Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2010

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:54, 30 July 2010 [1].

---

List of Governors of Florida

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The legend continues, we're now up to F in our long struggle to get every governor list featured (notwithstanding misfits like Wisconsin and Utah, but I prefer to go in order!), and with each iteration, things change. Taken from the recent Utah FLC are: Moving the constitutional information on succession down to the state (needed more prose down there anyway) and added more information on the territory to the introduction. New in this version of the template: Prose in the "other high offices" section! It always seemed a bit sparse. I have one question for our voters: Should the "other high offices" table include the years they served those other offices? I've always omitted them, because 1) If you really wanted to know, you'd click their article, 2) Some people serve non-contiguous stints in congress, and 3) It would heavily clutter up the table with, in my opinion, negligible gain. What do you think? That asked and said, I present this list for your consideration. --Golbez (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Support excellent read. A commment tho. Sandman888 (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Most sources state Walker was a Democrat; the state archives say he was "Conservative"" Be ware of OR in the claim of "most". Also include said sources.
  • Every source I've found says he was a Democrat, I could include the NGA reference as an example. The only one that says otherwise is the official state archives, but those being the official archives, I felt they merited some form of inclusion (and I'll throw in a specific reference to that). They likely mean "Conservative Democrat", but they don't say. Do you have another way of wording this? --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. Well written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC): "Governor of Florida" is a redirect to this list; The list should probably be moved there, then... would a move like that be permitted during an FLC? :P --Golbez (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Not necessarily. I've seen other "Governor of X" which are an article of its own independent from the list. Here in this case, you can just unlink it, until the article is created. Parutakupiu (talk) True, but in the case that the 'main' article does not exist, the 'list' article (which is the closest we have to a main) should probably be moved to it. There's precedent at Governor of Colorado. Either way, this shouldn't affect the FLC proceedings and can be handled later. The wikilink's gone now. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Place refs 18 and 19 together after the next comma. Do the same with refs 24 and 25; Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Link the first instance of "lieutenant governor" to either Lieutenant Governor (United States) or Lieutenant Governor of Florida; Fixed. Used the United States link. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) "As of July 2010, seven former governors are alive." — Is this temporal reference going to be constantly updated? If not, perhaps another alternative should be used? Has been for the last four years or so, do you have a proposed alternative? (I'll get to the rest of the comments later) --Golbez (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC) I don't know, maybe there's some code strings that give an updated value of "month" and "year"... Parutakupiu (talk) But that would conceivably lead to inaccuracy. This method will never be inaccurate. Even if not updated in 5 years, it will still be true that, as of July 2010, 7 former governors were alive. If you had it update automatically, we could be in a case where it's saying, "In July 2015, 7 former governos were alive," when in fact only 3 are. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Instead of using HTML code to stack the images of the Governors, try using {{Stack}} which leaves a (thin but aesthetic) margin around the images, and the text does not get glued to them; Done. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) I suspect that you didn't place images of every governor in that list because some don't have any in Wikipedia (or Commons)? Too bad, it would look great... What's the proportion of those which have image and those that don't? Looks like 31 out of 44 have useful portraits, which would leave 1/3 of the list with placeholders. The Utah list that was recently promoted has 9 out of 17, with 1/2 empty... so based on that we could justify including what portraits we have. I just dislike doing so. :| --Golbez (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Well, if other already featured lists don't have them, then I think this one shouldn't as well. It would be a plus, though. Parutakupiu (talk) Utah was the first. Well, no, California was the first, but California had 100% images. When that fell below 100%, i.e. having any gaps, I took all the images out. Utah using images was more of an experiment to see if gaps were now being tolerated; they apparently are. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 32 is dead; Fixed. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Notes 21, 22 and 23 lack a period at the end; Fixed. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) That was deliberate and needs discussion; those are not full sentences, and previous FLCs have told me that notes and captions which are not full sentences should not receive stops. --Golbez (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC) I agree. That is the policy with captions. I just don't get the difference now between note 21 (with period) and note 23 (without)... Parutakupiu (talk) There isn't one. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. All issues resolved. Parutakupiu (talk)

• Comment If you would like to move the list to "Governor of Florida", feel free to do it now. I'll take care of the rest of the paperwork. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, considering that it currently lacks much information you'd expect to find on such a page (eligibility requirements, powers, etc.) it makes more sense to keep it here. I doubt it's of featured quality for a main article at present. --Golbez (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • So to clarify, you do intend to create a "Governor of Florida" article at some point. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Or add stuff to this one to fit the requirements thereof, but I'd rather not race to shoehorn that in just to match the demands of the name. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "loxham spent slightly longer in office than the others at eight years, six days, whereas the other two both served three days short of eight years" this is a bit trivia-esque isn't it? Presumably it's just down to the timing of the appointment, weekends/holidays etc? I suppose it's overtrivial... removed. --Golbez (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "$132,932 (2009) [1]" remove the space before the ref. Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "His term expires on January 4, 2011." ref? Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) You overlink Andrew Jackson (for instance) in the second table, but not Democratic in the third table. I think you should be internally consistent. Names are overlinked, parties are not, that's consistent with the other FLs. There's typically only 2-5 parties in a list, whereas, IMO, it's not polite to ask the user to hunt (in the case of a repeat governor) through 50 listings to find out where his wikilink is. That said, since it's not that big a deal to de-overlink in the terr table. --Golbez (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Other "high" offices? What's a "high" office? Whose opinion? And why "Sources" when each case is "Source" (singular)? I could say 'higher' but then we'd have the question of if a congressional seat is higher than gubernatorial. I could say 'federal' but it also includes being governor of other states. A simple 'high' seems the best compromise to me. --Golbez (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "June 19, 1865[29]" missing a period here. Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Note 24 could use a ref. Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Last colour code (#44) is split half-red, half-grey. What is the grey? Independent isn't in the key? Independent being in the key would fudge the numbering, since it's based on the official numbering and Crist is already counted as a Republican. The only way around it would be to abandon that numbering and count Crist twice, despite him being elected only as a Republican, or to add Independent with no number and just a footnote. ... I could do that. --Golbez (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I don't mind how you fix it, but it looks a little odd for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC) How's what I have there now? --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:54, 30 July 2010 [2].

---

United States congressional delegations from Utah

Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) and Golbez (talk)

Currently, congressional delegations from Indiana is the only FL congressional delegation list. I've tried to use Indiana and sort of the same format as the recently FL list Governors of Utah Bgwhite (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. by statewide popular vote is repeated three times (in the lead, and two times in the first section). Can you reduce repetition? Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Representative Leatherwood Died while in office Why is 'Died' capitalized here? It looks like part of the name. Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Both quibbles are fixed Bgwhite (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. I do not see any serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment In the lead image caption: does "Delegation" need to be in caps? And shouldn't it be plural? Jujutacular T · C 17:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC) It is now "delegation". Fixed on Indiana's page too. Hmmm, interesting question on should it be plural. Personally, I think is should be singular... it is only one delegation. But, that would make the title to the page wrong. Should the title be renamed? Bgwhite (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I think at least the title is correct. Reference.com defines a delegation as "a group or body of delegates". Utah sends two delegations two Congress: one to the Senate and one to the House. The map however is only talking about the House, so there actually I believe you are correct. Does that interpretation sound correct? (I'm fine with it). Jujutacular T · C 19:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, that makes sense to me. Bgwhite (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Just had my minor tidbit that was cleared up, thanks. Everything looks good. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Delegates from Utah Territory: "taking more area from the northeast corner, giving Utah Territory its final borders." Minor point, but for flow reasons I think "from the northeast corner and giving..." would be better. Makes more sense if you read the whole sentence to yourself. Representatives from the State of Utah: "based on the state's population as determines by the United States Census". "determines" is a little typo. Should there be a period at the end of note 6? References 3 and 4 should indicate that the links are in PDF format. There's a format= parameter of the cite templates that can be used for this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giants2008 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC) The four comments by Giants2008 have been addressed. Bgwhite (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments All comments below have been "fixed" unless stated otherwise Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Caption also states 2003 to 2013 while the lead says incumbents sit for six years so I'm confused again. I guess all current incumbents will be up for re-election in 2013, having all been elected in 2003? Perhaps a more explicit statement would help here. Caption states the House of Representatives and lead states incumbents from the House sits for two years. Also, the elections are held in 2012, but they don't take office till 2013. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "There have been 56 people who..." not at all keen on "There have been", I know you want to avoid starting a sentence with "Fifty-six" but this is redundant prose. "who served 22 years from 1981 to 2003" a quick repeat of "serve" makes this read poorly. "Only three women have been a member" just a personal thing perhaps, but isn't this better as "Only three women have been members..."? And shouldn't it be "all as representatives." rather than "all representatives."? Class III or Class 3? "Utah has had three districts since 1983." ref? "Representatives from the State of Utah" images aren't same width in Safari. Added a stack tage. All images have "thumb" as the size. Is there something else that could be done? Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "Other high offices held" make the cols the same width from table to table. Sources->Source (or Ref) because there's always only one. Oh, and what's a "high office" here? Stated in the first sentence. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Ooops, I didn't understand your comment...Golbez understood and responded in the Governors of Florida FLC. Bgwhite (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Are notes 2 and 9 referenced anywhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lead image appears to contravene WP:ACCESS as unless you can tell the difference between red and blue, you can't work out which portion of Utah is which. And the caption needs some work, because it isn't an image of the delegation, it's a map split into three...
  • Updated the caption. Not sure what to do about the colors. I could remove red and blue and just leave the outline with the numbers???? Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Still fails ACCESS because you're using just colour to differentiate between Democrat and Republican. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Found a better image that doesn't use colours. Bgwhite (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:54, 30 July 2010 [3].

---

List of Final Fantasy media

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after nearly 3 years, I believe this list is back up to standards. There is an archived peer review here for reference. Any comments and criticism are welcome. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - There's no dabs in the article but has two dead links. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I fixed one dead link and the other seems to be a temporary thing where the site in question has problems accessing news articles. We'll see if it persists. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 16:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Nomader List The different video game console releases should be cited (i.e. the list states that the original Final Fantasy game was released on the WonderSwan Color, but there's no citation that confirms that). All of the citations for the different releases are in the main List of Final Fantasy video games. What's your opinion on requiring that all of those references be copied here as well? Axem Titanium (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I think if an item's going to be included in the list here as well, it should be fully sourced even if it's included in the other list. It needs to be able to stand on its own as a fully referenced work. -- Nomader (Talk) 13:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, done. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC) References 34-36 have external links for the publisher-- they should be removed and just placed as normal text. I'm not sure what you mean by that, sorry. Can you elaborate? Axem Titanium (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I should've said 35-39. In the reference, there's an external link to the publisher (i.e. there's a link to not only the page of Final Fantasy Unlimited Volume One at Amazon.co.uk, but there's also just a plain link to www.amazon.co.uk). -- Nomader (Talk) 13:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, I just assumed it was general practice to have the extra link. Oh well, all removed. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC) References 43 and 44 do not include the website's name. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC) At best, Mobygames is a situational source per WP:VG/RS. Try to replace it with GameSpot and other more reputable sources if possible (the general source at the end and reference #15). Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC) What makes http://finalfantasy-xiii.net a reliable source? The site is not necessarily reliable per se, but the news articles in the list cite primary sources (in Japanese) and they were the only place I could find that covered the info I needed. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC) That's acceptable by me. -- Nomader (Talk) 13:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC) RPGFan is not a reliable source per this discussion. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I'd just like to state for the record, that that discussion is pretty old. The music editor of RPGFan gave a pretty good explanation of why the site makes it as an RS, though it doesn't have enough coverage to have its own article. It is a for-profit company with editorial oversight on what they publish, that gets cited by other video game news organizations. --PresN 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC) What makes http://www.ffcompendium.com/h/ a reliable source? Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry I don't have time to make a more thorough review of the lead and the list-- I'll try to add to my comments at another time. For now this should do. Nice work bringing it up to the level it's at now! -- Nomader (Talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) The video game consoles do not need to be linked in every instance of the notes: after the console appears for the first time, it does not need to be linked (i.e. iPhone is linked for both Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy II: it should be linked only in its first occurrence). Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC) 1UP.com, GameSpot, and FinalFantasy-XIII.net should not be italicized in the references. Wired should be italicized. I was looking at Template:Cite web and it says that the preferred parameter for putting the website of origin is "work", and that parameter is automatically italicized. What are your thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC) In most cases for citing web sites in normal articles, sources are usually italicized because they're periodicals like The New York Times or magazines like Wired. Most gaming websites are just websites and not print publications, and websites such as GameSpot and fansites such as www.finalfantasy-xiii.net are not italicized. I think a good example of how to do referencing can be found at Space Invaders-- you'll notice that magazines such as Edge are italicized, but most video game websites are not. I'd stick with the "publisher" parameter instead of "work" as well so it's easier for you to customize italics properly in references. Nomader (Talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, I think I got all of them. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC) In the lead, it says that Final Fantasy is a "series of console role-playing games". FF XI and FFXIV are being released on the PC and the games have been re-released on other systems. I think it'd just be easier to say, "series of role-playing games". Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC) I would split the long sentence about sales and genres. Say "... having sold 97 million units worldwide to date. The series includes a variety of genres, including" or something to the like. Right now, the sentence is oddly cobbled together. Nomader (Talk) 16:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – I'm going to go ahead and add my support now. Nice work on addressing my concerns, and I'm confident that you'll be able to address Jonathan's as well. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The Novels and manga section is incomplete. The FFVIII Ultimania for instance included a short story in it too. There was also a FFIV: The After Years novel (sorry I didn't think about these during the peer review :/ ). I'm not sure if there are others. The Novels and manga section could use more references. The title "Musei Renu Haito, Tōbae wa Onore Mazu" is not verifiable for instance, as the reference given for it is not sufficient (does not prove that a short story of that name exists). (in response to your first two points) There seems to be a contradiction in your requests here. There's the demand for comprehensiveness and the demand for verifiability. Wikipedia demands verifiability (over truth, amirite?) so I'm going to make the executive decision to comment out "Musei Renu..." on the grounds that it cannot be verified and should be added when it can. As for the FFVIII short story and FFIV After novel, same thing. I'll add them in comments but until references can be found, they don't exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC) I meant "not verifiable" as in not verified by the current sources, not "impossible to verify". I'm sure it's possible to source everything properly with a bit of Googling and Google Translate. I've just found a source for the After Years novel: [4]. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I've added the FFIVA ref. Do you know what the FFVIII story is called? Or the page number? I happen to have a pdf of the FFVIII Ultimania so I could look it up. As far as I can tell though, the only thing that resembles a short story is the character "diaries" that appear in the walkthrough section. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, I've been thinking. The section is called "Novels and manga". Perhaps short stories should only be mentioned in the main game articles and only works published by themselves (ie, have their own ISBN, or online) should be listed. This would only affect Musei Renu..., Hoshi o Meguru Otome, and On the Way to a Smile. These short stories probably don't belong on the same level as a full-fledged novel or manga. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Well I've just found a fan translation of the FFVIII short story... Seems like it was just translated this January :-o [5] ("A Day of Instruction at Garden", pp. 478-479). In any case, if you exclude things that were not published by themselves, wouldn't this also exclude Last Order: Final Fantasy VII, which was always released as a bonus to the various Advent Children DVDs? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC) If that's how we define the inclusion criteria, then that's fine. No preferential treatment, yeah? What do you think? Axem Titanium (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Sounds good! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC) What makes the list comprehensive? Many guidebooks are missing, and while the Ultimania series has an article, the other official guidebooks are not mentioned. I'm not sure what you mean here. None of the guidebooks are listed, official or otherwise. The quality of the Ultimania article is not relevant to this FLC. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC) A featured list should be comprehensive. The video games and the Ultimanias have their own list articles, so one can argue that not all the video games and Ultimanias have to be listed here. However, the guidebooks should be listed here as they fall within the scope of this list and are not listed elsewhere. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't say that the older guidebooks without the Ultimania name can't appear on the Ultimania page. They are clearly related and a hypothetical article on these older books would definitely be merged into the Ultimania article if it couldn't sustain itself on its own (which it can't). As a matter of fact, I'm going to add them right now. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Woah, either you're confused or it's a very heavy-handed addition... These books are not Ultimania guides. Ultimania is a brandname and the Ultimania guides are all written by Studio BentStuff and all published by DigiCube (now Square Enix). The early FF guides were written by various people and published under various names by various publishers (NTT Publishing, etc., no DigiCube). You can't add these early FF guides to an article about Ultimania, just like you wouldn't add, I don't know, Edge Magazine issues to an article about Nintendo Power. Therefore, these early FF guides should be covered here in the List of FF media. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, fine. What do we know about these early guides? Should all of them be included or should we split them off into an article of their own too? Perhaps the best option is to expand the scope of the Ultimania article to all "Square Enix companion books" and discuss the early guides, Perfect Works, and Ultimania? User:PresN worked really hard to keep this list of FF media to a manageable size, but found that video games needed to be split into their own list. Perhaps the forty-some "early guides" plus the forty-some Ultimanias deserve their own central list. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Well "Square Enix companion books" would still exclude these early guides since they weren't published by Square/Square Enix. Perhaps something like "List of Final Fantasy companion books"? The Ultimania article would still exists in addition to that new list; it would partly overlap with it but it's not a real problem IMO (the overall scopes of the two articles are distinct enough; non-Ultimania FF books exist and non-FF Ultimania books exist). The Perfect Works series (4 books, covered in the DigiCube article) wouldn't be affected by this change. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Well, since Square Enix owns the intellectual property rights to all Square and Enix works, presumably including these books, I believe it's a generalization we can make, in the interest of minimizing content forks. I'd prefer if there could be some article/list that centrally covers and discusses these books (old guides, Ultimania, and Perfect Works) without spreading across multiple articles. Are you ok with "List of Square Enix companion books" including all three groups? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I'm ok with it in theory; it's just I don't know how large that list would be in practice. The Dragon Quest series in itself has about as much SE companion books as the FF series: [6]. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC) That's a problem we'll deal with as it comes up. I'll be creating an outline list shortly, based on the Ultimania article/list. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC) "Adventure Log" should be moved up one row (it was released in 2007 but is currently between two 2008 releases). Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC) The "Never released outside of Japan"s are unnecessary since the release dates by region are already indicated. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC) The Video games and Soundtracks tables could probably have a title or a legend that says "Main releases" or something similar. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry if I am annoying, but we all want the list to be the best one possible right? :) Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC) A few other missing stuff I've just noticed: FFI and II are also available on Virtual Console and iOS. FFIII and IV are also available on Virtual Console. FFIV is also available on mobile phones. The FFIV, VI and VIII soundtracks were also released in North America (under different names). Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Still more missing stuff I just found: On the Way to a Smile as a standalone release (does it contain something new? I don't know) FFXII Episode Zero -Promise- as a standalone release (does it contain something new? I don't know) [7] [8] (I have no idea what these two are :/ ) FFXII manga Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I went ahead and added them myself. [4] seems to be a game guide of sorts and [5] is a "preview" book released just before FFXIII (although it contains an excert of the game's novella). Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for doing that. I was a bit busy this weekend, so I mostly focused on responding to comments on my other FAC (-_-). Axem Titanium (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Also, on Talk:List of Kingdom Hearts media, Stefan2 brings up a good point which also applies here -- the term "PAL region" doesn't make much sense outside of the video game sections. I suggest replacing it with "United Kingdom", "Europe" or "Europe and Australia" or whatever (in multiple columns if necessary!) depending on the sources available. Also, I think the "PAL region" column should outright be removed from the Soundtracks section, as there is no point in having an empty column. Similarly, the "North America" and "PAL region" columns should be removed from the Radio drama section... Wait! Since when is Nico Nico Douga a reliable source? O_o Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Looking at official press releases, it seems publishers do still use "PAL region". I guess it means "region that formerly used PAL for its TV". The empty column can be kept for now since there is currently a discussion on standardization of media lists. Basically all my concerns were addressed except for the Nico Nico Douga stuff. I don't know if the referenced video is reliable or not (registration is needed >_<). Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I'll keep looking for a better source. I'll let you know how that turns out. Also, the thing about standardization, Template:Video game table was my attempt to create a table of arbitrary length. It works alright within its scope but I'm finding it a little inflexible when it comes to other media and I don't have a good enough grasp of wikitable syntax to get around it. I'll keep an eye on that discussion since I'd be interested in a better solution as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Found some! :) Axem Titanium (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – I'm now supporting the nomination. Nice work! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot, to both of you for your helpful comments. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Review

• "Its first game premiered in Japan in 1987, and Final Fantasy games have subsequently been localized for markets in North America, Europe and Australia, on nearly every video game console since the Nintendo Entertainment System, including MSX2, Super Nintendo, PlayStation, WonderSwan (Color), PlayStation 2, IBM PC, Game Boy Advance, Nintendo GameCube, Nintendo DS, Xbox 360, Wii, Nintendo DS, PlayStation Portable, and PlayStation 3 game systems, as well as several models of mobile phones." -- 1) No need to link the continents 2)I feel that you should probably cut this list down by saying something along the lines of "since the NES, including other first, second, third, and fourth generation consoles"
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ref #112, is a dead link.
  • Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• "...and games for mobile phones." - you already stated that earlier
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• I know the series is basically about video games but this is a list of the entire media, why focus solely the lead on the games? I feel you should expand upon the other media instead of just giving them one sentence in the lead. That is not summarizing.
  • I rewrote the lead to address this. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• In the games list, what verifies some of the console releases? I see some that say "released on Playstation" with no references.
  • Those are the original console releases. I figured they would be implicit because for most video game articles I see, you don't need a ref for the original console. I can add one if you insist. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Just listing the film/television doesn't tell the reader much, their should be some introduction to that table. As well as to the radio drama and novels. Simply because they dont have main articles doesn't mean they can't have some sort of introduction.
  • I added short introductory paragraphs. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• References

• What makes RPGamer, RPGFan, TV.com, MusicBrainz, Fleuve Noir, and finalfantasy-xiii.net. all reliable sources of information?
  • RPGamer is reliable per WP:VG/S, RPGFan is reliable per comments in here, as discussed in resolved comments from Nomader above. TV.com is part of CNET, a reliable publisher. MusicBrainz is a semi-open wiki style database, but all changes are subject to strict editorial review. Fleuve Noir link was dead, replaced with Amazon. As discussed above in Nomader's resolved comments, ff-xiii.net is not necessarily reliable per se, but the news articles cite primary sources (in Japanese) and they were the only place I could find that covered the info I needed. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• There is inconsistency with linking publishers, either link all the publishers that have links, or don't link them at all. Prime example would be the inconsistency with "GameSpot"
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Publishers need to be the same throughout, Amazon is the publisher, not Amazon.co.uk (thats just the location difference, but Amazon is still the publisher). Square Enix is the publisher throughout, the location again is not important. If you must state it, place it as "Square Enix (Japan)"
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Some refs don't have the language template, such as the Yahoo! Japan reference. (Btw, Yahoo is the publisher not Yahoo Japan)
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• In a lot of the references, the formatting is a problem because you use brackets in the titles, when instead you should use parenthesis, prime examples are refs#112 and 69 (although there are a lot more)
  • Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Overall a good list, but some issues are there. For now I must Oppose until these are fixed.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Don't start "This is a list of..." - see recently promoted FLs for an idea on how to introduce your subject (think WP:FAC). Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) No real reason to wikilink Japan in my opinion. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "on Nintendo Entertainment System" - on the NES? Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "as well as a few" sounds too colloquial to me. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "video games as well." as well seems to be redundant to me. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Acronyms usually need to be introduced, e.g. "Playstation (PS)" Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Particularly if you confusingly link both NDS and Nintendo DS... Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Why overlink PS? Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) FF XI last note has a period, none of the other notes do... Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "is called the tipping point for the merger" is that a direct quote? If so, directly quote (and cite) it. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "A few Final Fantasy worlds have been..." see above. Not really sure what you mean here. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "A few" again, a bit colloquial for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "In addition to the original soundtracks, listed below, many games have inspired orchestral, vocal, or piano arrangement albums" far too many unnecessary links, e.g. vocal to human voice? No need. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "All Sounds of Final Fantasy I•II" should be an en-dash in that range. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) A lot of overlinking of publishers such as Square Co. and NTT Publishing. Be consistent with overlinking within the article. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "but the move was unsuccessful" in what sense? Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "Square Enix has produced a few expanded editions," colloquial again. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Do ISBN's need to have their country qualified? I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the I was international, so no qualifier needed. No, they don't need to be qualified, but using Wikipedia's ISBN search, you won't find results unless you look in the right place. For example, many books only show up in Amazon.co.jp so clicking any of the other Amazon search links will turn up no results. It's for the reader's benefit. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) (3 volumes) -> three. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "written expressly for that release" specifically (as opposed to expressly). Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 114 is in Japanese. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) What makes ref 119 reliable? As discussed multiple times above, the site is not necessarily reliable per se, but the news articles in the list cite primary sources (in Japanese) and they were the only place I could find that covered the info I needed. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Remove overcapitalisation in reference titles please. Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC) "Many games, particularly the main series, have soundtracks featuring their music in different arrangements" I have no idea why this is particular to Final Fantasy. It's not, but I have to mention something about the music to adequately introduce the scope of the list. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) But this is really saying nothing is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I mean, are you saying I shouldn't mention that these games have soundtracks? It's definitely true that many games lack accompanying soundtrack releases, so readers at least find out that this series is not one of those. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Maybe make it soundtrack albums; most games have soundtracks but much fewer have album releases. --PresN 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I added that they're "albums". Does that help? Axem Titanium (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just checking, do you have a support or oppose opinion now that your comments have been resolved? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No, as a director I rarely support lists in which I have no real knowledge (as I may need to close them), so I simply review them for basic flaws. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, well then, thanks for your helpful comments. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – I've been watching this as you built it up before/during this FLC, and I'm really impressed with how it's shaped up. --PresN 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (Note- I wrote/FL'd the video games sublist)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:27, 30 July 2010 [9].

---

500 home run club

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Tigers list nom is effectively done (5 supports, concerns are all dealt with promptly) and 3,000 hits is rolling along nicely so figured I'd write this baby up finally. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—a dab link to Texas Rangers; no dead external links. Ucucha 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. That damn dab will be the death of me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fix. Ucucha 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Four players – Aaron, Mays, Eddie Murray, and Rafael Palmeiro – are also members of the 3,000 hit club." - are these four players from the Giants? Ambiguous. "Some believe the milestone has become less important with the large number of new members, 10 players joined the club from 1999 to 2009." - the comma should either be a semicolon or the second part should be reworded. Perhaps link "Steroid Era" to Banned substances in baseball. I assume the "Closest active players" section is also correct as of July 2010? What do you think about moving that note up to the "Key" section? Jujutacular T · C 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC) All done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good to me, good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: It's hard to pass up a list that contains some of my favorite former players (Murray, Thomas, and Griffey Jr.). As long as everything else checks out, the article looks and reads well. My only concern is the "Closest active players" section, as well as any other active players on the list. Is this being updated daily? Or are they being updated only at the end of the season? It might be important to note this somewhere on the page. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's noted under the key, "Statistics as of July 22, 2010". Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... completely missed it. But there is one other thing I noticed. The "See also" section links to 2 other lists that are currently up for deletion and so far looked doomed to go. In fact, the lists don't contain anything new compared to this one. Given the template {{Baseball records}} at the bottom, I'm not sure if the section is needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for saying that, I'll delete them now. Another user added them upon creating those two lists, but I didn't want to delete without someone mentioning since I had voted at the AFD. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. Ucucha 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Comments: Overall quite good, but:

• In the lead, you mention twice that the 500 home run club is becoming less important; that should ideally be condensed to one mention.

• I disagree. First it's a general statement about the Hall of Fame which merely mentions in passing. Then it discusses Hall of Fame stuff. Then goes into detail on the weakening of the club. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure I agree; you still have almost the same phrase twice in near proximity. But I suppose it's a matter of preferences, so I'm moving to support. Ucucha 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• If Sheffield's 500th home run was his first at the New York Mets, where did he get the others? If at another team, why isn't that team mentioned in the list?

• Because, as the key says, the Team column is only for "The batter's team for his 500th home run". Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• You're right, I should read more closely. Ucucha 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I copy-edited the lead, and spot-checks of the statistics against the sources revealed no discrepancies. The list meets the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Great list! I am not a baseball fan by any means, but I found this list interesting, informative, and well-written. Well done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Gary Sheffield is the most recent to hit 500 home runs, having done so on April 17, 2009." Well, he didn't hit them all on that day. Maybe "to hit his 500th home run" would work better?
• In the table, the team name link for Mel Ott doesn't go to an article about the New York Giants. Instead, it goes to a page on some football team. Who would be interested in that? :-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done (I used "reach 500 home runs"). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment (I changed Ref to Ref(s) because some had multiple entries)

• Not at all keen on the Closest active players section. Makes the list inherently unstable, and, after all, these guys aren't members of the club yet. Plus "within 100" seems a little arbitrary to me.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• That was the addition of another editor. I removed it originally, but he noted that List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples is featured with such a section, so I didn't want to edit war over that. I'd say that section doesn't leave it any more unstable than the active players in the list, or any list with active players (like my .400 OBPer list, eg). As for the 100, it is somewhat arbitrary, but it serves the purpose of being both a nice round number and giving you a limited group of players. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, understood. Not keen still, not objecting, but don't think it fits in. Plenty of FLs with similarly stated inclusion criteria don't have a "bubbling under" section. Odd to see one here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• More than happy to remove (or you can yourself). I have no strong connection to it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:27, 30 July 2010 [10].

---

Historic Chapels Trust

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all the chapels and other places of worship currently preserved by the Historic Chapels Trust. The text has been copyedited and the format is identical to that of other FLs, for example List of new churches by John Douglas. Every chapel in the list has an associated article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A few comments / queries from me before I support (as I'm bound to do, given the excellence of this list)

• No dab links, but Historic Chapels Trust is a circular redirect to this page - delink it, perhaps, or (better yet) why not move this list back to that name? Realistically there's nothing more to be said about the Trust than you already have done in the lead.

• In my previous nominations for FL, it has been insisted that the title should be "List of ...". After a long discussion it was agreed that lists starting "List of listed buildings in ..." was a nonsense, and it was decided that these lists (only) should be an exception. Hence this title, which I have decided to keep. I have deleted all the circular redirects, and left "Historic Chapels Trust" as a redirect to this page. This means that people searching for "Historic Chapels Trust" will be sent directly to this list.

• ELs all fine
• You use British Listed Buildings as a reference on a few occasions; can you use the English Heritage pages (which are the source of the BLB site) instead for those? E.g. this for the Westgate Primitive Methodists. It seems a shame to use a site with advertising copying from the official site's records.

• I've been used to working with Images of England. The trouble is that this site is now out of date and is not being updated. EH now have a link to Listed Buildings Online, which should be up to date, but I have found very difficult to search and negotiate. So I tried British Listed Buildings which I found to be more friendly, and gave more information, including GRs and coordinates. There were two instances in this list where I had used BLB; both gave more detail than IoE and in each case the building had been upgraded from II to II*. Anyway I've now found them on LBO and changed the references to these. Must practice more with LBO!

• I've removed a second {{reflist}} from the article, which I assume had crept in by accident...

• Thanks, it was as you say an error.

• On my display (IE8), some of the photos (St George's German Lutheran Church, Todmorden Unitarian Church, Umberslade Baptist Church) have an extra line alongside them. I can't see anything in the code that's causing this, but it seems to be the upright ones at 70px

• I think this is a browser problem; similar things have happened with the formatting of other lists. I use Firefox and there is no problem.

• Is "The Buildings of England: Lancashire: Liverpool and the South-West" (2006) still attributed to Pevsner even though he died in 1983? Or should there be a prior year/edition indicated, as with the other Pevsners?

• The current version gives credit to both authors (Pollard and Pevsner). It seems that all the Buildings of England series are being updated and expanded; this volume is one that has been updated. It is a big expansion, still containing some Pevsner text, but more is now Pollard. Cheshire has not been updated yet. So IMO it is appropriate to include the "origyear" field in the Cheshire ref, but not in the Liverpool+ one. (And I think the previous South Lancashire book has been split into Liverpool+ and Manchester+, so there's really no continuity.)

• Your Parliamentary ref (ref 2) says "(published 2006)" whereas your other refs just say "(2006)". I assume this is a product of {{citation}} but don't know which parameter should be tweaked to avoid the inconsistency.

• Fixed.

That's all I can think of for now; well done. Bencherlite^Talk 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and helpful comments. I've replied to all that need a reply. Are you happy with this?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support yes I am. I knew that Images of England was an archived project, but hadn't had to look for a modern replacement (I'm sticking to Welsh churches at the moment!) so I'll remember the LBO if I need it. Once again, a fantastic piece of work by one of Wikipedia's most dedicated creators of high-quality articles and lists on English architecture. Bencherlite^Talk 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to go "the whole hog" and have changed all the refs from Images of England to Listed Buildings Online; there is a greater chance that this will be kept up to date in the future.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comments I think the name Historic Chapels Trust would be fine for this list, and would even prefer it be there. Not every FLC must begin with "List of...", see the recently promoted Major League Baseball Triple Crown, 1966 NBA Expansion Draft and Freedom Award for examples where everything there is to say about the topic are in an FL. Not every FL has to have a 'parent article' as it is. Thanks for the comment. Every time I have nominated a list, there has been a dispute about the title. The last time I "had to" start it with "List of ...". I don't really mind (or care). Is there a policy? If so, I should like to know what it is (and hope it will not change frequently). If not, maybe there should be. "The money raised is used for acquiring properties and for their repair and maintenance, for insurance, security costs and office expenses." List of four, comma after security costs. Done. "As of summer 2010" I'm used to capitalising seasons, but it may well be a phenomenon of too many Olympics articles. I'm not used to doing that, but what is the general feeling? Should I? I'm not sure, but doesn't a 'the' normally proceed "Rt Hon"? Yes, added. Would a 'date acquired' column be useful in the list? Why? What use is it? The charity was only founded in 1993; and the sources do not always say when the chapels were acquired anyway. Does it really matter? I do not see any value in yet another column to clutter up the list (on my narrow screen). Comments from others, please. That's all I've got for you. Courcelles (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your review. I've acted on some of your comments, but not all. I welcome advice/feedback from others.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

On the list name, I agree that it's a little bit odd. I think the rule of thumb is that if the list is effectively a split from a parent article, then it starts "List of...", but if it effectively doubles as parent article and list, then it doesn't. So (e.g.) List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford is a split from Jesus College, Oxford, List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas is a split from John Douglas and List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque is a split from Albuquerque, but Bodley's Librarian, BBC Young Musician of the Year and Master of the Rolls aren't splits from anything. Lists of listed buildings don't start with "list of..." to avoid the repetition, which is a clear sub-rule of whatever the main rule is, but anomalous. Discographies and filmographies are splits from a main article about the artist/group, but use a posh word instead of "list of ..."(!) Looking at the wikitext of WP:FL (to see which ones are called "list of", hidden in the main display), I see a few oddities and I won't try and pretend I understand the convention for TV episodes or series, but that's how I look at it. So, I do think that this should be moved back to Heritage Chapels Trust (I fail) Historic Chapels Trust, as it's not a split from a main article since there's nothing more to say about the HCT than you have already. However, I'm not going to oppose on that basis. Bencherlite^Talk 20:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let's say... Governor of Alabama. The corresponding list article would have two options: "Governors of Alabama", or "List of Governors of Alabama". The former is too similar to the main article and so should be discarded. The latter works, but as you said, we probably should only use that format when there is actually a parent article. Unless there is enough information on the trust itself to outgrow the list (or rather, until such time as the list outgrows information on the trust), the article should probably be at Historic Chapels Trust. That said, either way, "Historic Chapels Trust" needs to be bolded in the article lede. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is typical for lists to start with "list of..."; I remember a while ago Dabomb went around a lot of list articles moving them to "list of etc" (a couple of examples [11] [12]) as it's the established convention. I'm not especially fussed one way or the other. Having "list of" at the start makes it explicit, but in the examples I've given the original title would have worked just as well in my opinion as the lead provides a summary of the topic. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's the thing: When there's no 'parent article', do you need to be explicit? Why does it matter if it's a list or not? There's only one area on Wikipedia where such a distinction is made, and it's the featured content process. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as the name goes, I agree that Historic Chapels Trust is the correct title for this list, as this is the main article regarding the Trust and not a spin-off article about a specific aspect of the trust. More generally, there are some cases where the "List of" could be considered unnecessary or even clunky (as with the aforementioned Listed buildings series of lists). However, I have seen several instances where it does matter. One example comes to me at the moment: compare Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (an FA) to List of Washington & Jefferson College buildings (an FL). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, it's not unheard of for lists to be promoted, even nowadays, and subsequently be uncontroversially but significantly renamed (for instance List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season → Watford F.C. Player of the Season). Although I feel that the short name would be a big improvement, and that at the very least it should be created as a redirect, I don't believe that the matter should have a bearing on the final FLC decision.

I'm still on a reviewing holiday for the next few weeks. But while I'm here, I will say that those are some lovely images. Nice work! WFC (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks folks for your comments. I am entirely happy for the title to be Historic Chapels Trust (it's now emboldened in the lead); I was just trying to follow what I thought was the normal guidance. But I am unsure of the process of moving the title. We already have Historic Chapels Trust as a redirect to the List. Do we just move the content of the article to Historic Chapels Trust; but this leaves List of ... empty. Would this then be a case for AfD of the List? I don't see any point of making List of ... a redirect to Historic Chapels Trust — who would type in the former when looking for the latter? And the title of this page will have to be changed too. Can someone with the necessary skill/experience do this without causing the complications that would arise were I to try to do it? Thanks in advance.

Re the images; I take no credit for them. The credit must go to the photographers who have "given" their work to Geograph (not all images from that source are good; I've been lucky with some in this article).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page and this discussion, fixing the links. The "list of..." title is now a redirect to HCT, and is harmless; in fact, it has various inbound links so ought not to be deleted unless those are fixed. Bencherlite^Talk 11:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that; I most grateful.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments an excellent list with a clear lead and enough information about each of the entries. The only minor nitpicks I can find are:

• In the table headers "date" presumably relates to date of construction - should this be made explicit?
  • I've done this as a footnote so that the size of the columns is not distorted by the heading.
• In the references "Listed buildings online" is used as part of the title (followed by the chapel name) in several of the titles (eg 6, 9, 11, 13) personally I would used "work=Listed buildings online" and move it out of the title.
  • Agree. Done.
• In a few refs (eg 19, 25, 41) RC is used in the title - should this abbreviation be written in full?
  • I've copied the titles precisely as given by the source. It this not correct?

• Not a major issue

Otherwise I feel it meets all the requirements for FL.— Rod ^talk 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rod for the comments. A reply to each point is above.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Thanks I feel the list meets FL requirements.— Rod ^talk 13:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem. Having changed all the English Heritage refs to Listed Buildings Online, there is now a warning from the Toolbox that registration is required for them. In fact a couple of clicks on the opening two pages of the website takes you in and keeps you in for that session. But is there any way of getting more direct access: or do I have to add a warning similar to "subscription required"?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats why I avoid using LBO for refs & stick to IoE.— Rod ^talk 14:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is IoE is out of date — it's stuck in a time warp and is not updated. Two of the chapels on the list have since been upgraded from II to II*. I think I might have to use British Listed Buildings after all despite its advertising material; it contains precisely the same info as LBO and gives open access. What do others think?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note on Peter's talk page about this. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Hassocks, the problem is solved; all the refs have been changed to Heritage Gateway; and the Toolbox seems to be happy now.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) High-quality work, as always.

• "As of summer 2010" Any way of rephrasing this? It's winter in half the world.

• Whoops! Summer changed to July.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• When I sort by street (Firefox), "Alie Street, London" comes between "Hockley Heath, West Midlands" and "Kensal Green Cemetery, London". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I arranged the Location sort by town/city; so London comes between Hockley Heath and Netherton. I think that's logical, and cannot think of a better way of dealing with the two (potentially aberrant) London addresses.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments - nice list! Anglican is overlinked in the lead. Fixed "at any reasonable time" this is a bit POV and I assume it's a direct quote? So directly "quote" it... Text amended to "at advertised times" "When it acquires a property, the Trust arranges a public meeting to discuss issues relating to its use..." may be just me, but the last "its" has got lost, i.e. it could relate to the Trust, rather than the property. "its" replaced by "the use of the building" Key isn't accurate, the word "Grade" doesn't appear in each row of the table. Agree; the repeated use of "Grade" in the Key is redundant. Deleted as appropriate. Surprised this has not been spotted on earlier reviews. Is there a link for "Catholic Relief Acts"? Yes, added "and is being restored" needs a timeframe. Done "The shrine is being converted into a community " similar. Done I would think you need to add Date to the key, i.e. is it when the chapels were built? Not sure what you mean — there is no Date in the Key. I guess you mean the column titles, and I thought I had dealt with this (see above). I've added a footnote to explain this. To add it to the title would make the column too wide for its contents.

• Any reason why a number of the titles of the references are in italics?

• I need help here. I think I am the victim of the Citation template. Usually what is placed in the Title field is italicised. In those cases where it is not, the contents of the Work field are italicised and those of the Title field are not. You will see from the discussion above that I have had difficulty with the citations for listed buildings. The website "usually" referenced is Images of England. But this is now out of date and is not going to be updated. The Listed Buildings Online website is up to date, but (unacceptably) includes advertising material. I have been advised that the site to use is the Heritage Gateway; up to date and no adverts. But how to reference it? I helped out with the referencing for Listed buildings in Rivington in a similar style. Another editor amended it, removing the names of all the publishers. I tried to remedy this by adding a Note at the start of the References section, and made a comment to this effect at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Listed buildings in Rivington/archive1. But this has produced a similar problem with italics. It would be helpful to get this sorted out; once done it can be applied to this list, present and future FLCs, and indeed all articles and lists containing English listed buildings.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to The Rambling Man. Thanks for the comments. Most have been answered but I have raised a query about the last point.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to stick with {{cite web}} which doesn't italicise anything except for the work field. Would that be better? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on previous discussions I have seen at FAC, the italicized titles generated with {{citation}} are an accepted style as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think the problems in this list are that some titles are italicised, and some are not. So I have italicised all the titles for consistency. Further comment: I may be mistaken, but I thought that we were encouraged to use {{citation}} for everything (as a sort of catch-all). But it then has to produce consistency across the board, rather than cause the sort of trouble we have encountered here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple widely used families of citation templates: {{citation}} (as you said, a catch-all), or the {{cite XXX}} templates (which includes cite web, cite book, cite news etc.). Neither "family" is encouraged or discouraged over the other, but it must be used for all citations in the article for internal consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's precisely my problem in this list. I've used {{citation}} throughout, and it's produced internal INconsistency. Anyway that's sorted now, so far as the review of this list is concerned.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

PS (as a slight diversion). Why do we have two families? At present there are two bots travelling around, one transferring {{cite XXX}} to {{citation}}, and the other doing the opposite!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, who knows. We've wandered outside the realm of FLC here, thanks for resolving the issue I noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Question. This is an idea I'm just throwing out there. What do you think of using sortkeys (or a seperate column if you prefer) to sort by county first. This was Todmorden Unitarian Church and Wainsgate Baptist Church would sort next to each other under West Yorkshire using {{sort|West Yorkshire, Hebdon Bridge|[[Hebden Bridge]], [[West Yorkshire]]}} etc. Your thoughts? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

At present the Location column sorts by town/city. I'm not convinced that there is anything to gain by changing this to sorting by county.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 28 July 2010 [13].

---

List of Cleveland Indians first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Wizardman 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, like the other draft lists, it's ready. If you guys want to make the review process slightly more fun, you can pick the next one I'll try to get to FL status. I wasn't sure whether to have Ramirez or Sabathia as the lead image, I chose the former since his career's already accepted as great, Sabathia's still in his prime. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - nothing to nitpick. Cheers. My vote for the next one is Washington, since you-know-who is so big and all. — KV5 • Talk • 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm already halfway through the Rockies, so I'll nominate when in about three weeks. Don't pick that one. Mm40 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• As long as we're laying claim, lemme stake out the Marlins. Should be interesting to do a properly new expansion franchise. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• If we're doing the expansion teams in one swoop, then I'll probably work on the Rays roster, since the hard part of that list is already done while this is looked at. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Yet another great list. PS- I want to write the Cubs one. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support wanna do the Cardinals? —fetch·comms 13:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support By the way, easy peezy lemon squeezy. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Make that two reviewers in favor of seeing the Cards here next. Oh, and the list is another great one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 28 July 2010 [14].

---

2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is among the finest lists on WP and I hope this process will standardize the optimal format for these lists going forward. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Great stuff. My only suggestion is that I think the current structure is a little confusing. In the lead, I would describe what an all-american team is first, then describe the different organizations that grant all-american status, and then describe what a consensus team is. The way the article is currently written makes it seems as if the consensus team is the focus when it seems the focus should be on all of the all-american ratings and the consensus is just an aggregation of that information in an interesting format. Remember (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - Much better. Great job. Remember (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Why is "Men's Basketball" capitalized? I don't think "2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans" is an actual name for the group of players selected to these teams. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not averse to a page move to lower case. It just needs to be consistent with all the other seasons and properly changed in the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Detailed and a great read, but there is a lot of overlinking. It makes the tables hard to read, particularly the 'By Team' section. I can see having players linked once in each section, but that mass of blue is tough to break down. Other than that, it all looks good. Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I delinked quite a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Everything's been addressed, much more readable. Canada Hky (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Personally, I think the consensus teams are too buried now - this is the piece of info that a) is actually tracked by the NCAA over time and b) gives an idea of who the main All-American players were for a given year then goes to a list of who made the specific teams. To me, showing information from the overview to the specific makes sense as opposed to being confusing. I understand that I may be in the minority so I can defer to the consensus. I do think that 55 references is WAY overboard. Every player doesn't need to have their player page linked from this article and the info from these pages isn't actually used in the article. If readers want to know more about individual players they should go to the individual Wikipedia pages to read it. Just my 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Rikster2 in that the consensus team should be much more visible (in other words, higher up in the article) because those are the players who received the most votes and recognition for being All-Americans. The individualized nominations are of secondary importance. When I go to an All-American page for men's basketball, I want to know the generally agreed upon (consensus) team, not the individuals. Sure, include them, but don't make them the focus – that misses the main point of interest. I would argue the same thing for any other college sport (baseball, football, soccer etc.), so this is not merely a basketball prejudice. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I see where both of you are coming from and have asked that the person who suggested moving consensus down comment. I will await consensus before making further changes to this matter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't mind having the consensus list be the first list, I just thought the lead should start off with the basics and not start of explaining the consensus list first. So maybe just moving the consensus section to be the first section would solve everyone's issues. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
      • That makes sense to me. Have the consensus team later in the lead but be the first list to appear seems logical. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Ok that's better. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I still think there are too many unnecessary refereces. Any other thoughts on this? Rikster2 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jrcla2 (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comments – There is no alt text for any images, there's a disambig problem with center, and according to the external check there are two dead links. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Fixed WP:ALT text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC) For the record, alt text is no longer required for featured lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Okay good to know. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Fixed center.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Dead links swapped out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Jrcla2 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Although the honorees generally don't compete together as a unit". Get rid of that contraction and make it "do not" or similar. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC) "NABC and AP choose...". Should "The" come before this? If so, the following sentence needs it as well. I think The first needs an article, but not the second.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC) "The ten finalisits for the Lowe's Senior CLASS Award...". Typo. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Was there a tie in the Second Consensus All-America team? I count six players in that list. An explanatory note would be helpful here. There is no source discussing a tie, but I could do some OR to calculate the tied players. The lead clearly states that the ties are not broken in any way and both players are recognized in the event of a tie. This section immediately follows the lead. There should not be much confusion. I will add refs for the consensus team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Can the numbers in the sortable table be centered? That would be more visually appealing than having them hug the left side of the columns. I tried to do it and it seems to still sort O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Spell out the publisher of reference 2 (NCAA). Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC) The title of reference 37 shouldn't be in all caps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Decapped.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Should I add a column for consensus AA points in the sortable table?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review "The 2010 College Basketball All-American team includes All-American selections from the Associated Press (AP), the United States Basketball Writers Association (USBWA), the Sporting News (TSN), and the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC)." -- why are you bolding "2010 College Basketball All-American team" ? If its not the title to the article? Somehow the words got changed. I have adjusted the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Since the acronym is used in the title, you need to add the "(NCAA)" after the spelled out version of it in the lead. done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I like how in your other list you explained to the reader what the numbers under each column in the "sortable" table as to what they meant. Is that better?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Perfect.--Truco 503 17:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Instead of "sortable", why not "By player"? Sounds good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I'm going to guess that a table/section for AP Honorable mention might be tedious non notable work right? Sort of.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) What is reference #2 ? What is it directed to/from? Sorry. There were two typos.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Is there anyway you can incorporate the players somehow into the lead? Like who the main selections were?--Truco 503 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC) O.K. and I added a column to the table to back this up. It is not sorting exactly correctly though and I need some advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Try adding {{sort}} to each entry. So in this way the table can sort according to how you want it to sort. You can have it in this order {{sort|01|1}} and then you can have {{sort|02|2}}, {{sort|03|3}}, and finally {{sort|04|–}} --Truco 503 17:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC) They are all fixed now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- All issues resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 02:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 28 July 2010 [15].

---

List of Nashville Sounds awards, All-Stars, and league leaders

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the description of a featured list. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Reference 17 should include an indication that the page is in PDF format. Other than that I'm not finding anything to complain about. Solid work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Was waiting on the comments below to be resolved before supporting. Now that they have been, I see no reason not to do so. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: Newspapers should be linked when referenced, i.e. Evening Independent, The Gadsden Times, etc. As far as I know, no guideline has ever required that. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC) I'm holding off on doing this one. This is the first time I've been told these should be linked. If it's a deal-breaker, they can be linked, but I don't see the need. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Normally I'd ask for lead citations, but since it's all information that's mentioned in the tables and cited there, I don't mind it. There is variation between having citations in the table in the final column and having a group of cites in the last sentence preceding the table. It looks a bit odd, as I would prefer the tables be consistent. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC) References have been relocated to tables. See comment above concerning newspaper links. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC) It's not a deal breaker or requirement, but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC) OK, you talked me into it. Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "A few Sounds players " reads a little colloquial to me, perhaps "A number of.."? No need to repeat first names of people you go onto to mention e.g. Ray Durham -> Durham in subsequent mentions. I'd prefer the col widths to be the same in each category from section to section. Sometimes you have more than one ref so I guess, for those tables "Ref(s)" would be a more appropriate heading. Any reason why "Hustler" is in capitals in "Best Hustler"? Is there a key for 1B, 2B etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Most changes made per above. The title, "Best Hustler," is capitalized here because the Southern League capitalizes it here. I made column widths for names, positions, etc the same width in each section (awards, all-stars, and league leaders). However, I couldn't figure out how to make the "Ref" and "Record" columns a fixed size and unsortable. Can someone help out with the proper syntax? NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I finally got the fixed width/unsortableness to work. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Recipient (in Southern League (1978–1984) table) doesn't sort correctly in Safari (it'll be down to the en-dashes). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Stump Merrill had an incorrect sort key. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review "Three team managers have won Manager of the Year honors (Stump Merrill, Rick Renick, and Frank Kremblas). " -- I understand using parenthesis for the other sentences, but it would be better if you used a colon here IMO. "Three players have been chosen as the MVP or "Star of Stars", as it was sometimes called, for mid-season all-star games: Duane Walker (1979), Ray Durham (1994), and Ordóñez (1997)." -- that "Star of Stars" statement, IDK it seems a bit POV-ish, especially with the "as it was sometimes called". Is there a reference to directly source that? Wouldn't the Southern League Reference be published by Minor League Baseball? Great list overall, just those small issues above.--Truco 503 17:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Bullet 1 & 3 done. I don't have a reference that actually reports the name change but you can see here that the name changes twice from 2003 to 2005. This shows that the winner was designated "MVP" in 1988 and became "Star of Stars" in 1989. Should I reference those pages, reword, or leave as is? NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC) For verifiability, I would source that just so no future conflict arises.--Truco 503 16:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Issues resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 23:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:31, 24 July 2010 [16].

---

Hugo Award for Best Short Story

Nominator(s): PresN 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Having gotten through novels, novellas, and novelettes, here is the shortest and last of the written fiction categories in the Hugo Awards. It should be in form almost identical to those FLs, so have at it. --PresN 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Sandman888 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

* Use of non-free image which is purely decorative and does not enhance my understanding of the concept (criteria 8). Removed, though none of the reviewers at the three previous FLCs ever had a problem with it. If you remove the image from this list, then you should probably do the same for the other Hugo Award lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I'm waiting to see if any other reviewers have an opinion about it, as like I said no one else in these reviews has had a problem with the image as decorative. --PresN 17:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Concur with removing it- it is purely decorative. (I don't remember reviewing the other three, for the record.) Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I also agree that the fair-use image does not significantly increase readers' understanding in this article (I haven't reviewed any of the other lists, either). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC) why are some of the authors delinked? Surely they are notable having published a book, though I'm unaware of any policies. Well, to be on the list they had to publish a short story, not a book. I can redlink them if you want, though I don't know what the policy is either. why are the no nominees for the early years? "The 1955 through 1958 awards did not include any recognition of runner-up stories, but since 1959 all five candidates have been recorded.[5]" - Second paragraph, fourth sentence. --PresN 19:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support — I think this article is in great shape. I fixed a few minor things myself, but I have no objections. However I do one suggestion. I think it might be helpful to make a new section out of some of the stuff in the introduction. Perhaps there can be a section about the nomination process. Also, for the record, I believe all of Sandman888's concerns have been addressed. As to the concern that some authors are not linked, I believe publication of a short story is not a criterion in itself for notability (and therefor inclusion in Wikipedia) under Wikipedia:AUTHOR. – Zntrip 06:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, and your/Sandman's changes have now been replicated across the other Hugo lists I've written. --PresN 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Only issue I found was that Ian Watson was a disambiguation page; I went and fixed that myself. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 17:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Do you know of any explanation as to why the award wasn't given out in 1957? "This count is held by Niven and Michael A. Burstein, who additionally has the most number of nominations without winning." I'm not really sure what this sentence means. Does 'count' refer to 7 nominations? Also, do both them have no wins or just one of them? Suggest leaving redlinks for winning stories of the award, as this is a pretty clear indication of notability. Jujutacular T · C 03:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Not really. Each worldcon was run really independently back then, and the 1957 convention only awarded hugos for magazines. They didn't keep a lot of records back then, so there's nothing to say why they did that. Clarified, but yes, it referred to 7, and Niven was mentioned 2 sentences prior as having won three times. Done. --PresN 17:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good to me now, wonderful topic coming along. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:04, 20 July 2010 [17].

---

1980 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

When I came across this list a few months ago, it was to revert vandalism. Since then, I've tinkered with it a little off and on, and after a major push yesterday I think it is ready. Oh, and it's an article about the Lake Placid Games in which the words "ice hockey" and "miracle" do not appear! I look forward to any comments you have. Courcelles (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 15:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Comments I know it was a joke, but do you think the Miracle on Ice deserves a mention? The ice hockey tourny is a big event at any Winter Olympics, and this one obviously holds especially high notability. The only example I can think of from things I worked on was including Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) when I wrote up List of Major League Baseball tie-breakers because it was such a massively notable event that took place during something covered by the list. Surely the same applies here? I won't oppose over this, though, as it's more of a discussion-sparking question than a complaint. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I've added Miracle on Ice to the see also section, but I'm not sure it merits mentioning in the prose for this article- it's one medal, and wasn't even the final match for that medal. The paragraph that discusses Eric Heiden could handle some expansion, though, and that'd be the best place it would fit. Let me see if I can make anything work. I could swap Mark Johnson's picture for one of the ones in there now, if you'd like, though. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Tried something else entirely, which breaks the pattern, but I think should have been mentioned- that team medals are counted only once. Just can't find a way to work one medal into the discussion that makes sense. Courcelles (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Some comparisons to 2008 Summer Olympics medal table (as a featured example). Why "37 nations" and not "37 NOCs" as in the 08 list? Why "sport disciplines" and not simply "sports". Staxringold talkcontribs 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC) No real reason, though I think nations is fine in that every competing NOC at Lake Placid was a nation, whereas Beijing had NOC's for sub-national entities like the U.S. Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, etc. Changed sport disciplines->sports; there's no distinction for the Winter Games. (For a Summer Games, there is a minor distinction.) Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC) "and was second overall with 22" to be clearer perhaps "and had the second most total medals with 22."? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Good idea, changed. Thanks for the review. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comments. This is nearly FL material, there just a few tiny things I'd like to point out:
  • "Athletes from 19 countries won at least one medal, leaving 18 countries without a medal, and 11 countries won at least one gold medal." — Never quite liked this sentence's construction, which is also on the 2010 Winter Olympics medal table featured list. Perhaps... "Among the 19 countries which won at least one medal, 11 secured at least one gold medal."? There's really no need to count those which did not win a medal (the total is given just above... it's easy to do the math):
  • Done.
  • "The Soviet Union, after winning..." — Start the sentence with "After winning..." by moving "The Soviet Union" further down;
    • Done
  • If you follow the suggestion above, then change "After winning her country's..." to "Having won her country's..." to avoid repetition;
    • Done
  • "prior" → before;
    • Done
  • Who is Hanni Wenzel? In which sport did she win gold? Also, you can say that instead of winning the country's first Olympic gold medal (and also second), she won her country's only two Olympic gold medals. — Parutakupiu (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Pretty much re-worked the Wenzel sentence entirely, see what you think. Thanks for the review. Courcelles (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)~
*Comments: "The host United States were third in both gold medals and overall," both gold and overall medals. Link Innsbruck. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Both done, thanks. Courcelles (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support – "Athletes from 19 countries won at least one medal, and 11 secured at least one gold medal." The 11 seems to be referring strictly to countries, which doesn't match precisely with the beginning of the sentence. I know adding "and xxx from 11" would make this wordier, but I think the improvement in meaning would be worth it. That's all I saw. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see your point. Done, and thanks. Courcelles (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:04, 20 July 2010 [18].

---

3,000 hit club

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Similar list to a previous project of mine, 3,000 strikeout club. Eventually it'd be nice to have all 4 of MLB's big "club" milestones (along with the 300 win club and 500 home run club) featured, but those 2 others are much "bigger" in terms of the attention paid so will be larger projects. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Having trouble coming up with problems, but is it worth mentioning somewhere that this only includes regular season hits? Also, in ref 38, there's no need to write " pp. 346." to reference a single page- "p. 346." is better. Courcelles (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed the page notation. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• And added the regular season note. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm easily pleased, support. (Won't bother capping something this short!) Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I would love to see the general reference repeated in an external links section as well, but that's just me!BLUE_DOG^TN 04:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 comma after "(MLB)" Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) comma after "until 1984" Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) "Notably tThis was not Clemente's last game" Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) "meaning they could bat from either side of the plate." - sounds a little informal but I'm not sure what to suggest "Four players-Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Murray, and Rafael Palmeiro-" - those hyphens should be spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) "with a triple," - change comma to semicolon Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) "Pete Rose was declared" - can remove first name, has already been stated Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Is there a reason that the table width is fixed so narrow? The tenures and most names break onto two lines that way. Expanded to 70%. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) No more images besides Rose? I'll add a couple. Problem is the table is short enough there's not a ton of room. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Match navbox to title of article. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 17:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support, of course. — KV5 • Talk • 01:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments – One of these sentences beginning with a number again, at the start of the second paragraph. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Comma after "switch hitters"? Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) "Four players–Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Murray, and Rafael Palmeiro–are also members...". I'm pretty sure the en dashes should be spaced in such a scenario, or be em dashes. Heh, KV noted this above but I only did half. Whoops. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Another comma needed in number: "3000th hit" in third paragraph. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Are the players supposed to sort by first name? I'm more used to last-name sorting myself. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, looks like any issues I may have found were already dealt with. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "reach 4,000 hits in 1927,[1] ultimately finishing his career with more than 4,100 hits." no need for that last "hits" Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC) "finished his career with 4,256 hits. Roberto Clemente ended his career with" repetitive, perhaps, "Roberto Clemente's career ended with..."? Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC) "when the plane he " plane is a little colloquial, maybe aircraft? Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC) "In total, 27 players have reached the 3,000 hit club in MLB history. [new para] Of these 27 club members," - I would start the new para before the "In total" and then not say "27 club members", just "Of these, ..." Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC) "Lajoie while they were known as the "Naps"" just to be super-clear for non-experts, perhaps "Lajoie (while the franchise was known as the "Naps")..." Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC) "Paul Molitor is the only player to do so with a triple" this reads as if he hit a home run with a triple. While this may not be possible, to a non-expert the structure and sequence of these sentences could lead to confusion. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC) "for at least 6 months" six. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Refs 7 & 8 appear to be missing accessdates. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I may not be online frequently over the next few days so I'll happily leave Dabomb87 or his delegate to decide if my concerns (if they're valid) have been dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:04, 20 July 2010 [19].

---

List of New York Yankees first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Wizardman, Muboshgu 14:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because everything from the first FLC has been satisfied, and this has been improved to the standards of other draft pick lists. Also, Yankees' FLCs seem to be popular here, so that should help. We're at about the halfway point to a draft pick FT upon passage of this list, so we're getting there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: Looks like it was done in fine order!BLUE_DOG^TN 04:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Always wondered why this hadn't been featured. I also didn't know Everett had been drafted by the Yankees (he played for basically every other team in MLB over his career). He was actually pretty good from 95-00. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - no surprises here, difficult to quibble with anything on this list, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Support – What TRM said. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:04, 20 July 2010 [20].

---

Paolo Nutini discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have done alot of work on improvements lately and believe it is comprehensive and of high quality. There has also been a peer review and its suggestions actioned. Mister sparky (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Never keen on "comprises of" - either just "comprises" or "consists of". changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Irish Album Chart->Irish Albums Chart. fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Maybe say "the Dutch MegaCharts" rather than easter-egg-link the Netherlands. changed to "Dutch Album Chart". Mister sparky (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) The lead is a little light, you don't discuss the music videos at all for instance. music video's are never mentioned in leads. Mister sparky (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Well, perhaps they should, if they're included as part of the discography, why not talk about them? Particularly with such a short lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC) i've never seen them mentioned in any other discog and i don't see why they should be mentioned just because the lead is shorter than most. will find some other relevant info. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) "biggest selling" hyphenate. fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Live and Acoustic EP has "Atlantic Records" as the label, all other instances of the same are referred to as simply "Atlantic". forgot about that one! Mister sparky (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) One missing director, don't leave cells blank. changed to "Unknown". Mister sparky (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 11 (Swiss charts) is also in German. Check the others please. forgot about those. Mister sparky (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) date/accessdate's are wrong way round, it should be YYYY-MM-DD, per the ISO. every flc review has different views on those, some consistency would be nice. but changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) No, when writing dates out this way, there's just one view. YYYY-MM-DD per the ISO. Writing out in words, sure DMY or MDY depending on whether you prefer the British or American format, but for ISO, there's only one correct way. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC) what i meant was, some FLC's insist on dates in the refs being in ISO, some don't. but doesn't matter now. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: You sure about the 10/10 director being unknown? Just asking since I'd presume by now the video has been made, so it would be somewhere. that's the only issue I found. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

the director can be sourced, but not reliably enough, will add a footnote. Mister sparky (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments "Singles released from the album were; "Last Request", "Jenny Don't Be Hasty", "Rewind" and "New Shoes"." -- Should be a regular colon, not a semi. fixed both occurences. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) "In May 2009 Nutini released his second album, Sunny Side Up, which debuted at number one in the UK and in Ireland." -- Comma after 2009 added. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) " It contained the singles; "Candy", "Coming Up Easy", "Pencil Full of Lead" and "10/10"." -- Colon not a semicolon. fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I feel the lead needs to be extended just a bit more, add something to not bore the reader. Right now all I read was a literal technical summary of the list, nothing really that informs the reader about the artist himself or his live tours that became albums, etc. that's what the lead is supposed to do, summarise the contents of the article. general info about the artist himself is in the artists main page. can add more info about the live album and ep's. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) "Performed at the Live Earth concert, Wembley Stadium, London 7 July 2007" --> "Performed at the Live Earth concert at Wembley Stadium in London on 7 July 2007" changed. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) "These songs have not appeared on a studio album by Paolo Nutini." -- I think you can just refer to him by his last name here. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) For the 10/10 director, I recommend like in other FLC's to add a footnote explaining that a reliable reference has not been found to verify the director. will add. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Under sales for the studio albums, I would place a centered emdash in the second entry; IMO its better to have something there than just an empty cell. added. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Are bullet points really necessary in the other appearances table?--Truco 503 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Issues resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Took a quick look at this one and nothing seemed out of place. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:04, 20 July 2010 [21].

---

List of museums in Somerset

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 08:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this List of museums in Somerset for featured list because I believe it is the most comprehensive collection of these museums and meets the FL criteria. It is one of many at Category:Lists of museums in England by county but the most developed and I'm sure the lessons learnt here can be applied to the other lists in that category. It has received a Peer Review and all the issues identified have been dealt with. There is some discussion onm the talk page about the positioning of the images, however the list layout has been based on previous FLs.— Rod ^talk 08:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support—all comments addressed. Ucucha 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Comments:

Is there a difference between Grade II and Grade II*?

• Grade II* is higher than Grade II & there are less of them - see Listed building for definitions

• What does "Opposite the platform is a signal box dating from 1904 and is the standard GWR pattern of the period."

• I've revised the wording of that sentence & added a ref

• Several uncited claims, including the one I commented on above.

• I've referenced that one & will look for others but if you could specify that would be great.

• Virtually everything ought to be cited. I don't have too much of a problem with not citing information about the museum's displays, but there are also a few things, like a building being Grade I listed, and a trail being exactly 76 km long, that do need sources. Ucucha 14:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted & referenced the length of the trail (its 80km) & added references for the 3 which where the Grade was not cited. Any more?— Rod ^talk 15:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The private collection goes from three model 'A's first produced in 1947, to Lambro threewheelers, Lambretta mopeds, sales leaflets, world, accessories, posters, magazines, manuals, toys, models, signs, and promotional material."—what is "world" supposed to mean there?

• Removed

• The prose could probably do with a little more polishing. Ucucha 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks - I will look further & fix the others later.— Rod ^talk 16:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:Malleus Fatuorum has kindly done an extensive copyedit.— Rod ^talk 14:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I saw that; it should be good now. Ucucha 14:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. An excellent list and worthy of FL status. But may I make some suggestions for it to be even better.

• On my old-fashioned narrow screen the first impression is of a lot of columns and rather a lot of white space. So, do you need a separate column for the coordinates? I suggest combining the Town/City and Coordinates columns, and use small text for the coordinates (it does not need to be so big and is, I guess, mainly used as a link to maps, etc). You can see how this works in FLs such as List of new churches by John Douglas. (I must admit the list looks much better on my more modern wide screen laptop, but IMO the suggestion is still valid.)

• Done

• Why not add a {{GeoGroupTemplate}} template?

• What is the advantage of this over the kml template which is currently used?

• Mea culpa; I didn't spot it! The two templates seem to be identical.

• Why is the Summary column sortable?

• No longer sortable

• Suggest greater use of non-breaking spaces; for example Grade X — also you've done it for some xth century but not for others.

I will look for these

• As the list is sortable, linking should be used on every occasion; "listed building" and "National Trust" are two examples I found.

• I've had this debate about sortable lists before ( it might be useful if there were some guidance - if there is please point me to it) & it also came up in the peer review. Some people suggest if it is linked in the lead it doesn't need to be in the table, others suggesting it does because you can't predict which entry will be first when sorted.

• I have not seen any guidance — it just came up in one of my reviews. IMO it makes sense that if it is linked in the lead, it need not be in the body of the list (so that would mean a little unlinking in this list), but the others should be linked on every occasion, for the reason you mention.

The list puts other county lists (eg Cheshire) to shame; it sets a formidable example. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments.— Rod ^talk 12:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Even more so with the amendments.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments zOMG. Organization in the opening sentence. I nearly spilled my pint of cockles... Brit Eng surely for this list? Done Not even a mildly interesting picture of (say) where Somerset is for a lead image? Map added "in listed buildings. In the United Kingdom this " the link implies that "list building" is a UK-only thing anyway, so is there any need for the qualification? Perhaps just avoid saying "in the United Kingdom" and merge the sentences to explain to all what this means. Not sure about this one - the next sentence is specific to England & Wales rather than all of UK so may be needed.— Rod talk 20:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC) "Building of Bath Collection" has a hyphen for photo, perhaps an endash? Done Others have a combo of either hyphen or blank - be consistent. Done What goes in a blank "Type"? Is that N/A or "generic" or unknown or something else? Added "Multiple" A few ISO dates in the references, make them consistent please. Done (I think these crept in after I last did that job).— Rod talk 20:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Just a few minor thoughts that do not affect my Support.

• Rather than a (boring) map of the county as a lead image, can you find a "spectacular" one (either the best in the list, or an alternative to one already there) to give as the first impression a more dynamic effect?
  • Boring or not, I think it's actually useful as an introduction to show where Somerset is located. Ucucha 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No big deal, I just think that the purpose of a lead image is to give a "wow" factor to draw the reader into wanting to see and read more, rather than to just give information. If you want to see where Somerset is, just click on to Somerset in the first sentence.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I' can go with either. I started with the map as useful information (for those that don't know where Somerset is) but then picked a dramatic & old building. (You mean there is anyone left who doesn't know where Somerset is?)— Rod ^talk 21:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• The images in landscape format appear small in comparison with those in portrait format. IMO it would look better if you reduced the size of the portrait images to say 70 or 80px (just cosmetic really).

• Done

• When you have no image, it would look better if the dash were placed centrally rather than being left justified.

• Done

Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks really great now. G'night.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I added in a comma but I found no other issues. I also fixed the see also section so the Category: prefix wasn't showing. Great list. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I fixed a few points, along the following lines: (a) where there was a sentence fragment ending with a full stop, trying to fix it so that it was a full sentence; (b) changing e.g. "the 14th century house" to be "the 14th-century house" per MOS ("the house was built in the 14th century" doesn't have a hyphen, but "this is an example of a 14th-century house" should). Otherwise, I cannot complain about the contents or scholarship. Excellent work; now, where shall I go on holiday this year...? Bencherlite^Talk 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:04, 20 July 2010 [22].

---

List of former and unopened London Underground stations

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The history of the London Underground is littered with mistakes, modifications and unfulfilled plans. The number of stations formerly served by the system is large and many are well known to its users. Other stations are lost in the mists of time; long forgotten and ignored. Still more were planned but never built due to shortages of cash, government intervention or changes of plan. All former stations and those that received government approval for construction are listed. This list is a companion to List of London Underground stations. DavidCane (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support—I made a few minor fixes, but can see no large problems. I assume you've done your job well and made the list comprehensive. Ucucha 16:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, thought I'd got all those. --DavidCane (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: I started with a skim read at first, and two things jumped out at me. First, I'm pretty sure list titles are no longer bolded per policy, though I may be wrong. Second, the lead feels a bit lacking as is. Maybe add in a few extra notes, such as the first one to close, any that had particularly unique stories leading to their closure, etc. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I can't find anything definitive in the list MOS, but WP:BOLDTITLE does say that, for descriptively named articles, the title does not need to be bold. Accordingly, I have changed that and reworded the introduction. With regard to naming the first one to close, the list is sortable, so this can be found to be Westbourne Park, although that is fairly uninteresting as it was only a relocation. Perhaps the oddest closure is South Kentish Town, which closed following a power cut and never reopened, although I'm not sure that repeating this information in the lead adds anything useful.--DavidCane (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. While the lead doesn't wow me, I'll offer my support nonetheless. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The list is by all appearances a finished product, and "the subject is interesting" is not in the FL criteria. --erachima talk 10:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments This may be interesting, added today on the main BBC site, it expands a little on St Mary's with information about it being leased by Stepney Borough Council as a bomb shelter - you could add this information. I seem to recall a number of these unused stations have been used in "period" television programmes, this could be added to the lead. What makes Abandoned stations and Disused stations reliable websites? Otherwise, this is a very good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Excellent spot on the BBC's St Mary's. I see someone's added a link to the station article; I'll add a bit to the text in the list. It's a good point about them being used as filming locations. With regard to reliability: I suppose that Abandoned stations may not be strictly reliable, as it does not cite sources. I used Abandoned stations for Shoreditch station, because it has a good collection of photos of the changes made after the station was closed, including the filled-in cutting. I have added an extra ref from TfL which explains the closure in slightly less detail. Whilst Disused stations is an enthusiast site, it does provide citations and the scope and breadth of the site does provide evidence of a high degree of detailed (perhaps obsessive) research behind its current list of 1,421 stations. I feel that this gives it a weight that some more readily accepted sites do not have.--DavidCane (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Not much to complain about here, but I do believe the notes for Drayton Park and Essex Road should have periods at the end. Neither seems like a sentence fragment, which possibly wouldn't require a period. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Funnily enough, I was flicking through some of these stations earlier today (started reading Iridescent's latest masterpiece on the far reaches of the Metropolitan Line and before you know it, you've ended up finding out how many attempts it took to build a decent tube station near the Tower of London). I've made a few changes to sentence fragments etc, since my understanding is that sentence fragments shouldn't have a full stop after them even if you then insert a reference. Otherwise, a thorough piece of work (even if its appeal might apparently be limited to fellow ferroequinologists and Londonphiles, it deserves a wider audience). Bencherlite^Talk 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:04, 20 July 2010 [23].

---

2006 boys high school basketball All-Americans

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a notable list deserving of recognition as a WP:FL. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from KV5

• The lead still needs a copyedit. I've spotted at least one sentence fragment and some punctuation/grammar issues. I'll see if I can get to it at some point today. — KV5 • Talk • 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Copyedit is done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
      • O.K., but why did you say that the McDonald's was the largest, when Parade has 40 players?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Because I'm dumb. — KV5 • Talk • 12:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
          • O.K., but is there anything I can do to get your support?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
            • The list looks fine to me right now, but I'll wait to see what others have to say. — KV5 • Talk • 14:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
              • Support — final once-over looks good. — KV5 • Talk • 12:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Lead should be expanded. It seems quite short. I don't know how much is relevant. I could state that a high number of players make it to the NBA or something, but I don't know much else to add.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Players who were chosen by all four groups? You haven't talked at all about the players themselves in the lead, and they are the subjects of the list. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) This article isn't stable yet. It shouldn't be nominated until all players have exhausted their eligibility or declared that they are not becoming professionals The 2010 NBA Draft is tomorrow. Only a handful of players in this group have remaining eligibility.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC) What about the player who's listed in the 2011 NBA Draft? Who knows if he will even be drafted? That event isn't occurring for another year. Why is a player listed as "TBD" in the draft column? And one is blank? — KV5 • Talk • 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I added TBD to the key.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC) The notes column is empty. Like at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 College Football All-America Team/archive1‎, where we decided to note the major player of the year awards, I was thinking to add High School Player of the Year awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC) If those awards are notable, I see no reason why not, but that should have been done prior to nomination. WP:FL? says that featured lists are supposed to be complete. — KV5 • Talk • 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC) It is a minor addition since there are only a few notes to add. I am in uncharted territory. This is not like doing a Tallest building, Discography, or team season list. I am pretty much the ground breaker for All-American teams. I just needed some minor feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC) What do the headers mean? Are they clear now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC) No; no change was made to the headers. A reference was added but I still have no idea what they mean. I could probably figure it out by process of elimination, but it shouldn't be that difficult. Add a key. — KV5 • Talk • 18:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC) O.K. Done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC) The table is completely unreferenced at this time. Refs added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Players who were not/are not being drafted should sort at the bottom when the draft column sorts, not at the top. I was hoping you list guys might be able to help me correct this sorting issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Set sortkeys, using {{sort}}, on the "N/A" and "TBD" cells. — KV5 • Talk • 22:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I have tried to resolve this with your suggestion. Some of the numbers are still not sorting correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I used a set of hard codes to force the sorting. All blank cells need centered em-dashes. I fixed the last one that I saw.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC) The entire notes column, as well as Mike Jones' college, still need them. — KV5 • Talk • 12:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC) What are the "???" for? It's not on the key. Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Is the "Notes" column really necessary if there are only two players with awards? Perhaps those could be put in footnotes instead. There is some discussion on the talk page about adding other items to this column such as NCAA POY recognition. Any thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC) None that are specifically relevant to that discussion. — KV5 • Talk • 12:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC) In the absence of commentary, I added notes to Durant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Some players who played for two schools have slashes, and other have commas. Be consistent. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not sold on the structure of the lead. Right now, it seems kind of jumbled, and seems to be structured starting very specifically at the beginning and expanding to general at the bottom. More general information should be at the beginning of the lead to introduce the topic and then it should continue to more specific information later in the lead. The bold in the first sentence seems forced. This could be changed, because the bold in the first line is not completely necessary. I have changed the order of paragraphs in the WP:LEAD and made a new section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I don't think you need the other level two header. It unnecessarily breaks the lead. However, the first sentence of the second paragraph, which should no longer be bolded, is a very awkward read. "2006 high school boys basketball All-Americans are boys high school basketball players who were selected to major national All-American teams" says the same thing twice. Perhaps a re-write would be helpful. — KV5 • Talk • 12:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I have revised the text, rearranged it and moved the page. With the rearranged text, the LEAD only has general content that could be used in the article for each year this list is created.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC) The point of the lead is not to have general, reusable content. The beginning of the lead (the first two paragraphs) can be the same from year to year, but there's no reason not to combine the two sections and make a respectable four-paragraph lead (right now, it's five, but the players with remaining eligibility will eventually be deleted). A lot of the MLB awards lists did the same thing (see WP:Featured topics/Silver Slugger Award and WP:Featured topics/Rawlings Gold Glove Award). — KV5 • Talk • 12:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC) In short, WP:FLC is not peer review. This list is not complete. — KV5 • Talk • 17:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Non-ISO date format preferred (use MDY or DMY instead). I am not actually sure what you are talking about. Could you clarify.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I fixed it with a script. — KV5 • Talk • 22:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Table headers should be bold in the key if they are bold in the table. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Don't start sentences with numerals ("21 Jordan Brand players..."); use words instead. I revised the sentences to retain consistency of numeric format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC) "NA" should be N/A or n/a Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Hope these additional comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC) What are "Jordan Brand players"? I added a link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC) It might be better, instead of just linking Jordan's name, to link "Jordan Brand" itself to the appropriate section of his article that talks about the brand. It brings a lot more context that way. — KV5 • Talk • 12:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC) It is discussed in two separate sections. I have linked it to the first.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC) The second section would be better because it describes the genesis of, and the impetus behind, the Jordan Brand, rather than just saying it's a clothing line. — KV5 • Talk • 12:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC) The link isn't located on the first occurrence of the term. — KV5 • Talk • 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Em-dashes still are not centered. — KV5 • Talk • 14:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Are you sure? I don't know how to do this and neither 2009 College Football All-America Team nor 1991 College Baseball All-America Team, which I recently took through FLC, had this feature.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Centered dashes are almost always preferred in empty cells to left-aligned ones, unless there's some compelling reason not to. To get the results, use {{center}}. — KV5 • Talk • 17:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it would be useful to state if these players played for a college team and for which college team, but that is just a suggestion. Remember (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - looks good to me. Remember (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "A team of 24 McDonald's All-Americans was selected. Jordan Brand selected 21 players. The USA Today All-USA prep basketball team included 15 players. This list includes the 40 Parade All-Americans." This group of sentences has no flow when read consecutively. Fortunately, improving the readability won't be difficult. The first three sentences are short, and could all be combined into one; this could be followed by "This list also includes...". O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Parade should be in italics as a printed publication. It isn't in the lead, though it is in the references. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC) All-American linked twice in the lead. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "the following players were selected by to all four lists". Remove "by". O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC) All-American Teams. First, decapitalize Teams in the section heading. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Remove comma in "For teams, where no such enumeration exists...". O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC) In the table, there's a blank row for Alex Stepheson. What is this intended to mean? I have to figure out when his eligibility expires. He was a late addition to the table. It was suggested that I add a collegiate affiliation column by someone above. Do you think I should do so. If I do then when I find all that information, I will likely figure out a bit about Stepheson.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I have filled in some of his info.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Spell out the publisher of reference 6 (NCAA). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref

Waiting on KV5's response, if any, to his group of comments. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since KV5 seems content, I'll support the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the NCAA Most outstanding player to the notes section for Wayne Ellington before I realized that the chart wasn't really listing individual college awards. Should this chart include these awards, and if so, which ones? Remember (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony, has this been issue been resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a non-issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments I don't think we need to link "athlete". O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Nor media. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Last couple of sentences of first para don't flow well for me. You talk about first ever All-American team in one but then flow into the next sentence where positions suddenly become important. I have moved the last sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Title has no apostrophe while this sentence "...boys' high school basketball players" does, is there a difference? removed from text. Not sure if title should be changed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC) "to compete in a basketball game" you've already said they're basketball teams.. is this really necessary? Tweaked wording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I'd look to link "underclassmen" - this isn't a term that non-US (i.e. me) folks are familiar with. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC) "(first, second, etc.). " does the WP:MOS like .).? Not sure of your point, but have tweaked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Perhaps I missed it but you don't explicitly link McDonalds in the lead. Second sentence of second paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC) "Both the McDonald's All-American team selection and the Jordan Brand All-American team selection have associated all-star games held in conjunction with them, in which the players are divided into two teams to compete in a basketball game" no explicit link to McDonalds. Just a link to the McD AA team. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC) That is the proper link. The restaurant is not so relevant to this article, IMO. Why do you think we need the restaurant in this article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Just want to be sure that if you reference the "restaurant" then there's an actual unique link somewhere in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC) "by the time they have exhausted their collegiate eligibility" what does that mean to a non-expert? Is that O.K?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC) En-dash in the parade column means what? And should it sort above 1? Not sure where it should sort, but I have added it to the legend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC) In fact, Parade and USAT don't sort correctly in Safari. They have four sort configurations, presumably due to the en/em-dash. I defer to the list experts to resolve this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 3 has a double .. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Same for ref 59. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments My main problem is that the lead doesn't flow with me. Its all over the place, its goes from explaining the year 2006's selections but it really doesn't give a background to the selections and if it does, its located too late in the lead. I recommend you give the reader a background to the selections, the teams that there are in the selection process, and other etc. information that is needed. So basically, like move the information regarding the history/background of the selectors/selecting process to come first before the information about the 2006 event. Moved a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC) In addition, add some transitions in the lead, like instead of "McDonald's named blah blah" why not "For the 2006 selections, McDonald's selected blah blah". Many MOS guides discourage, just adding words for that effect. I made a few changes though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I don't see the need to link United States in the lead. You are right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC) "In the table below, each column represents an All-American team." -- this is a bit misleading since not every column is about the team, its more about the players. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The publishers for NBA.com isn't necessarily "NBA.com" that's just the URL. The publisher is the National Basketball Association Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 50, needs a publisher, not a URL. thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The publisher for the Naismith awards needs to be either capitalized and/or reevaluated to being published by the Atlanta Sports Council or Atlanta Tip Off Club. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC) "— - player not named to any team by that selector" - probably change that dash to the other types of dash you have for the rest of the key. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC) You can add a <br> to the reference in the "Draft" column so you don't have to stretch that column out.--Truco 503 01:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Issues resolved; meets WP:WIAFL. Good work!--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:13, 20 July 2010 [24].

---

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

Nominator(s): --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk, Ecjmartin (talk), Surv1v4l1st

I am nominating this for featured list because, after the implementation of this article's Peer Review, I feel that this List meets all six "Featured list criteria". As this list has improved significantly since April 2010 and I feel that this list now disserves "featured list" status.

Please note that all the recent changes came in response to the Peer Review or from information provided by the "Toolbox" listed in the "featured list process". --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This article has been vastly improved, and I think it more than meets the required criteria. I am also a major contributor to this article (I didn't realize I needed to mention that, but I guess I do, so I am now) - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Director's note Support de-bolded as co-nominator's support is assumed. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The article has indeed made some great progress and I am not seeing anything that would disqualify it from FL. In the interest of procedure, I will say I have contributed to the article over the years, though I don't know if it would to the level of "significant contributor." Nonetheless, I would be remiss in not mentioning it per the guidelines. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I did some basic work of adding entries to this page some time ago, but anything I contributed has been greatly improved on in formatting and structure. It didn't come close to meeting the requirements for a featured list when I had been editing it, but I think that it does now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose a quick skim over... "miniscule factions" probably unnecessary weight here, small factions? What does "First Counselor" mean, and why is it in quotes? "Each of these men still retains a following as of 2010" is this referenced anywhere? You link Independence, Missouri but not Salt Lake City, Utah. No reason for inconsistency. "1844 Tinted lithograph ..." no need for capitalised T "No offense is intended by their use here" I don't think Wikipedia needs to apologise for factual accuracy. Spaced en-dashes, not hyphens please, (e.g. "Before the schism - Joseph Smith's..." should be "Before the schism – Joseph Smith's..." Headings - Church Name->Church name, Date Organized->Date organized, Current Status->Current status. Would prefer columns to be the same width from table to table, looks messy right now. "Joseph Smith Jr." or "Joseph Smith, Jr."? Date organized column of second table does not sort correctly under Safari. Organized by column would typically sort by surname, not first name, using the {{sortname}} template. "mostly in Centennial Park, " we don't normally have links in the article like this. At least two links go back to Latter Day saint movement, (e.g. Church of Christ, which is pipelinked to Church of Christ (Leighton-Floyd/Burt) which redirects to the LDS article) - this is quite misleading. Some single line tables are not sortable, at least one is. Be consistent. I would far prefer to see the images down the right-hand side in the relevant sections. Ref 3 needs spaced en dash, not two hyphens. Same for ref 5. Ref 10 "Pages" -> pp. Ref 13 needs an en-dash, not a hyphen for the year range. Ref 15 - remove the overcapitalisation and you reference just a single page, so p., not pp. Ref 18 is just a single page, so p., not pp. "Retrieved" or "retrieved" throughout, be consistent. Ref 29 needs an en-dash, not a spaced hyphen. Ref 31 needs an en-dash, not an unspaced hyphen. Ref 39 - p. not pg. Ref 40 has ".," Ref 43 p. not pp. Ref 47 needs an en-dash, not a hyphen. If you wish to keep adding copyright symbols, do it consistently, e.g. ref 47 is just a (c). We have a large number of external links, are all relevant? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Comment Can this be said to be a complete list (that is, is there some official list of what constitutes a sect)? If not this needs {{Dynamic list}} Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Fixing I have been working with the list of issues that The Rambling Man and Staxringold provided. Here is what I did or an explanation for why nothing was changed. The Rambling Man Items: 1. The consensus has been that if a Church is can be cited by an WP:V source that it belongs in a "list of sect" no matter the size, since it is a "Sect". This first lead to citing all groups and then to the removal of a large number of wp:SELFPUBLISHED sects, as anyone can claim they have created a “sect”. This seams to be the best setup. As to "miniscule factions" having “unnecessary weight”. That is why the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was moved from the bottom to the top of the list, just after the “Before the schism” sects as it is the larges and most known sects. (see). Other then that the sects have been arranged by date of founding in there respective sub-categories. 2. I changed to “member of the First Presidency” as this leads to a wikpage that explains what Sidney Rigdon definition of what First Presidency is, while keeping the same general information. 3. Fixed. Added cites as requested 4. Replace all but first link to Independence, Missouri, the same as with Salt Lake City, UT. If I am correct in my understanding this is how internal links are supposed to be. The first one only. 5. Already fixed before I got to it. 6. "No offense is intended by their use here". Although I did not put this here, I believe that this came from “Shields”. I also believe the reason for it’s inclusion is in order to prevent a bunch of “NPOV” tags (as can be found in Category:Josephite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. Yes this term is “factual accuracy”, but no matter what term is used, someone takes offence. I can remove it if you think this isn’t a good enough reason, but I think most the common editors would prefer to leave it in. No stress, keep it, just found it odd to apologise. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 7. Changed 8. Please explain. I’m not sure what you mean? Don't overcapitalise, particularly non-Proper Nouns. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed 9. I am trying to fix this (see). I am missing some sytax knowlege as how to make this happen. You could look at some recently promoted lists to see how this works. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I think it had to do with the contents of the columns, but I eventually figure it out. - Fixed 10. Already fixed before I got to it. 11. Can you tell me what is wrong with sort in Safari? I cannot use Safari, so I’m not sure what is wrong and how to fix it. Safari for the PC is free to download? Normally these problems occur as a result of a combination of numbers and text (or dashes). {{sort}} or {{SortKey}} can be employed to fix this for everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I realize Safari is free, but I am not allowed to install it on my computer for certain reasons (not that I don’t want to) I believe I have this fixed as I added sortkeys to the problem items. Please let me know if it isn’t working still. 12 See #9 - Fixed 13 Fixed by removal 14. All these groups are part of the Latter Day Saint movement. Since these pages do not have actual Wikipedia pages, they are linked to the Latter Day saint movement with Redirects to allow them to appear in the various LDS type categories. I’m not sure if there is a better way to do this. However, I equal this to redirecting a brand name “Bob's Jelly beans” to “Jelly Beans” as Bob's beans are part of the Jelly Bean group, if you get my meaning. 15. The last table may or may not have additional church’s added, the others wont. That is why it is was made storable. I have changed it to a non-storable and will keep an eye on it to change it back if any in the future are added. 16. The decision to put the images at the bottom was made at Talk: Image gallery Fine, but this is WP:FLC, not the Image gallery talk on the talk page. I won't oppose on this alone, but I'm surprised to see so much support for a pair of galleries whose contexts are completely lost as a result of being jammed in at the end of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 17. Fixed 18. Fixed 19. Fixed 20. Fixed 21. Fixed 22. Fixed 23. This is going to take some outside work. The error is in the citation templates. {{citation}} vs {{cite web}}. Posted note asking for correction from an admin. 24. Fixed 25. I think I fixed. I couldn’t find this error, so I made sure that all reference that had only one pages was listed a p. not pp. Generally if a template has pages= it will say pp., while a page= will produce p. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC) My issue was that someone made a change on the page and I think this one got moved to a different reference number, so I was unable to figure out which one was your ref 31. So, I made sure that all single page references used "page=" instead of "pages=", which should have fixed this one and #29--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 26. Fixed 27. Fixed 28. Fixed 29. Fixed See 25. 30. Removed all copyright simbols as they are not really needed. 31. These are links to the individual sects website. They were move down per Wikipedia:Peer review/List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement/archive1. Some of these sects do not have Wikipedia pages, so removing them means they will be lost. I am happy to limit them to only ones that don't have wikipages, but then that would seem to give “unnecessary weight”, to those groups. Unless you say otherwise, I'm going to leave it as is.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Staxringold Items:
1. Added {{Dynamic list}} tag as suggested. See item 1 above as to what is required to be included on this list. Added statement that curches listed must be WP:V - See

Fixed?

I believe I have addressed all these issue. If I missed one, or not explained it to your satisfaction, The Rambling Man or Staxringold, please let me know.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

* Referencing: Citations use {{citation}}, {{cite xxx}} or no templates. For consistency, pick one citation style. This is the issue with the capitalization of retrieved noted above. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC) This was done after some input at Template:talk:Cite_web--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC) There are still several uses of {{citation}} mixed with {{cite book}}, {{cite episode}} and {{cite news}}. Several citations use no template, and their styles have minor differences and errors. #6 only has one quote mark, #12 uses periods as separators and has no quotes around the title, #27 uses first name last name, etc. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) All references are now using the {{citation}} template, and only this template. However, not to argue, but if your not supposed to mix {{citation}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite episode}} and {{cite news}}, then how would you ever use anything but {{citation}}, unless you only cite one type of source for the whole artical?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC) {{Citation}} uses one style and {{cite book}}, {{cite episode}} and {{cite news}}, etc. use a slightly different style, {{vancite book}}, {{vancite web}}, etc. uses another. You aren't the first to be confused on this— I am working on a proposal to name the style systems. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Looks OK now. I did some ref cleanup: expand state abbreviations (not all readers are in the US), fix | that were year only or month year and some other minor stuff. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion about co-nominators moved to FLC talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I know next to nothing about the Latter Day Saints, but this looks like a great list. Just a few nitpicks "In categorizing the Latter Day Saint churches for this article, for churches that have meet verifiability guidelines, the following divisions and subdivisions have been employed." Ignoring the minor grammar error ("have meet"), this sentence seems overly self-referential; readers should not have to click on a Wikipedia-space link to understand it. Perhaps something along the lines of "for churches mentioned in reliable sources..." This was a recent and new addition in an attempt to prevent new unverifiable sect from getting posted from time to time. I have changed it per your input. "Rocky Mountain Saints – Sometimes called "Brighamite" or "Mormon," tracing their leadership or influence through Brigham Young: " Shouldn't it be "Sometimes called "Brighamites" or "Mormons"? Changed Sentence fragments should not have sentence-ending punctuation (e.g. "Branches which have originated independently of any Rocky Mountain or Prairie Saint organization."). This applies to both the factional breakdown and the table. Forgive me but English isn't me strong subject. I changed the item you listed and noticed it matches the others. However, are you saying that the sentences like "By far the largest and best known Latter Day Saint church, often called the "LDS Church" or "Mormon church"." should not have punctuation also? Fixed this myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) In the Pre-schism dissenting bodies table, why is there a dash before Hoton? The existence of this sect is verifiable, but the first name of the founder is not known. Can you add a explanatory footnote for this? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I put this information in the "notes" column and cited it into the reference section. I thought that this was the best way to make this information available. Why the unnecessary markup in the third-level headings? (e.g. "Church of Christ"). It could cause accessibility problems. If you want to title the tables you can add their titles after the |+. Fixed There is no link to this list in Template:Latter Day Saint movement. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure about this one. I have never been a part of the creation of the Template:Latter Day Saint movement, so I'm not sure if it belongs. I put this question in the discussion on that template.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I went ahead and added it. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Why is the gallery necessary? Images have been requested numerous times in both the Peer Review and the FL process. The issue of where and how to put the image in has been discuses a number of time. Putting them in as they are has been the best anyone can come up with. See and see I'm still undecided about this, and have asked for more opinions at WT:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Your not the only one who has said this. Several of the major editors have attempted to figure out a better way. I even worked up a mock (on my own sandbox page) of what might have been a better way to do it, only to be convinced I was wrong. If you have a better idea, please by all means let us know. We would be happy to implement it Please see Talk:List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Image_Gallery_III. I have made another attempt to remove the gallery, but I'm not so sure about it. I would like your input.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not a huge fan of galleries, but given your well-reasoned arguments and the consensus among other editors who have opined on the issue, I will not let this issue prevent this list from receiving its well-deserved FL star (cross-posting this on FLC). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Sandman888 (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support WereWolf (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:59, 17 July 2010 [25].

---

List of battlecruisers of Russia

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it passed a MilHist ACR and I feel it meets all the criteria for a featured list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• is there any template that you can add to the bottom of the List that deals with the military of Russia or is there none in existence?--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Added templates for Russian ship classes of WWI and WWII.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Another thing, any reason that there are only three citations that link to an aouthor other than McLaughlin? Surely you can just use the other guys a bit more than three times in the whole text?--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • McLaughlin, in three different articles or books, provides the most in depth coverage of the three designs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of Russia. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Looking good overall. A few points:

• Since the technical data are the same for each ship in each class, would it make sense to unite the cells using |colspan=| or to move the technical data to the text?
  • Using the colspan attribute would be a good idea; I should of thought of it already as I often use it in my HTML tables.<chagrined>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Rowspan actually, my error. Ucucha 17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Either way I knew what you meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• I think the inclusion of three non-free images will probably give some NFCC enthusiasts chuckles. The FUR for File:Kronshtadt3.jpg at least needs to be improved ("Replacable: Just like any other drawing" won't do), perhaps following the more NFCC-compliant one for File:Stalingrad2vew.jpg. As for File:IzmailConstruction.jpg, hasn't it been published before 1923? In that case, it would be PD in the U.S.

Ucucha 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• • IIRC, the original upload on Commons didn't specify source so it was impossible to prove that it was published in the US before '23 even though the photos date to about 1915. Don't get me started on the NFCC requirement on replaceability as any drawing or photo of a real object can be ultimately be replaced; it's merely a question of time and energy, which, IMO, calls into question the whole requirement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If it was published anywhere before 1923, it is PD in the United States and can be uploaded to en.wikipedia with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Some images actually cannot be replaced with a free alternative (unless you wait for 70 years after the author's death), like album covers. In this case, the FUR for the Stalingrad image is certainly stronger than the one for the Kronshtadt image. Ucucha 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm fairly certain that I know the source for the Kronshtadt image, but I have to wait a bit before I get my photocopies to confirm it. But without a positive source for the Izmail image I can't prove when it was published at all so claiming PD-1923-abroad is unsupportable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I still haven't gotten my photocopies, but I've updated the FUR for the Kronshtadt image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, a great list. These military-lists are so well-sourced. I wd normally oppose when using non-free images, but this list does in fact describe the subjects of the images. Sandman888 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "interrupted the construction of the Borodino-class" the lead makes it unclear as to who was developing this class of battlecruiser. Clarified. "capable of dealing with enemy cruisers" you could be clearer here as to what "dealing with" means. Done "but the design began to grow" be precise, do you mean the ship design became bigger? Or just the design took longer, was more expensive etc? Clarified. " it was modified to allow for combat with German pocket battleships and later the Scharnhorst-class battleships on even terms" perhaps it's just me but this doesn't seem to read correctly. I'm not sure what you're getting at. How does this work? "... it was modified to allow for combat with German pocket battleships on even terms, and later modified to gain parity with the Scharnhorst-class battleships." "The Navy revived its requirement..." perhaps reiterate which Navy. Not necessary given the title, etc. All things considered, I'm with SV on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Just a quick check, is canceled preferred over cancelled for USEng? Beats me, my dictionary makes no distinction. Stay consistent with millimetre vs millimeter. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Refixed :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Oops ... the last edit to the article was 6 days ago, so my guess is you made an edit but it didn't save, SV. I'll do some of these. I personally always use "cancelled" (34M ghits) over "canceled" (16M ghits) on Wikipedia, since they're used with equal frequency in the U.S., but AFAIK "canceled" is wrong everywhere outside the U.S. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I did indeed forget to save it. <blush>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Is there a good link for "Russian Naval General Staff" or similar for non-experts? I might be able to put something together. Done Last two paras of the lead are completely unreferenced. They're fully covered in the relevant articles. Only controversial statements are referenced in the lead. I plead ignorance on what's customary at FCL. It would be okay at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Well, you have some references in there. The point is that I guess most readers assume that if no references exist in the lead then the information will all be subsequently referenced in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Oh I misunderstood ... absolutely, anything in the lead that needs referencing needs to be referenced somewhere in the article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, reviewed at ACR... an excellent list IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, only issue I found was a lacking comma in one spot. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• One comment: Which of McLaughlin's books does ref 5 come from? Courcelles (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Support Great list. Courcelles (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, pending the resolution of Courcelles's question of course. The prose looks good, FU-images look fine, sourcing looks good as well. Excellent work on this list. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:17, 16 July 2010 [26].

---

List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A football club list of seasons that follows the standard and accepted structure of those that have passed this process in the past, like List of York City F.C. seasons and the recently promoted List of Lincoln City F.C. seasons. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Sandman888 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:* "The Second Division was renamed League One as part of a rebranding exercise by the Football League" cant verify w. source I believe this is verified by the source. It states "Lord Mawhinney also announced a substantial re-branding, under which The League reclaimed its heritage and renamed the divisions The Championship, League 1 and League 2". Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "Hull were elected to the Football League Second Division for the 1905–06 season" can you perhaps expand this. Why was hull elected to 2nd division and not somewhere else? I imagine because the Football League was the place to be; there's not really anywhere else the club have applied to, apart from the Midland League. Just a case of them wanting to play in the FL really... Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "Club's best League finishing position." reads a bit awkward Reworded to "Club's best finishing position in the league" and have uncapitalised "League" to the more generic "league" due to the finish being in the Premier League. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) per mos:bold topscorer shd be in italics. Or so they say. Could you point out to me where it says this? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I think what Sandman is referring to is MOS:BOLD, which says "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." What that basically means is that you shouldn't use boldface text as an indicator. Since you already use italics for something else, you could use a color and/or a symbol to indicate the top scorer in the division. The same applies to using bold for the league change. — KV5 • Talk • 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Have now replaced the bold with symbols. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "Division shown in bold when it changes due to promotion, relegation or reorganisation." how does divisions get promoted? Think you must have misread this. It doesn't state the divisions are promoted, but that the divisions are shown in bold when a promotion occurs. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) but the 'it' refers to division? There is nothing else in the sentence it (the it) can refer to. Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, "it" does indeed refer to division. But the emphasis is that the division changes (ie that the club is playing in a different division), rather than it being promoted, relegated etc, which would make no sense. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) But it's the club that changed between divisions, not divisions between clubs. Sandman888 (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Each row of the "Division" column contains a short name for the division in which the club played for the season dealt with in that row. The word "division" is thus used as a convenient abbreviation for "The name of the division in which the club played for the season dealt with in that row". "The name of the division in which the club played for the season dealt with in that row" will usually change from one row to the next – i.e. one season to the next – if the club is promoted or relegated. "The name of the division in which the club played for the season dealt with in that row" can also change from one season to the next if the league is reorganised. Hope this helps ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Oh it does. I'm not sure the non-footies at peer review wd have though. Sandman888 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC) "Top scorer shown in bold when he was also top scorer for the division." isn't it "in that division" ? Reworded to "Top scorer shown in bold when he was also top scorer in that division". Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Refs, wd prefer "DD Month YYYY" format. Is there a guideline/policy that recommends this method? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) The MoS here Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Written dates and accessdates out in full. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) RSSSF refs shd have authors and dates for all references, not just one. Authors added. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) ... and dates. Also include dates. Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Added dates. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "League results shown in italics for abandoned competitions" -> "League results shown in italics for the 1939-40 competition, which was abandoned due to WW2" unless I'm missing something I think the original wording is better, as the First World War also led to the abandonment of competitions. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) There are no league results marked in italics around WWI. If that is not a mistake, then it shd read as suggested as there is only the one instance. Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC) As was concluded at the Lincoln seasons FLC, there are two league rows in italics and both of these contain leagues that had the result of being abandoned due to war. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I know, I reviewed said list. On that list there are two rows, one was abandoned due to war, the other (the first) was abandoned. On your list there is one row of league results, so therefore you can write in full why that is in italics. The conclusion was, if any, that the text in italics is not a league result, since the league was never started. Sandman888 (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC) But the two lists, I think, are symmetrical with regard to competitions that were abandoned due to war, both being caused by WW1 and WW2. These are denoted by "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the First World War.", the 1939–40 season being displayed in italics and "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War." So surely if the message suffices for the Lincoln list it will do for this, as they're both denoting the exact same thing? Mattythewhite (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Not exactly, the Lincoln list include a 'regularly' abandoned competition and one due to war-time. That gives two different types of abandonment so a general note is in place. You, however, only have one abandoned competition, so it wd make sense to specify why that league was abandoned in the first place, because a more general note is not needed. The text placed across the row, (The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the First World War. & the other) needs no further specification. Sandman888 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, I now see the other abandoned competition on the Lincoln list. Do you think a reword to something like "League results shown in italics for competitions abandoned due to war" would be better? Personally I think it's fine as it is but if you feel it would be better changed then it's no biggy. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (OD) yes, that wd be nice. Sandman888 (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Rewritten as stated above. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments few quick bits

• Hull's FA Cup defeat to Stockton was 4-1 in the replay after a 3-3 draw, not 7-4 on aggregate, see the FA website's archive.
  • Corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Do you need to link every season mentioned in the lead to xxxx-yy in English football? might be better to restrict the links to the first time you refer to a season, and then only link seasons that are particularly relevant to Hull City's history.
  • Not sure the links are a problem personally, and choosing links to seasons that are particularly relevant to the club's history seems a little subjective to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I made the comment in relation to WP:LINK#Overlinking and underlinking, which suggests we link to articles "that will help readers to understand the current article more fully", and that overlinking "can make it more difficult for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value". Wasn't really sure how much more understanding is added by linking to 1935–36 in English football and 1955–56 in English football, articles which only contain a set of league tables. It's not enough to stop me supporting, I'm maybe over-sensitive after getting involved with a Featured Article Review and ending up having to copyedit what seemed like hundreds of year-in-English-football links out of Arsenal F.C.....
• Image caption is a sentence so needs a full stop. If it was me, I might change it to "Hull City players and staff celebrate..."
  • Added full stop and reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Top scorers column doesn't say what competitions are included (at time of writing, neither does Lincoln's, you should have followed York City :-)
  • Added in a note. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• You could consider adding an Average (league) attendance column, if sources are available (please don't feel obliged to just because I suggested it here: some of these lists have them, a lot don't)
  • This would require going through each of the seasons in the Peterson book and working the average attendances out manually, and as this would be a time-consuming and arduous task I think I'll probably do it sometime after this nomination is closed. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Some "complete record"-type books give the average attendance. If yours doesn't, then I wouldn't bother with it.
• Support sorry I needed reminding to revisit this review. Meets FL criteria, as far as I can tell. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – If I had to make one complaint about the list, it is that "being" is used a bit much for my taste, particularly in the "with .... being" structure. I think this can make the writing more wordy than its needs to be, and alternatives can typically be used easily. However, everything else looks solid from my vantage point, so I'm willing to accept it and back the list immediately. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Have had a go at some rewording, and cheers for the support. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Not entirely convinced you need to repeat "association football club" in quick succession, i.e. you could probably stick with Hull City A.F.C. in the lead. Changed to "Hull City A.F.C." Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) " in 1904. The team's first competitive matches came in the FA Cup later that year" picky, but you didn't say how late in the year they were founded, clearly they couldn't have done anything until "later", i.e. after they were founded... Removed "later that year". Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) "the Third Division North was won.[3] Relegation back to the Third Division North came " any way to avoid the quick repeat of the division name? Reworded to "Relegation back to this division". Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) "The Third Division championship came in the 1965–66 season ..." you should be explicit, i.e. the club won the division that year. Reworded to "Third Division championship was won". Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) "The semi-final of the Watney Cup was reached" reads really odd, go active and say "Hull reached the semi-final of the ..." Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) "reach the Final of..." not sure these should be capitalised but would be interested to hear other opinions. Mentions of specific finals are usually capitalised, ie 2010 UEFA Champions League Final. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) End of second/beginning of third para sees a lot of "... saw ..." - mix it up a bit. Reworded a couple of these. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) "although relegation came in the second season" again, go active, i.e. although the club was relegated the following season.... Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Refs using hyphens to separate scorelines/year ranges should use en-dashes, e.g. 28 and 32-34. There are others. Check 'em all! All dash issues fixed using the script. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Good work. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:17, 16 July 2010 [27].

---

List of Detroit Tigers first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me apologize now for starting 2 FLCs at once. First off I'd actually meant to nom this Tigers list last night when I finished but I forgot. Also I thought the little Yankees no-hitters project would take a while, but I ended up spending all day on it and just finished it in one go instead. I promise this is it for a bit, anything else will take quite a while to get done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: There are a lot of disambiguation links. See [28]. All done! Staxringold talkcontribs 01:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I would delink Wheatland; he last played in 2006 so he's done. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC) One ref says "Major League Baseball Player's Association". Apostrophe not needed (and we should probably check all the others since they probably have it that way too). Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Highlight Lance Parrish and Kirk Gibson's '84 championship in the table. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "Two of the Tiger' first-round picks" Tigers' Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "the first overall selection once (1997)." 1997's linked in the table so it doesn't need to be here. I disagree. The players are linked in the table but also in the lead. All the previous lists have had these linked in prose links for first-overall draft picks. The link makes it easy for someone to say "Huh, 1997 first overall pick? What'd that look like that year? [click]" Staxringold talkcontribs 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC) As an aside, that's the fewest comp/supp picks I've seen so far by quite a lot. Yupyup, I was extra happy to happen upon this one when I realized how little tedium there would be in that usually annoying area. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support – Matt Brunson's draft pick number is sorting incorrectly when sorted from latest pick to earliest pick. Oddly, it's not doing that when sorted earliest to latest. That was the only issue I spotted. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd forgotten the sort template on that one (which is needed for all single-digit numbers in a column with 2 digit figures). Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support WereWolf (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is the V for the free agents note not A since it was mentioned first in the article, which should it not go in alphabetical order?BLUE_DOG^TN 04:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Notes don't always go in alphabetical order. V was chosen to go with "Value". If anything I think it's good that it stands out from the gaining/losing pick notes. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• If you like it then I guess it is okay but Example by The Rambling Man said that I had to put all notes in numerical order? Is he wrong or should this be changed? I can support it either way I was just raising an issue based on past FLC's of mine, that's all follks.BLUE_DOG^TN 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm looking from the outside in and after the fact at that nom, but I imagine that that goes to the style of the notes. It would be weird if, for example, one of the gained/lost notes on this was suddenly a # instead of a letter because that would break with the style. The Type A/B free agent note, however, is a wholly separate note and so (at least IMO) doesn't carry the same style restrictions. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explaination, I give my support to it to be promoted!BLUE_DOG^TN 20:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment

• "The Tigers once failed to sign their first-round pick. Rick Konik (1966) did not sign but the Tigers received no compensatory pick.[10]" Is there a reason why they didn't get an extra pick? Would this work better as one sentence? Courcelles (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• The compensatory pick rule didn't come along until later in the history of the draft (but I don't know/have a source on the exact year) so some early unsigned picks are just "Oh well"s in the history of a franchise. One sentence'd. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, then, Support. Courcelles (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "drafted as an infielder and ultimately spent" -> "infielder but ultimately"...? "and Texas follows with seven players" -> "followed by Texas with seven." "taking home the" home is redundant here. "was the Tigers first ever" missing apostrophe perhaps? "Rick Porcello was taken with the 27th pick of the 2007 draft, the deepest first-round pick the Tigers' have ever made with a non-compensatory pick." pick x 3 reads poorly, and not sure you need the apostrophe there. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Concerns addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 20:51, 14 July 2010 [29].

---

List of parasites of the marsh rice rat

Nominator(s): Ucucha 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a first of its kind on FLC, and indeed is only the second such list of parasites on Wikipedia. I have had to consult many sources to compile this list (and got some help from Lance Durden, who has done some great work on ectoparasites, including those of this species) and I believe it is now complete. All entries in the list are bluelinked (except for one I discovered while checking dab links—I'll rectify that later today); I had to write new articles on most. If passed, this list will complete a featured topic on Oryzomys. I am looking forward to your comments and reviews. Ucucha 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that I've left messages at WT:TOL and at two user talk pages to ask for reviews of this article.[30][31][32] Ucucha 16:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Here's some thoughts on the intro. I'll read and comment on the rest later. Sasata (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Sorry, I forgot about this (there's disadvantages to having 9000 things on your watchlist). I had a close look, but couldn't see anything to complain about. Very esoteric, but scholarly and thorough. Meets all the criteria for a Featured List. Sasata (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is the title correct? Why not "List of marsh rice rat parasites"? Eg. "List of Amanita species" vs. "List of species of the genus Amanita"
  • I don't see much advantage in either title, to be honest.
    • One is more succinct, and doesn't repeat the word "of" twice. Sasata (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The current title sounds more natural to me at least, though. But the decision is subjective and I have no real problem with your proposed title. Thanks for the support. Ucucha 06:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• is "intermediate host" equivalent to vector (epidemiology)?
  • The concepts seem similar, but I'm not a parasitologist and I prefer to use the phrase the sources use, which is "intermediate host". Ucucha 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like to see more information about parasites in the intro. Do the ectoparasites live on the skin surface? Burrow in the hair follices? Do they feed on flesh rat flesh or dead skin cells? Do they cause diseases to the rats? Do endoparasites flow through the rat's blood? Are they vectors for viral diseases? Can these parasites be transferred to domestic pets? Are mouse rice rats kept as pets?
  • I know the intro is rather thin, but that is because there are very few synthetic studies of marsh rice rat parasites (in fact, the only one is Kinsella (1988), which is also only nine pages). There are some papers that do answer some of these questions for individual parasites, of course, but I think it's hazardous to generalize from that. That said, I was able to add a few bits from Kinsella and something about Lyme. The marsh rice rat carries a hantavirus, but it's apparently transmitted directly rodent-to-rodent, not through a mite or so. As far as I know, there's no real record of diseases caused by the parasites in the rats themselves. On the one hand, I can't image it's good for a rat to have 30,000 worms sitting in its small intestine (Kinsella didn't even bother to count some nematodes individually); on the other hand, every single rice rat Kinsella examined was infected with some parasites, and those are normal populations. Ucucha 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• It's mentioned that 45 species on the marsh rice rat is "unprecedented"; are there similar studies with, say, Rattus norvegicus to compare to?
  • Not as far as I know. Kinsella did similar studies on the hispid cotton rat, which had 25 species, and the Florida mouse, cotton mouse, and oldfield mouse, which together had 19 species.

• Support comments - taking a look now: sorry, got distracted and forgot about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need quote marks for using one word like "unprecedented". It might actually be better to clarify to "a number unequalled in other rodent studies (or does he mean mammals, vertebrates or all life forms?)

• Well, I use quote marks because it is a quote. :-)

• I just thought that altering it as above allows one to clarify what it is being compared with...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, clarified that it is unprecedented in rodents, and took something close to your suggested wording. Ucucha 15:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

...'to its omnivorous food habits - I think I'd change it to "to its omnivorous diet"

• Yes, changed.

is there any information on how any of these parasites impact on the health of their host? It would be great to add if known. if not known, is it possible to source a statement saying that their effects are unknown or poorly known?

• No and no, unfortunately. As I wrote to Sasata above, they probably do have some effect, but the rats also seem to do pretty well despite having loads of worms with them.

• I figured that might be the case...ah well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering for accessability whether using common names would be better than scientific ones for the subheadings above each group of parasite. I can see reasons for both ways however.

• In most cases, the "common name" would just be an anglicized version of the scientific name (i.e., digeneans, apicomplexans), which doesn't help much. I thought it would be cleaner to consistently use scientific names. For the groups that do have a real common name, it is mentioned in the first line of the introductory text.

• fair enough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall, looking pretty good despite quibbles above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 06:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Support a good exhaustive(?) list, from the biology dep. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• But please cite smartly, make a note that "Kinsella, 1988, p. 278" sources one column, unless otherwise noted.
  • Good point, done. Thanks for your support. I have little doubt that there are in fact more parasites that occur on or in O. palustris, but I have been unable to find more in the literature. (Notice, for example, that the endoparasites are almost exclusively known from Florida—if someone does a study of the scale and depth of Kinsella (1988) in Texas or Virginia, they may find a very different endoparasite fauna.) Ucucha 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments remarkably bold list and one I welcome whole-heartedly. "an unequaled number in rodents" perhaps would be better as "a number unequaled in rodents"? Yes, changed. Any clear reason why prevalence is given in such a weird way (e.g. 14/29?) Perhaps a note to let non-experts understand why x/29 is such an important descriptor. As explained in the key (and explained a little more clearly now), this is simply a fraction, and the reason for the /29 is that one study looked at the parasites of 29 rice rats. Why include 0% places? No good reason, really; I removed the one (?) instance. Musser's ref seems to have a pp. despite it being only a single page. Don't see what you're referring to. Is it Pp. or pp.? and does it go in front or behind the page numbers? At least be internally consistent... It is in capitals when it is at the beginning of a sentence, and in lowercase when it is not; it is before the page number when I would say "pages x to y", and behind it when I would say "z pages". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review! Ucucha 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Would recommend each col is the same width from section to section, if possible. Seems a good idea; how is that done? Forcing the column widths using an explicit % or px width. For further info, see Help:Table. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks; done. Ucucha 16:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: Nice list! Just a few small things:

• In the "Present in other species?" column, you switch between "Yes;" and "Yes," at least once or twice. (very minor)
  • I changed all to semicolons, except where it says "Yes, but".
• The term "clade" is used without explanation or link under "Apicomplexa". Personally, I don't care... but not everyone would agree. I'd be happy with a link.
  • Linked.

Everything else looked fine to my eyes. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 16:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 20:51, 14 July 2010 [33].

---

List of Washington & Jefferson Presidents head football coaches

Nominator(s): GrapedApe (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it appears to satisfy all FLC criteria. GrapedApe (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NThomas (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

;Comments: In the lead, clarify when W&J was part of DIII. After Division III add since it's formation in 1973. From 1956–1972 Washington & Jefferson competed in the NCAA College Division.--done Clarify when W&J joined the Presidents' Athletic Conference in 1958 and prior to, if they were either in a conference or were independent.--done "XX head coaches" should be "30 head coaches" After "National Collegiate Athletic Association", add "(NCAA)" since you use the abbreviation further in the lead.--done Mention why the 1922 Rose Bowl was a notable. After California Golden Bears, I'd add another sentence like ", Neale is the only coach to lead the Presidents to a bowl game appearance."--done I've brought it up for discussion on the Rose Bowl Game article's talk page that games from 1902-1922 should be moved from "xxxx Rose Bowl" to "xxxx Tournament East-West football game". "Greasy Neale's 1921 team played in the 1922 Rose Bowl, where" should read like "Greasy Neale's 1921 team played in the 1922 Tournament East—West football game, the Rose Bowl Game's precursor, where" Shouldn't it be "since the 1900s." instead of "since the 1890s."--done You already linked Sirianni earlier in the same paragraph; no need to link to him again in the last sentence.--done Same thing for Greasy Neale and Pete Henry when you get to the Pro Football Hall of Fame sentence.--done "A running total of the number of coaches" should have the same footnote found on FL List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches for coaches with multiple terms.--done The dagger (†) should be superscripted using <sup> to open and </sup> to close in the legend and on Greasy Neale, John Heisman, Andrew Kerr, and Pete Henry. Again, look at Bob Knight's entry at List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches for an example of this.--done After "Overall games" in the legend, Ties should have the same note found on FL List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches--done Sortable tables - --done Greasy Neale's table entry should include "0" in the PW and PL entries. Since he was able to win, lose, or tie the game, all entries were possible unlike others (ex. Ralph Hutchinson never was able to win, lose or tie in a postseason game). If you look at a statistic book for Neale, his postseason record would say "0 - 0 - 1" not "— - — - 1" This takes some work because all sortable entries with "—" now become "{{ntsh|0}}—" and all entries with values (1, 2, 3, etc.) become "{{nts|xx}}" (replace the xx's with the value) Same thing goes for John Banaszak and Mike Sirianni for ties. Since both coaches' terms started after 1996, when tie games were eliminated, both coaches' "OT" entries should have "—" instead of "0" since they couldn't have coached a game to a tie. Just like I mentioned though in Neale's table, the entires should actually have "{{ntsh|0}}—" instead of just being replaced with "—" About the whole sortable table with endashes, entries with "0" values should be "{{ntsh|0.1}}0", so that "—" entries will sort together using "{{ntsh|0}}—" and not jumble up with each other. If you don't understand what I'm getting at, look at how it was done on List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches. All instances of J.J. Clark, W.D. Inglis, S.W. Black, and W.B. Seaman should have a space between the two abbreviated letters.--done Its not necessary but out of curiosity, why didn't you use John Heisman's picture instead in the lead? I mean he's thee John Heisman. Yeah, that's a good point. But, the Greasy Neale picture is of better quality, (plus I'm a huge fan of Greasy Neale--he was elected to the College and Pro football hall of fame, won two NFL championships as a coach, AND a world series!). Truth be told, Bob Folwell is the greatest coach in college history, but I can't find a free picture of him. Plus, Heisman's tenure at W&J was towards the end of his career, and was pretty minor.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Those are some impressive stats so that makes perfect sense. NThomas (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC) There's a lot of work left to do here but you're on the right track. NThomas (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Everything looks fine now. Good job. NThomas (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "that represents Washington & Jefferson College ... since its formation in 1973." The tenses don't seem to match so well when some of the filler is taken out. How about "that has represented Washington & Jefferson college ... since its formation in 1973." Keep the conference and NCAA facts, but tweak what comes beforehand. I see what you mean: that was a very confusing paragraph. I moved it around, and I think it reads much better now, with clearer discussion of the team's founding and joining DIII and the PAC. So, done "to NCAA Division III playoffs". Add "the" before NCAA?--done No need to link the Presidents' Athletic Conference twice in the lead.--done Should the hyphen in "heavily favored" be there?--done Also don't need multiple links for Mike Sirianni or Greasy Neale. --done Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: "The Washington & Jefferson Presidents football program is a college football team" The program is the team? How about "The Washington & Jefferson Presidents are a college football team.."? I clarified it: "The Washington & Jefferson Presidents football team has represented Washington & Jefferson College in intercollegiate college football competition since 1890." --GrapedApe (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC) "From 1956 to 1972 Washington & Jefferson competed in the NCAA College Division." Which division? I assume I but maybe it's II or I-AA. Or maybe there was something called a College Division, which is news to me. Yeah, it was called the "College Division," which was news to me, as well.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC) "The hiring of professional coaches for the football team was controversial among large portions of the college community" Was there a particular reason as to why? Explained. Good point.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "who had previously been independent" forgive my ignorance, but do you mean they didn't affiliate to a particular league? It would be nice for non-experts to read what this really means. Has been clarified.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC) "The Presidents have played in 1,057 games..." I think an "as of" would be useful here, I know you'll do your best but this'll need updating on a game-by-game basis to remain accurate without an "as of" caveat. Yep. Added "as of."--GrapedApe (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC) "The Presidents have played in 1,057 games during their 119 seasons; during that time they have employed 30 head coaches. They played their first season without a head coach. In 1894, E. Gard Edwards became the first paid head coach" - three "head coach" mentions in three sentences makes for dull prose. I couldn't find a good way to combine the sentences, so I cut the more boring one.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC) "W&J" - I'd put this in parentheses after the first clear use of "Washington & Jefferson" for complete clarity. I just took it out and replaced it with "the college."--GrapedApe (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC) "the oldest and most prestigious bowl game," presumably somewhere you cite both of these claims? The source was flattering, but didn't claim the precise wording you give here. Added a source for the oldest. Saying "most prestigious" is true, but tough to source, so I cut it.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Note: excellent, and I mean it, excellent work on the table sorting. Thanks! (A lot of credit goes to NThomas for basically walking me through it)--GrapedApe (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC) A lot of unlinked coaches. Are they non-notable or do they simply not have an article? I would encourage you to link those who would meet our notability criteria. The rest are non-notable, as far as I can tell. I created the Morrow and Piekarski articles in preparation for this list.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 3 needs an en-dash.--fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 20:51, 14 July 2010 [34].

---

List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members

Nominator(s): WereWolf (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked extremely hard on it. I have used reliable sources for each citation, uploaded numerous photos of the band members, rewrote the entire lead, added the infobox, and resolved all of the comments that were brought up in the previous nomination. I strongly believe that this list does meet all of the criteria, and I am confident that the third time is the charm for this list. Thank you, WereWolf (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:24, 15:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: The first sentence can probably be split into two. The first one have the year and location formed, the second one have the members and the west of that sentence. Done. WereWolf (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Higher Ground is a disambiguation; link it to the appropriate article. Done. WereWolf (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) As an aside, this article seems to meet criterion 3.b pretty clearly to me. Thank you! WereWolf (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) IMDb shouldn't be used as a reference; replace refs #32 and 34 (though 34 can just be removed since there's another one). Done. Found another reference from Allmovie. WereWolf (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Interestingly our article on their "eponymous" album variously refers to it as The Red Hot Chili Peppers. Is the "The" needed there/here and does it still make it strictly eponymous if the album name is (if subtly) different from the band name? The official title of the album is The Red Hot Chili Peppers, according to Allmusic [35]. I'm not sure why the article is called "Red Hot Chili Peppers (album)" here on Wikipedia. Allmusic also refers to the album as their "self-titled debut" in the band's biography (second paragraph, third sentence) [36]. Personally, I believe that the "The" is needed to differentiate between the album and the band. No problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC) "?.[6]" could you just confirm that the WP:MOS is okay with consecutive "end of sentence" markers such as . and ? I didn't find anything on the actual Manual of Style guidelines; however, I did start a new discussion on the talkpage for extra help. Refs which pick a single page should say "p." not "pp.", e.g. refs 8 & 10. Done. And page ranges in the references need en-dash to separate them, not a hyphen, per WP:DASH. Done. "and his drug addiction, abruptly quit the band in May" not sure you need to repeat "the band" here. That's what I was thinking. Done. "did not last very long" -> "was brief"? Done. "that "The chemistry wasn't ..." I don't think WP:MOS likes the capital T there. Check WP:MOSQUOTE. You're right. Done. Maybe consider an {{as of}} for the "Current" lineup? In the "Years active" section? And would it be (for Anthony Kiedis, for example): "1983–1986, 1986 onward As of 2010"? Well, definitely in the intro the current lineup, don't think you need the second. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Oh! I understand now. Thank you! Done. First table unsortable, second table sortable. Any reason why not both? I honestly have no idea. I'm not the best with tables, and for some odd reason, I used the exact table format for both. I actually copied and pasted the tables from another featured list and just changed the information. So, any help regarding that would be appreciated. Nevermind. Done. Looks like between us we're getting there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Just make sure the {{sortname}} template is used for everyone (including Flea!). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC) That's another problem I've been having. {{sortname}} does not allow a nickname or middle name to be present, unless I'm doing something wrong. I'll try again, but if I need help, I won't hesitate to ask. I think I've done it. Have a look and see if it's what you expected... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Wow, you're awesome. That's exactly what I wanted done! Thank you so much. WereWolf (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Former touring musicians table is a little odd - make the image col width the same as the image width, reference col seems way too wide... I'll try again. I've been meaning to fix that table for a while, but I just don't know how. Take a look at the table now. I think I found the problem... Nevermind. You beat me to it. Haha. WereWolf (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Timeline fails WP:ACCESS as you use just colour to differentiate between instruments. I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'll read over that and ask for help if I need it. WereWolf (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC) It's to do with leaving only colour to distinguish between things in a diagram, it works against colour-blind people, so ACCESS tends to support using both colour and a symbol... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Where do I find the symbols? WereWolf (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Hmm, this could be tricky. Not sure how the Timeline graphic will support symbols and colour. To be honest, I'm not sure if the timeline is strictly necessary. A lot of sports FLCs/recent FLs actually don't have timelines but do use colour and symbols together to satisfy WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC) So, if I did remove this timeline, would I still have to combine the colours and the symbols? If so, how'd I do that? WereWolf (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC) It's just the timeline that's at fault, the rest of the article is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Okay. I'll remove the timeline. Done. WereWolf (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a patient and understanding editor who takes criticism positively and produces good work. Could we ask for anything more? I doubt it. A pleasure to work with, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't like the blogspot-ref, but since the claim is supported by two other refs it isn't much of a problem. Tooga - BØRK! 18:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing the blogspot ref. WereWolf (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case I think it should be removed and the text adapted to the contents of the two other refs. However, my support stands either way. Tooga - BØRK! 20:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. WereWolf (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 20:51, 14 July 2010 [37].

---

Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a pretty good example of an order of battle for a land battle, and there are no such orders of battle that are currently featured lists (the only orders of battle that are current featured are for naval battles; there is a pending nomination for an army order of battle). American Revolutionary War battles are often difficult to document in this sort of detail, due to the large number of irregular units the Americans had in any particular theater, and their fluctuating sizes. I hope the list meets with your approval; it's my first FLC. (I specifically requested commentary from the promoter of the naval orders of battle; his comments are on the article talk page.) Magic♪piano 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: there are no dab links, the ext links all work and the images all seem to be appropriately licenced. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Hesse-Kassel and British Army section, use of the word "return" might not be clear for non-military readers (I know that it means a strength report provided from the field, but others might not), perhaps you might consider rewording?
  • In the Continental Army section, in the Notes part of the table relating to the 1st Pennsylvania Rifle Regiment I think "this unit includes" should be "this unit included" (tense);
  • In the References section, I think "The Long island historical society" should be capitalised as "The Long Island Historical Society" as it is a proper noun;
  • Would it be possible to add more categories to the article? Currently it is only in two and a couple more might improve navigation to the article (this is just a suggestion). AustralianRupert (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I've made changes to address the above. A brief survey of other orders of battle shows that most of them have no more than one or two categories; I've added one obviously missing category. Magic♪piano 14:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Everything is cited and complete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Great work. WereWolf (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose quick read before a thorough review... We no longer start lists with "This is the order of battle for ", try introducing the subject in the same way you would if this was a standard article. Fixed One paragraph lead does not adequately summarise the entire list. Extended to two paragraphs "It was followed up by two" up is redundant in this sentence. Fixed Link Frederick II. Fixed What do empty cells mean? E.g. Did the British 16th (Queen's) Light Dragoons not have a commander? Is it unknown? Don't just leave it blank. And blank casualties. Does that mean none, not known or something else? I have filled in the blank fields. Magic♪piano 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I'm confused a bit by the table layout. You have Unit (in bold) and under it Rail's Brigade (in bold). This has a complement of 1354 - is this the "overall total"? Then if you add up all the complements, it doesn't come to the Total of 1,382. Deaths don't add up either, nor do wounded, nor captured. The reason for the numerical discrepancies is documented both in the preceding paragraph, and in the note accompanying the total (with accompanying values to make the adjustment). Magic♪piano 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not keen on piped links which redirect, it's like a double deception. Is there a tool that identifies these? If not, can you tell me which you saw; there are many links in this article. Magic♪piano 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I look at all links in lists and see where they head, just to check they're not confusing or misleading. I also use a couple of scripts, my monobook has further details. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I think I found and fixed all of the piped redirects. Magic♪piano 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, I'm very confused by the table. I'm sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, "Rambling Man is confused" is not something I think I can fix. Constructive comments like those above I can. Magic♪piano 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry that you didn't find my comments constructive. The presentation and information within the table is very confusing to a non-expert like me. I'll get back to you with more concrete concerns than just "I'm confused". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to review my work. If you have constructive comments on how to improve the presentation of this type of material (which might address your confusion), I'd really like to hear them, since I'd like to do more of these. Magic♪piano 19:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nice piece of history. Sandman888 (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Total size: normally a sum-row sums all the elements in the column
    • I'm open to suggestions on how to present intermediate values (division and brigade sizes) to make this possible. I am experimenting with alternate table formats in a sandbox. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Why don't you sum 'complement' the same way as casualties? Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Oversight? Done now. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • what does complement mean?
    • See wikt:complement, 3rd definition. Do you think the meaning of the column isn't somewhat obvious from context? Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm unsure what it is. The wiktionary offers no help. Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I've changed "Complement" to "Unit size". Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • why do you have references under notes and general references under references? A more logical construction wd be References: Specific & General
    • I've arranged Notes and References this way for every GA (not keeping count; many) and FA (5) I've done; you're the first person to question the arrangement. (See also WP:CITESHORT.) Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • That nobody else has commented on it is irrelevant. Okay if its official policy I'll leave it at that, but it's still weird to have what is de facto references under a section named "notes". Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Just to put in my two cents, the use of a separate Notes and References section is fine per the examples in WP:LAYOUT. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Not to flog the dead horse (well maybe just a little), but according to my understanding, the things listed in "Notes" are actually endnotes, while the things listed in "References" are references. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "The counts include all officers, including musicians," where musicians the only non-conventional officer?
    • Musicians (drummers, fifers and the like) were counted as overhead (along with the chain of command), but were not officers as such, or normally expected to be combatants. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • you have presented them as officers. otherwise it shd be an 'and'. Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
        • You are correct; I have fixed this. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "more American troops probably died of non-combat causes" shd it be "combat-related causes", i.e. being a side-effect of combat?
    • The hardships of the campaign described may have nothing to do with the actual combat (hence "non-combat"). Fischer's point is that Washington's winter campaign was expensive in human cost even without the combat. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "Officers killed or who died of their wounds included Col. Rall" is this Johann Rall? cd you write Col. Johann Rall to disambiguate
    • Done. Thank you for your review. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Apologies for the delayed response; I am currently traveling, and internet access is somewhat haphazard. I hope my recent edits have addressed your remaining issues. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [38].

---

List of New York Yankees no-hitters

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me apologize now for starting 2 FLCs at once. First off I'd actually meant to nom the above Tigers list last night when I finished but I forgot. Also I thought this little Yankees no-hitters project would take a while, but I ended up spending all day on it and just finished it in one go instead. I promise this is it for a bit, anything else will take quite a while to get done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 I guess since I wrote the model, I have no choice but to comment. :-D "was thirteen runs" - should be 13 (MOS:NUM) "The Yankees first perfect game" - Yankees' Perfect game linked twice in lead "pitched by a left-handed pitcher" - maybe thrown or hurler (with a link to glossary of baseball) to avoid repetition? "game five" - aren't these usually Game 5 (I know that doesn't jive with MOS:NUM)? Yeah, I did this due to MOS:NUM. Happy to change tho. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC) "in MLB postseason play" - link Major League Baseball postseason "Coincidentally" - comma after "entering the ninth inning at home - comma after "they did not bat" - comma after "following rules changes in 1991" - comma after "for his career" - should be in his career "Reynolds two no-hit victims" - Reynolds' "multiple Yankee no-hitters" - comma after "for Red Sox in 1905" - should be for the Red Sox Any way to {{nowrap}} the names in the table so the symbols don't bounce to a second line? The model was wrong until just now, but it should be "General reference" instead of "General references", since there's only one. Hope this helps. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 12:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Done, except where noted. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I think there was an FAC or GAN a ways back that determined that "Game 5" and such were appropriate regardless of MOS:NUM (IAR, I suppose). — KV5 • Talk • 18:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Whateva. Changed, not a huge thing to go either way. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support because Stax is the man (ok, because this meets WP:FL?). — KV5 • Talk • 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• comment Sandman888 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• • 11 items seems very, very small. Per 3.b cd this not reasonably be combined with other lists of no-hitters.

• • quite a long lede.

• 11 items is 2 more than the already featured style guide for this, List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters. It satisfies WP:GNG easily and stand-alone list requirements to cover the topic properly. The lead isn't that long, BTW. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• On June 2009 quite many lists were deemed to fail 3.b for having <20 items, see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2009. Why shd 'no-hitters' be exempt from that? Lead is quite long. Sandman888 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, reading those reviews, as far as I can tell none of them were delisted for having less than 20 items. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say that this can be a SAL, namely because it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". A list of all no-hitters from all teams would be extremely long, and the lead of that article couldn't go into the detail this one goes into. Mm40 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• And that was the rationale that led me to create the Phillies list in the first place. For teams that have a very small amount of no-hitters (even the Phillies' 10 is large, and is obviously contingent on the franchise's long history), information on 3 or 4 can be included in the franchise's main article. But these are really daughters of the main articles that, as Mm40 said, can't reasonably be included due to the length of the leads and the wealth of information that's available on these special games. Additionally, the traditional unofficial cutoff for featured lists has been 10 items, not 20. — KV5 • Talk • 13:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• That it would be long can easily be accommodated by a split. Whatever the random cut-off point might have been, I do not see why these lists cannot be merged, apart from the argument about vasts amounts of information which is supposedly essential to the list, but then it should really be an article (which is the focus) with an supplementary list. Sandman888 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand your argument. These are not split from articles about no-hitters in general; they are split from team articles. All of that information that's contained here could not reasonably be included as part of the team's main article. A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long, as 267 have been thrown in MLB history, and to list them by player wouldn't make any sense either, because it's only the rare pitcher who throws more than one in his career. By team is the division that makes sense, especially since they are split from the team articles. — KV5 • Talk • 11:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. It is perfectly possible to make a list of all no-hitters and then split it due to size; "List of no-hitters" & "List of no-hitters II" or whatever convention one might like. See also here which discussed the merits of keeping information in one article. Sandman888 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• And maybe I didn't make myself clear, as I just said "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long". If you want a list of all no-hitters, you can find one at Retrosheet. We're trying to build encyclopedia articles about baseball teams, not specifically about no-hitters. Like I said, these are not daughters of a list of no-hitters; they are daughters of team articles. I can't stress that point enough, and I don't know how I can make it any clearer. — KV5 • Talk • 11:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Argument I: "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long", see this for a long FL. You have not said why it cannot be split in two (rather than 15+ articles). Argument II:"Like I said, these are not daughters of a list of no-hitters; they are daughters of team articles." that no-hitters somehow does not belong together is quite odd. The criteria clearly states that "and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Can a list of all no-hitters be made? Sure, you have linked to one yourself. The last remaining reason is that you want to write about "baseball teams" and not "no-hitters", I'm rather perplexed about how that is supposed to relate to 3.b, which does not have a qualifying ("unless you are aiming for a featured topic, then you can create all the small articles you'd like"). Sandman888 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I know that other FLs of length exist; I worked on restoring one. This list, however, meets both parts of criterion 3 in full because: a) "It comprehensively covers the defined scope", which is this team's no-hitters (not all no-hitters), and b) it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", because there is no list of no-hitters for all teams on Wikipedia, and we don't need one because its utility is limited. The utility of these team articles is greater because they are part of team histories. — KV5 • Talk • 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NatureBoyMD

Comments from NatureBoyMD "The longest interval between Yankees no-hitters was between the games pitched by Larsen and Dave Righetti's no hitter on July 4, 1983, encompassing 26 years, 8 months, and 26 days." (No "s" on "games" since Larsen pitched one game." "Notably, Reynolds two no-hit victims in 1951 were the Red Sox and the Indians." - apostrophe after "Reynolds" Souldn't umpires be sorted by last name, not first? I'm confused about the frequency of linking to no-hitter and perfect game in the table. "No-hitter" appears in the first entry (1917) three times, and only the first and thrid occurances are linked. For 1956, "perfect game" is linked, but "no-hitter" is not. Those are just two examples. The main point is that the linking of those terms doesn't seem consistant (multiple linkings in one entry, selective linking in others, no links at all in others). Other than these, the list looks great. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Done, save the umpire sorting which I'll fix tommorrow morning. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Sorting's done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - Great list, nice work. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "as the "New York Highlanders" and the "Baltimore Orioles",[1] pitchers for the Yankees" no, the pitchers weren't known as the NY Highlanders etc, the team was... Fixed, also the fact was slightly off. It was 10 pitchers throwing 11, since Reynolds had 2. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "three teams in Major League Baseball" worth context for non-experts. Three out of how many? Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "Because the White Sox were winning entering the ninth inning at home, they did not bat," I guess this is like an honour system. But to non-experts it needs some kind of explanation. Not sure how to best explain this one easily without going into baseball rules. Maybe you can help as an outsider to the game. Essentially it goes like this: The home team always bats in the so-called "bottom" of the inning (aka after the road team bats). The result of this, however, is that if the home team is already leading after the road team bats in the ninth inning then the home-team's 9th inning batting is useless (if they're already winning 1-0, for example, they could go up and poop on home plate, it wouldn't matter, they'd still win 1-0) so in such situations the bottom half of the inning just isn't played. See, for example, the box score of today's Yankee game. The Yankees took a 4-2 lead in the bottom of the 8th, the Mariners didn't tie/retake a lead in the top of the 9th, so the Yankees won. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC) No, that's perfectly clear. I think the only thing I was unaware of was that the home team always bats in the bottom of the innings. After that, it's obvious that if they're leading going into the bottom of the ninth then no further play is necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC) You define what a perfect game is waaay after using it about three paragraphs beforehand. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "Smallest margin of victory in a Yankees no-hitter (tie)" do you mean "Tied for the smallest.."? Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Where is Steinbrenner's birthday referenced? Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Where is the hangover noted? And is it really encyclopedic? I think it's very notable that one of the 20 (21 counting Armanda Galarraga's sad one) most dominant pitching performances in MLB history occured in a less-than-perfect mental state. That the thing Doc Ellis is most notable for, eg. As for the citation: "I know it's been written that I was drunk the day I pitched the perfect game, but I wasn't. I went out the night before, and now it says I'm drunk that day. I wasn't. I took some aspirin and had a headache, but what I read said I was drunk," Wells said. "How would that look? It would look bad for the organization, it would look bad for me. I had a headache and was a little hung-over. That's all it was. Hopefully it will be written the way I said it instead of in your own words." Okay, we'll keep it, is it cited somewhere now? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) It always was. Staxringold talkcontribs 10:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Well, it is Friday so one more question, where is it cited? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC) In the lede, "This feat was achieved by Larsen in 1956, David Wells in 1998, and Cone in 1999. David Wells later claimed he was a "little hung-over" while throwing his perfect game.[4]" Courcelles (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Stone the crows. Good job it's the weekend. Thanks Courcelles, sorry Stax... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support my half-witted nonsense dealt with patiently and expediently. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:*Comments Never even occurred to me this shouldn't be a SAL- 11 is plenty, and there is a wealth of information here that just wouldn't fit into New York Yankees. Ref 11- check your title, you've got a typo. Done, heh. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Is Hawkins the only Yankee to lose a no-hitter to the rule change? I believe so, yes. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC) As a purely stylistic question, is it necessary to link No hitter in the table 10 times? Since the table is sortable, it's impossible to know which occurrence of no-hitter is going to be the first one at any given time. Also, WP:REPEATLINK says "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including... tables, as each row should stand on its own". — KV5 • Talk • 11:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Were there any Yankees who pitched nine innings of no-hit baseball, but the game went to extras, so aren't included? (That's just me thinking aloud... don't spend too much time digging into it.) According to the old version of the list Tom L. Hughes did it on August 30, 1910, but I have no source for this. Also, is it worth mentioning Mike Mussina's perfect game spoiled by the last batter (one of 10 in MLB history, according to our perfect game article)? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Courcelles (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I misread your question, according to the list Hughes went extras and lost a no hitter. No Yankee has ever had an extra-inning no-hitter. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Let me try again-I think I asked a different question that I was trying to ask- has someone ever pitched nine-innings of no hit baseball, and then had it broken up in extras? I don't think Mussina's needs mentioning, as he only got through 26 outs without yielding a hit, but if someone got through 27, I think it'd be worth mentioning. Courcelles (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Then like I said, the original list mentioned Tom Hughes though I have no cite currently. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC) What about [39]? Courcelles (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Aha, see, good you found that source, the date listed so long on the page was wrong. Adding now. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments – First, let me say that I think the notes are just enough for this to be an exception to 3b. I would hate to see what a table with every no-hitter ever would look like with those notes. I don't see why the old team nicknames need to be in quotations. Also, the Orioles nickname should probably go first since that was what the team was called in its first couple of years. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC) In the last couple sentences of the first paragraph, Larsen and Cone don't have first names, and David Wells has his first name given twice. Was this moved from later in the lead? I ask because I notice full names and links later. Moved because of the perfect game definition. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Larsen was a righty, not a lefty, at least if Baseball Reference is to be believed. I have the perfect game on DVD if anyone wants a quick check. I may not be certain of Larsen off the bat, but I know that David Cone wasn't pitching left-handed, as I watched him many times, including the perfect game. This is really sad. I mixed up the perfect game and lefty symbols and I completely forgot about Cone's handedness. Fixed. Reference 5 probably doesn't need to be repeated twice in a row in this instance. Just having it at the end of the paragraph would be fine. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC) En dash needed for 5-0 in third paragraph. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC) This is already a long lead, so I don't want to suggest too many additions, but there is one interesting fact about umpires that I can think of off the top of my head: Larsen's perfect game was the last game Babe Pinelli umpired in MLB. There's too much on the umpires for my taste, but this may be worthy of a note. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Have a cite? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, I do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Added. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [40].

---

Grammy Award for Best Metal Performance

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC) and --Cannibaloki 13:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated (Best Alternative Music Album, Best Male Rock Vocal Performance, Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album). I realize another Grammy-related list is currently being examined by reviewers, but most of the concerns have been addressed and the list has received support from multiple reviewers, so I thought it was appropriate to nominate another list (and I have other lists waiting as well). Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to offer suggestions! Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do we need to know that the New York Times is printed by the New York Times Company, et.al.? The Boston Globe perhaps, but it's almost as repetitive as saying that the New York Times is published in New York. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I always felt it was most appropriate to include as much reference information as possible. If you feel strongly about not including the name of the publisher, or if another reviewer agrees with you, I'd be happy to remove it. --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw it asked for on the FAC for Anna Wintour so it seems to be something people care about. It seems purely redundant in cases like the New York Times, Seattle Times, Washington Post, etc... I mean, if you're going to include 'as much as possible' you'd better include the cities as well... but I somehow think that won't improve anyone's ability to look up the citation. :P --Golbez (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the publisher information for The New York Times and The Seattle Times, as requested. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Suggest redlinking all songs that don't have articles that won the award, per TRM's criticism last time. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Alt text: "A man wearing a black shirt, looking down and holding a guitar." I'd prefer it to say 'playing', and I think that that is specifically a bass guitar. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 21:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Another nice list. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments " at the 31st Grammy Awards." could contextualise this by telling us non-experts when that was. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "that the music of Jethro Tull does not belong " did not belong? The criticism was "at the time" after all... Done. Also changed "to" to "in". --Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "when Soundgarden's Chris Cornell was perplexed by the organization's nomination of the band Dokken in this category" why should Soundgarden's Chris Cornell's opinion carry any weight? I changed the wording to "rock musician Chris Cornell (lead vocalist for the band Soundgarden)"--I think indicating that Cornell is a rock musician shows that his opinion would indeed carry weight in the rock music field. (Hopefully, you would agree, but let me know if more changes are needed). --Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "with a total of six wins" no need to repeat "wins" Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "with eight nominations total." just "with eight." would suffice. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC) As always, thank you for your suggestions! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good to me. Might be worth checking whether the Chicago Tribune articles can be found freely online here, but nothing is wrong with those sources as is, so it's nothing to withhold support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Everything looks great! WereWolf (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [41].

---

List of Toronto Blue Jays first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Wizardman 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it fits all criteria and is complete, like the other draft list FLs. Plus, this will complete a whole country's worth of baseball draft pick FLs (currently 0 of 1 done). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). Two quick things, for now: The beginning of the last paragraph... I think the WS-winner indicator should have an endash between the years. Mm40 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC) "Since the institution of MLB's Rule 4 Draft" – this should be "Since the Blue Jays' entrance into the league in 1977" or something similar "assigning amateur baseball players" and "other amateur baseball clubs" "16 of these were right-handed" → "16 of them are right-handed" – pitchers are people too! You can reword the beginning of the third paragraph to something like this: "Sprague (1988), who was with the franchise when they won the World Series in 1992 and 1993, is the only pick to win a championship with the team." Also, World Series should be linked. Is Schroeder's (1979) high school right? Some of the in-line footnotes don't go to the relevant information at the bottom of the page when clicked. I noticed [c] and [d], but there may be more. Mm40 (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Done. Schroeder was actually right, but I got Moseby wrong. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Hey now, technically you have to do List of Washington Nationals first-round draft picks to get through every Canadian franchise's draft picks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Have you checked the MLB draft history pages (like this) to check if there were any unsigned guys pre-compensation? I know I missed a couple that I had to add in recently.

• Checked there. Blue Jays got lucky, Paxton was their first and only non-signee. I guess that's technically true that we're not done with Canada quite yet, the Expos drafted many. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Captions for the Chris Carpenter and Aaron Hill photos could use cites, since their main facts aren't mentioned anywhere else.
• In reference 10, should there be an apostrophe in Player's in Major League Baseball Player's Association? Our article on the MLBPA doesn't have one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  Done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Only thing I'll add is that it would be good to check other draft list articles to see if my second comment applies; I remember that source from a few past lists. Doesn't affect this nom, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Went through and fixed all of those apostrophes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Rios seems to have a diacritic missing on his i. Catcher is overlinked in the lead. "have failed to sign one" is there a reason for this? I'm a total non-expert, but this seems odd, so perhaps a footnote for us amateurs? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Done. I didn't find anything beyond Paxton just deciding to go back to college. Apparently his agent was Scott Boras, which automatically makes it extremely difficult to sign a draft pick. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [42].

---

Taylor Swift discography

Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating Taylor Swift discography for featured list again because I feel that it meets all criteria needed to be a FL. It is sourced and well-organized. Last time, it was not listed and I think that was a mistake. Anyways, before there was a source that was questionable, Chartstats.com, and I have changed it to the official website of The Official Charts Company, Theofficialchartscompany.com. So, I think the article is more than ready to become a FL. ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this list back here again. Its certainly good research work, and the lead looks good. Comments:

Resolved comments from liquidluck✽talk 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

*The RIAA citation still isn't working for me as it wasn't when I brought it up in the previous nom, but it was apparently just me then. As long as it works for others, I'm good with it. It was not working for me either. It is now fixed. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC) The Allmusic and Rolling Stone general refs are both dead. As for the Allmusic ref. The problem seems to be that in the middle of the url, the character

Other than that, no issues that I see right off the bat. liquidluck✽talk 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is there was a reliable source stating which singles are promotional and which are not? If it is separate for each, you can add a reference next to the title of each song. Otherwise, I'd rather see them in "other charted songs"; I've certainly heard "Today Was a Fairytale" on the radio.

• So have I but it is a promo single because it was not released as a CD single and only a digital single. For the references, Allmusic and previously Rolling Stone had all those songs listed as digital singles. Anyways, if it makes you feel any better, I verified them to make sure it wasn't just a mistake. I think adding a source to each song would be pointless. Then I would have to add a source for each studio album, live album, EP, and single. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Minor concern: Should Best Days of Your Life (video) and/or Online (song) (video), in which Swift appears but does not sing, be included? This is really more an issue for the discographies wikiproject/MOS than for you, so not a big concern. liquidluck✽talk 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• What does MOS say about it? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since guidelines don't say anything about it, and Swift (vocally), does not appear than I don't think it should be added. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "released her the eponymous" remove the. done Also, you probably don't need to say Taylor Swift, just pipelink "eponymous album" This is very minor, but I think the title should be included since an eponymous album could have been titled Taylor. Anyways, if it's that big of a deal, I'll remove it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, no worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC) "charted on the top forty" in the top forty? done Not sure the infobox image needs a full stop in the caption. done Live albums + compilation albums would be better if the columns were the same width from table to table. I don't understand. Mind explaining? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Each column would look better the same width from table to table, so, for instance, the Notes columns are the same width in each table. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry but I still don't understand. Can you give an example? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Not to worry. I wanted the columns of each table to be the same width from table to table, I can't really explain better, and it's not mandated, so no oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) "The latter found its peak..." perhaps "The latter peaked..." done Where is "I Heart ?" referenced if it didn't chart in any territory? In the main references. Allmusic lists it as a digital single release. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Notes - if the number where it's charting is above ten, then use numbers. Why? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC) WP:MOSNUM. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I read it and the way it is now is also acceptable. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: "The discography of American country music recording artist Taylor Swift, consists of two studio albums," I'd reword for consistency with other lists as follows: The discography of Taylor Swift, an American country music recording artist, consists of.. Done "and number one Top Country Albums,[2]" if you mean it made it to number one, then reword (was number one on the Top Country Albums) Done Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support This looks like it has met the FL criteria to be promoted.BLUE_DOG^TN 17:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks great! WereWolf (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Didn't have any issues with the lead last time, and a quick check revealed no new causes for concern. I did inquire about the one source, but since that's gone it's no longer an issue. Nice work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks pretty good. Adabow (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [43].

---

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders in the NFL Draft

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I based this NFL Draft list off of the FLs List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft and List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft. I feel it meets all of the FLC. NThomas (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment was Crabtree picked ninth (caption) or tenth (table)? Mm40 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. The table was right; caption was wrong. NThomas (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "This includes 6 players taken in the first round and one overall number one pick". Comparitive elements like this should consistently be numerals or words, not both. I suggest switching the first one to a word.

• Changed 6 to six. NThomas (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Link Pro Bowl in the first use.

• Linked.

• One of the general references is a little larger than the others for some reason. Is it something with the formatting? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed it. There was a duplicate tag before the last reference NThomas (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: "The Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears have drafted the most Red Raiders, eleven and nine respectively." I'd change the last part to '..., drafting eleven and nine, respectively.' Added. NThomas (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC) For the Guards, we can just keep G rather than OG for those that have the latter. Oops. It's been corrected. NThomas (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC) For Backs, B stopped being used a while back, so the last three to have them are probably wrong (they should be DB or CB from the looks of it). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Had to fix quite a few, but I went through again with all of the general references and all positions are now correct. NThomas (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a period. Corrected. NThomas (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "Three former Red Raiders have been selected to..." followed by "Only three former Red Raiders have been selected to..." reads repetitively for me. NThomas (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I combined the two sentences. I think now, all three blurbs flow together instead of two together, then the other sentence "added on". NThomas (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I think, as a non-expert, you need to be clearer about the merger, rather just a subtle merger link. Can you elaborate please? Almost a third of the lead is dedicated about the merger. NThomas (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Yeah, re-reading it makes it clearer. Not to worry. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Especially as you say they happened in 1966 before saying "Once the AFL officially merged with the NFL in 1970..." The leagues agreed to merge on June 8, 1966, but until 1970, they still operated as separate leagues although they both participated in a single "Common Draft". I'll quote the entire line so you can elaborate how to make it clearer. As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues would hold a multiple round "Common Draft". Once the AFL officially merged with the NFL in 1970, the "Common Draft" simply became the NFL Draft. NThomas (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Would prefer to see columns in each table same width as each other. The "Player name", "AFL/NFL team", and "Notes" are all fluid because of the different size entries. If you want them to be fixed instead of fluid, how do I change that and what size for each column do you think is appropriate? NThomas (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Don't worry, this seems to be a "me" thing, and it's not worth worrying about if I'm the only one to point it out, so forget it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC) "See also: American Football League Draft" vs "See also: NFL Draft" - be consistent. The article was "NFL Draft", not "National Football League Draft until it was recently moved after this FLC was nominated. The seealso template is now corrected to reflect the moved page. NThomas (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Back (sports) is a dab page. Before the distinction was made in later years, that was the name of the position. Today it's evolved into multiple positions. The forth bullet on Back (sports) is what this use is referring to In American and Canadian football, this means a player who is lined up behind the linemen, the players who line up closest to the line of scrimmage. Should I just remove the link then? To prevent it being ambiguous, I would unlink and maybe add a footnote. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Added footnote. NThomas (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks great to me and has the feel and the content of a FL article.BLUE_DOG^TN 16:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support A wonderful list. WereWolf (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [44].

---

List of French football champions

Nominator(s): Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is capable of being one due to the list's importance in French football and its overall accuracy. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Sandman888 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Note: I think it's against the policy to have it at FLC and PR at the same time. it is against the policy, I suggest you withdraw nomination until PR's over. "A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time." Not a single reference. That does not meet the FL criteria :) lead cd be longer. tables cd be sortable. If sortable, wikilink all clubs in table Sandman888 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Please write '* Done' when you have addressed a concern, it makes it easier for us to track the progress. Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Cd you use a system such as {note} instead of non-clickable numbers? Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Is there some more images available? Lots of white space on the right. Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC) It is impossible to find pictures of coaches or players for free going back to the early years of the league. Most of them I want to post are current. Is that OK? – Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC) I'm steering clear of reviewing per se at the moment, but I've put a few images in for you. Although I think there are enough now, there will doubtless be more floating around on the French wikipedia if needed. WFCforLife (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Took FLC down and re-posted following conclusion of peer review. Made some edits based on peer review, other than posting pictures as it is very difficult to find pictures of old French coaches and players. Will possibly do that later.Joao10Siamun (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - there are no references at all for the tables, what is sourcing this info.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Posted the references for the tables. Didn't know exactly where to put them, so I added them to after the tab subject. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comment What on Earth is this, and why is it a reliable source? I may come back with more later, but this struck me. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC) It was the only source I could find in English that verified that the first French championship was held in 1894. After further researching, I found a better source. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Alright, I know others will pick apart the prose, and I'm just nto feeling like digging through endashes and stuff today, but the referencing needs some attention, so, here comes nitpicking. Reference one appears to be a book- we need a publisher, and an ISBN if available. Done. Didn't have an ISBN #, so I got the OCLC #. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 3 is tagged as in French, but is in English. Further, the publisher is tagged as "UEFA"- an acronym that is nowhere introduced- spell it out.It also has a quasi-publication date at the bottom Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 4 has both an author and publication date, as well as another new acronym as the publisher. Not convinced on reliability, either. Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 5- identical problems as above Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 6- Publisher- You've not introduced FIFA in this article, so please don't use acronyms that aren't defined anywhere. (Yeah, anyone knows what this means, but it's not defined in the prose.) Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 7- Give the author, and the publisher (Guardian Media Group, for the record) Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 9- is in French, and not tagged as such. Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 10- Give the author, and the publisher, (Independent News & Media this time) Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 11- Ditto as above Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 12- Why is this reliable? Got proper source. Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 13- Link all the publishers and works that have articles, or link none of them. Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) The rest look alright, but put me down as an oppose until the references are carefully cleaned up. Courcelles (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I will take care of the rest tomorrow. It's getting late. — Joao10Siamun

• Provisional Support if Rambo's issues are resolved- the referencing (the only thing I've taken a hard eye to on this one) now looks fine to me. Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Spell out USFSA and provide the initials inside parentheses. That way, readers will know what the abbreviation stands for. "In 1926, the first division's reigns was handed over...". "was" → "were". Spell out LFP as well. "became the modern club of the country going on a dynastic run" is not the most encyclopedic writing I've ever seen. De-capitalize Up in the two table headings. In reference 16, the title shouldn't be in all capital letters. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Done. Should I wiki-link the years to its corresponding season? — Joao10Siamun (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I don't think it's strictly necessary for the lead, but links would be useful in the tables. If you add links in the Year column, make sure to include a note saying that they go to season articles. Without a note, readers may think the links are regular year links, which are much less helpful than season links like these. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Don't see any more issues, and others brought up here have been addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: "the ownership of the amateur league title began rotating back and forward" Back and forth sounds better. South of France is linked but North of France isn't? Any rationale behind that? I changed 10 to ten in one spot, which I think is right per WP:MOSNUM (the 10-25 part is fine as is). If not you can change back. Any hypenated accessdates should be written out (i.e. 5 June 2010 rather than 2010-05-05). Just fix those things and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I didn't notice my comments were fixed originally; make sure you reply to comments here so that we notice in the future. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'll happily review the list as soon as outstanding comments are addressed. Just leave a note on my talkpage if I don't spot it automatically. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think outstanding concerns have been addressed. Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - as pointed out above, in a sortable table, names need to be linked every time they appear, not just the first time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done by nom Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As a regular contributor of French football here, I should express some remarks : - Third image on the right (1926-27 champions) should be CA Paris instead of CA Paris-Charenton, which is the name the club took in the 1960's if I remember well. - No AS Saint-Etienne image. That's a shame for the dominent French club of the 1970's. Maybe the picture of Georges Bereta could be used, as he was a key part of the team. - Tom me, in the "Championships by club" table, amateurs championships should be, just as the 1944-45 championship, written in a different way (italic) as they have a different "status" than professional championships and are not really recognized. For example, Marseille has officially 9 championships. However, that's a very good work. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about removing the 1944–45 season completely. Also, clubs, such as Le Havre and Marseille, who have won an amateur championship, do consider them legitimate. They might not carry the same weight as professional titles, but each club recognized them as official league titles they have won. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. English champions before 1920 harp on about their early titles as equal achievements to recent ones, despite the fact that at that stage clubs south of Birmingham didn't take part. I think the current system is adequate- a reader can easily tell by looking at the table how many of a club's titles were amateur or professional. WFCforLife (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now "the professional football championship of France has been contested through Ligue 1", I know what you are saying but if I'm nitpicking it is not strictly true. It was actually contested through National (1932-33) and Division 1 (1933-2002), which have now become Ligue 1. It might be worth mentioning these previous incarnations as the majority of French champions actually won "Division 1". Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) "reverting the league" You never mentioned it had that structure before. "Marseille's dormant stage" - choice of wording. They still came second on multiple occasions so I don't think wikt:dormant is the right word "title-winning drought" isn't much better. Drought is not very neutral and sounds critical. Maybe something like ...in the hiatus between... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I honestly don't really understand the issue with the original statement. When I was referring to Marseille's dormant stage, I was eluding to the club's consecutive years without a league title as stated in the previous sentence. Dormant can also mean "alive but not actively growing", which I was implying. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC) The fact is that, while they convey the message, they are not sentences you would expect to see in an encylopaedia. "Drought" and "dormant" editorialise the fact that they just didn't win for a few years. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC) "The championship started a national record-breaking streak of seven successive titles" - had to read this multiple times. I found "the championship" confusing. Suggest rewording. "Marseille has nine professional league titles and one amateur title having won that one during the 1928–29 season" - might be me but "has" then "having" seems strange. In fact, perhaps, it is just the "having won that one" which is redundent. How about ...and one amateur title which they won in the 1928–29 season. Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) In the table link SC Fives to SC Fives. You should also not in the "Championships by club" section why that title is attributed to Lille. Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) It is my understading that abbreviations such as "RC" (Racing Club), "SC" (Sporting Club), "CA" (Cercle Athlétique), "SO" (Stade Olympique) are all placeholders a bit like FC (football club). I'm not sure you should sort by these letters when they appear at the start of a name: see {{sort}} I kept CO Roubaix and RC Roubaix and RCF Paris and CA Paris in order to differentiate them. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Some are still present. SO Montipellier and others. Additionally, where you have "RCF Paris" and "CA Paris" you should use {{sort}} to make both sort under "Paris". This should be done for other clubs where prefixes are kept too. Does "RC Roubaix" need its RC any more than "RC Strasbourg"? Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Why do you use short names (e.g. Saint-Étienne) in one table but full names in the next table (e.g. AS Saint-Étienne). Be consistent There are still examples - "Amiens AC" In France, their are two clubs based in Amiens; AC and SC. Obviously, I kept the AC to differentiate them. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) In 1932–33, none of the sources seem to indicate that Marsielle would be third. This season was unique in that it had Group A and B. With the winners in the final 1st and 2nd place are obvious but why are Marseille (Group A runners-up) more eligible for third place than FC Sochaux-Montbéliard (Group B runners-up). Either needs source, explanation, or an mdash (probably with a footnote of explanation). I remember specifically, while updating the Ligue 1 article, that since there was no official promotion/relegation system for the league, the FFF simply combined the two tables to determine which and how many clubs would go down. When the table was combined, Marseille were, by virtue of Antibes' disqualification were in third place. Hopefully, I can find the source. Until then, I'll remove Marseille. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Update. Haven't had time to search for source. I'll just leave it blank for the time being. Done. Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC) These are all simple to fix but I'll oppose temporarily until they are sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with these details I've not seen before. About the previous names of ligue 1: they are just renaming, not the creation of a new entity such as the English premier league. About Marseille dormant stage : after their champion's league title, they did not won a major title in 17 years, so it could be justified.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Dormant means inactive. I agree they didn't win anything in a long time, but they weren't inactive (dormant). A better choice of word is needed. As for the name. I know it isn't a new league but I think the names are worthy of a mention (the one-year National I can do without but almost 90% of French championship seasons have been called Division 1). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Done. Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC) More comments (Still Oppose) Why is "Iris Club Lillois" linked to Lille OSC? And why is "Tourcoing" linked to "CO Roubaix-Tourcoing"? There are more... Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Where is the references for the third place team in the ameteur era. For example, take 1893, the RSSSF says "Standard Athletic Club – The White Rovers 2 - 0" for the replayed final so I'm happy with your 1st and 2nd. But why is beaten semi-fianlist "Club Français" (beaten by Rovers) any less of third place than "Cercle Pédestre d'Asnières" (beaten by SAC). If you are choosing the semi-finalist that lost to the eventual winner as your third place this is WP:OR! This is the only issue I had with the article, of course, before you showed up : P. I tried searching for the user who posted the third place teams, but to no avail. I think it was done by an IP when the article was first created. I agree it is OR. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) The references for 1926/27, 27/28, and 28/29 aren't given. Assuming 27/28 is this then the final isn't explicitly mentioned (it mentions one QF & one SF). Therefore, without other references, we can only know the winner. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I am currently searching for club Stade Français played in the final (has to be either Bastidenne or Belfort). Until then, I'll leave runner-up blank. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Update. Couldn't find it. Stade Francais' official site only mentions that they won the league in 1928, not who they played. Will leave it blank for the time being. Done. Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Where do you get some of the amateur team names from? For example Asnières could be anywhere. The club is CP Asnières as you mentioned above, but you informed me it would be best to remove the abbreviations, so it is moot. Team will likely be taken off anyway as their third place finish is likely OR without sources. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Starting in 1896 there was a "Championship of Fédération des Sociétés Athlétiques Professionnelles de France" (a seemingly a professional tournament). The first three were won by Union des Sports de France. What is this? Is it worth a mention? The USFSA was the country's federation during this time so they set precedent, which is why their league is considered the country's primary league during this time. The USFSA also supported amateur sport. The FSAF supported professionalism and created a league, like many other rival organizations, but the USFSA quickly denounced the league. The league had minor popularity, but since the USFSA was the country's federation at the time, the league is considered unofficial. Doesn't really deserve mention. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) How did you get the name "White Rovers Paris" from "The White Rovers"? Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Where does "Le Perreux" come from? If anything it looks like it should be "Association Sportive Française" Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC) These latests comments are much more concerning and in future please do not strike my comments. Just let me know what you've done and I'll strike them if I'm happy they have been addressed. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC) One more, Tourcoing is referenced as "Union Sportive Tourquennoise". Is Tourcoing a common abbr. of Tourquennoise and if so is it the "US Tourcoing" mentioned in CO Roubaix-Tourcoing. If so, and there wasn't another Tourcoing team it is fine as is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC) US Tourcoing was part of three clubs that formed CO Roubaix-Tourcoing. The club's full name is Union Sportive Tourquennoise, but they are commonly referred to as US Tourcoing. Similarly to how Stade Brest's full name is Stade Brestois 29, but everyone knows them as Stade Brest or simply Brest. It's not an issue. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Some useful informations about these "historical" clubs. CO Roubaix-Tourcoing was a merger between RC Roubaix, Excelsior Roubaix and US Tourcoing (Tourquennoise being an adjective which mean "from Tourcoing" such as Stade Rennais for Rennes, not an abbr.). Today, US Tourcoing still exists as Tourcoing Football Club. CP Asnières is from Asnières-sur-Seine.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your fixes and clear responses. My final comments are: "1927–282". Judging by the footnote, the next season should also have the same indication to read the note. As an aside, I believe using a WP:REFGROUP for explanitory comments is prefered (but not required) as it is more functional. Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Wrt the previous comment "For the next two seasons (1927–28 and 1928–29), ..." should probably become: For the xx and yy seasons, ... Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Note 2 comes before note 1 in the article (WP:REFGROUPs would automatically fix this). Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Not too fussed here, but might be worth re-iterating current refs 10/11 for note 3: "No winner was declared for the season." Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC) In fact you can nest these references so they directly attach within the note as follows. I've done this one for you as an example for if you want to use it in future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Think that is my final lot, great job thus far. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Really appreciate the assistance. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Excellent. Very final thing (I think) is the images. File:Ajax-Marseille.jpeg needs to go for the reasons given where I nominated it for deletion. The three images before that aren't very clear cut. For example, Argentina probably wasn't the country of origin for the Kopa image and for the two images above it, there doesn't seem to be any way to determine the photos' author(s). However, I suspect they would be fine under no-notice or whatever the applicable license would then become. Therefore, unless someone disagrees with my assessment, only the one I nominated for deletion really needs to go. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I'll remove it and find an adequate replacement. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. Right, I feel I've made a thorough review of this candidacy and am now happy to offer my support. Congratulations. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Image caption is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop. Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Football in France is overlinked in the opening paragraph of the lead. Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Is it "White Rovers Paris" or "The White Rovers"? Lead says former, first line of table says latter. Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) "Marseille has nine..." and "Marseille initially equaled " next sentence. Can we avoid repeating the club name? Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) "bribed players of an opposing team" "bribed opposition players" perhaps? Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Three team pictures have captions with full stops but which aren't needed. Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Would prefer consistency in name say Lyon as Olympique Lyonnais (the article really should be internally consistent for all these sort of things). Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) "millenium " typo. Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Images should be same width, using upright where possible. Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) "championship winning teams " championship-winning... Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Refs 3, 6, 9 and 15-18 appear to have work confused with publisher. Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) External link should be in English (with (in French) if necessary)... Done — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't like the floating reference [4] under the section title but above the table. Can you not just write an introductory sentence to attach the reference to?
  • I've got no problem with GF edits. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I'm suggesting you write some text here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I know that, but I honestly don't see a problem with it, though, which is why I said good faith is not a problem or what would you recommend? If it violates a rule or guideline or if your support of the list depends on it, then I'm cool with that and I'll add something. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
        • All I'm saying is that a floating reference isn't something I'd expect to see in a professional article on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I understand that. I guess I'll put them in the table. Is that okay? I just think having an adjoined sentence near the table would look weird. I will also note (not directly to you TRM) that this article's English and Italian counterparts, which are FLs, don't have its tables directly referenced, which is weird. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Those lists were promoted to FL status a while ago, so they not be up to current standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Surprised that a number of French football champions don't have their own article, or at least aren't redlinked - surely they're notable by virtue of the fact they won the French league?
  • I'll create the articles of the clubs when I have time. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Redlink those that are notable. I suggest that's all of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Is note 1 referenced anywhere?
  • Yes. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Where? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Whatever it is that references it, I suggest nesting the reference within the note (explained in my capped cmts or just copy what I did on the list before). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. The reference doesn't directly mention the switch, but it does state that changes were made following the first season. I posted the season articles from a historian site to add more inference. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:49, 6 July 2010 [45].

---

List of presidents of Washington & Jefferson College

Nominator(s): GrapedApe (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it seems ready. This is a unique list, since there do not appear to be any lists of presidents of colleges that have achieved FL status, so I had to create the format from scratch. Please see the peer review for background on how the current format came to be. GrapedApe (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Jujutacular T · C 18:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC) "established by three Presbyterian missionaries to the American frontier in the 1780s" - strange wording: shouldn't 'to' be 'on', or 'in'? I see your point, but I think that language is correct. It's like saying "missionary to India."--GrapedApe (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Oh! I see now. I was reading the sentence differently - I took it too mean "three log cabins...established...to the American frontier" which wouldn't make sense. I would say reword it, but this was probably my own misreading and not a problem. Jujutacular T · C 04:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC) "No one may be excluded from holding the presidency "account of the..."" - do you mean 'on account'? --Yep. Fixed "James Dunlap was a student of McMillan in his early years of teaching" - not immediately clear what this sentence means (pronoun usage - 'his'). Reword.--Reworded, as "one of McMillan's early students" In the 'Founding' section, the first sentence is nearly identical to one in the lead. Reword one of them to keep the reader interested.--mixed it up "...teaching mathematics and the classics" - what are the classics (wikilink it)? - linked A few dates in the Notes columns are separated by hyphens - should all be dashes. --done "A "–" indicates that the individual served as President pro tempore." Reword this sentence so the dash doesn't appear that near the beginning. A tad confusing as is. Also, move this point down to just above the first list section. Since that is acting like a key for the list, it seems to me that the symbol that is being identified is fine at the beginning of the sentence. Like, if you're reading the list and wondering what the hyphen means, you'd expect it to be on the left. As far as its placement below the lead, that seems right to me as well, since the "Founding and early leadership" section is part of the list, albeit in prose form. Let me know what you think about all of this.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Yea, later when I was reading through the lists I saw the dashes and thought, 'what do these dashes mean?', and immediately looked up and saw the dash at the front of that bullet point. It did seem odd to me however when I first got to it after reading the lead. What would you think of converting it to a note (cited to the notes section below)? Jujutacular T · C 04:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC) I think that placing that information in the Notes section would bury important information down towards the bottom of the page. I agree that its current location might not be odd, but I can't think of a better place for it.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC) I'd like to hear another reviewers opinion. If no one else thinks of better options I will support. Jujutacular T · C 06:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC) The current president: it says under "Term end" - "Present". Technically this would mean she is currently ending her presidency. Solution? Set to "Incumbent" to match List of Presidents of the United States.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Still a little strange, since I've only ever heard incumbent used to describe political candidates, not presidents of universities. How about putting a dash in that column and writing "Current president" in the notes column? Jujutacular T · C 04:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I still think that just "present" works better. It seems intuitive. I don't think anyone would be confused by it.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Ditto as above. I'd like to hear additional opinion. Jujutacular T · C 06:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Not really a big deal actually. Jujutacular T · C 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Jujutacular ^T · C 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support—everything looking good, no problems. Ucucha 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "a historic building" in English I would normally see that as "an historic building" but perhaps USEng doesn't do that? Done Is the President a male-only post (as you use "he" a bit)? I suppose more pertinently, are women prohibited from the post? Aha, got to the end of the lead and found a woman. So does "provided he shall demean himself " still stand? That's apparently still language in the charter, but is apparently not used to exclude women from holding the office. I guess that's what you get when you operate under a charter written in the 1860s.--GrapedApe (talk) "A "–" indicates that the individual served as President pro tempore." would be better at the top of the table rather than at the end of the lead. Done Is it President pro tempore or president pro tempore? All instances of "president" or "president pro tempore" have been changed to lowercase, except for proper names like "Office of the President" and "President's House."--GrapedApe (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Any reason why to not make the tables sortable? It doesn't seem likely to me that someone would want to view the list in any way other than chronological. --GrapedApe (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Ref 15 and 18 look identical to me. Done Ref 37 needs an en-dash. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: "Washington & Jefferson College originates from three log cabin colleges established by John McMillan, Thaddeus Dod, and Joseph Smith," They're linked in the lead, so they probably don't need to be again here.--done "In 1806, Matthew Brown began his term that would end in 1806" 'would end that same year' sounds better to me, less repetitive.--done Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ought to have stopped by earlier, as a lot of my nitpicks were dealt with during the peer review. Only two minor points remaining, I think: (a) I'm still not entirely certain what the President does, if anything (e.g. is it a ceremonial, or an executive, position?); (b) is Wikisource a reliable source? Bencherlite^Talk 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(a): should be clarified in paragraph 3. (b): The wikisource text came from the Coleman book. I changed the references to go straight to the Coleman book instead.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You missed one more instance of ref 7, but you could add a sisterlink template to the charter somewhere so the link isn't lost. Anyway, support. Nice work. Bencherlite^Talk 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:49, 6 July 2010 [46].

---

List of Washington Capitals seasons

Nominator(s): -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets the FL criteria. I've based it mainly off of the List of New Jersey Devils seasons, which was in turn based on List of Calgary Flames seasons, List of New York Islanders seasons, and List of New York Rangers seasons. Sorry I haven't been around here lately, and I look forward to any feedback you have to give me. Thanks. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment Good work on addressing concerns (Wd like to know if there's a script for capping cmts) Sandman888 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

* lead cd be longer, see List of FC Barcelona seasons for an example. To be fair, the Capitals don't have half the tradition FC Barcelona does-- the Caps have existed for less than half of the time that Barcelona has and Washington has never won a championship. I'll put in some more details around the edges and I'll make a note here once I've added to the lead. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the time delay, but I've expanded the lead to address your concerns. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC) what makes hockey-reference.com a respectable source? Has any reliable third party commented on it? I used it because it's been used extensively in List of New York Islanders seasons and List of New Jersey Devils seasons. This is a Yahoo! Sports story about the website, although I'm not sure if that's a good enough source. If it isn't I'll ask WP:HOCKEY about it. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not entirely convinced by a blog on yahoo. In fact the blog seem to lend greater credence to hockeydb.com. Why didnt you use that one instead? Sandman888 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, I did-- I used hockeydb.com for all of the general information in the graph (I listed it under "general" in the references section). However hockeydb.com doesn't have specific stats from the playoffs, so I used hockey-reference.com for playoff specific stats. It has precedent in the other lists I mentioned in the nomination so I figured it was reliable. I've asked WP:HOCKEY if they can show its reliability on their talk page here. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC) The NY Times uses it here as a source about Brian Leetch. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Hmm the NY Times ref is a little weak, as it is not a comment, and could be a sloppy journalist including a link. However if it's systematically used by the times, or any other newsservice, I'll grant that as evidence of RS. Sandman888 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC) See all the news articles that talk about it here. Also, it's run by the same company (Sports Reference LLC) as Baseball-Reference.com, which you said you weer OK with here. Google News is usually good to prove a websites reliability. Mm40 (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I know what I've said. The respectability of baseball-reference does not spill over into hockey-reference.com. 14 news hits is hardly much, but some of the articles seem to comment on it, which proves reliability (for me). However on the WT:HOCKEY talkpage, it seems there are better sources available, so will not support using hockey-reference Sandman888 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I've removed the www.hockey-reference.com references and replaced them with a reference from the Washington Capitals media guide per discussion at WT:HOCKEY. -- Nomader (Talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I'm frankly curious - if a blog isn't convincing you of hockey-reference.com, why would the self-same blog convince you regarding hockeydb.com to the point where you recommend using it instead?  Ravenswing  16:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Obviously because the phrasing of the blog makes it highly likely that a reliable third party has commented on it, if it is self-published. Sandman888 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC) note g doesn't read right to me. I tried to fix it up. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC) why two columns of seasons? Isn't one sufficient? You cd just include the NHL seasons as a see also. The amount of NHL seasons would just be overwhelming and would require another separate graph. The two columns allow the reader to look at both general information about the season while also allowing them to see specific information about the Capitals' performance that year. If you insist I can remove it but it was used in the List of New Jersey Devils seasons and I rather like the format. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I mean isn't there a "List of NHL seasons" or a template you can use instead? Sandman888 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, yeah there is: List of NHL seasons. I'll go ahead and remove that column and put that under a "see also" section. Sorry about the confusion. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Removed the column. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Did someone mention the Rangers season list I worked on? :-) Who better than the nominator of that list to review this one? First, I do think Hockey-Reference is reliable; it has passed muster in featured article candidate source reviews in the recent past. Of course, that doesn't mean it has to be used; HockeyDB.com is fine as well. More specific points: En dashes are needed for a few of the linked seasons in the lead. Looks like the links actually linked in the first part with en dashes but just used the "-"'s for the part that showed to the reader. Weird mistake on my part-- I went ahead and fixed them up. Comma should be used in the number 1200 toward the end of the first paragraph. Fixed. "The team set records in their inaugural season for their lackluster record." Some redundancy in the writing regarding "records" and "record". Would "performance" work for the second one. Good suggestion, I went ahead and changed it. "The Capitals won the Eastern conference...". Capitalize Conference? Changed. Reference 4 makes no mention of the Capitals drafting Ovechkin in 2004. I added in another reference which mentions both his draft and his recent importance to the team. Decapitalize Key in the Table Key heading, since it is not a proper noun. Done. Bolding is becoming discouraged as a way of highlighting items in tables. I know it isn't being used now, but it is listed in the key, and there's always the possibility that the Capitals could win the Stanley Cup in the near-future. I would recommend using italics to identify a potential Cup win instead. I went ahead and changed it in the key. If I may make one more suggestion, I think it would be better if italics was in alphabetical order in the key. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Alphabetized per your suggestion. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Reference 6 doesn't mention the Capitals at all. I don't think it needs to-- the Capitals are part of the NHL, and the source adequately explains why the amount of games changed from the prior season. If you think that's not sufficient though I'll go and see if I can wrangle something up. The reference number may have changed when you added the Ovechkin cite. The one I meant to refer to is current reference 7, which cites the note on the realignment. That reference doesn't mention the Capitals, though it can be used to cite the general fact that there was a change in the system. To cite the Capitals' placing in the Atlantic Division, you could use this Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the reference-- I added it into the note. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Reference 1 needs an access date, along with a note that it is a PDF file. To do the latter, use the format= parameter of the cite templates. Added both. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I don't see the access date. Is the formatting correct? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Whoops. I wrote the parameter as "accesdate", not "accessdate". I changed the minor spelling error. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC) References 6, 7 and 11 should have the publishers in italics, since they are all printed publications. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I wasn't familiar with the "cite news" template. Looks like it automatically italicizes for you-- I went ahead and fixed it up so it's italicized now. One more thing I just saw now: The totals are misaligned, as each row is one column right of where it is intended to be. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Whoops-- looks like I accidentally shifted all the columns over when I deleted one earlier. I'll see what I can do, gimme a sec here... -- Nomader (Talk) 03:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I went ahead and corrected the OT column of the chart, for some reason the totals were incredibly off. Otherwise I don't see the problem you were referring to. Do you see any other totals that are incorrect? -- Nomader (Talk) 03:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC) No, that fixed it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – After the resolution of the comments, everything looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Not sure either caption needs a period. Removed the period from both captions. "qualified for the Stanley Cup playoffs 21 times and have never won a Stanley Cup...." "and" seems a little odd here. Maybe "but"? Changed to "but", I think it works better. "The team set records in their inaugural season for their lackluster performance.[2] " discuss and quantify this please. They have the worst all-time NHL record with 70+ games, and they were just rather horrible. I'll dig around tonight when I get the chance for more specific sources. Here's the team page on Wikipedia, unfortunately mostly not sourced. It gives you an idea though about how awful they were. I specified about their record. -- Nomader (Talk) 13:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC) "and qualified for the playoffs for 14 straight seasons" for the next 14 seasons from their first qualification? it's unclear. I understand what you meant: I changed it to "... and qualified for the playoffs for 13 more seasons in a row afterwards." I'm not really a fan of what I changed it to, but I'll see what I can work with when I get back from dinner tonight. I reviewed it today but I can't really think of any better way to put it. Let me know what you think. -- Nomader (Talk) 13:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC) "for 4 of their next 5 seasons" - four of their next five... Switched to the words. I'd prefer to see the totals comma-separated for thousands. I added commas to all thousands-place numbers. Note g needs an en-dash, not a hyphen. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Changed to a hyphen. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I see no issues myself, will support when TRM above marks his concerns resolved. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Support This is a very indepth list of the overall seasons with all of the FL criteria met.BLUE_DOG^TN 17:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:49, 6 July 2010 [47].

---

List of FC Barcelona presidents

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this exciting list of Presidents of Barcelona to FL. It's been through PR and obtained two copy-edits by other editors. Sources should be a-okay. I have another list here, which has two supports and is a month old now. Sandman888 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I have informed all reviewers of the previous article I've had here, to garnish reviews. Sandman888 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments (sorry it's taken a while to get to this...) I think five paragraphs of lead is a little too much for a list of this size. Deleted some text. Consider a translation for the lead image, this is English Wikipedia and our target audience probably doesn't speak fluent Spanish. translation is in alt text, thought that was a neat solution. Do you think it should go under the picture? Maybe a little text box in the lead with the most relevant part of the advert would be neat? I like the alt text too though. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC) I put in a box, it's not very pretty, but okay. I would feel cheated as a reader if some parts where missing, so I think it shd include the whole translation. Sandman888 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC) "Spain's first truly national league" what do you mean by "truly"? There where some attempts before 1929, but not all of Spain was included (but included more teams than in a strictly regional league). I've removed truly, as this is the first official league. advert->advertisement. Done "players of the standing of Josep Escolà," this is POV. Part of del. text "In 1978 Josep Lluís Núñez became the first elected president of FC Barcelona, and since then members of the club have elected the club president." was Nunez elected by members? If so then the subsequent sentence isn't strictly correct. "ever since", is that better? " longest serving" hyphenate. Done Be consistent with the diacritics on Nunez. fixed 1 instance two and a half or two-and-a-half... Both with hyphens. Worth mentioning Rosell in the lead as the "president-elect" Wrote a line. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the thorough review (and any pending). Sandman888 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "taking over the presidency in order to save the club from extinction. Done "The process of electing a president of FC Barcelona was closely tied to Spain's transition to democracy in 1974 and the end of Franco's dictatorship." It would be nice if Franco was linked here. Linked Spain under Franco Few concerns regarding the last paragraph. First, what is Rosell's first name? Done This is the only place in the lead where Presidents is capitalized. Judging by the rest of the page, it shouldn't be. Done "and he will formally take over the presidency on June 1, 2010." That was almost four weeks ago. my mistake, is July, 1. This entire paragraph is only one sentence, which is not overly long. How about merging it with the prior paragraph? Doesn't really fit in. I wanted to wait to July 1 to make changes to it, didn't expect the FLC to take this long (nom. before election). Looked at as a whole, the lead is very long (currently seven paragraphs). In addition to the merge suggested above, the fourth and fifth paragraphs aren't long and seem like viable candidates for combining. That would leave five paragraphs, which is still long but not overwhelming. I am a bit confused, usually a long lead is a good thing. I've merged 4&5, but they are about different topics, hope none will mind that tho. Again, why is Presidents capitalized in the List of Presidents section heading? This should be consistent throughout, one way or the other. Yep, fixed. What makes Bleacher Report (reference 6) a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Replaced with cnn ref. Thank you very much for the review, hopefully all concerns have been addressed. Sandman888 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problems with this becoming a featured list, although i have never edited in anything similar (club presidents, club owners, etc). However, it is definitely WP material. I am neutral. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the review, if there's something you could see improved, please do advice :) Sandman888 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• I support the featured list nomination. However, I would suggest we remove the "Managing Commission" ones. I think it is better to see Joan Laporta listed as one single line instead of 2 lines. Jordiferrer (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the support, I can perhaps have both managing commissions included as notes rather than separate entries. Would that be better? Sandman888 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments haven't looked at the prose *Honours column. No need for microscopic font. full sized Nationality. I'm not totally comfortable with "nationality" at the head of a column of countries and present-day flags. In sportsperson lists, the nationality is the country for which they played or were eligible to play sport. What does it mean in context of this list? it's not nationality in the FIFA sense, but in the wp:names sense. Wd you rather do w/o the column? I've had little to do with non-sporting lists, so had a look at various FLs that use a country or nationality column, and there's quite a difference in approach. List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry has a note at the top of the country column which explains the meaning of "country" in that list, and the FLC had a lengthy discussion on the matter. The lead of Rumford Medal implies that the nationality column refers to citizenship, but there are few sources. And Freedom Award's nationality column doesn't appear to have any rationale at all: David Dubinsky (born in what was then Russia and is now Belarus, lived in Poland from age 3 and went to the States as a teenager) is listed as Russian, David Sarnoff (born in what was then Russia and is now Belarus, went to the States age 9) is listed as American, and Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan is listed as all sorts of things. I have no issue with a column for nationality, even if it just means how the people concerned were described at the time (like English isn't really a nationality, but people were referred to as English whether technically they were or not). But, in my opinion, they do need sources, and they do need a note clarifying what "nationality" refers to. The flags should go, though. They add nothing apart from decoration, it's anachronistic to use modern-day flags, and we get into all sorts of complications about whether to use the historically-appropriate flag for when the person was born, when they were president, or what. I believe the Spanish flag changed on a regular basis during the 20th century. No flags now. If flags where used, they should be for when they became notable, i.e. were presidents (just like nationality). Of course that period can coincidence with flag-changes, but that is just the same problem with nationality. However I do think the use of historical flags (which is used all the time on es.wiki) wd add some nice historical information to the list. Sandman888 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC) *What's the source for Otto Gmelin(g) being German? His FCB page doesn't give a nationality, and also spells him without the final 'g'. this Austrian site has him as German, http://www.laola1.at/911+M5fbf8538dcb.html, with extra G. There is a trend in Catalonia to 'localize' foreign names. References. Please give the actual titles of the pages as the reference titles. e.g. the page cited at ref#5 is entitled From the 75th Anniversary to the European Cup (1974-1992), ref#12 is Managing Commission (2006), etc... Done Ref#1: the English for Athletic Club is Athletic Bilbao, so for clarity, that's what I'd use as the publisher (either instead of Athletic Club, or in brackets after it) the team is known as Athletic Bilbao, but the publishing entity is Athletic Club, since the other doesn't exist. I do not believe we use common name for publishers. Ref#3: needs a publication date done Ref#5: the page cited doesn't have a publication date, and if it did, I don't think it'd be 1992 done *Ref#9 has lost its year retrieved done *Ref#6: I'd also question the reliability of Bleacher Report. Need to see some evidence of editorial control, fact-checking, etc. this gives 240 results for Bleacher Report reports at cnn.com - see also http://bleacherreport.com/about I'm aware that some of the articles first published on Bleacher Report are syndicated to other publications. But it's still a community where anyone can write an article, and from the FAQs I can't tell whether the editorial process concentrates on libel and literacy or whether it goes deeper than that. However, even if that writer's view of that part of the club's history is a reliable source, I can't find where it actually verifies "After the departure of Núñez in 2000 came some initial instability when Joan Gaspart took over the club in 2000." (hadn't noticed the repeated "in 2000" til I c&p'd that sentence :-) Uhh, rmvd second 2000. Have replaced source with cnn ref, and re-written to reflect that. Sandman888 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC) In the lead, you use both the Spanish and Catalan names for the Catalan championship. One or the other, presumably the Catalan, would be best. And you only need to link it on the first mention. Done Your general reference, and even the Catalan-language version, uses Hans rather than Joan Gamper. Joan Gamper is the common one (123.000 on google vs 12.000 for "Hans Gamper") Tomàs Rosés should have a grave accent not an acute My mistake. Done But I'd definitely expect Montals father and son to sort under 'M' rather than 'C' and 'G' respectively? oh yes, certainly. For information, the link=off parameter in the date sort template isn't needed and advice is to remove it. date-script introduced it for some reason. Removed. Presume in the names, you've chosen to use just the one surname apart from to distinguish the Montals, but was wondering why Joaquim de Vargas rather than Joaquim Peris de Vargas? I don't understand that sentence. Sorry, I often fail to make myself clear. The Barca website lists him as Joaquim Peris de Vargas, and that's also the name of his WP page. If Vargas is his paternal surname, and Peris a forename, it seemed inconsistent to omit Peris when you included a second forename in Josep Lluís Núñez. Yes of course. Fixed. I'm sure you'd know this better than me, but is it right that Narcís de Carreras etc should sort under 'd'? see Spanish naming customs At both the Spanish and Catalan WPs, Narcís de Carreras is sorted under 'C'. Also, Enric Martí Carreto is listed as Martí i Carreto, sorted under 'M', which looks to me like Martí is his paternal surname rather than a second forename. Good call on Martí. Hmm. Sometimes people include the de/De. I'm not sure whether they shd sort one way or the other, but I've changed to the catalan convention you presented. One thing you may want to consider in future, if you have what appears too much information for the lead section, is separating the detail into a history section, leaving a basic lead, as was done at List of Manchester City F.C. managers. made it as such. Now the lead is a presentation to what FC Barcelona is, which, I must remind you, is often requested by a non-football editor at PR. Indeed. Though as this article deals with the club's presidents, a brief presentation of the president's role and how he is chosen should also appear in the lead. wrote a bit more. If you think a more formal presentation of the presidency is in order I have the statues kicking about somewhere. Content's fine by me, maybe the new stuff in the prose could do with a look-over by a friendly native-speaker, if such exist Struway2 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you vmi for the review. Hopefully all concerns have been addressed. Sandman888 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC) More comments:

• There are 16 redlinks, and 23 blue. If all the redlinked persons are notable, then I wonder whether 16 out of 39 presidents i.e. 40+% satisfies Criterion 5a: "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". I'm not a fan of the mass creation of unsourced uncategorised stubs "Fred Smith is a footballer who played 120 times for Template FC." like used to happen when redlinks weren't allowed at all, but I've opposed at other FLCs on this point and will probably do so here. The directors and other reviewers may well take a different view of the interpretation of "minimal".
  • Tbh, I'm unsure if the first couple of presidents can be said to be notable. Barcelona wasn't the same back then as it is now and several of the redlinks have only been there for a very short time. They are not covered by WP:ATHLETE, so wd like some input on this Sandman888 (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • It comes down to whether the president of FC Barcelona is inherently notable. If they're not, which is probably the view I'd take, then those names currently redlinked should be de-linked and the minimal proportion problem disappears. See what other people think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I doubt we can say that without overriding regular guidelines. I think it wd be dubious at best, to make the presidency of FCB a sufficient criteria of notability. Sandman888 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Now you're down to 6 redlinks out of 34 definitely-and-or-possibly notable presidents, I won't oppose on 5a. Struway2 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Support on everything but prose quality, I haven't reviewed the prose and will leave it to others to decide on that. After a considerable amount of work, I think the list now satisfies the remaining criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: "the club has changed president a total of 44 times." changes presidents sounds better to me. Would it not be easier and more direct to just say "The club has had [insert number of presidents] presidents"? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC) "the club has had 39 different presidents." is inserted. Sandman888 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC) "The club is owned by the members of FC Barcelona," the link goes to the supports of FC Barcelona; when I hear member, I think of the players and managers on the team, which doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe just have the link show as Supporters of FC Barcelona? well if you (right now) became a supporter of FCB, in the ordinary sense, that wd not make you a member. how about "club-members" ? That sounds better, yes. Wizardman Operation Big Bear "Núñez' main objective was to develop Barça into a world-class club" Núñez's you mean? Changed it. "During his two-and-a-half years with the club, the club won no trophies and, after three years Gaspart resigned his position immediately on February 12, 2003" Two things here. First, was it 2.5 or 3 years? Needs consistency. Second, immediately's probably not needed, since it brings a reader to a halt halfway through a sentence, if that makes sense. yeah makes some sense. now is "During his presidency of the club, the team won no trophies and, after two-and-a-half years Gaspart resigned his position on February 12, 2003" Put periods at the end of captions. If it feels like a fragment then expand it slightly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC) added one period. Thanks for the review, hope everything is in order! Btw do you have a comment on whether the redlinked presidents are really notable (see struways cmt above) Sandman888 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC) As for the presidents, I would think the president of a major club is notable. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Yes on that we agree, as a rule of thumb a president of a major club is notable (as there isn't a policy for this). But does that also mean that previous presidents who were in charge when the club wasn't well known, as a rule of thumb, will probably meet the general notability guidelines? Sandman888 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• (OD) I've created some stubs and delinked some who where presidents < 6 months and no honours. There are 6 redlinks left, and all of them have been president for more or less a year and won no honours. Shd they be delinked? Sandman888 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter to me either way personally. They can stay linked, that's fine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:51, 2 July 2010 [48].

---

List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK)

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because over the past month it has been extensively re-written from this to its present form. The expansion started when I was background reading for (recent FL) List of Record Mirror number-one singles and I just got a bit too involved so here I am again. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Support.Oppose A few problems need to be resolved:

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

#The UK Singles Chart is a weekly record chart. In the 1970s, it was compiled each week... There is no need to repeat two times that it is a weekly chart. Removed first instance. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Prior to 1969 many newspapers commissioned their own music charts but, on 15 February 1969, the BMRB was commissioned I do not like two "commissioned" in one sentence. Yes, the first instance was incorrect. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC) The chart was published weekly with a two-week break at Christmas; This repeats what was already said in the first two sentences. Whoops, sorry about that. Fixed, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Thirteen records were released and sold one-million copies within the decade and "Mull of Kintyre" became the first ever single to sell over two-million copies. Do you mean "over one-million copies"? It is unlikely that they sold exactly one million. In addition, does these thirteen include "Mull of Kintyre"? Done, and yes it does. Clarified slightly by putting "also". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Were all these thirteen records number-one singles? Yes they were. And I believe per WP:LEAD is summarises the "#Million-selling and platinum records" section. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC) "Mull of Kintyre" was the biggest selling song of the decade This repeats the previous sentence. Nor true. It was the first to sell >2m but that does not necessarily mean that it was the best seller of the decade. In the 'Million-selling and platinum records' section. Are "Merry Xmas Everybody" and "Another Brick in the Wall (Part II)" same "two number-one songs from the 1970s were classified as platinum in the subsequent decade"? Yes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for your comments. Much appreciated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - the images need to be placed better. On my monitor I have to scroll down through nearly three screens' worth of blank white space with images at the right before I get to the first table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  Out of interest what resolution are you running and do you the same problem with this? The table is obviously a bit too wide for your monitor but I cannot tell by how much. I've forced some wrapping which has taken quite a bit off the width but I don't know if it is enough for you. Unfortunately this is also one of the adverse affects that increasing thumbnail sizes would have. Can you let me know if it is better now or, roughly, how much is left to go. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  On the 2000s list I only get a small whitespace before the 2009 table, the rest is OK. On this list the whitespace is now down to about 2.5 screens' worth. Apparently (someone more knowledgable than me tells me) my resolution is 1280 x 1024 pixels, hope that means something :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  Okay I've reduced the image sizes. Is it any better? I must say this problem suprises me as the table wraps on my computer until the window is very thin. Do you have quite a narrow monitor? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  My monitor's approximately 34cm wide. Is that narrow? I don't know..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  Are you measuring diagonally? If so, that would be about 13 inches, which is pretty narrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  No, side to side -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  Hmm, in that case it seems your monitor is smaller than any of those listed at viewable image size. See this for an idea of the sizes people mostly use. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  It's 17" diagonally. Blame work, they gave it to me :-) But if I've got some sort of freaky-weird non-standard monitor and it displays OK on all normal ones then I guess I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: "The longest duration of a single at the top spot was 9 weeks and this was achieved on three occasions:" The number can be spelled out. Plus, this can be split (i.e. ...nine weeks. This was achieved...) "The 1970s also saw the formation of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) who classified the sales of records over certain thresholds:" You use a much more specific date (April 1973) later on; does that work up there too? "after sales from it's re-release were included." Remove apostrophe. Just fix these and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC) All done, thanks for taking a look. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Opening sentence is a little bit weak. Is there no other really top-level info you could add here to bulk it out a bit? Better? Record Retailer is overlinked in the lead. Done "the full amount of sales figures" is there really a need for "amount of" here? Contextually yes, as it was a sample not the full sales figures. Clarified now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) "by phone" "by telephone" Done "sales figures" used three times in two sentences. Done "The longest duration of a single at the top spot " -> "at number one" to avoid quickly repeating "the top spot". Done "were released and sold over" I think "which" (or "that") rather than "and". Done You link £ on its second use. Done Abba image seems to be missing the thumb parameter (at a guess)? Done According to us, "Boney M" is "Boney M." Not sure about this. The source gives it without the period as does a chart scan from 1978. I prefer to go with sources rather than Wiki. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, having looked at the singles and album covers for the band they all have "M." so I guess in this case the official source is overruled. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Also "I Love to Love (But My Baby Loves to Dance)" doesn't capitalise the t of To. Done "December, 1963 (Oh, What a Night)" doesn't have a , after December. It does in the official source though. What do you suggest? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Song page moved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Ernie's The should be a the. Done Hit Me with Your .. not Hit Me With Your... Done "Oh Boy" links to "Oh Boy!". Updated link destination, but pipe remains as it was changed stylistically on rerelease - see sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Check capitalisation of Like to Teach the World to Sing... And Love Me For a Reason. And Cum On Feel the Noize. And The First Cut is the Deepest. I know these redirect adequately but it'd be better to have titles Wikipedia-internally-consistent with their articles. Isn't "The First Cut Is the Deepest" instead of "The First Cut is the Deepest" fairly strange by how songs are normally named? I've fixed the others. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Well the album has the track name in ALLCAPS. So I guess Yahoo! music and Last.fm are the next best sources which suggest capital "Is", however they may have just copied the Wiki title. Anyway, changed link in list accordingly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC) We also seem to have a space for T. Rex Done, all spaced. Brotherhood of Man, not Of. Done Floyd's en-dash breaks the year of millionth sale sorting, and why is it an en-dash in any case? Um, it isn't an ndash (it's an mdash) and it doesn't break the sorting. For me at least. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC) As always, thank you for your thorough review. I believe I have addressed you comments with queries mainly about whether we should follow sources or current article names? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) You got yourself a B+, the em-dash kills sorting in Safari. A typical problem for me.... As for the odd capitalisations here and there, my preference would be to make the Wikipedia correct per reliable sources. If that means moving destination pages, then so be it... Happy with everything else... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Okay, moved one page and found good reason to deviate from offical type listing in the other cases. Hopefully it is all sorted now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:51, 2 July 2010 [49].

---

List of Madonna concert tours

Nominator(s): --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this is a comprehensive list of Madonna's world and promotional tours, as well as her live performances. The article has gone through a Peer review and hence I believe that with the consensus of my fellow editors, the article can be promoted to a Featured List. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comments by TbhotchTalk C. Lead X-STaTIC PRo=CeSS -> Wikilink Wikilink will take you to Steven Klein's page. Is it appropriate to have same links twice? --Legolas (talk2me) 12:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I thought it had its own article. TbhotchTalk C. 17:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC) grossing tour ever for a female artist -> grossing tour ever for a female artist at that time Done Reference 9 -> ISBN failing Google gives this isbn only *confused* --Legolas (talk2me) 12:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC) According to this the ISBN is 9085950026 not 9085950023, but the first does not appear too. TbhotchTalk C. 17:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I'm so sorry. I corrected. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Concert tours Duration (for all) -> Source? This doesnot require source as it is taken from the article itself. OK The Virgin tour Critics panned the tour, calling it atrocious and deducting that Madonna "will be out of business in six months". -> Source? Added Taraborrelli. were completely sold out in a record-breaking 34 minutes. -> Source? Added. million.[15][1] -> million.[1][15] Who's That Girl World Tour Reference 16 -> ISBN failing, I think you should change it for the ISBN I provided you at Spotlight (song). Added that. Blond Ambition World Tour aka -> also known as Reference 19 -> ISBN failing Worldcat lists it with the same isbn as Google. False positive, sorry. TbhotchTalk C. 17:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Promotion tours Duration (for all) -> Source? As before. Don't Tell Me Promo Tour were

• Thanks a lot for your comments. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Your Welcome Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

• Support. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Live Performances

The The Power of Good-Bye and Shanti/Ashtangi and Ray of Light performance order is incorrect, the vmas was before the emas. Also the 2005 ema Hung up performance is not included. Johnnyboytoy (talk)

• • It was added. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Comment: Well, this is a good list, definitely FL material, so my objections are just nit-pickings. "and in Italy the Pope called for a boycott". "in Italy" is an apposition, so it must be separated by commas. Done. "dancers of both sex" -> "dancers of both sexes" Done "Madonna was inspired to create the tour, after taking part[...]". No comma. Done. "This record was broken in 2008 with the[...]" Those words are used in the previous sentence. Maybe reword it to "This feat was surpassed in 2008"? Good. Is it worth noting that Madonna hasn't toured Australia since 1993 and has since apologized for it? Added a small part. In the Virgin Tour synopsis "Madonna" is repeated too often. Corrected. Is the "See also" section needed for one link? You can link it in the lead, here: "Sticky & Sweet Tour, which went on to become the highest grossing tour ever by a solo artist". Done. Well, that's all from me. I'll happily support once these minor tweaks are done.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your comments. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. WereWolf (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "concert tours, seven of which have been world tours" any way to avoid repeating "tours" in here? Changed. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) " Her 1985 debut, The Virgin Tour, was based in North America only. Critically panned, the tour went on to collect more than US $17 million." I'd merge these two sentences. Joined? --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) "embarked" repeated rather quickly. Find another phrase. Done. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) "showmanship and exquisite dresses" -> is "exquisite" a quote? If so, put in quotes, if not, it's a bit POV. Quoted. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) "an Afro wig" is this clear to our international audience? changed to the wikilink, that should be clear enough. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) "Madonna once the Harlow harlot and now a perky harlequin, is" this is a direct quote, are you sure there isn't a comma before once? Ya there is, sorry. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) "ne of the most successful and highest-grossing concert tour" -> tours. Done --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) "top grossing tour" hyphenate? Done --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Same for "highest grossing" Done --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) "Both Confessions and Sticky & Sweet Tours had planned to go to Australia.." don't think the tours themselves had planned that, maybe "the tours had been planned to ..." Tweaked. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) "record breaking" hyphenate. Done --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) "prestigious" cite. Removed for POV. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Ref 38 has "Jo Whiley" while all other refs are surname, first name. Corrected --Legolas (talk2me) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Make sure American English is used in this article, as Madonna is an American recording artist. For example, favorable, not "favourable". That's the only issue I found, fix anything like that and I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • LOL, even I found that spelling to be non-American only. Gave a thorough read nevertheless. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:51, 2 July 2010 [50].

---

Hugo Award for Best Novelette

Nominator(s): PresN 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In what must be a total surprise, fresh after the successful Novel and Novella FLCs, here is the Hugo Award for Best Novelette. The works are shorter but the lists are similar, so as before, any concerns raised in the other FLCs have been fixed here as well. Thanks for voting! --PresN 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. This list is of the same quality as Hugo Award for Best Novel, which I supported. Ruslik_Zero 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: "or Worldcon, and the presentation evening constitutes its central event." the evening presentation would sound better, I think. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Except that Worldcons are 3-4 days long. I made it "award presentation". --PresN 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I just realized I never finished this review up. I didn't find anything else though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Looks as good as the other Hugo Award lists. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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