain more about their band work not their solo work. Some of this info includes more chart rankings and certifications for the albums. "done"'

Studio albums

• " — " denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country. -- this should be integrated into a spanned row in the table, see how it is in this FL. "done"'
• IFPI Norway -- do certifying companies like this not have articles on WP? (Since they aren't linked in the article) "done"'. There's only an article for IFPI, not for any of its individual countries.

Singles

• "—" Denotes releases that did not chart or were not elegible. -- same thing as above "done"'
• The 1999 single needs a ref to verify its existence since it did not rank. Done

B-Sides

• This is why its good to explain these types of things in the lead, like what is a "B-Side" "done"' In the lead I put a Wikilink to the article on B-sides.
• Rename the comments column as "Notes" "done"'
• Remove the full stops from all the 'comments/notes', they are not complete sentences "done"'
• Note I: The full name of the track on the Paranoid and Sunburnt album is "It Takes Blood and Guts To Be This Cool But I'm Still Just A Cliché". -- Source? "done"'

Miscellaneous

• Please reformat this section as a "Other appearances" section, as seen in this FL "done"'

Music videos

• Has any effort gone in to locate a director for the "Selling Jesus" video? "done"'

References

• Please format the refs that use the Wayback Machine correctly by adding it as in the work field"done"'
• What makes feederweb.com reliable? "done"'
• This is a constant problem in all discographies, the foreign charts should not have the publishers as the URL of the website but instead as the actual publisher (which is usually located on the bottom of each page or at the top) "done"'
• Amazon.co.uk is not the publisher Amazon.com is (just link to the appropriate UK section (if it has one), if not, pipe link it "done"'--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Please don't strike other people's comments without their consent. In addition, the lead still needs to be expanded and some of my comments were not addressed, like verifying the single in 1999 and adding more information in the prose to summarize the list Done.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Followup comments

• In 1995, Skunk Anansie released their debut album Paranoid and Sunburnt on the One Little Indian record label, after having released a few singles all of which appeared on the album. -- you mean leak?
• UK singles and albums charts need to be formatted as UK Singles and UK Albums charts, they are proper nouns. They are also needing links on their first occurrence
• The album peaked at #8 on the UK albums chart and was certified platinum with a gold certification in the Netherlands; the band also won the Kerrang! Award for "Best British Band" in that same year. -- it was certified platinum and gold?
• In 1996, Skunk Anansie released Stoosh, which was certified gold in several European countries, and became their second UK album to be certified platinum, peaking at #9 on the charts. -- what chart?
• Stoosh spawned their highest-charting singles in the UK and abroad, including "Hedonism (Just Because You Feel Good)", which reached the top 20 in various European countries, including a peak charting of #2 in Switzerland. -- what does abroad refer to here? Also, remove a peak charting per the context its not needed
• Remove the full stops from the other appearances tables notes, and rename the section from Comments to Notes
• Remove the full stop from -- All remixes are A-sides on CD singles as opposed to being B-sides.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There were quite a few issues in the lead, so I just copy-edited it myself. I have a few questions though:

• "consists of three studio albums and fourteen singles, which spawned sixty-four B-sides." Did the singles spawn the B-sides or the albums? Not clear from the text. Done
• What do you mean by "running alongside Britpop"? Done
• "with a total of 141 weeks on both the singles and album charts" Which charts is this phrase referring to? Done
• "Paranoid and Sunburnt on One Little Indian" Is One Little Indian a record label? Specify, and link if possible. Done
• "and went platinum"-->, certifying platinum Done
• "which went gold in several European countries"-->which certified gold in several European countries Done
• "Post Orgasmic Chill on Virgin" Specify that Virgin is a record label. Done
• "IFPI" Spell out this abbreviation. Done
• What sources are verifying the music videos and the B-sides? Done Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1142876/a/Pavarotti+&+Friends+For+Cambodia+And+Tibet.htm a reliable source? Done, Its mentioned in the tracklisting on the page.
• Can you use more descriptive publisher names? For example, instead of ifpi.se, you might use International Federation of the Phonographic Industry or something similar. Done Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

• What makes http://www.skinmusic.net/content/music/video.html reliable?
• I didn't understand your rationale for what makes http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1142876/a/Pavarotti+&+Friends+For+Cambodia+And+Tibet.htm a reliable source. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cannibaloki

Oppose by Cannibaloki (talk · contribs) File:Skunk anansie-01.jpg is copyrighted, remove and see MOS:DISCOG#Fair use materials TO BE COMPLETED Chart positions → "Chart peak positions" or "Peak chart positions" Done Certifications → [[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]<br /><small>([[List of music recording sales certifications|sales thresholds]])</small> Done Remove the columns of Australia, France, and New Zealand (from 13 to 10 per MOS:DISCOG#Per-release); Done Remove the b-sides, see MOS:DISCOG#What should not be included; Done " — " → "—" (without space please) Done Platinum (BPI) → Platinum (UK) or UK: Platinum Done Single → Song Done "Charity (re-issue)" → "Charity" (re-issue) Done Notes → References Done Don't have any external link? Done Cannibaloki 04:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support, all done. Cannibaloki 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Country names in the table headers should be bold and the refs should be on a new line.
• "FL" and "WA" should be renamed, according to what I was told at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sigur Rós discography (see the bit in the capped comments from Drewcifer
• Albums don't need relinking in the singles table.
• I'm sure it's unnecessary to list every single remix version that appeared on a single: "Brazen (Weep)" (Dreadzone Remix) on "Brazen (Weep)" CD2 for example, and "Weak" (Ackee and Saltfish Mix) on "Weak" CD2. That section should be for Skunk Anansi songs on non-Skunk releases.
• References need a cleanup:
  • Publishers should be wikilinked to where possible
  • Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and Albums has an article, so does HIT Entertainment
  • date format should be in dd mmmm yyyy , which is the format used in the body of the article, instead of ISO.
  • "Musiicline" is a typo.
  • Inconsistent attribution: "Skinmusic.net" vs "Skinny Pam". I also question reliability on this site.

That's all Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Columns which display similar information (eg, peak chart positions, song titles) should be the same width.
• I don't think it's true that "You'll Follow Me Down" was ineligible to chart. The chart rules [5] say that a maxi CD can have a total running time of 25 minutes and up to four songs plus alternative versions of the featured songs.
• Ineligible has been misspelt.

These are on top of the referencing problems already mentioned. --JD554 (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:39, 23 March 2009 [6].

---

List of Coupe de la Ligue winners

Nominator(s): Sunderland06 (talk)

Short as it may be, I believe it satisfies the Featured List criteria. All comments welcome, and will be addressed ASAP. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved review by Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The tournament was established in 1994;[2] though other similar competitions have been previously held in France. -- comma after though Done - Added comma. The winner of the first Coupe Charles Drago final was decided by a coin-toss after Sochaux and Toulouse finished level after extra time. -- after they finished level is a verb missing, or what does this mean (as to me it doesn't make sense) Done - Cleared up. In 1982, a Coupe d'Eté (Summer cup) was held before the start of the season; which was won by Stade Laval. -- season of what? Done - Added "French league". This tournement continued under the name of Coupe de la Ligue, until 1994, still before the beginning of the season. -- (1)Remove still (2)season of what? (3)typo on tournament Done - Done all three things. I'm confused (the coupe de la ligue mentioned in the above sentence is the same one today or not?) Comment - It is not, I think this sentence "The tournament in its current format started in 1994" clears it up. Gueugnon became the first team below the top division of France after beating Paris Saint-Germain in the 2000 final. -- you mean the first below "to win"? Done - Added "to win". The lead should state who was the most recent winner and an overall count of the winners. Done - Added these. Finals Why isn't the score and venues made sortable? Comment - Having the venues as sortable doesn't really add anything as there are only two venues to have been used. The coloured cells seemed to mess up the sorting for the scores, and I'm not sure how to fix it. I recommend (1)Remove the color coding and just leave the symbol or (2)Check out other sports related FLs to see how they format colored cells to sort properly, or (3)check out Help:Sortable table because its substantial to have that column sortable in these types of FLs.--₮RUCӨ 15:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC) User:Scorpion0422 has fixed this, cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC) References There is an inconsistency with the linking of the Ligue de Football Professionnel Done - Linked all. --₮RUCӨ 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues found in review resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Second sentence reads very oddly, and the punctuation is misplaced. I suggest "The tournament was established in 1994,[2] although similar competitions had been previously held in France" Done - Changed to that.
  • "was held before the start of the French league season; which was won by" - semi-colon should be a comma Done - Changed to comma.
  • "started in 1994, with entrance to the UEFA Cup" - reads as if entrance to the UEFA Cup was the first part of the tournament. Should be something like "started in 1994, with entrance to the UEFA Cup offered to the winning team" Done - Changed to that.
  • "The first three years of the cup had been held" - wrong on two counts, firstly the tense is incorrect, and secondly only the final was held there, not the whole cup - suggest simply "The first three finals were held" Done - Changed to that.
  • "Overall, there has been" => "Overall, there have been" Done - Changed.
  • "having won the cup three times" => "who have won the cup three times" Done - Changed.
  • "The current holders of the cup are Paris Saint-Germain, when they beat Lens" - very odd wording, why not just "....who beat Lens"? Done - Changed to that.
  • Is footnote A really necessary? I think most people can work out what "attendance" means in the context of a sporting contest Done - Removed, sorry for the delay in replies, something came up. All concerns now dealt with. Cheers.
• Cheers -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • All looks good now - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The Coupe Charles Drago was held from 1953 to 1965, it involved teams eliminated from the Coupe de France." Comma should be a semicolon. Done - Changed. "by a coin-toss after Sochaux and Toulouse tied 3–3 after extra time." Can we rephrase to avoid the "after ... after" repetition? Done - Changed to "when". "Another competition named Coupe de la Ligue existed from 1963 to 1965, this was run inline with Coupe Charles Drago for two years until they both ceased." The comma should be a semicolon. "run inline" is a bit confusing. Done - Changed to semicolon and changed "inline" to "alongside". "In 1982, a Coupe d'Eté (Summer cup) was held before the start of the French league season, which was won by Stade Laval." Ambiguous, was the season won by Stade or the cup? Done - Changed to ";the cup". "with entrance to the UEFA Cup offered to the winning team." "with" is usually a poor connector. You may want to make this a separate sentence. Done - Split it. "Only Strasbourg and Paris Saint-Germain have won the competition at both stadiums." Done - Removed "only". "Overall, there have been 14 winners of the competition, since 1995." Second comma not needed. Done - Removed comma. "three times"-->thrice Done - Changed. "The current holders of the cup are Paris Saint-Germain" Insert comma after here. Done - Added comma. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To me, seems good. I could not find any mistake.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Coupe de la Ligue and this article are both reasonably short. Is there any reason why they couldn't be merged together? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  Sure, I'll do this now. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  If this is being done, then is there any reason for this FLC to be running? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry? I don't follow. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  He's asking if you want to withdraw the FLC while you work on a merge. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, yeah that'll be fine. I withdraw this nomination until the merge is complete. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 19:35, 22 March 2009 [7].

---

List of CHA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament champions

Nominator(s): – Nurmsook! ^talk...

This is the first in a series of NCAA Division I men's ice hockey conference tournament lists that I hope to bring to FL status. I feel that it meets all aspects of WP:WIAFL, but of course am open to any suggestions or criticisms on how to improve it further. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw this nomination of the grounds of the proposed changes to WP:WIAFL. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General comment A bit short if you ask me, but since the 2009 event is this year, I guess it can pass the 10-limit guideline. Lead The tournament was first hosted at the Von Braun Center in Huntsville, Alabama with Niagara winning the inaugural event. -- comma before with Bill Wilkinson has coached three championship teams, more than any other CHA coach, while Doug Ross and Tom Serratore have the most championship game apprearances as coach with five each. -- (1)Typo on appearances (2)add "a" before coach with five each. The lead should state how many overall tournaments have been held, and a note about the 2009 event. Champions A lot of redlinks, but I guess that is generally okay, but if this is going to be done, the IRA venue should also be linked. References For the publisher of USCHO.com, that is not the name of the publisher, so the acronym of it should be spelled out instead For the publisher of collegehockeystats.com, should be ".net"--₮RUCӨ 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC) All of your comments have been addressed. As for the redlinks, they should all be notable, subjects so I'll create articles for them shortly. Thanks for your comments! – Nurmsook! talk... 01:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "At the completion" "At"-->After "Prior to this"-->Before this "was Niagara, who " Why is "who" used here? In American English, which should be used per WP:ENGVAR, teams are referred to as "which". "while the 2000 Niagara "-->and the 2000 Niagara "The tournament was first hosted at the Von Braun Center in Huntsville, Alabama, with Niagara winning the inaugural event."-->The tournament was first hosted at the Von Braun Center in Huntsville, Alabama, and was won by Niagara. "Ice Hockey Tournaments with three each." Comma after "Tournaments". "game appearances with five each." Comma after "appearances". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC) All done. – Nurmsook! talk... 02:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0102/boxes/malhwsu1.m16 (and the other collegehockeystats souces) a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.uscho.com/recaps/20052006/m/03/12/bsu-niag.php? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • USCHO.com is arguably the most widely recognized news site on NCAA college ice hockey. This is a staffed organization that also features work from other published authors. Further, USCHO.com is an official partner of CBS College Sports Network and sponsors a top national poll with them. USCHO.com is unquestionably a reliable source. Likewise, collegehockeystats.net is an up-to-date college ice hockey statistical database maintained by Timothy J. Danehy, a published author (ie: ISBN 0898715873, American Statistical Association Proceedings of the Section on Statistics on Sports, 1993, etc.) and Commissioner of the Liberty League. Both of these websites are run by reputable organizations and individuals and follow WP:RS's "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" notion. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your detailed explanations. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I am questioning whether or not it is really needed. The table is only ten items, and the College Hockey America (which isn't particularily long) also contains a list of championship games. I think it would be more useful to merge it back in there. There is a discussion about a new criterion at WT:WIAFL and if passed, this page might fail it. So, I'm hesitant to promote a page that could just end up at FLRC within a few months. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I just have to Support the Merge just because I believe that this article can fit into the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 22:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Due to the ongoing discussions I oppose this until they are resolved. I see no reason for this to be split out from here. Seems like a WP:CFORK to me. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to play the devils advocate and argue this as a justified list. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper and this article will grow. The CHA article itself will grow as well as I move to expand it. This is more of a consistency thing I believe. All of the other college hockey conferences will have these lists (I've created a couple thus far). It could easily be argued that List of Nashville Predators head coaches and List of Minnesota Wild head coaches—both lists with only one entry—could be merged back into their parent articles, but there seems to be consensus to keep them as is because of consistency. I fail to see how this is any different. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nurmsook, I think you had better take a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#New criterion discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I've been following the discussion there. I'm all for quality of quantity, so I think I'll just withdraw this FLC, but I won't merge the article into College Hockey America until this criteria discussion is sorted out. It's unfortunate, but I guess what can ya do. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Anything you can contribute to the discussion would be most welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009 [8].

---

List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an interesting, extensive, encyclopedic list. It suffers from inability to find complete lists in the early years before it was broadcast on television or the internet. Also, 2008 seems to be a partial list. Because www.imdb.com is not considered a WP:RS for certain purposes on WP, I have included as many other citations as I was able to find. I think this list is too extensive for merging into Victoria's Secret and I think it is extensive enough to be featured.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_[c]

• Where's the prose and lead? Both of them are way too short. I strongly consider you expand it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know how much more to add. There was one article that I remember reading from the Newsbank article archive that had someone discussing how he selectst the models. It says something like we start with our six contract girls, then we add about 10 girls who are considered the hottest in the world, then we add 10 iconic images of fashion and that about does it. I have thumbed through about 100 articles and I am having trouble searching for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone have any category suggestions for this list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Make a Victoria's Secret category? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Cool idea for a list, but I see alot of problems with the list at the moment.

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

I don't think presenting the date numerically is a appropriate here. Changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake" I don't think the slash should be there. An "and" would be more appropriate. Drewcifer (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC) There is no seperation between the lead and the bulk of the article. Additionally, per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the main points of the article but not add information not found in the article/list itself. So for instance the stuff about the dressing rooms might not be appropriate here. I was looking for filler. I could not find the article that I wanted as explained above. I will remove the dressing room stuff.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Some external links would be helpful. I added the Victoria's Secret website. Is there any other external link you think would be appropriate?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC) We don't start lists with just blindly repeating and bolding the list's title. Take a look at some more recent FLs for some example. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Starting a list as "This is a list of" should also be avoided. Again, take a look at some recently promoted FLs for some good examples. Drewcifer (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Is it O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Yup, just wikilink Victoria's Secret. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC) All of the column headers should be pluralized. Dates, Models, Locations. O.K. Why so many references? Do we really need four sources telling us that Heidi Klum was at an event? Try to limit it to one citation per model. How hung up are you on this. I am looking at this list and thinking, we don't really have any one reliable source. Maybe we should throw everything out there that we have. Maybe if I just alphabetized the lists that would be helpful. We are really just going by a bunch of newpaper publicity and IMDB. It is not like we have any one great source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I just found a way to minimize the refs while retaining them. I just created another column.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Much better; smart thinking. However the column header should be capitalized. Also the entire column should be centered. It's also showing up fairly wide on my screen, wider than it needs to be. I'd recommend forcing it to 2 refs per line by adding a line break after every two. Take a look at List of Nine Inch Nails tours for an example of what I mean. I also think it's unnecessary to have that column sortable. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The first paragraph has alot of very short, choppy sentences, which don't flow very well. I have expandeded. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Is "performed" the right verb here? Does a model perform in a fashion show? I'm not really sure...Drewcifer (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I think ""performed in is correct. It previously just said "performed".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Why is the table sortable? First column sort by date, ok so that's how the table starts out, chronologically. Second column, sortable alphabetically by the first letter of the venue. How is this helpful at all? In case someone wants to see which models performed in a fashion show at places beginning with "P"? Besides, the locations are all clumped together anyways, it's not like the show every came back to a certain place after a couple years. Third column, sortable alphabetically by the first letter of the first name of the model mentioned first. The order of the models presented seems somewhat arbitrary, so that's not that useful, especially the girl's first name. Fourth column, sortable by reference number? Again, not helpful. So I'm left wondering what the sort function is there to accomplish. Drewcifer (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC) unsorted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• IMDB is not considered a reliable source.
  • I tried to do this using newspapers and other publicity surrounding the events. There was no way to get complete lists. They are not published anywhere. Except for 2002, I would not have been able to complete the lists. I would argue that for certain type of information, IMDB is a WP:RS. Whereas, its biographical information can not be counted upon, I think its cast and crew information is reliable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Content on IMDB is often user-generated, and we have no way of knowing what has been added by users and what has been added by staff. Therefore, I see no scenario where IMDB could be considered reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I have contributed to cast and crew because my cousin played 2nd trumpet in the movie Ray. Basically, for cast and crew you submit information and then they review it before posting it online. It takes several weeks for them to confirm cast and crew additions. I think cast and crew is pretty reliable. Bio stuff cannot be confirmed so it is not reliable from them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I have my own page on IMDB, so I know how it works. Whether it seems "reliable" or not isn't the point; it must pass WP:RS, a test of how Wikipedia defines reliable. IMDB fails that test, and so it has been deemed unreliable in the past. If you disagree, feel free to bring up the topic at WP:RS's talk page, but I assure you this has come up before. Drewcifer (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Blogs and user generated content have been put on a new level, AFAIK. I believe the current standard is to evaluate the information being sourced in concert with the source. Where as IMDB is not reliable for biographical tidbits, I believe it is considered reliable for cast and crew. We are suppose to look at the information (in this case a cast of a televised fashion show) and ask do we consider this source to be reliable for the information attributed to it. I have never had significant issues with IMDB for cast and crew. For example, on my Tyrone Wheatley FA, which passed right when this standard changed, we had to determine if we considered pro-football reference a reliable source for certain types of statistics. It passed when people at the FAC said they believed for that type of information that source was reliable. A blanket statement that IMDB can not be relied upon is no longer the way I believe this is suppose to be considered. I believe we are suppose to say. O.K. We have 8 or 10 models that we know were in the show based on other sources. Do we believe the additional 15 or so on IMDB were also in the show. I think that is the current standard. Since we are augmenting the IMDB list with several reliable sources, I think we are good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
            • In my opinion, and I believe this is backed up by WP:RS, any content that has the potential to be user-generated cannot be considered reliable. Actor and crew lists are something that can and often are user-generated. Additionally, we consider a source reliable based on whether it fact-checks and cites its sources. In both cases, it is a clear no. From personal experience, I have updated and added to my own IMDB page and others', and have found it inconsistent at best. Like I said, you're welcome to bring this up at WP:RS for adjustment of the policy if you think it needs to be changed, but that is a discussion beyond the scope of this single FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
              • The policy has changed. See Talk:Tyrone_Wheatley#WP:RS_concerns. Tyrone Wheatley passed with several facts from a source that does not have a fact checking or citation system.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
                • I don't see any evidence here that policy has changed. I took a look at the article's FAC, and it looks like the reliability concerns were addressed by the SI quote. As current policy goes, reliability can be transferable: if one reliable source uses another source for information, that second source is considered reliable, since the first source has a reputation for fact-checking, and therefore would know that the second source is in fact reliable enough for them to depend on. This is what the SI quote did. So based on just this example, policy has not change at all. To my knowledge IMDB does not pass a similar test to the pro-football stats website mentioned in the other FAC. Drewcifer (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • Initial feedback from WP:RS is that staff actually makes the first pass at inputing cast and crew and users make amendments. This has been my experience. I have not found incorrect information, just omitted information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
                    • I think WP:RS is the more appropriate space for this discussion, so I'll move it there. For the meantime, however, I'll stick with my oppose based on this point and the others I've made, until we have a resolution at WP:RS or I'm just shown to be completely in the minority. Drewcifer (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• What makes TVacres.com reliable?
  • I have exhausted my resources for that year. The choice is a list of six models for 1999 or the list of 21 that resulted from this edit based on the source in question. The list is believably reliable. The first six I would say are about a 9.5 on a certainty scale to have been models for the event. The additional 15 are about sixes on the reliability scale. I chose to add believable information. I don't think the list would be improved by omitting it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Same as above: whether you think it is "believably reliable" or not isn't the point, it must pass WP:RS. I'm not saying it doesn't necessarily pass WP:RS (like I'm saying IMDB doesn't), I'm just asking you to prove that it does. Drewcifer (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps in the table it might be worthwhile to point out which models are the Angels. Like italicize their names or something.
  • This is not an article about the Angels. The Angels do not have an article and there is no good historical account of who the Angels are at any given time. It would add confusion to a list already slightly deficient for incompleteness, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair-enough, just a suggestion. Drewcifer (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I have found a resource for Angels historical info, but I don't think it is a very good WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• "is a partial listing" why isn't it complete?
  • Prior to it being a nationally televised event records are kind of sketchy. In the television ERA (2001-present) we can correct for the sketchiness of the records by using IMDB. Otherwise in most years you will only find out about the Angels and a few other favorites who are listed in newspaper articles about the event each year. Prior to the internet era, it was not much more than a local fashion event. Unless the company avails an official list, we will never be able to figure out who all the models were.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, having a difficult time finding information isn't an excuse for the list to be incomplete. If that information is completely lost for all of history (which I doubt), then I would argue that this list could never be complete enough to satisfy the FL criteria. But I'm confident this information is somewhere. If prior to the internet era it was a local fashion show, then local newspapers would probably have some info. Maybe old Victoria's Secret catalogs might have something. Saying "I can't find it on the internet" isn't a good excuse, in my opinion. Drewcifer (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • You may not have noticed, but I am using local newspapers for the pre-internet era. Basically Newsday and New York Post provide the little information that we have. I believe executives at the company do have the information, but it is not available in PD, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• There shouldn't be a line break in the middle of a date. Add a   for any spaces in the dates. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It is using a template for the dates (for sortability). This is not possible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I see. Well that leads me to something else that bothers me:
• Also, what is the relevance of the specific dates? Since the focus of the list is the models, why do we care that a show was on December 8, 2008? And why do we care that is was actually aired a week or two later? I think the only relevant chronological data is the year, since there's only one show every year and the month and day seem to be pretty arbitrary, or at least inconsistent from year to year. Drewcifer (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • • • There are two types of viewers of the event. There are live viewers and television viewers. We should provide them with dates that the event occurred I think having dates is far better than for example VS Fashion Show #7. Also, in this case, we have an event that has trended from a random date, to Valentine's Day, to the Cannes Film Festival to the Christmas Holidays. The date of the event is important.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't have time to review everything, but I did notice some minor issues

• "November 14, 2002(aired)" and all the other one should have a space between the date and the parenthesis
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• All ref name should be converted to lower case even though the website shows the title in capital letters
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• If possible, it should have an image
  • How about 5?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

—Chris! _ct 00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • 5 is a bit excessive, I think.—Chris! _ct 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
      • There are six current Angels with pics on their bios. I was going to add a sixth just to be fair. I think all the Angels should be treated equally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm concerned about the article itself, since it states that This is a partial listing, lists, mainly about related subjects as such, need to be complete.--₮RUCӨ 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe it is complete from 2001-2007. 2001 was the first national televeision broadcast. I have explained this issue above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • • COMPLETED 2008 with http://www.fashionologie.com/2509477.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh okay, I guess its suitable. I just don't like the size of the lead. It needs to be expanded to say a little bit more about the history of the competition and more about the models.--₮RUCӨ 04:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Is that enough?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, now it states more about the history of the event and where it has been held versus the models themselves (which is what the list is supposed to be about). I also recommend reformatting the way the models are listed in the table, maybe bulleted from would work better.--₮RUCӨ 15:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I have alphabetized the names. I also created Template:2000-2009VSFashion Show and Template:1995-1999VSFashion Show. When you say bulleted form are you talking about the way they appear in these templates?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Are there examles of bulleted featured lists?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
            • When I said bulleted list, I mean that within the tables the contestants were listed in bullets, or maybe separated with the following symbol found in the toolbox, •--₮RUCӨ 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
              • This is simple to do. I could just copy it from the templates above. However, I don't recall seeing featured lists that have used that technique.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Or get someone else's input about it, because its a rare formatting. Also, expand the lead more about the models.--₮RUCӨ 00:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's rarity is why I am sort of hesitant. I'll watch for further feedback on the issue. I think now that they are alphabetized, the list are easier to use than when you first looked at them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll see what comes about on that issues. For now, the lead still needs work.--₮RUCӨ 01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Help request After double checking the 2008 refs, I noticed that 34 of the 35 models are sourced and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is not properly sourced. I have found the following unconventional sources. Please advise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mWMq5ovAso (If you don't want to torture yourself with 5 minutes of devilish beauty you should skip to the 4 minute mark and look for number 9); Also at http://www.newsgab.com/forum/celebrity-pictures/63157-rosie-huntington-whiteley-victorias-secret-fashion-show.html; http://www.gunaxin.com/victorias-secret-fashion-show-models-power-ranking-2008/4850; or http://www.freewebs.com/rosiehuntingtonfans/index.htm. They are unconventional because they would not be traditional WP:RS for text, but for video and photo they are pretty much uncontestable. Can I use any of these and hope for FL?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems

1. The page name doesn't conform with WP:Naming Conventions because "Fashion Show" shouldn't have first capital letters.

   According to Wikipedia:Naming_Conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words_in_titles, Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is a proper name. I.E., it is the title of an annual event. "Victoria's Secret fashion" shows might be random shows held throughout the country, but the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is the name of an event. The proper correction is to put it in in italics within the text of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know it that this was the name of the fashion show. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The current list is more about List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Shows than about List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models. You should have a section for every single model instead of repeating their name in the list. (Awaiting the debate)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

   I am not so sure I understand what you want. I think you want a different article named List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models (alphabetical) and then the current article could be renamed List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models (by year). However the article you are asking for would be redundant with List of Victoria's Secret fashion models.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that the list is more focused toward the occurrence of the show than on the models of the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. A more appropriate name would be List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Shows, because this is what the list is about. 70% of the prose is about the show itself than the models. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with that page move. The problem is that it does not really summarize the shows very well. It would need things like musical acts and such to be featured caliber under that title.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is more toward the fashion shows. So either you keep the current name and reorganize it to focus on models (a lot of work) or move it to the other name and expand it to include the things that you mentioned before.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Diaa somewhat, as I think the focus of the list is a little off right now. It's formatted and presented as if it's about the shows (not the models), but there isn't really enough data on a per-show basis, just date, location, and models. If it was meant to be about the shows themselves, I would expect more data like network it aired on, ratings, maybe the individual lines of lingerie they were advertising that year, maybe a prief prose-based rundown of the whole event, etc. Maybe not all that or even those things specifically, but something a little bit more in depth. As it is, the list is neither about the models or the events, it's really just a wierd hyrbid that accomplishes neither. This somewhat goes along with my comment about about italicizing the names of the angels, though this suggestions woul push things in the opposite direction. Either way would be fine with me, but right now the list is straddling the fence. Drewcifer (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are sort of two approaches one could take to adding model information.

1. One could associate each model with a country like at List of Victoria's Secret fashion models and talk about the number of models from each country in given years.
2. One could emphasize which models debuted in given years with text like "2007 marked the debut of Marisa Miller."

I don't know but the prose still doesn't say much about the models themselves, it just states which year they were featured in. I recommend renaming the list to an events list or expand it with a prose on the models themselves.--₮RUCӨ 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of the ongoing debate over the nature and scope of this article, I will remain neutral. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I am only reviewing for prose, formatting and sources. I will leave discussions about the scope of the list to other reviewers. "near Valentine's Day"-->around Valentine's Day--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I am not so thrilled about the suggestion and changed it to the days preceding Valentine's Day "two to three dozen" Ambiguous, is it (2 to 36) or (24 to 26)? clarified--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "In a typical year this includes about a half dozen women under contract to the company"-->In a typical year this includes about a half dozen women under contract to the company I don't see a correction, but I added a comma.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "television ever since that year" O.K.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "Prior to "-->Before O.K.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "2006 & 2007" No ampersands, per some MOS page. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "November 13 2007" Missing comma. O.K.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "The 2007 angels who were honored" O.K.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "fancy themed"-->fancy-themed O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "supermodels of the day" "of the day" means what, exactly? "include models from a wide variety of countries, with most parts of the world represented"-->include models from most parts of the world O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "The 2008 show had no Asians among its 35 models, however."-->The 2008 show did not have Asians among its 35 models. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC) In the table, you link France but not New York City or Los Angeles, although all three are well known locations. I'm not asking you to do something one way, but please make it consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I think if you put most English-speaking wikipedians in front of a globe and asked them what part of the country LA, NY and Miami are they might not be too far off. If you put them in front of a map and asked what part of France is Cannes in and they would be lost. I could link all cities though--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Why is IMDb used?
  • It is the only source of seemingly complete model lists for 2001-2007.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• What makes the following sources reliable:
  • http://www.popcrunch.com/victorias-secret-angels-hollywood-walk-of-fame/#more-8140?
    • The source is verifyable as it is a picture of 8 identifyable people. Unless you are contesting that the image was photoshopped it is reliable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.tvacres.com/admascots_angels.htm? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I admit I have not read all of the above. But I have to oppose this for a few reasons:

• Ref 25: fashionologie.com says "fashionologie is the musings of a twenty-something American girl" - I'm pretty sure it's just a (well-presented?) blog.
  • The source is verifyable as it is a set of pictures of the women in the show. Unless you are contesting that the images were photoshopped it is reliable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Refs 35, 41, 45, 48 ,49: IMDb is not a reliable source. I appreciate this information may be difficult to find elsewhere, but it doesn't make the source any more reliable.
  • Discussion is ongoing about IMDb at WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Shows in the 1990s were held in the days preceding Valentine's Day" - 1995 was in August!
  • Well after the first one. I'll change the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "and almost had Seymour make an appearance at the New York Stock Exchange" - relevent?
  • Everyone was clamoring for news about the models. There is not much news. Most stories are puff pieces.
• Where is the rest of 1998: Ref 6 states "the luscious Victoria's Secret girls", plural so I guess it wasn't just Seymour.
  • Publicity for that year was low, and I am unable to find any listing. Help appreciated. This was the last year before it went to the internet. My guess is someone screwed up the publicity so bad that they turned it over to someone new who put it on the internet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Prose needs sharpening: e.g. "In 1999 and 2000,[9][10] the show was broadcast live on the internet, but the 2000 show was moved for a year from the usual Febraury event at the Plaza to a May event in concert with the Cannes Film Festival in South France.[11][12]"
  • "but" indicates some sort of affect of the move with the internet so it is probably the wrong word.
  • "2000 show was moved for a year from the usual Febraury event", I guess the show wasn't moved from the event, as I guess the event didn't go on without the show - reword.
  • "moved for a year from the usual Febraury event at the Plaza" - sounds like it was the first year away from the Plaza but 1999 wasn't in the Plaza either.
• Reference 52 is explicitly used after the location, which suggests the other year locations are not cited. Whereas ref 6 for 1998 only cites the date/location (not models) but is in a different place - please be consistent with your style.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• "supermodels of the day" - not a very encyclopedic term
• "broadcast on network television", what network?
  • I added the network for the first year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Was the 2001 show televised live then?
  • No. I have corrected the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Apparently 1999 was a "record for any Webcast"[9] - worth a mention surely.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009 [10].

---

Michael Jackson filmography

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16

I am nominating this filmography because I feel it meets the Featured List criteria. The list includes Jackson's appearances in music video, film, TV, and has been copy-edited by User:Realist2. Pyrrhus16 16:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Music videos aren't generally filmography material, they are part of discographies. It shouldn't be mentioned in this article, except for his notable ones (but not listed).--₮RUCӨ 21:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jackson doesn't have a "discography". He has a specialized singles discography and a specialized albums discography, due to size issues. — R² 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh. I see a lot of wording for many of the sections, which is generally not how many filmographies are set up (from what I have seen at FLC). I'm a bit uncomfortable reviewing this one, maybe after others review it I will, but right now I'm a bit edgy, I hope you understand.--₮RUCӨ 21:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I intend to review this either today or tomorrow, so don't worry about not receiving feedback. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, we were starting to get a little worried lol. — R² 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) No time for a full read, but I can tell from the lead alone that the article is not yet a smooth read. I suggest finding someone uninvolved to copy-edit:

• "at the age of 11"

Done

• "The seventh child of the Jackson family" Trivial info for a filmography.

Done

• "In the early 1980s, Jackson became a dominant figure in popular music and the first African-American entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV." These are strong claims. Do you have a source?

Done

• "The popularity of his music videos airing on MTV,"-->The popularity of his music videos that aired on MTV,

Done

• "a 17 minute film costing $30 million"-->a 17-minute film that costed $30 million

Done

• "was the most expensive video produced per-minute upon it's release."-->was the most expensive video to produce (in dollars per minute) on its release.

Done

• "Some of his short films drew controversy for their violent and sexual elements, others were lauded by critics and awarded Guinness World Records." Semicolon, not comma.

Done

• "Starring in The Jacksons in 1976, a variety show featuring the Jackson family, the singer went on to appear in films such as Men in Black II and Miss Cast Away. " Split this sentence up.

Done

• "Creating his own feature length movie, Moonwalker, at a cost of $23 million, several of Jackson's films are notable for their runtime." Dangling participle. Did "several of Jackson's films" create his own feature length movie?

Done

• "Jackson's Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever performance, received critical acclaim" Comma not needed.

Done. Pyrrhus16 15:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Jackson's interviews have dealt with the controversial topics surrounding him" This phrase could be pruned quite a bit. Here is a solution I thought up (not the best, but an improvement): "Jackson's interviews usually concern his controversial acts"

From these issues in the lead alone, I will not read further until a third party is brought in to fix things up. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've split the sentence for your last concern. Pyrrhus16 13:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be gone for five days, so I will summarize my position here: I will only rescind my oppose if the prose has been significantly combed through by a third-party editor. If it looks like my concerns have been resolved, feel free to promote and disregard my oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: The article has since had a further copy-edit by User:Iridescent. Pyrrhus16 07:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I have no time to look over the changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Why not Michael Jackson videography? This is really a filmography? Cannibaloki 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be a better title, we can definitely change it after the FLC is closed. :) The last time I tried doing that during an FLC, it caused all kinds of problems. :) Pyrrhus16 13:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we want to move the list? I can take care of it if you want. What is the desired new title? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Michael Jackson videography" is the desired title. :) Pyrrhus16 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We need an admin to do it. I will ask Matthewedwards. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrrhus16 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Still not happy Moving down, I still see problems:

• "Jackson's video making continued throughout the 1990s, some films drawing controversy" The second clause is not grammatical.

Done

• "It featured scenes construed as having a sexual nature as well as depictions of violence." The parallelism is confusing: Could the scenes be construed as having depictions of violence or were there actually violent scenes?

Reworded

• "it gained 11 MTV Video Music Award Nominations" "received" is a better word.

Done

• "The offending scenes in the final half of the 14-minute version were edited out to prevent the video from being banned, and Jackson apologized."-->Jackson apologized for the offending scenes in the final half of the 14-minute version, which were edited out to prevent the video from being banned

Done

• "and later replaced with a music video"-->and was later replaced with a music video

Done

• "It's not political. It's not fascist. It's pure, simple love". I'm thinking that the quotation should be outside the period in this case.

Done

• "Jackson's short films have also been recognised "

Done

Simply not ready yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 16 should be using Template:Cite video, not Template:Citation. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Added a URL and used Template:Cite web. Pyrrhus16 14:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Rockk3r 20:53, 20 March 2009 [11]

---

List of awards and nominations received by Iron Maiden

Nominator(s):  Rockk3r Spit it Out!

I recently created this list. After some edits got the help from another user, Cannibaloki. I think it looks pretty good, if there's anything that can be imrpoved on the page, please don't hesitate to comment it. In my opinion this list is ready to be a FL.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Fix the dab (as found with the checker tool in the toolbox)

Lead

• One of the most commercially successful heavy metal bands of all time, Iron Maiden have sold over 70 million albums worldwide. --> As one of the most..
• For their live performances, Iron Maiden received a nomination for Kerrang! Awards in the category Best Live Act in 2003, and was awarded as Best British Live Act at the BRIT Awards in 2009. -- (1)a nomination for Kerrang! Awards --> a nomination from (the) Kerrang! Award [I'm not sure whether it requires the the] (2)add the before Best British Live Act at the BRIT Awards in 2009.
• Their mascot Eddie, who in the past was used by U.S. critics to argue that Iron Maiden were Satanists,[5] received a Golden Gods nomination in 2006, but lost to singer Cristina Scabbia;[6] and was awarded in 2008. -- (1)Unlink U.S. its a common geographical term per WP:OVERLINK (2)the final and should be a but

Awards

• Each awarding body needs a purpose and a source verifying their purpose and existence.

References

• What makes gigwise, YLE Pop, and Rock on the net reliable?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is this list even needed? I mean, Iron Maiden is a major act, but more than half of the awards are magazine awards. This page really says nothing that couldn't easily be stated at Iron Maiden. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I'd say the same about Metallica's article, Slipknot's, NIN's, Soundgarden's, and so on. One of the most unneeded articles are the concerts by NIN, which could be splitted into different articles, bout instead is a FA. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, most of those lists should not be FLs. Your excuse is that other crap exists. Basically, people create these lists because they see how easy it is to reach FL status. I've failed in my duty as director by letting this happen and I want to try to clean the process up. The first thing to do is to try to improve these small small-scope lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I totally agree with your opinion. I'll withdraw the article from the FL candidates, and try to imrpove it as much as possible. Then, I'll show it to you and have your opinion on wether it should stay as FL or not.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 20:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:45, 13 March 2009 [12].

---

List of Speed Grapher episodes

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

Another episode list for your consideration. A minor warning: the contents of this list are quite disturbing. To quote one reviewer, "It's dark, the fetish angle has the potential to make folks very uncomfortable, and it's violent." Now that I've given fair warning, good luck! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 03:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments Make use of the episodelink parameter of the cite episode template. Done. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "ou" -> "ō" Switched. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "BREAK THE COCOON" - Should be title-cased. De-capped. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "FUNimation" -> "Funimation" (though this may be a borderline case...) De-capped. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "Don't use italics within quotations." I assume you mean the references? I've removed the italics. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Did you make the romanizations yourself? I'm no expert either but I'd romanize 唸る札束 as "Unaru Satsutaba" instead of "Unagi Satsu da na". Maybe ask an expert for help? What is a "fetish club"? Wikilinked. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "The English adaptation was licensed to Funimation" - Without giving a date, the use of past tense suggests that Funimation no longer holds that license. Changed tense. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "a box set was released." - What's in it? Clarified. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) What about Region 2? Did Gonzo release it to DVD? Added info. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "U.S." - Single occurence... Won't hurt to write it out. Written out. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) ""Girls on Film" by Duran Duran served as the opening for all of the episodes." - Wrong tense. It still is the opening, is it not? Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "The episodes have three official pieces of theme music" - I wasn't aware that episodes could own music pieces. (multiple occurences) Fixed wording. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "The episodes have three official pieces of theme music" - They are "official" opposed to what? Fixed when I changed the wording for the previews point. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "The opening theme in the English DVD releases was therefore replaced by "Shutter Speed" by Shinkichi Mitsumune.[6]" - What was used as opening when "aired on the Independent Film Channel"? Noted and cited. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "The opening theme in the English DVD releases was therefore replaced by "Shutter Speed" by Shinkichi Mitsumune.[6]" - I don't see [6] citing any of this. Fixed. I had the citations in the wrong places. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "Speed Grapher is not based on any other media but has spawned both a manga and a light novel." - I don't like the use of the word "spawned" here. It's unnecessarily metaphorical. It's also not necessary to say that it is not based on another media unless the reader has reason to make such a (false) assumption. And I'd like to see a citation for both manga and light novel. Fixed and cited. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "Speed Grapher is an original work and has been adapted into both a manga and a light novel." -- Goodraise (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "The six DVD compilations" - What six DVD compilations? Tweaked wording. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) You're using "The six DVD compilations" as if you had introduced them already. Your tweak didn't change that. It's weird to read. How about something more like "who released it to Region 1 in six DVD compilations, each containing four episodes, between July 2006 and March 2007 and on iTunes"? -- Goodraise (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Moved some stuff around, hopefully fixing the issue. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "betwee" -> "between" Deleted that section anyway. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "theme music, one opening" -> "theme music: one opening" Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I don't see it. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "twelve uses "Hill of Poppies"" Removed that and the other instance of it. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I don't see it. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "Independent Film Channel was therefore "Shutter Speed"" - Tense. "The opening theme for both the English DVD releases and the aired episodes on the Independent Film Channel was is therefore "Shutter Speed"" Fixed both. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I don't see it. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Finally fixed. I could have sworn I fixed that. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) "Speed Grapher also aired on the Independent Film Channel" - "Also"? Where else did it air. This is an unexpected turn in the prose. It's not sensible. Tweaked. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The whole second paragraph seems a bit chaotic. Are you attempting to give events in chronological order? I'd rather sort by media or region/language. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I've sorted it by media and it looks a little better.... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Region 2 releases should go first. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Err, clarified. That was idiotic of me. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) "the members of the fetish club, the Roppongi Club." Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) The English licensor should be named before the English network. Put "bentō" in italics. Done. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) "Suitengu tries to collects money from a member of his club" Removed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Expand contractions. Done. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) What is a "secret club in tandem"? That's a bit taken out of context, but I've reworded it. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) "At the Tennōzu Mansion, Saiga frees Kagura escapes." - Is this missing an "and"? Yep, nice catch. Added. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) What are "Euphorics"? Clarified. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Why does he "reflect[...] the shot off of a piece of glass"? Clarified. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) The second paragraph could use a bit of prose optimization. (3 "also" in 4 sentences is a bad sign.) I'm working on the second paragraph, but I will probably need someone else to look at it. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) The single sentences look odd, but its better organized this way. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• "The "goddess" kisses him, however, and Suitengu orders Saiga's death." - Why not "The "goddess" kisses him and Suitengu orders Saiga's death"? What is the relation of the kiss and the order to kill?
  • Clarified. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "The "goddess" kisses him, interrupting the ceremony so Suitengu orders Saiga's death." - This is still not clear enough. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Expanded in ep1. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I still don't see the relation between the order to kill and the kiss. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
          • It's not immediately clear in the episode either. However, the viewer later learns that Kagura's kiss confers desired abilities, so Suitengu's initial reaction is to kill someone who has gained the powers without his permission. Not really sure how I could work this into the summary... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• How can an emtpy lunch box make you ill?
  • Clarified. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "After she arrives at school, Kagura falls ill from malnourishment because her mother has been giving her an empty bentō every day." - The problem isn't solved yet. I assume: She falls ill because her mother doesn't give her enough food. Giving her an empty bentou has another reason. Perhaps it is to hide that malnourishment from the teachers and fellow students? -- Goodraise (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Clarified in ep2. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I still don't see how "giving her an empty bentō every day" can cause malnourishment. How is mentioning the bentō adding anything to that paragraph? -- Goodraise (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
          • The only way the viewer can tell that Shinsen is malnourishment Kagura is through the empty boxes and the lack of lunch. Kagura doesn't ever eat lunch, it seems. The discovery that the bentō is empty is key to the viewer understanding her malnourishment. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Why is "goddess" sometimes quoted and sometimes not?
  • She's not really a goddess, so whenever I refer to her as such out of context (i.e. not mentioning the club). ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not good. If she isn't really a goddess, then you need to explain what it means to be that club's "goddess". -- Goodraise (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Clarified in ep4. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't see it clarified there. Even if I did, explaining it somewhere later in the article isn't good enough. If you introduce a term from within the fictional world, you have to explain what it means on first usage. Just putting it in quotation marks doesn't solve the problem. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
          • It isn't explained in the first episode. She's called "goddess" throughout the episode, and no explanation is given. Would it be easier to drop the quotations altogether? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Is he already in jail at the beginning of the episode? If no reason for his being there is given, you could point that out to avoid making the reader think you (as the writer of the summary) are withholding information from them.
  • Nope. He's out taking photos of politicians at the start of the episode, so that doesn't fit either. The plot holes are of the episode itself. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• "to earn enough money to survive" - Perhaps change this to "for a living"?
  • Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• "causing a strange reaction in his body" - How can you tell? What is it the viewer actually sees happening?
  • Well, he begins twitching and his body, especially the area around his eye, begins changing color, but it really doesn't seem important enough to mention. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Why are you at first withholding that the goddess is Kagura? Does her transformation change her so much that she is unrecognizable?
  • Kagura isn't introduced until the second episode, and her appearance as a goddess is significantly different from her normal appearance. Personally, I realized that she was the goddess purely by inferring (and by the fact that there really is only one female lead in this), but it isn't explicitly shown or stated until later. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• "When Kagura returns home, she discovers her mother having sex with her teacher in her room." - What does it matter in which room they're doing it?
  • Removed the excess info. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Suitengu makes Kagura fall asleep and return to her form as the Club's goddess." - How are these actions accomplished?
  • He whispers something that seems to cause her to fall asleep. Some kind of conditioning, I'd guess? Information added. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• "his wounds oddly heal" - What is "odd" about his wounds healing?
  • I would find it odd if someone's wounds spontaneously closed up and healed. Changed "oddly" to "quickly". ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• "When he finally is able to pause to rest, he discovers that the camera has not changed: he has." - What makes him realize that?
  • I didn't find that to be important enough to mention, considering he just finds sticky fluids coming out of his hand onto the camera. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• "However, Saiga unearths information about Suitengu and the Roppongi Club at the same time." - Is he unearthing information about those two at the same time or is he unearthing information at the same time as "Suitengu and his men discover the identity of Saiga and begin to track him down"? And how is the time he does it relevant in the first place?
  • At the same time as "Suitengu blah blah blah". Clarified. They plan to attack at the exact same time, so it seems coincidental that their timings match. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Under the billboard bearing Saiga's famed photo, Kagura and Saiga reunite." - What billboard bearing what famed photo of his? Perhaps you mean: "Under a billboard bearing a famed photo of Saiga's, Kagura and Saiga reunite."
  • Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, as I can't get past a single summary without finding these kinds of prose issues and I haven't even read past ep4. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see why most of these points need to be clarified, barring the important ones, like Kagura's "goddess" status. I just restated what happened, but I'm really in no place to explain why, nor do I feel it is necessary in an episode summary. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: per the official TV Asahi site, this show was aired on Thursdays at 26:40, which rolls over to Friday 02:40; the Japanese airdates should be moved up one day. —tan³ tx 01:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does it really work that way? The current ref I have says otherwise. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's a matter of actual date versus marketing date; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 23#Japanese original run and release dates. —tan³ tx 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, changed. That's odd and incredibly annoying. Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is this something that can be changed on your previously promoted FLs? Check. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The writing needs work, and I'm not even referring to grammar or conciseness. My main concern is that readers will find it hard to follow what is going on. Find someone who has never read the article. Ask them to look at the it and identify/fix the ambiguities.

• "into both a manga and a light novel."
  • Removed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Funimation released Speed Grapher to Region 1 as six DVD compilations" "as"-->in.
  • Replaced. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• "box set containing "-->box set that contains
  • Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The series aired between March 7 and August 15, 2008 for viewers in the United States." Understood.
  • Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• The first summary needs reorganization. The writing isn't bad on the clause level, but the sequence of events is poorly presented and readers will be utterly confused. Here are some of the issues:
  • "Tatsumi Saiga, a former war photographer, has been photographing politicians to survive." Is there a reason why photographing politicians would enable him to survive? Many readers, including me, will take the "to survive" phrase literally. Is it supposed to be that way?
    • Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Then, all of a sudden, after background on Saiga, we have "Katsuya Shirogane, a dancer, breaks a girl's arm for being stiff." What?
    • You know, I blame this entirely on the fragmented nature of the episodes themselves. I will be needing a bit of time to fix this issue as I need to rethink the way these episodes are written. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Even more confusing is what comes next: "A policewoman gets Saiga out of jail." When did he land in jail in the first place? Why?
    • I don't actually know. He is never seen being thrown in jail. A scene after the dancer, we see him in jail with no explanation, so I don't exactly know how to fix this. I gather that he was thrown in jail for taking pictures of a politician, but that's a bit WP:OR and I'd err on the side of caution here. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Saiga manages to make his way into the club while pursuing a Diet member. At the center of a ritual, he manages to photograph the club's "goddess." Logical punctuation, the quotation marks should be inside the period. The repetition of "manages to" is annoying, especially since it's not really necessary in either instance.
    • I blame my former English teachers. Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "furious at his club has been discovered" You mean "that", not "at".
    • Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Suitengu, furious at his club has been discovered, orders that Saiga be captured and killed, but the "goddess" kisses him before Saiga is beheaded, causing a strange reaction in his body. " Don't leave readers hanging. What does happen to Saiga? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This episode doesn't reveal his fate, but ends with him madly twitching... I can add what happens, but it's not in this episode at all. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In any event, I withdraw this nomination. This clearly needs more time and a few more eyes before it even has hope of passing. I need to spend some time and reframe this entire episode list, as the ideas and concepts behind the series are truly quite strange for those who have not watched it. Thanks for the comments, and apologies for the premature nomination. Further comments can either be dropped at my talk page or at the talk page of the list. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 22:14, 7 March 2009 [13].

---

List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes

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

I am nominating this for featured list because it's as good as any other Featured episode list. I'v been working on it the last few days. Everything looks okay. Lead section is a little long at 4 paragraphs, but considering the number of list entries I think it's appropriate. Each episode is individually referenced, seasons are referenced also. No episode summaries because each episode has an article. In the future I may make season pages. Thanks for looking. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note: Nominator is a WikiCup participant. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Can an image be found to be added in the lead section? Not that I can get to pass WP:NFC#8. I can't think of a single image to use that "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Not even one of the main character(s)?--₮RUCӨ 01:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) I don't think so. That would be good for a character article. A multiple character photo would be good for Law & Order: Criminal Intent, but an image here has to increase the understanding of the episodes, and I can't think of anything. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) DVD cover? Logo?--₮RUCӨ 03:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC) A DVD cover works in a season article. A Logo works in the article for the series. There really is nothing that can work in a list of episodes. This has been discussed before at WT:TV and WT:NFC. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Okay.--₮RUCӨ 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Consider adding a {{future}} (or the respective future tag for tv series) to the article. Done Lead Unlike the other shows in the Law & Order franchise Law & Order: Criminal Intent gives significant attention to the actions and motives of the criminals, rather than primarily focusing on the police investigation and trial prosecution. -- shows should be "series" Done Episodes do not usually contain trials, and often end in confessions rather than plea bargains or verdicts. -- Why is trial linked here and not in the previous sentence? Done It premiered on NBC on September 30, 2001. -- WP:OVERLINK of NBC Done Walon Green and Robert Nathan signed to take over for the forthcoming eighth season, controlling eight episodes each;[13] however, after making two episodes, Nathan was replaced by Law & Order executive producer Ed Zuckerman. -- controlling isn't the best word choice here, can a replacement be found, something along the lines of "handling" Done For the first five seasons, Vincent D'Onofrio and Kathryn Erbe starred as detectives Robert Goren and Alexandra Eames, Jamey Sheridan played Captain James Deakins,[14] and Courtney B. Vance played Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Ron Carver. -- It should be made aware by adding ",respectively" that who played who. It would be best by adding it after "Eames". Done In 2005 Chris Noth reprised his Law & Order role as Detective Mike Logan,[16][17] and was partnered with Detective Carolyn Barek, played by Annabella Sciorra. -- Comma after 2005 Done At the end of season seven, Noth left the series at the end of season seven; he will be replaced in season eight by Jeff Goldblum as Detective Zach Nichols. -- Remove one instance of at the end of season seven Done Series overview The emdashes should be center aligned. Not Done. Because the airdates are left-aligned, the dashes are too. Yet the disc entries are also left-aligned, and the blank entries have center aligned dashes.?.?--₮RUCӨ 23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Ah. They weren't centered, it was a nobreakspace. Fixed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Seasons Is it necessary to bold and the episode names?--₮RUCӨ 17:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, because that's how template:episode list does it. Thank you for looking. Let me know if you have any more. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I'm afraid I oppose the lack of episode summaries. If season article currently existed with them, that would be fine. In fact it would be okay if the episode articles themselves were of a high standard, but currently I think most (all the ones I've looked at) of the episodes articles could be eligible for redirect/deletion under WP:NOTPLOT. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think they need a cleanup, definitely. If they were all deleted or never existed then I would probably agree, but right now they're here. Having a list of episodes and sticking the summaries in a season page is no different; the reader has to navigate to another page to see them. I'm going to have to think about this, but right now I'm not convinced it's a good idea.

• If there were season pages, would you oppose? Do the season pages have to become featured first? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I definitely would not oppose if there were featured season pages. Ideally I would have the seasons featured first, but I guess that if the season pages were of a good standard I would also not oppose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since when do "subpages" have to be featured for a "parent" page to become featured? WP:DEADLINE is good here. But I am working on a season 1 page. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say they did. I was just saying it would be preferable as it would ensure the episode summaries have been copyedited. I realise my oppose may seem strange, but basically if I redirected one of the episode pages to this list tomorrow (hypothetically of course), that would be correct under Wikipedia policies, and it is not an action that should be undone. The WP:TV heirachy suggests that the structure goes Episode list -> Season pages -> Episodes. It is this missing middle ground that concerns me. The episode list has effectively been split already (i.e. not having episode summaries) but they do not exist in any valid "subarticle" (i.e. season page). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Other comments
  • Season 8 | April 19, 2009?
    • Fixed by an IP
  • The widths mess up on my browser. I know the code is trying to force them to be the same but it doesn't work. They are all different and the headers alignment is also messed up.
    • Hmmm.. they align fine on both my laptop and desktop. I don't know what you're seeing so I can't even attempt to address it.
      • It works in Firefox, its just IE7 that is completely screwed up. I'll have a tinkle sometime and screenshot it if I cannot fix it myself. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I managed to fix this and I see you have tweaked the width percentages, which I approve of. So this one is done. 09:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Cite the new season episode name, or remove the table.
    • It's cited in ref 196.
      • Ah yes I missed it as I expected it to be adjacent to the episode like the others. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I can see that a lot of work went into the massive editing of this list in the last week, but as a regular user (for research) I have to say that I found it more useful and informative the way it was before the edit, and I frankly object to the way this has happened - there was no discussion, no consensus that change was needed, and no collaborative effort in getting to this point. Having all of the narrative on the top makes it harder to use - if researchers look for specific episodes that feature one or another team of detectives, for example, they now have to jump back and forth between the top and the sections, whereas previously there were headers on the sections and a column that listed the detective teams in each section, which was more useful. These are examples of things I would have discussed on the talk page if this had been presented as a suggested change to the list rather than a fait accompli going straight to FLC. So I would like discussion and explanation for why the list is better this way, beyond its possible elevation to Featured. Tvoz/talk 06:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware permission needed to be sought to make edits. Articles should have a WP:LEAD section that "serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." Why is it better? I believe it's better because it gives writers, directors and production codes, showing who contributed to the episodes and in what order they aired compared to the order they were produced. It is fully referenced. Each season still has a Wikipedia:Header, so I don't know what you mean here, unless you mean a paragraph of prose in for the last 3 seasons that was poorly written, giving minutiae about guest appearances and "markings" for which actor is in which episode. If researchers want to see which episode features Noth and which features D'Onofrio, they can read the episode article. Why an episode would list the cast members I have no idea. Where is the encyclopedic value in it? This was the only episode list on Wikipedia that did, Featured or not. It borders on information written purely for fans only. I understand you oppose the new style, but which of the Featured list criterion does it not follow to make your oppose to FL-status valid? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing about needing "permission" to make edits, I said that a complete revamping of an article without any discussion or consensus to do so, and then rushing it to FLC, is, to me, not the best way to edit here. Indeed I might agree with some of your arguments, had you bothered to make them on the article's talk page - I am just troubled by the lack of interest in discussion and, again, the rush to get this version elevated (is there a contest underway?) which is the fastest I've ever encountered in 2-1/2 years here. Was there some reason to not engage regular editors and readers about your vision for the piece? I did not write or edit the original, and I am sure it needed work - so I'm not defending any specific phrasing, but I am speaking about the value of the way it had been laid out. For example, your suggestion here that anyone want to see which episode featured which detective team could read the episode article completely misses the point that researchers may well need to see an overview of the series in order to find which episodes portrayed which cast. This program happens to be somewhat unique in that it features more than one set of lead actors, who generally did not crossover into one another's episodes, so the only way a researcher can quickly review which episodes featured which cast, so that they then can go to the individual articles, is by having an index which this list in effect was. What you've done - by not having a short season summary or episode summary or even an indication of which team is featured in which episode - is to render the list somewhat useless as a research tool, unless one is researching who wrote which episode or what its production code was. The names of the episodes are not enough information to make them distinguishable from one another. As such, it fails on comprehensiveness. cTvoz/talk 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is a contest, but that has nothing to do with the speed on which I worked on this list. A lot of my nominations are quick from the time I begin working to the time they are nominated. In fact, if you look at User:Gary King's Featured list contributions, you'll see that some of his are nominated the same day they are created. Why wait? True, there's no WP:DEADLINE, but if something is good enough to be featured, why not nominate it? An overview of the series is at Law & Order: Criminal Intent. An overview of the episodes can be found in the Lede of this page, which does have the information. I'm loathed to put an extra column in there because the layout would be all wrong, but if I put some other identifier, such a dagger (†) or asterisk (*) beside the episode names, would you be happy with that? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something like daggers or asterisks to which cast is featured would definitely help. Hey, I'm not knocking speed, and I don't think there's some kind of virtue in patience - I just felt that what might look like a minor change, but for readers might actually be a major-ish change, was rushed through without any questions or explanation, and that didn't sit well. Thanks for being responsive to the concern - and good luck in the Cup. Let me know where the party is if you win. Tvoz/talk 18:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way - you mentioned in the nom that you might in the future make season pages - that's a good idea which would also be helpful to readers/researchers. Tvoz/talk 18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get on that, and I have started a page for the first season already. It should be in the mainspace tomorrow. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way - I see that a detective got lost in the transformation of the list: another one of Logan's partners for part of Season 7 was Nola Falacci, so you'll have to add her to the lead and include her on the asterisk-dagger scheme when you get to that. Thanks Tvoz/talk

OK, thanks. Yeah, I forgot about her. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm withdrawing the nomination until I can make season pages. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 21:49, 7 March 2009 [14].

---

Ralph Bakshi filmography

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk)

An extension of Ralph Bakshi. I think this article compares rather nicely to other director filmographies that are featured, and offers verifiable web and book sources. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Honestly this needs alot of work. The lead is a single sentence (see WP:LEAD), and IMDB is not considered a reliable source (see WP:RS). There are other style-based problems as well, such as the two tables being completely different. A few merged cells would go a long way too. I'd recommend taking a closer look at other FL director filmographies (such as Woody Allen filmography) for some ideas on how to improve the list. But for the meantime this is nowhere near ready. Drewcifer (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The lead has been significantly shortened. I removed the IMDb link, as the article was mainly sourced from the books. Funny that you should mention the Woody Allen filmography, considering that the formatting is exactly the same, including the fact that there are two different table styles on that filmography. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
  • I don't see where the lead had been shortened. It's just a copy and paste from the Ralph Bakshi article. Enigma^msg 22:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I changed the table for the television section based on your suggestion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Maybe my Strong Oppose was a little hasty, especially since I can't seem to practice what I preach (I wrote and nominated the Woody Allen filmography, so I guess I look pretty silly right now). But that said, I think Woody's page needs to be redone a bit, for the exact reason I complained about the table formats here. But, alot has been improved since, but it still needs some work. Some of the TV shows don't have any years. Also the centering in that table is problematic. In both tables, repeated cells should be merged using "rowspan". Also, the Director/Writer/Producer columns should be a subheading of a "Credited as" heading, also a la Woody Allen. The big empty cell in the Role column should also be split up. The lead is looking much better though. So I guess it still needs some work, but it's definitely getting closer. Drewcifer (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The tables headings are looking better, though I'm confused as to why you took out the voice and role columns. Let me know when or if you've addressed the rest of my comments. Drewcifer (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As you stated, it was a big empty column with a couple of entries. Bakshi does not usually receive credit for his voice work, although he often provides cameos and additional voice work in his films. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

There's nothing wrong with a mostly empty row, my complaint was that the cells where he didn't receive a credit were all merged into one mega-cell. Now the bottom part of the Animator column suffers from the same thing. I didn't mean that the column should go at all, just that it should be split up.

There's still some of the TV shows that are missing years (something I mentioned before). I'm also not so sure about the dashes in the blank cells. First off if anything they should be – or — dashes, not hyphens. Second, I'm not sure they fit here. It's usually meant (in most lists, I think), to denote an absence of something that could have been if something had happened to a greater extent (such as chart position in a discography). Maybe that's a convuluted explantion, but that's how I understand it. So I think you should just leave those blank. Drewcifer (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The years for those shows were the same as the year for the last title to contain a year. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Ok, so try and merge like cells like the few I already did, using rowspan="#".

A few more things, now from the lead:

• Why does the lead say "From 1972 to 1994" but the table only goes to 1992?
• The lead overall needs to reflect the content of the list, and vice versa. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the content of the article/list, and therefore not include anything that isn't in the article/list proper. I see a few credits in the lead that aren't mentioned anywhere else (Cannonball Run II, Frazetta: Painting with Fire, and Ralph Bakshi: The Wizard of Animation"). Other people have brought this up before, but I think the copy+paste of the lead from the guy's main article is just making things worse. This also brings up another question: why aren't those three in the list?
• The last sentence of the first paragraph is also a run-on sentence. Drewcifer (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - couple issues in all areas. Ralph Bakshi is an American director of animated and, occasionally, live-action films. -- (1)Unbold his name per WP:LEDE (2)The comma should go before and Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) From 1972 until 1994, he directed nine theatrically-released feature films, writing five of them. - Until should be to Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) He also directed an animated sequence featured in the 1984 live-action film Cannonball Run II, and was interviewed for the 2003 documentary feature Frazetta: Painting with Fire, and the segment Ralph Bakshi: The Wizard of Animation. -- Remove the and in its second occurrence. Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) From 1957 to 1968, Bakshi worked in the animation department, and later as a director, on several animated series for Terrytoons and later Famous Studios. -- This sentence is confusing since two separate companies are mentioned, reword or split. Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) Bakshi made his debut feature film, Fritz the Cat in 1972, the first animated film to receive an X rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. -- Comma after the title of the film. Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) Bakshi soon began to produce more feature films, directing Heavy Traffic, Coonskin and Hey Good Lookin' at the same time. -- Reword to Afterwards, Bakshi began to produce more feature films, directing Heavy Traffic and Coonskin and Hey Good Lookin' simultaneously. Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) Television The Role column is really unappealing due to the large extended empty space, this would be better formatted as having columns with center aligned emdashes. This is not done.--TRUCO 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, it is. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) No it is not, the empty columns should have centered aligned emdashes.--TRUCO 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I couldn't figure out exactly what you were referring to. Now it is done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)) The notes do not need full stops since they are not complete statements. Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) References The Books and Websites don't need separate sections, they can be in bold headers (without actually making a section).--TRUCO 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)) Followup comment I did just notice that the lead is a near copy/paste of the Ralph Bakshi article, please do not copy and paste, actually reword some of the statements to differentiate the two articles.--TRUCO 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Like I stated the lead needs rewording, its almost an exact replica of his main article.--TRUCO 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)) Followup comments Much of his work that followed was in television. -- This is weasel talk, please be more elaborate in summrazing his television career, as it is substantial to the list. Rewritten. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)) Do the general references really cite everything? I just seem skeptical about it. Yes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)) The dashes should be emdashes, the long one. See WP:DASH for the emdash. Actually thinking about it, if the entries that have a something in it have a green yes, then IMO the ones without entries should have a red "no".--TRUCO 00:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)) Have you considered replacing the dashes with red "No"'s? --TRUCO 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I disagree. We don't need to add graphic weight to credits which he did not receive. As this is a list of credits received, I don't think we need to address credits he didn't receive (which obviously outweighs the credits he did receive). Which is why I still suggest just a blank cell. But I admit that the "yes" column isn't ideal. Maybe we can figure out a good alternative that wouldn't necessitate the use of an opposing "no" column. Drewcifer (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I think it would be better if the Credited as column was turned into one column and lets take a film for example, that one column could state "Director, Animator, and Writer" (since the heading states "Credited as:") Its like other lists which have a "Rationale for:" column and the one cell states the reason following the column name. --TRUCO 23:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Never-mind, revert that it doesn't look right.--TRUCO 02:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC) What I mean is that the old format is better because the way they are now doesn't really say much IMO. I'm sorry, I just think the old table will work fine for this.--TRUCO 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)) Something is still wrong with the formatting because the line that makes the cells in the first and second columns are not showing up.--TRUCO 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - many previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards, next time try consulting WP:PR to avoid lengthy problems as such, best.--TRUCO 17:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "theatrically-released" No hyphens after -ly adverbs. (multiple occurences)
  • Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
• "Bakshi made his debut feature film Fritz the Cat in 1972, the first animated film to receive an X rating from the Motion Picture Association of America." Source?
  • Every reference cited backs up this statement. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
    • So can you provide just one inline citation? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
• "Bakshi soon began to produce"
  • Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
• "directing Heavy Traffic, Coonskin and Hey Good Lookin' at the same time. " "at the same time"-->simultaneously Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 13:36, 3 March 2009 [15].

---

List of sovereign states

Nominator(s): Pfainuk talk

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. This list has largely replaced the old list of countries that was de-FL'ed and redirected at the end of last year, and is far superior - particularly in terms of visual appeal and clarity of definition. Note that the full definition of the inclusion criteria is rather lengthy and as such is summarised in the lead and detailed below the list. Pfainuk talk 15:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Please consult significant contributors before nominating; you have the tenth-most edits.
2. The article has no lead to speak of.
3. Featured lists do not start "This list..." or any other variations of such. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that I am tenth on the list, and also second if you exclude all of those editors who have not edited the article this year and third if you exclude all those who have not edited the article since March 2008. The nature of the list is that editors come and go with some frequency. But if it's a problem then I won't take credit for the list if it passes.

I'm a little confused by your second point. On the contrary, it appears to be pretty common for geographical featured lists to begin, say, "[t]his is a list of Massachusetts counties" or the similar construction "[t]he following list of Israeli cities...". I have changed the lead sentence to say "[t]his is a list of sovereign states..." rather than "[t]his list of sovereign states..." per those examples.

I struggle to think of anything that might go into the lead of the article that isn't already there (except possibly the full definition of the inclusion criteria, which was placed below the list because of its length) without rewriting country or political history of the world. But if you have suggestions, I don't mind listening to them - even if the list doesn't pass this time, we can use it to improve the article. Pfainuk talk 18:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I numbered my points to ease the discussion:

1. I don't really mind that much, although you may want to leave notes at relevant WikiProjects about this FLC. I imagine this is a very important list and getting many eyes is crucial.
2. Featured lists are now expected to provide background and/or context. If this is hard, you can also summarize the list, e.g. how many recognized UN states are there, what are the more recently recognized states, etc.
3. Around the middle of last year, we moved away (deprecated if you will) from the verbatim repetition of article's title. Try for something more engaging, such as a definition of the topic. For example, you could start the article as "A sovereign state (no bold) is defined as..." Dabomb87 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment All of the entries use hyphens where there should be an en-dash. For example, "English: United Kingdom - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" should be "English: United Kingdom – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Not a big deal, but the fact that the entire list does it is a big problem. Drewcifer (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone through with Word's replace tool and believe that this should be resolved. Pfainuk talk 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also noticed a fair amount of the citations that don't give proper attribution, or do so in the proper citation style. I recommend using citation templates to fix this problem, along with, of course, putting in all of the neccesary information (title, author, date, publisher, etc). Drewcifer (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Fails FL criteria 2 (maybe 1, too) because the lead is too small. Like Dabomb87 said, the lead need to provide some contexts of the list. Three sentences are not enough.—Chris! _ct 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The criteria we're using for the list were removed to the bottom of the article, ironically enough, because they were thought distracting to the article - it may be worth bringing parts of it back up. Dabomb also gives some good suggestions that I'll have a go with. I won't do it now because I don't write too well at midnight! Pfainuk talk 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I reckon I can write something, but I don't think it'll meet criterion 1 without some discussion on talk and a bit more than ten days. Better, perhaps, to give us some time and see if we can come back with something better in a couple of months. I guess you probably worked this out already! It's useful to know your objections - and if you have any more then you're welcome to fire away - and I thank you for your time, but for know I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Not sure how to do this technically, but I'm sure someone does! Thanks again. Pfainuk talk 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem—try to get feedback from some WikiProjects and maybe list this at peer review. Hope to see you soon! Don't remove the FLC template from the talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominator has withdrawn this nomination. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by GimmeBot 02:16, 4 March 2009 [16].

---

List of wind farm projects in Romania

• I think that this is a featurable list on Wiki. Mario1987 09:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Restarted on 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Image review needed

• That map doesn't sit right with me. It claims to be creative commons licensed, but the website it is sourced from says: "©2007 www.ibcoenerg.ro Webmaster Valentin Vieru". It also looks like a scan from a book. If it is, the site is violating the copyright of the book too. It should also be translated into English if it is being hosted and used on en.wiki. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok i removed the image. Mario1987 10:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The prose needs going over by someone new to the text.

• There is some severe overlinking in the lead. Words should only be linked on their first appearance, and dates (2009) should not be linked.
• "In 2009, Romania will add to its installed wind capacity another 1,200 MW from two wind farms complete in the summer of 2009" Very confusing and wordy. Try: "In the summer of 2009, Romania will add another 1,200 MW from two wind farms to its installed wind capacity. Don't use seasons, use months.
• Spell out abbreviations such as MW and TW on their first appearance.
• "US$ 84 million" No space between the dollar sign and the amount.
• "The Romanian company Blue Investment will invest US$ 84 million in Baia, Tulcea County in a 35 MW wind farm, that will have 14 Nordex N90 turbines of 2.5 MW each, that will be delivered at the end of 2009." Run-on sentence with just too many ideas.
• "Homever" Not sure if this a word. If this is supposed to be "However", what is its purpose here?
• "Romania has a high wind power potential of around 14,000 MW[4] and a power generating capacity of 23 TW[4], but until 2007 there were no significant wind farms in operation." Two entirely separate ideas that should not be connected with but. These should be separate sentences.
• Since the "Owner" column is sortable, every instance of the owner should be linked.
• Why is there a "Commisioned" column if nothing has been commisioned? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Dab link needs to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Note: The majority of the article's sources are in Romanian, and therefore I cannot check their reliability.
• Why are the news article's titles repeated in the "work" field of the citation template? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok i resolved the overlinking problem, i spelled out what i had to spell and solved the reference problem. And for the "majority of the article's sources are in Romanian" what can i do if almost all of the sources are published by Romanian newspapers/magazines etc. I searched for English refs but i found only for the CEZ Wind Farm and some projects of Eolica. Mario1987 10:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand the foreign language thing, that's not what I am opposing over. I am more concerned about the writing. Do you know any native English speakers who can quickly proofread the lead for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I talked to someone, hope he will respond. Mario1987 17:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
        • The article was proofread by User:Art LaPella and now it's ok. Mario1987 20:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I solved the Dab problem. Mario1987 17:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My issues have been resolved, but I want to wait for more opinions before supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General comment Add a {{future}} template, since this explains a lot about future events.--TRUCO 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Mario1987 09:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Lead The first stage of, producing 347.5 MW, will comprise 139 General Electric 2.5xl turbines with a 100-metre (330 ft) hub height and 99-metre (320 ft) rotor diameters and a 2.5-MW capacity and will be operational by December 2009. -- (1)Remove the first and second comma (2)Remove the second and and replace it with a comma. Romania has a high wind power potential of around 14,000 MW[4] and a power-generating capacity of 23 terawatts. -- Comma before and Cofra Group has plans for two wind farms, one that will produce 700 MW in Dobrogea and one of 400 MW in Moldova with total investments of US$1.65 billion. -- Comma before with Iberdrola recently bought 50 wind farm projects that produce a total of 1,600 MW of power from a Swiss and a Romanian company for a cost of US$450 million. --- Delink Swiss per WP:LINKS The Hungarian company Sinus Holding will build five wind farms in the Northern Moldavia region with a nominal output of 700 MW and a capital investment of US$800 million. -- Delink Hungarian, its a pretty common geographical term if you ask me. Done. Mario1987 09:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The lead really doesn't say much about the list itself, its says more about the future projects. The lead doesn't mention a lot about the other projects that were there before 2009. Because almost all of the projects are started since 2009. Before, Romania only had single turbines located in different regions of the country. Mario1987 09:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but the lead mentions that since 2007 which implies that there must be some older ones. --TRUCO 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)--TRUCO 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I think it says as of 2007 but like i told you already there were only single turbines not wind farms. Mario1987 09:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Ok.--TRUCO 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Wind farm projects This puzzles me: These are some of the most important wind farm projects in Romania (larger than 10 MW), totaling 5,256 MW: -- Some? This means that the list is incomplete and therefore not featured material, unless I'm interpreting this wrong. Fixed that. Mario1987 09:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC) In the table, I would make the county column unsortable because more than one entry is in each column, so its no really representative of sorting.--TRUCO 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Has this been done?--TRUCO 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Mario1987 13:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- This is the first of this type of lists here at FLC (well from my review-stand-point), and I didn't know what to expect. But I feel that the previous issues raised have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Please keep the article up-to-date, however, don't just let it be promoted to FL status and not update it ;)--TRUCO 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't worry :). Mario1987 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Please remove the future tag. I find all of those very annoying. Nearly all lists will have things added to them in the future, and I would expect the reader to be able to tell. No event regarding the list is scheduled or future, just the farms itself.
  • That is why a future tag is needed because the projects themselves will be launched later in 2009 (the future). Since this is a short list, it goes at the top, but for lists like List of tallest buildings in Baltimore has that tag in the future buildings section.--TRUCO 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm really confused. If above the table it says they total 5,256 MW, why does the first sentence say Romania has a capacity for only seven MW? Well, now that I look at the wind farms' articles I see that nearly all of them are under construction or are even only proposed. The lead should really emphasize that there's about nothing now but a lot has been started.
• Per the above, a column should be added to the table that says when the projects will be completed. It really seems to imply that they already exist. Wind power in the United Kingdom#List of built and proposed onshore wind farms has a lot more info about dates completed and other specific information.
• And I know it was discussed previously that the main article is an article not a list, but the two paragraphs of the lead are verbatim copies of Wind power in Romania. I really don't like this duplication. That is the only article that links to this one, so I really don't see the purpose of repeating the info.
  • Because of that I'm really opposed to having two separate articles, at least for now. I think they should be recombined and that article should either be considered a list to come here or it can be an article eventually at GA.
• Wind power in the United States and other Wind power articles and lists have a lot more info that could be included.
• Because of the problem with the duplication and the clear discrepancy of information that could be given in the article/list I will have to oppose for now. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok. I tried to sort out all that you said above. How does it look now? Mario1987 09:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: I don't think this nomination is going to get any more feedback, and with one oppose and one support, we cannot say that consensus has been found either way. The default is to not promote. The nominator is encouraged to re-nominate at another time (though I'm intentionally not saying when that time would be). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:57, 3 March 2009 [17].

---

List of Scotland international footballers

Nominator(s): Jmorrison230582 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. In particular, it is comprehensive and well sourced. There are no red link articles, and the article is illustrated with pictures of some of the players on the list, an image that illustrates the rich history of the team, and an action photo from one of the more recent major tournaments the team has participated in. It should be a stable list, as there had only been one edit for two months before I attempted to improve it this week. There will be no additional members until players reach the milestones, or the team qualifies for a tournament, neither of which can happen more frequently than once every few months. I have based this article on the FL List of Germany international footballers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Eddie6705

A few comments:

• First of all, all references need to be properly laid out using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates found here. They would need to include at least the web address, title, publisher and accessdate.
• Also in the references, RSSSF and SFA should be spelt out in full.
• They should also only be linked on their first mentions.
• [[long standing rivalry with England]] - long standing doesn't need to be linked.
• This statistic is remarkable - remarkable is a bit POV, i'd replace it with something like surprising.
• was the only Scotland player named in the FIFA 100 and is the only Scotland player to have won the European - replace Scotland with Scottish as there are two many mentions of Scotland in those two sentances.
• In the caption for the Netherlands match at Euro 96, don't need to include UEFA.
• Also i was wondering why you have chosen 20 apps and 10 goals as the cut off point, is there any particular reason? Eddie6705 (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Responses:

• I will deal with the citation formats last, because it is more time consuming, repetitive but reasonably easy to follow. The second and third points follow from this.
• "Long-standing" has been removed from the link, as suggested.
• The phrase has been reworked as per ChrisTheDude's suggestion below.
• I have reworded the latter two mentions of Scotland to Scottish, which is also more accurate. It is (theoretically at least) possible that a player without international caps could win those awards.
• Renamed to "Euro 96", which was the common name at the time.
• I was following the template of List of Germany international footballers, really. I think it has to be as low as 20 caps, because nobody won more than Alan Morton's 31 caps until the Second World War. This is because Scotland only normally played three matches a year before then. The list would have been very unrepresentative of this period if there was not an allowance for players with 20 caps, or more than 10 goals. Some of the early players scored a remarkable number of goals in a short space of time. Hughie Gallacher is still the third top scorer in the team's history, despite only playing 20 times. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have striked through the comments which have been addressed so far. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work Chris, Support. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Truco

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - issues in all areas. Lead Since then, the national side has established a long-standing rivalry with England, particularly in the annual British Home Championship, which Scotland won 24 times outright and shared a further 17 times. -- Reword to Since then, the team has established a long-standing rivalry with England, particularly in the annual British Home Championship, which Scotland has individually won 24 times and shared 17 times. Not involved with the article in any way, but just for info nobody in a million years would refer to a national football team as a "franchise"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Eh. Okay, changed to team =P--TRUCO 23:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC) This statistic is remarkable when it is considered that Scotland has participated in eight FIFA World Cup and two UEFA European Championship final tournaments. -- Like Eddie stated above reword remarkable to make it sound less POV-ish Kenny Dalglish, the only man to have won more than 100 caps for Scotland, was the only Scotland player named in the FIFA 100. -- Was should be Is since it is a record still standing today. Denis Law, who is the joint top scorer for Scotland with 30 goals, is the only Scotland player to have won the European Footballer of the Year award -- Add a dash in between joint and top and scorer The Scottish Football Association maintains a roll of honour for all players who have won 50 caps or more. -- Reword to The Scottish Football Association maintains a roll of honour for all players who have won at least 50 caps. Merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, they are too short to stand alone. Key Still active for the national team. Statistics are correct as of 14 February 2009. -- The period should be a semicolon List of players Empty entries should have an emdash that is center aligned instead of a blank entry. I would rename the Notes section into Other roles since that is what it is mainly being used for. If this is done, it should also be made sortable. See also Remove the category, that's why they are used at the bottom of each article. References Use proper formatting of the references, filling out as much as you can in {{cite web}}, or other respective cite templates.--TRUCO 01:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Responses: I have changed national side to team. The rest of the suggested rewording is unnecessary because the BHC stopped in the mid-1980s. The pov comment has been removed and replaced with the suggestion below. The FIFA 100 list was compiled at one moment in time, to mark FIFA's centenary. I think the past tense is correct because it is an historic list, not an ongoing honour that is being updated. Kenny Dalglish will be the only Scottish player in the FIFA 100, whereas another Scottish player may win the Ballon d'Or (highly unlikely I know!). I have added a dash between joint and top. Reworded roll of honour sentence, as suggested. Short paragraphs have been merged, as suggested. Full stop replaced by semi-colon, as suggested. Major dashes added to blank entries, as suggested. "Notes" section renamed and made sortable, as suggested. I have removed the category from the see also section. Citation format is addressed above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 01:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

Quick comment

Maybe the issue with the wording "remarkable"/"surprising" could be resolved by simply rewriting the appropriate bit of text to: "The team has enjoyed less success in continental and global competition. Even though Scotland has participated in eight FIFA World Cup and two UEFA European Championship final tournaments, the team has never progressed beyond the group stage of any major tournament". Just a thought...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have used this wording, it scans better and has less pov. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Struway2

Comments

• Lead image: it's licensed as public domain because its copyright has expired, but there are no details of where the uploader got it from, or where and when it was first published, which would confirm its status.
• Key: You've included an asterisk as an alternative to the cell colouring for active players, but you haven't actually used it in the table.
• Table: The numeric columns would look much better centred rather than left-aligned. Probably the position abbreviations would as well.
• Image captions: Caption should only have a full-stop if it's a whole sentence (see MOS:CAPTIONS)

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Replies:

• At first glance it appears to be a contemporary illustration, which would surely fall under fair use (life of author + 70 years), given that the match was played > 136 years ago. I will remove the picture if it is a problem, as it doesn't add that much value.

Unfortunately, appearing to be a contemporary illustration and actually being one aren't the same thing. I've no reason to assume it wasn't uploaded in good faith, it's just a pity the uploader didn't add any details. I'm not an image expert, perhaps someone who knows more than me might express an opinion.

• Asterisk removed.

Sorry, should have made myself clear. You do need to use the asterisk in the table: WP:COLOUR says "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information". Struway2 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Changed alignments of all columns to centre except the names.
• Removed full stops from captions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Summary: I believe that just leaves the citation template. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Are the citations going to be fixed? I'll be happy to support once that's been fixed, but it's been a week now with no movement on that front...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "first ever official international match"
• "joint–top scorer " Hyphen, not en dash.
• File:Craig Gordon.jpg needs an author.
• File:Jim Baxter in Scotland shirt.png needs an author.
• Many of the image captions could use with more description instead of just the player's name.
• You need more than color to represent the color, use an asterisk. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• The sources need major cleanup. Every web citation needs a URL, web page title, publisher (in italics if it is a magazine or newspaper), and last access date. Abbreviations in publishers need to be spelled in full. Use {{cite web}} to make your job easier. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from ArtVandelay13 (talk · contribs)

• "the team has never progressed beyond the group stage of any major tournament." - what you really mean here is the first round of any major tournament; there can be groups at any stage of a tournament.
• Do you really need to reference every player's SFA page individually? Isn't there an index that you can cite?
• You should probably expand the captions on the player images, to indicate why those players have been singled out. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

As this FLC appears to have stagnated a bit, and the original nominator seems to have stopped addressing comments, I have decided to step in. I have:

1. Replaced the lead image which had unclear provenance
2. Removed player images with missing source info
3. Written proper captions for all the photos
4. Correctly formatted all the references
5. Changed subheadings
6. Addressed all the prose points raised by Art
7. Put the asterisk back in to add to the pink

Hopefully this addresses all the outstanding issues. I will contact everyone who has commented to date (in case they aren't watching this page) and request that they re-review.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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