Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2007

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

The list was not promoted 01:12, 30 December 2007.

---

Harry and the Potters discography

Support as nominator, as I believe it meets all requirements of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007

Oppose There are a number of problem I see with the list:

• Definately not a fan of this discography format. I'd recommend taking a cue from virtually every other FL discography and putting everything into tables. They're easier to read, take up less space, and would be consistent with the other discogs.

 Done Replaced old format with tables. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Track listings for every release is completely unnecessary and a waste of space.

 Done Track listing removed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Listing every producer in the compilations sections is also unnecessary.

 Done True. They have been removed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, why even mention the producers? They've produced all their own albums. Pretty redundant.

 Done Have removed producers field in for all releases. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The lead is pretty short. Some basic biographical information would be a great improvement. A thorough copyedit would also be nice, since there's some weird punctuation in there.

 Done I have expanded the article with general biographical information. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Considering there's 7 in-line citations, the 3-column format for the {{reflist}} template is a bit excessive. Even 2 columns would be overdoing it, I think.

 Done I have changed it to a one column - looks much better. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The "Unreleased songs" section needs some references.

 Done Referenced each song. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Sales figures also need references.

 Done No references found, only general indications from label's website. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overwikilinked. Only wikilink something the first time it's mentioned. ie. "Harry and the Potters", "CD", "Vinyl 7"", etc.

 Done Removed links from multi-used links. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely take out the Amazon.com link. We're not trying to sell records here. Drewcifer (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Indeed, it's an encyclopedia.

Comment Thank you for spending you time reviewing this article, I have made the appropriate edits, could you please change you vote to support the article or find further requirements, before allowing it to receive your positive vote. Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work! That was alot of work done very quickly. The article is looking much better now. There's still a few things though. I made a few edits myself, basically things that were easier to do myself than explain.

• The Sales figures were fine, you didn't have to remove them completely, just give a source of the information that's all.

 Done I have included two references, for two releases, the only two for which I believe are able to be referenced.

• The expanded lead is good, but it still needs a good copyedit. For example "one complication album", "extended play" should be wikilinked, "adheres to a novel conceit" is confusing, "Harry Potter" (when speaking of the books) should be italicized, "quite simply" is unnecessary, "simple basic" is redundant, "raison d’être" comes out of nowhere, etc. Also, it would be nice to know when the band formed.

 Done Completed these tasks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Amazon link was still up so I took it down. That said, a few more External link would be nice. Any online interviews? Any articles about Wizard rock in general in which they are mentioned?

 Done Sorry, I must have got overwhelmed by editing other factor, I forgot to address this. I have included a further three references.

• Lastly, wherever possible the {{cite web}} templates should give the publisher. Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Given publisher for all references. Hpfan9374 (talk)

Thank you very much again, for re-reviewing this article. I have now made further appropriate edits and hope you could please change you vote to support the article or find further requirements, before allowing it to receive your positive vote. Thank you very much for also taking the time to make some edit yourself. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking better all the time! I made a few more minor edits, again because they were just easier to do myself than explain. Everything else looks fine, though the second paragraph of the lead is a little worrisome. Mainly, I would strongly suggest avoiding saying what a band "sounds like" since this is a POV issue. If you have a souce describing the band's sound, that's one thing, but what is there right now is strictly opinion. I'm not sure if this makes sense, but hopefully it does a little bit. For a good example of what I mean, check out the Musical Characteristics section of FA article Nine Inch Nails. It either describes the band's sound in terms of what others have said, or mentions straight-forward musical facts (such as NIN's use of odd time signatures). So saying the Harry and the Potters "sound much like other indie rock music" is POV, as is "simple guitar-synth-and-drums indie pop style and they sing in the semi-deadpan way." In fact, even though I've gone on and on about it, it might just be better to take out the sentences describing the band's sound altogether, since that doesn't have much to do with their discography. Whatever you think is best. Drewcifer (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your suggestion. I have removed the paragraph. Hpfan9374 (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Support Looking much better! Excellent work. Drewcifer (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The page is too short and simply doesn't have enough content to be a Featured list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There is no fixed length for an FA article or list. The central criterion is completeness and comprehensiveness: i.e. does the article or list say all that can be said about the subject with appropriate sources given. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but there is still a length you like to see in FLs, and this one isn't quite long enough. You wouldn't expect an article that is only two or three times as long as a stub to become an FA. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Scorpion this is up for featured list status not feature article status, I am aware that the article is to be of 'appropriate length' for FA, according to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, however there is no required or fixed length for FL, according to Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. If you wish to oppose the article you will need to oppose it for a different reason. Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Smaller articles such as Pilot (House) have reached FA status, where 'appropriate length' is required. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Scorpion, can consensus be made with your vote? Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Colin°^Talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. The list is adequately sourced and is complete. This is a good discography. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Indeed Wassupwestcoast, I posted the following on to Scorpion's user talk page:

You cannot oppose feature list status to a list merely because it "doesn't have enough content". Please see, Wikipedia:Featured list criteria it is not a requirement. The closest requirement is "comprehensive" which the article is, as it lists all releases from Harry and the Potters. If you can find a release, unreleased song or complication appearance, e.t.c. by Harry and the Potters, then that is reason enough to fail it, however if you believe it is "doesn't have enough content" that is not a valid reason. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, you shouldn't outright ask people to support a list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are opposing it for an invalid reason, then it is reason enough to ask them to support a list, or find requirements before you will support it as Drewcifer did. Hpfan9374 (talk)

Scorpion, in your opinion do you think this article meets the featured list criteria requirements, or not, and if not please state suggestions as to how it can be edited in order to recieve your support. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Scorpion, regarding the (lack of) length. Although they are not official criteria, the top of the main WP:FL page reads "The featured lists are what we believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia" and the WP:FLC page reads "A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". Personally I fail to see how a short list can fulfill these statements. •97198 talk 11:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment This list fulfills these statements, as it is Wikipedia's best work, in terms of it being useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed - Wikipedia's official criteria. Not length, you can have a great article in many ways, without length. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the official FL criteria. I am aware that this list meets the criteria (I have read the preceding comments). I am aware that is a good list. I never said that it wasn't a good list. I wish to point out to you my use of the word "personally", as I personally believe that a short list cannot exemplify Wikipedia's best work or be highlighted as one of Wikipedia's finest. We are allowed opinions around here, are we not? •97198 talk 05:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although I'm not part of the list's nomination, I thought I'd interject. This sounds slightly similarly to a similer problem that I had with the FLC of Nation of Ulysses discography, namely that it was too short. The point I made, which seems to apply here too, is that a list's amount of content comes down to a matter of taste, and matters of taste don't really have a whole lot to do with the FL criteria. Or in other words, personal opinion and preferences don't really have a place in a FLC: does it meet the criteria or not? Anyways, discuss as you will, I just wanted to make that comment. Drewcifer (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a taste in long lists? I could say the same for you and short lists, but that would be wrong as I know that is not the case, neither is it the case with me (and Scorpion?) with long lists. And I'm unsure as to how you could mistake there being no place for opinion here. If there were no matter of opinion, surely there would never be any contradicting support or oppose !votes in any FLCs or FACs? It is someone's opinion that it meets the criteria, and someone else's opinion that it doesn't. The question is not so simple as "Does it meet the criteria or not?" because that itself asks for opinionated answers. If personal opinion has no place in FLCs, should every candidate page should be left blank? Every !vote is an opinion, and since everyone is entitled to a !vote, everyone is therefore entitled to an opinion. •97198 talk 08:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Drewcifer, that's exactly the point and example I was trying to find. In regards, to Redl@nds597198, no Wikipedia:Featured list candidates is not the place for 'personal opinions' it is a place to judge whether the candidate, in this case Harry and the Potters discography meets the featured list criteria, nothing more. Also, a vote is not an opinion, it is one's judgment on whether or not it meets the criteria. Furthermore, could I oppose a list you where nominating for it being to 'long' in my opinion? Some people might find this list to long, while others might find it too small, opinion is not a requirement, and one should not be able to oppose a list of featured status, because of it - this is why requirements and criteria are made. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Is a judgment not an opinion? (I judge that it meets the criteria; I therefore believe that it meets the criteria; it is therefore my opinion that it meets the criteria.) I'm not sure what you're getting at or whether you yourself know what you're getting at because you seem to be contradicting yourself. Anyhow, it is my opinion (sorry, I had to say that) that we're getting off the topic, because I do personally believe (my opinion, in fact, LOL) that the list meets the criteria. My issue is not with the criteria. My issue is whether the list can fulfill two specific statements that I mentioned initially. •97198 talk 09:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This article meets the criteria. Agreed. However, I believe it does meet the statements, as it is the 'best' in terms of it being useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. There is no mention of length, therefore you are saying you do not think its the best, because of length. You cannot oppose a list for length, if you find any requirement, regarding length, then please correct me. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd been over this? For the millionth time To repeat myself, there is no criterion regarding length (we both figured that out on our own, pat on the back) - it is simply my personal opinion (or judgment, as they're essentially the same, to cover old territory) that this list cannot be what an FL aims to be. •97198 talk 07:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, this whole discussion seems to be academic (not that it was ever going anywhere) because the nomination is due to "expire" tomorrow and I don't think this candidacy will stay open as the objections are not being addressed which I think is the only reason not to promote/fail a list after ten days (unless it just hasn't got enough supports yet). •97198 talk 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Redl@nds597198, I am trying to address the objections, however they are unobjectionable, as I stated to Colin, "It is not due to a band success or number of releases, which makes their discography a featured list, but the referenced well-written, well-formatted article itself." And because of this, this list exemplifies Wikipedia's best work, it uses notable sources and all possible information to complete a list of comprehensive releases by Harry and the Potters. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) The objections are unobjectionable or unjustified? I think that's the word you're going for. And I wasn't specifically talking about Colin's reason you mentioned; I was more talking about the objection (sort of-)consensus - that the list isn't long enough. And I'm calling it a (sort of-)consensus because it appears in all (3!) opposes !votes. Not much of a consensus, but still, out of only 5 votes... •97198 talk 08:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you were referring to the lists short length. Yet, I cannot expand the article in any further way. If I created a third paragraph lead, would you it be long enough for your support? Apart from that, I cannot see another way that this list can become longer. I would greatly appreciate examples of how I can make this list longer, apart from wait until more releases. I have also included an additional column, "Other" with album-specific information. Hpfan9374 (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there's not really anything to do (for me, personally) to change my oppose to a support - it's really the list-ness that needs expansion IMO and that can't happen unless the band releases more songs, albums, etc. Sorry. •97198 talk 12:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, found a reference of a future studio album and have added it to the article.. If there is nothing that I can do, part wait until further releases, then isn't this list the 'best' using information available and the current releases, at this present time. I will maintain this list, it is one of the four, I edit on a regular basis. You are opposing it, as in your opinion it does not fulfill the above statements. It is of 'appropriate length', however I will also expand the lead for your support and am open to any further paragraphs, e.t.c. Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd just like to point out that short lists have passed the featured candidate process, such as Nation of Ulysses discography, therefore is it a matter of luck which taste the Wikipedians who review the article have? Hpfan9374 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely. •97198 talk 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To close your vote Redl@nds597198, you have stated that the article meets the criteria, which is what the featured list candidate process is and by meeting the criteria, the list is the best. As when you used the above quote, you forgot the ending "A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, as mentioned in the criteria." Therefore, in your opinion the list is both matches the criteria and exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. If there is a problem you have with this article not matching the criteria, continue your oppose vote and I shall edit and rectify the issue. However, if not you really don't have much of an argument, part your taste which is not what candidacy is about, unless you can find this written anyway and I will therefore ask if your vote and be changed to a Support, as above, you've stated it meets the criteria. Hpfan9374 (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the criteria is to create something similar to a marking scheme or rubric a teacher might use when marking work, to try and identify Wikipedia's best lists. It is not implied that being a piece of "Wikipedia's very best work" is limited to fulfillment of the criteria. I do feel anyone taking part in these discussions has a right to their own opinion and can interpret the requirements for an FL as subjectively as they feel is necessary. (So no, I will not strike my oppose as you have tried to enforce asked both here and below.) You may consider this "closing my [!]vote" although the term "finishing this discussion" - as my !vote was closed at the end of my initial oppose reasoning, because as you can see my opinion has not changed and I have more or less just repeated and reiterated everything I said initially. Again, sorry. If the list is promoted, congrats, but I'm sticking by my reasons. •97198 talk 12:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad consensus was reached with your vote. I understand your argument, yet in general, I would like to see a length requirement 'set-in stone' for FLCs, whether that be long or short. Good luck with future editing, Redl@nds. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by "glad consensus was reached with your vote". This isn't a vote and 97198 hasn't struck his original oppose; indeed he has further explained why he feels that the requirement that an FL is "Wikipedia's very best work" is not limited to fulfilment of just the numbered criteria. Those are an agreed minimum. Colin°^Talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like Scorpion, I don't believe a short discography of a barely notable band can be an example of "our very best work". The lead of the "Featured List Criteria" is not "unofficial", and allows a subjective opinion to be made. The articles linked-to are nearly all stubs. This band simply hasn't done enough or been written-about enough to generate enough encyclopaedic content for featured status. Colin°^Talk 10:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I am submitting this article for featured list status and not featured topic status, and thus the band's article and their albums, take no part in this candidate. It is not due to a band success or number of releases, which makes their discography a featured list, but the referenced well-written, well-formatted article itself. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic requires the group of articles are at GA or FA standard. This is at the opposite extreme. I would argue that a list is not particularly useful (an FL criterion) if it only links to stubs. An encyclopaedia should provide more information than a online record shop (track listing, label, date, brief description), for example. Underwhelmed is the feeling I get looking at this, and I shouldn't feel that way about Featured material. Colin°^Talk 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Colin, the list, just one single article is up for featured status, not several. I understand you thoughts, however there is no requirement of this in the featured list criteria. Also, do you believe it meets the criteria? Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Colin, can consensus be made with your vote? Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Colin°^Talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I feel length is an issue that should be addressed for featured lists, yet however no such requirements do exist, I am therefore willing to support this list for featured status. This issue was addressed for featured article however, and I hope it is addressed and implemented in the feature list criteria in the near future. However as there are no requirements, then I am fine to support this as long as the list is maintained then, then it should expand as time progresses and the band releases further material. Noobiemacnoss1 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thank you for you support Noobiemacnoss1, I believe the article can now be closed and given featured list status, as it has four "support" votes, as stated at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates. However, if for some reason it does not warrant FL status, could this consensus please continue for further votes. Hpfan9374 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the requirement is for consensus plus a minimum of four supports.

Furthermore, I'm rather suspicious about Noobiemacnoss1 (talk · contribs), his contribution history and relationship with Hpfan9374 (talk · contribs). I meant to post a query on Noobiemacnoss1's talkpage regarding FA and FL criteria, of which he seems to be familiar, only to discover this account has made zero mainspace edits. On the 14 January 2007, Hpfan9374 sent Noobiemacnoss1 a couple of barnstars and awards, despite this account having made no edits on Wikipedia at that time. Noobiemacnoss1 reciprocated on the 15 January 2007 with three awards including one that said "you have persuaded me to sign up". Noobiemacnoss1 made some edits to his userpage and disappeared on the 16 January 2007, only to turn up again today to offer his support. Colin°^Talk 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Colin, I do know Noobiemacnoss1 in real life, he hasn't be on for a while, so I recently ask him if he could review my article (in person). I believe he is going to be editing Xbox and Halo related articles. With regards to the rewards, I was unaware of the system at the time, however I believe they were given out fairly. I perhaps, should not however have given Noobiemacnoss1, The Exceptional Newcomer Award however, the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar was given as he gave me them and has been interested in editing Wikipedia in the real world. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, asking people to come and vote in an FLC (especially if you know them in real life) isn't a good thing. You should avoid doing that in the future, or else you could get in trouble. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay thank you, Scorpion. I understand meatpuppet now, I am very sorry for any trouble or wrong this caused or causes to the candidacy or to any Wikipedian. Noobiemacnoss1's vote can be taken from the candidacy if necessary. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hpfan9374, I don't think you realise how serious WP takes meatpuppetry. Wrt awards and barnstars, you can do what you like with them. I mentioned them merely as evidence that you guys were clearly chums. Asking a friend, especially one who isn't experienced on WP, to "review" is hardly likely to result in a critical appraisal. Like Scorpion, I'm going to assume you were naive rather than corrupt. At least you have been honest in admitting it. As for removing Noobiemacnoss1's "vote" "if necessary", it most certainly will be disregarded and has tainted the whole candidacy. To quote from WP:MEAT: "Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices". Colin°^Talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Support - There is not a minimum length for FLs. This list is actually longer than List of counties in Rhode Island, which is a featured list. This list is well-referenced, and is certainly as "featurable" as other discographies. Good job! But I do have one question: why is "comprehensive listing of official releases by Harry and the Potters" all in bold, rather than simply "discography of Harry and the Potters", which is the format used in Nine Inch Nails discography? Cheers, Rai-me 02:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Thank you, and I have rectified that issue, by emboldening the appropriate text. Furthermore, the current status is 5 "Support" and 3 "Oppose", all opposes due to the lists 'small' length - not part of the criteria - and therefore all invalid opposes. I ask the opposing reviewers to strikethrough their votes, as they nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection. Hpfan9374 (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hpfan9374, I suggest you read up on WP's views on voting and consensus, since you don't seem to understand them. The overriding requirement of a featured list is that a consensus of editors believe it "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation". In addition it must meet the content policies and the various numbered points that have been agreed over the years as a minimum objective test. The shortness of this list, the lack of serious notability of the subject, and the fact that its usefulness is limited by linking merely to stubs all make one distinctly underwhelmed. You seem to be trying to get this through on a technicality, which is not a way to achieve a bronze star by a community. If just one lone editor had expressed a negative subjective opinion, then the closing editor might choose to disregard that in the face of strong support. However, it only has four supports that count which is the bare minimum, and in itself not enough if there is not consensus. Three editors stubbornly insist that in their opinion, this is not "Wikipedia's very best work". You will have to deal with that, even if you disagree. I see little point in prolonging this candidacy. Colin°^Talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this candidacy should be closed as "Fail" soon; while I stand by my opinion that this list is just as "featurable" as List of counties in Rhode Island, only 3 legitimate supports and 3 opposes shows a pretty clear lack of consensus. Cheers, Rai-me 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The list was not promoted 00:57, 28 December 2007.

---

List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks

Modeled on current FL lists about first-round draft picks. Covers trades has no red links in the main article (althought there are two in the footnotes). Buc (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have a few suggestions before I lend my support:

• Delink the two red-links in the foot-notes, no need for them to be linked at all.

How so? Buc (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just take away the brackets, you dont have to do this, I just doubt that the players in question will receive an article, so it may be better just to make them plain-text.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't do any harm to have them. Buc (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Go through and delink any repeat links, such as Leslie Kelly and Robert Meachem which are linked in the intro and the table. Just link there names in the intro and delink in the table (You mention 6 total players in the intro, so all those should be delinked in the table). Also go through and if a college is mention more than once, then pick the first instance and only keep that one linked, while delinking the rest. So Alabama and Tennessee only needs to be linked in the intro, and any of the repeats in the table should be delinked. Same goes for the positions, if QB is mentioned more than once, then just link the first instance and delink the other (for all the psoitions).

When it comes to tables I think multiple links are ok. Buc (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, look at all the past lists (precedence), linking the positions is highly repetitive, I can understand the names but the positions and colleges are overlinked. Look at WP:MOSLINK, that should help with linking.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a gray area I'll give you that, the writers preference. Buc (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• The last two lines in the intro dont flow. Is their 3 picks from Georgia the most from one college. Right now all it is stating is that they have selected from this college 3 times, with no mention to why it is important. Also the last sentence should be phrased as "As of 2007, no first-round draft pick by the Saints has been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame."
• In your "Footnotes" section, delink any mention of an NFL team that is linked more than once (i.e Colts is linked like 3 times, you only need one link, the first one, do this for all the teams mentioned).
• There are free photos of Reggie Bush, Donté Stallworth, and Ricky Williams in each of their articles. I think adding these photos along the right side of the table would be a great addition to this list.

Keep in mind an image is not a requirment. Also the list is about the Saints and none of these images show them with the Saints. Plus I don't think Saints fans would enjoy being remined of giving up all their picks for Ricky Williams and Stallworth wasn't great.Buc (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense to any Saints fans, but I dont care what they think :P the addition of these photos would add encyclopedic value by representing people who were drafted by the Saints in the first-round. And saying those statements about Ricky and Dante are your own POV and opinion. I think the images would be great and would also help to fill the empty space.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As said before. It already has one image it doesn't need another and it isn't even a requierment. Buc (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done and if you can do these things, it will look great!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral While I don't mind too much how many images end up being used, using the stadium when the list is about players feels quite inadequate. Circeus (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I was told it needs an image to have a better chance of becoming a FL. Buc (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • My point is that the image is almost unrelated to the topic at hands: Saints players. Circeus (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Can't find another free use image that would be anymore related. Buc (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • And yet I mentioned three photos of high-profile players that were first-round draft picks of the New Orleans Saints. It doesnt matter what those players went on to do (the list is about first-round draft picks, not the players or their careers) you have three photos of players that are on this list, why not use them?
          Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
          • It doesn't show them as Saints. Buc (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Due to the fact that none of the issues that have been raised have even been attempted to be fixed. I am tired of trying to argue here.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've already said why I've not fixed them. Buc (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The list was not promoted 18:29, 26 December 2007.

---

List of Mexican flags

A good list with good images.Bewareofdog (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. No references, no clear definition of the scope of the list, no suitable lead. CG (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per the above. Basically just a gallery with a few (3) sentences here and there. Drewcifer (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above. I also propose speedy close because I find it hard to believe that the contributor(s) of this list is going to meet all objections in 10 days.--Crzycheetah 01:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The list was not promoted 23:50, 23 December 2007.

---

List of awards won by Degrassi

self-nomination I'm nominating this list because I feel it is of equal quality to other "awards won by" FLs. I've been working on it for some time in my sandbox, and now the list is complete and referenced, see no reason not to see if it can become Featured; of course, all comments to make the list even better are welcome, as are "supports"!

There are a couple of issues I should probably mention, that is that (1) as with Star Trek, the franchise is not itallicised, but the series are. (2) As some of the series are so old, and some award givers' sites don't archive that far back, some references point to a fan site. I only hope this won't be an issue. Some award givers' sites do indicate they will be archiving nominations in the future, when that happens refs will be updated.

I should probably also mention I have nomed Degrassi: The Next Generation for FA status, and while it isn't not allowed I'm aware it's frowned upon, but I feel I can handle both, especially since that nom isn't getting activity. That has now closed. Thanks. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - as to handling multiple nominations, so long as it falls under your ability, then it's not a problem. There's nothing preventing you from seeking multiple nominations for featured content at any given time if you can handle all of them. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

reply to comment - I've noticed some people upset about it so I thought I'd just be upfront about it. And since my other one seems to be being ignored, I reckon I can cope with 2. Thx for clarifying though -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the initial header level should be 2, not 3. Also, I think there are too many minuscule sections for single wins, often in out-of-the-way awards. Those would probably be better condensed into a common section, as with most other lists. Also, the redundant link from the reference would gain from being trimmed. I'm always keener with references for the table placed at the end of the section's text, I think it looks cleaner than having the reference repeated for each entry. Circeus (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the header, it was supposed to be 2, but I'm editing with a pda, and some things are not displayed in an easy-to-see fashion.

How many awards/nominations from an award giver would be better placed in a common table? Only when there's one, or go as many as two or three? The issue with that then that I can see, is that some of the more obscure awards wouldn't get any descriptive text, and the reader would have no idea what the award is. Would it be nescessary to create new articles, if only stubs, for each award giver?

The other thing is what do you mean by "redundant link from the reference"? I understand placing refs at the end of the prose, but then for some sections, it would be like "blah blah blah^{[1][2][3][4][5]}", which I think looks even more of a mess. If the ref link was placed in the table next to the year, would that be okay? It would reduce the repetitiveness of the ref being used 5 or 6 times in the table, but also not have 5 or 6 ref links next to each other in the text.

As with my old nominations, your input is valued, so please advise -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I gotta say, I'm not quite in favor of this. For one thing, I don't think every award needs an explanation of what the award is. If it's notable, it'll have its own article. If it's not, do we really want to mention it? Secondly, as much as it pains me to say this, being nominated for a GLAAD award -- and not winning -- probably doesn't need to be on the list. Third, I think it needs to be clarified that the "Nominations" listed are nominations not won. After all, in order to win the "Ingenuity Award", Degrassi had to be nominated, right? Fourth, I'm not sure this is the best format for this list. My concern is that yearly might be nice? Or in a big table so one could sort by award name, year, or whatever? Fifth, the formatting concerns above by Circeus. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The list was not promoted 21:22, 22 December 2007.

---

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

The list was not promoted 19:42, 20 December 2007.

---

List of Guardian of the Sacred Spirit episodes

This is a list of episodes of the Guardian of the Sacred Spirit anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Kaze no Stigma episodes, List of Kashimashi episodes, and List of Claymore episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks really good, great work. My one suggestion would be to make the intro flow better. Five out of the first seven sentences start with "The." They tend to be all be short statements so I think this could flow better. Other than that, good job!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Seems a little sparse - a recently promoted Ep list (List of Carnivàle episodes) has a lot more for each episode. And I'm a little concerned at only having four references. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• The difference is that several episode weren't nominated for an Emmy, nor are there about twenty more episodes, dozens of additional notes, and a lot more DVDs released. Besides that, these episodes have only been released in Japan, while there is much more information available about the Carnivàle series in English media. Again, per other episode lists, it covers all relevant aspects of the topic, making it comprehensive within its topical scope. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Many plot points and characters are introduced without being properly linked to what has already been introduced e.g. most characters besides Balsa and Chagum, Nayug, the link between the egg eater and the spirit rebirth is inly hinted at, the(?) Inishie Village... Circeus (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Given that previous editors of the article appear to be inactive, I'll go back and finish watching the episodes, fixing the plot summary as I go. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

2 Support, 1 Oppose, 15 Days, No Active Discussion. Failed -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The list was not promoted 19:42, 20 December 2007.

---

List of cathedrals in the United Kingdom

Issues raised in previous FLC attempts have been addressed. --JohnArmagh 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

previous FLC

• Oppose I'm sorry but I cannot support at this time. There are many issues that I have with this list. I still think this list is very thorough and is does give a lot of information but:

• I very much dislike the fact that there are over 100 photos on this list. To me this is more of a gallery than a list, the images overpower what a list really is: a series of information grouped together in a set sequence.
• I also dislike the fact that this list is huge, yet it really shouldn't be. There is not enough information listed here that this list should be this long! This also causes a huge amount of white space (most of this list is white space), which makes it hard to read the info. Again, I think this goes back to the images which cause a lot of problems on this page. So I say again, this is a list, not a gallery.
• I think the intro is long enough that it deserves some in-line citations. The intro itself could serve as a very solid stub, maybe a start.
• Not that it is a must, but it would be nice to have one or two on-line sources, so information can be more easily verified.
• The "Records" section seems arbitrary, it really doesn't add much to the list, and would be better if it would be placed in a "Notes" section using <ref> tags.
• What is the point to linking to maps for some of the cathedrals? Again doesn't serve a huge purpose, and simply using the map site in an external references, stating that this can be used for finding the location of the cathedral would be way better suited. Remember, Wikipedia is not a travel guide.
• All the Navboxes at the bottom are very distracting and probably should be autocollapsed so it doesnt take up so much room.
• There are a lot of red-links, most of these should be filled if at all possible.
• What is the point to linking to a lot of the cathedrals websites? This seems like advertising and Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Imagine if this was an article and all these urls were under the "External links" section, it would be huge.

Overall I think the main problem is doing too much. The list seems to be usefulness, complete, accurate, and mostly neutral but it fails in the style style and prose departments. Sometimes less is more, and maybe taking some of the better photos and using them as illustrations along the side of the list would be better than compiling 100+ photos on one page. This is my honest opinion but I cannot support this list at this time.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

• The List of Popes has a large number of images. It is an established Featured List. If there is a number of images which constitutes a gallery rather than a list, who is to set it? on what basis? and what quantity? 50? 40? 30? 31? 32?
• Subjective evaluation. The purpose of a list is to provide structured format, classification (reflected in the Table of Contents) and searchability, which is provided by Ctrl+F. The actual information contained against each subject is only intended as a brief overview. The detailed information is provided in the actual articles.
• The intro was only included in the first place because it the list was previously opposed because of the lack of a cohesive intro.
• I am ambivolent about the Records section. Although I created most of the entries it was only because the section was created by someone else and contained a single entry, which was more trivia than anything else. Rather than delete the section by someone who had good intentions I decided to expand it.
• Wikipedia may not be a travel guide, however the map locations are not intended for that purpose. Firstly they provide reference that amount to a citation of the item as well as showing geographical location (it is more informative in less space than saying "on the corner of such-and-such, between such-and-such and such-and-such in suchtown, suchshire, suchcountry (which for people who do not know the area means nothing). For an item of this type (i.e. geographically fixed) geographical location is relevant information.
• The red links are awaiting articles. They do not detract from the relevance of the information on the list.
• Linking to the websites is no more than what is provided in articles under the References Sections, External Links or citations. They link to sources of verification. Any source of verification could potentially be construed as advertising. The point of the list is that it is a list, not an article. So the issue of the number of external references is mitigated by the list format, i.e. it does not present a single huge list of External Links - each link is against the item listed.

At the end of the day I am not really bothered. The effort of repeatedly going through the process of resubmitting an article, then re-editing it to address the issues (aired by very few members of the wikipedia community, and some subjective in nature, and others contradictory), whilst other editors are making their own edits, is not particularly fruitful. I am contented that largely through my work on the original List of Popes, that is one article which has received Featured List status, and I didn't go through the process of submitting it myself. I merely considered that as this list was on the same basic structure and format of that, that this might attain the same status. I won't be losing any sleep ower it. --JohnArmagh (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument, but lets go with it. First off, the photos in List of Popes do not overpower the list whatsoever, as there are only a small fraction that have photos and the amount of info provided is the centerpiece, while the photos serve to farther the info. When I look at this list, the first thing that my attention is drawn to is all the photos, and not the list itself.
• The huge amount of photos combined with the small amount of info provided causes a lot of white space. Sometimes this has to be, but here I think the photos would be better served if you picked some of the best and placed them alongside the table instead of inside the table. (See List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A)
• Still stands, I didn't say I had any problem with the intro, I just said that placing a couple of in-line citations would help.
• I still stand by my comments about the records section, I think the info is fine, it just could be formatted better by placing it inside the table using ref tags.
• Im assuming that all the maps are from the same site? If so then why not just have one link that points the reader to the site so if they need to see the location on a map, then they can go and easily find it?
• The red-links are far from being that important to me, it was just a suggestion to improve the list.
• I still stand by my comments about the ext links, I would have to take an educated guess that you could navigate to each cathedrals article page and find the exact same links. I would have to also guess that very few people are going to search for multiple cathedrals websites, instead they would probably look for one or maybe two, where they could easily navigate between the articles (this is the purpose of a list, to navigate through articles)
• Another biggie for me is that it seems the list is still going through major changes (the adding of colored background and changing the table format, which personally I think looks worse) which means that the list is not "Stable," one of the criteria for inclusion in FL.

You shouldnt mind, because I am commenting of the content and not the contributor, these are my honest opinions and if you don't want peoples honest opinions then dont go to WP:PR, WP:FL, or any other place like that. I think the subject matter and the info are great, I just dislike how the list is presented and the format that it has taken. I hope you keep on working on this list and remember that more isnt always better, sometimes a straightforward list is better than a complicated, over-the-top list. Good luck editing.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

• I did take it upon myself to increase the image size, on the basis that the smaller images seemed to be too minute to show any real detail, even though they are essentially only thumbnails. I could reduce them again if preferable. I do think that a comprehensive list of buildings is better served by thumbnails to each structure, if only to enable easy access to larger images of the individual site. Otherwise one is left repeatedly clicking or searching on the off-chance that an image exists. Here it can be seen that it does. And it can also be seen where there is no available image in Wikipedia - or at the very least that if there is one, it has not been linked to as yet.
• The map links are all to Wikimapia. As I had to create several of the places on that resource myself in order for them to be searchable I thought it would be beneficial to indicate them on the list - especially where it could be done without overwhelming the page with link URLs. If people don't like it then it can be removed - though I think it would be to the detriment of the basic information content.
• I agree with your comment on the changing format, unstable state and the look of the changes. They weren't there when the nomination was made.

I have not got an issue with honest opinions. And I know the opinions are based on the contribution rather than the contributor (though that has been the case over the years), who is not in any case beyond criticism. I am all for the page being improved, and have no problem with contributing to this end - though I am sure we all have plenty of other things which need to be attended to outside the Wikipedia universe. My only concern was that after addressing the issues, more issues are going to arise. And they only arise upon re-nominating the work. And there is the danger that an oposition may contradict a previous oposition. So it is probably best not to nominate the work again. --JohnArmagh (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

1 Support, 1 Oppose, 15 Days, No Active Discussion, Faied -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The list was not promoted 11:12, 14 December 2007.

---

Leeds United A.F.C. seasons

Modeled on Aston Villa F.C. seasons‎. There has been some disagreement between myself and Chappy84 {thank you to him BTW for his work on this list) about including the current season and the WW2 season which I we can sort out here. There are also some links which I should be able to remove within a day or so. Buc (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • First, why was this article not taken to Peer Review first?
    • Does it really need to? I decussed some issues with this article on other users talk pages before nominating, isn't that enough? Buc (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • There is no "need" per se, but..., it is seen as a good way to iron out the problems the article may have. FLC should not be treated as a peer review, though it often is. (For transparency, I was one of the users who was contacted). Woody (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Second, if the lead says the article covers the period from Leeds United's foundation to the end of the last completed season, why is information about the current season included too? I would suggest removing the info on the current season, per most other Seasons articles.
    • fixed Buc (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• That's all for now, but I'll have more later. – PeeJay 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, here are the rest of my comments:
  • The lead states that it covers the club's seasons since 1919 to the present day, yet the table begins with the 1920-21 season. I suggest changing the lead to say "It covers the period from the club's entry to the Football League in 1920, following the demise of Leeds City in 1919, to the present day".
  • I also still think that you should remove the information about the current season from the table, but that's not essential if you feel you can keep it up to date with each match played.
  • Where it says "October, 1919" in the lead, there should not be a comma.
  • Is there really any need to mention that the club remains outside the top two divisions in English football "as of 2007"? Maybe re-add it at the end of the season, or at the end of the 2008-09 season if the club still hasn't been promoted back to the Championship by then, but at the minute it just looks like clumsy wording.
  • Perhaps rephrase "All these honours were won under the management of either Don Revie or Howard Wilkinson" to "All these honours were won by just two managers; Don Revie and Howard Wilkinson".
  • Is there any need to mention that managers are not included in the list of seasons? Although a crucial part of the club's history, the manager isn't really part of the seasonal history.
    • I added this in after removing the managers from the table. Buc (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Since the managers shouldn't have been there in the first place, there's no reason to explain why they're not there. – PeeJay 19:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I would liked to have had managers in there. Also a reason why is not given. Buc (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
          • What I meant was that you don't need to say that something's not there when people aren't expecting it to be there. – PeeJay 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Whose to say they aren't expecting it? Buc (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't believe Youth Cup victories should be included in the "Other" column (or at all). The Youth Cup is a youth team competition, and I assume this article is only supposed to cover the Leeds United first team.
  • I don't think there is any need to put full stops at the end of each footnote. Also, in footnote 11, "points" is misspelled and should not be capitalised.
• Right, I think that's it from me. If you can correct those things, you'll have my support. – PeeJay 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Buc, why revert a lot of good work?! Remove current season. A featured list should not need to be updated on a daily basis. All other FL's of this nature go to the most recently completed season. I suggest you follow the pattern. And therefore change the lead back to "most recently completed season". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there a rule that says you can't have the current season? Buc (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, but presumably you are familiar with the need for stability and it doesn't make sense for a Featured article to have a need to be continually updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't mind having to update it. It's not like changing number is a masive job. Also there in a note at the bottem say when the table was last updated. The NFL seasons FL have the current season. Buc (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Fine, but just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't make it right. What if you disappear for a few weeks? The article becomes stale, out of date, so axe the current season. What's the benefit of having it in? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
          • What's the benefit of not having it? Doesn't do any harm does it? if I disappear for a few weeks the date at the bottem will inform people of when it was last updated. Buc (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Well you've got my opinion Buc, it's entirely up to you. But it shouldn't be there. Makes the article inherently out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
              • "Makes the article inherently out of date" well not having it makes it even more out of date. It's not really up to me, I don't own the article. It's a question of what most people want so (very reluctantly) I've allowed it to be removed but I still fail to understand how this make it a better article. Right now I would not support this nomination, and I made it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
                • While I admire your martyrdom to the cause, it's clear how it makes it a better article. There's a link to the current season. Job done. There's no need to replicate this information in a featured list as it will almost always be out of date. If you (or others) don't update the article it will be inherently inaccurate as the lead says "to the present day" which it almost certainly won't be (because you then go on to contradict yourself by adding a "Correct as of:..." date which would surely be unnecessary?)... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
        • There is a link to the current season at the top of the article. If people want to find info on the current season, they should go there, not to an overview article. – PeeJay 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose

Fails criterion 1.e (stability). Nominator admits to disagreements with other significant editor as to content which they hope to sort out here. Might I respectfully suggest they take the list away and sort out their differences, or if they can't, perhaps discuss the matter at the WP:FOOTY project talk page.

• • I only thought there might be. I'll wait to see what he says when he see it has been nominated. Buc (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile they could copyedit the lead, and have a look at some more recently successful featured seasons lists – Gillingham F.C. seasons and Bradford City A.F.C. seasons are two excellent examples – to see what they look like, what issues were raised at peer review and FLC, and whether this list could be improved accordingly. I'd recommend going to peer review, because FLC is supposed to be for lists ready, or very nearly ready, for featuring, not for those still needing a significant amount of work. Then when it reaches that stage, bring it back to FLC, where it would expect a much smoother ride. There's no time limit. Struway2 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• What is wrong with the lead? Buc (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • All the things I mentioned are wrong with the lead. – PeeJay 19:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes thank you I have seen them but I was asking Struway. Buc (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • And yet you still haven't addressed most of my issues. – PeeJay 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead's improved since I made that comment, but the first paragraph is confusing, and the lead in general reads more like a list of facts that a piece of prose. I'd be happy to have a go at improving it, if you wanted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Further comments
  • "Attendance in all competitions (Football League or Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, European and other F.A. and Football League domestic cup competitions) at games classed as Home fixtures are counted towards the average. ." - copyedit.
  • Full stops needed in other references (just one will suffice).
  • Yes, Youth Cup doesn't belong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose and comments
  • First there seems to be a bit of disagreement regarding the entry at the moment between the nominator and Chappy84.
  • I'd try bold up something in the first words as per WP:LEAD and make sure it's not linked.
    • Why shouldn't they be linked? Buc (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Not my rules. See the link I attached. Peanut4 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I think it only need to be in bold it it's an offical name or title. Buc (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no references in the lead, although there's nothing contentious there. The only two statements which might need references are taking the place vacated by Leeds City Reserves and played their home games at Elland Road throughout their history
    • Added ref
      • I still can't see a reference. Peanut4 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • two prolonged spells - could you define prolonged spells? Otherwise this is vague.
    • 10-15 years I'd say. Buc (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean define it here. Say what you mean in the article. Prolonged to one club isn't the same as prolonged to another. Say two spells of 10-plus years, if that's the case, or if you want prolonged two prolonged spells of 10-plus years. Peanut4 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The club has and The club have. The lead needs to be checked to make sure all verbs are all singular/plural.
  • Managers and the unofficial Second World War Leagues are not included. I'm not sure you need this sentence - it implies to me the disagreement you've had about what to and what not to include.
    • Don't do any harm to have them in. Buc (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • DNQ for FA Cup. I presume this means did not qualify? One are you so they didn't qualify rather than didn't enter? Either way it needs an entry in the key.
    • Just what the old article said. Ask ChappyBuc (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Here you go. This link might help you out. [1] It appears you entered and then withdrew. Certainly worth a footnote in my opinion. Peanut4 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I would have to point out that the old article before the major change said Preliminary, as in Preliminary rounds. I used this page to find out how Leeds did in the F.A. Cup that season. As you can see Leeds beat Boothtown in the first qualifying round at Elland Road 5-2 then Leeds Steelworks in the second qualifying round at Elland Road 7-0, and then obviously withdrew as there are no more FA Cup results. Chappy^T_C 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I've added it myself. Peanut4 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestions have been made in the past to bold the Division when the club changes division.
    • Aston Villa F.C. seasons doesn't appear to have this.
      • Irrelevant. Several other FL's do, it's a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I notice this is now done. But you need to add it to the key. Plus add why are competitions bolded when Leeds won them. Why is the 95-96 Lge Cup bolded? Is this an error? Peanut4 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Villa now has this. Woody (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd change the round of the FA Cup to QF for when Leeds reached the quarter-final rather than R6 (for Round 6)
    • The F.A. Officially don't have a Quarter Final in the F.A. Cup. They call it the 6th round, as you can see on the official F.A. Site. Chappy^T_C 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the addition of avge attendance. Well done.
    • Thankyou, this took me quite some time to calculate from here when I originally created the previous incarnation of the article. Chappy^T_C 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of the footnotes need full stops. One even has two.
  • I would add some footnotes about the relevant renaming of divisions for those who don't know what the Premiership / Championship / Lge One are and why the divisions don't match up properly when the divisions were changed.
    • Aston Villa F.C. seasons doesn't appear to have this. Buc (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't forget you're trying to make a featured article, accessible to all, not just something that WP:FOOTBALL types will benefit from. This kind of suggestion should be embraced, considered and implemented, not just dismissed out of hand because one specific FL doesn't have it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I've added a footnote for when the Football League divisions were renamed, what they were renamed from/to, and why they were renamed. Chappy^T_C 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Villa didn't need it; they haven't been in Division One/Championship since it was renamed. Woody (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Quite a bit of work to do yet. I would echo what has been said above about taking it to PR first, though I see you did ask for some comments before you took if to FLC.
  • Never get any replies. I did ask other users about it before nominating. Buc (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Couple more comments
  • Footnote 7, re:play-offs. You could write two separate references to individualise each set of play-offs and who Leeds were defeated by in the final.
  • Footnote 11, re:administration. It probably ought to go in the points column rather than position column. Peanut4 (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • One more. Footnotes 1 and 5 are repetitions. One of them isn't necessary. Peanut4 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment you now have ten references (in the style of external links really) - it'd be much better to relate these, if possible, to the specific areas of the article they are relevant to. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment no, I think someone has misinterpreted what I mean. I didn't mean merge the footnotes and references sections, I meant, where possible, use the current list of external links to provide references in the article (e.g. the 1920-21 article must relate to something specific in the article so use it as a {{Cite web}} in-line rather than just as a general reference at the end. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Further comments Seeing as other people are prepared to give this a peer review here, I shall go with consensus.

• For completeness, so that the list covers the entire history of the club, I'd include the 1919-20 Midland League season. Seeing as league data is readily available (here, as well as probably in your Leeds sources), there seems little point in omitting it. If the top scorer/attendance isn't available for that season, then add a note to say so.
• I'd then restructure the lead, something like:

This is a list of seasons played by Leeds United Association Football Club in English and European football, from the club's formation in 1919 to the last completed season. It details the club's achievements in all major competitions, the top scorers and the average attendances for each season.

Leeds United A.F.C. were founded in 1919, following the dissolution of Leeds City F.C., and took the place in the Midland League vacated by Leeds City Reserves. Elected to the Second Division of the Football League for the 1920–21 season, they spent the next 87 years in the top two divisions before dropping into the third tier for the first time in 2007.

• • This doesn't tally with all the reports when they got relagated that they would playing in the third tier for the first time in there history. [2] Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've put dropping into the third tier for the first time in 2007. If they went into the Football League in 1920 and down into the 3rd tier in 2007, it is 87 rather than 88 years, that's the only thing different from what it says now. Struway2 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They have twice spent periods of over ten years in the top tier of English football, from 1964 to 1981 and from 1990 to 2004. (or instead of that last sentence, mention the great spell you had in the 1960s, which would then lead in to the para about what you won)

then talk about what they won, and mention always playing at Elland Road at the end of that para.

• Division bolding on change should go in key rather than footnote.
• You may want to indicate when your leading scorer was also top scorer in his division
  • They have never had one. I checked this when I was writing the table. Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(information here) or when he set a club scoring record.

• • • According to the link, John Charles was leading scorer in the 2nd Div in 1954 with 42, and in the 1st Div in 1957 with 38. Also Hasselbaink in the Prem in 1999 with 18. Struway2 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• For accuracy, it may be worth rephrasing the wartime gap to something like The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War, on the basis that the early rounds of the 1946 FA Cup were played in 1945.
• You may want to add your leading scorer for the 1946 FA Cup, if known.
  • One for Chappy I think. Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• 1970-71 Fairs Cup Trophy Play-off - shouldn't this be in the Europe column?
  • Well I've changed in but in doesn't half mess up the table. Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Think I've fixed that. Thanks for giving me a reason to look at it, I've taught myself stuff I didn't know about tables. Struway2 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'd have thought the FMC Northern final was the semifinal of the FMC, so losing in it wouldn't be a runner-up result?
• Footnote a bit of detail on the play-off results,
  • Is says they were runners up Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

also wikilink play-off to the relevant article.

• Link Champ to the relevant FL season article e.g. The Football League 2006-07, where these exist.
• Footnote 12 - wikilink administration to something helpful.
  • There isn't really a relavent article. Buc (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've linked it to administration (insolvency), the first time it occurs in note 11 Struway2 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Presumably the one remaining redlinked leading scorer will go blue soon?
• Well done for getting your average attendances column to work. I tried to do it on Birmingham City F.C. seasons and had such trouble persuading Firefox to render it properly on my combination of small monitor and 1024x768 resolution that I gave up. Might try again, seeing as yours works perfectly well for me. Struway2 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Restart

Would anybody object to me restarting this nom. In its current form (IE a PR, exactly the thing that FLC is not meant to be), it is impossible to work out who thinks what, and what is left to do. Woody (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that Raul job? Buc (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Raul has nothing to do with FL. Woody (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I think it should go to PR rather than be re-started. Peanut4 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I refuse to support this nomination until the information on the current season is removed from the table. There are other minor things, but this is the one major one. – PeeJay 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of the stuff about the current season has been removed already. Buc (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. I'd personally rather see the current season removed. It's nothing more than misleading. Peanut4 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I am failing this nomination now. This has degenerated into a Peer review. This nom is too long and complicated to be of any use now. Woody (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The list was not promoted 03:11, 14 December 2007.

---

List of Brazilian states by Gross Domestic Product

A very good list. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 20:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I like this list, and I find the inclusion of "comparable countries" very useful and interesting in the "GDP nominal" section to see how states are as productive as whole nations, but I doubt its usefulness in "GDP per capita" and "GDP participation". CG 19:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Excellent start, but falls short in the details:
  • The text in the three subsections is copy-pasted, which is entirely inappropriate (at least define briefly the GDP variation you use, and how it affects the classification!)
  • The color in the lead map are very confusing, especially as regions are not explicitly mentioned or linked. Having solid colors like those of Image:Brazil Labelled Map.svg would probably be a far better choice.
  • I really doubt the state flags are really useful in this particular list.
  • There is no reason to italicize the country names.
  • While I agree that countries in "GDP participation" makes almost no sense (you should compare them to other states elsewhere for it to be meaningful), I think they are very appropriate in "GDP per capita".
• Circeus 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support (indented, nominator already supported by nominating)
  • You can help in this topic? My English is not good.
  • Is a list by states, not by regions.
  • In the countrie's lists are useful.
  • Done.
  • Done.
• Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Right now the table is completely messed up, and none of the questions raised above have been addressed. Like Circeus said, its a great start, but still need s lot of work. Maybe a WP:PR would help instead of FLC?
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.