Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2009

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 [1].

---

List of One Piece episodes (season 5)

Another anime episode list. Don't worry, this one's a lot shorter than season 9. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Restarted on 00:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise, in the future, I wouldn't have multiple nominations running, especially when the first still needs some fine-tuning. While the writing in this one is a little better, there are still problems, as evidenced by my copy-edit of the first episode. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll refrain from nominating multiple lists in the future. :\ -- Goodraise (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Review from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)

• "The 4Kids dubbed version uses "Pirate Rap V3" performed by Russell Velasquez as opening and "Pirate Rap Instrumental" as ending theme." -> I'd prefer "as the ending theme"
  • Changed. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The 4Kids adaptaion's DVD releases did not go as far as season five." -> Wouldn't it be "have yet to go"? You don't know if it is or isn't going to reach that far, do you?
  • Well, technically, I don't know. But technically, I'm not implying that it won't either. - Fact is, they no longer hold the license. And they "did not" release season five to DVD while they had it.
    • Haha, didn't know that. My point is now rendered moot. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Further "adaptation" is spelled incorrectly.
  • Changed. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Robin accompanys him as he goes to replace the spilled liquid." -> "accompanies"
  • Changed. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• On the note of spelling, this list desperately needs a copyedit. I'm hardly a FL-level copyeditor though, and you'll need to find one of those...
• Is the only General Ref supposed to have +s breaking up the words? I'd assume it should just be spaces...
  • If the MOS requires +s to be replaced with spaces, then I'm not aware of it. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I dunno, it just looks better to me... Leave it if you wish. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• There are very few refs in general for this list. I'd personally suggest referencing as much as possible, i.e. the licensing info, the U.S. air dates, etc.

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from supporting as of yet until a copyeditor or another, more grammatically-minded reviewer appears. Good work though on the list itself. Like the colors :D NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I've no time to copy-edit; there are plenty of prose issues:

• Why are there no references for the theme music? Even though they may be covered by the general reference, I think that an inline citation should be good here.
• "A small group of navy ships chases the Straw Hats around."
• "To escape them, they sail through an area of wild currents, surrounding an almost uninhabited island."-->To escape them, the Straw Hats sail through an area of wild currents, which surround an almost uninhabited island.
• "Only an old man named Zenny lives there with a group of goats."-->The lone inhabitants are an old man named Zenny and his goats.
• "Because they are pirates" Who? The old man and the goats, or just the goats?
• "It is at the end of the day, as they are about to leave, that Chopper reveals the horrible result of his examination—that the old man will die within three days."

These are just examples, please find someone to look through the whole text. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I've copyedited the summaries, so can you take another glance and let me know if there are any other issues? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 05:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I share the views above about is needing a thorough copyedit.

• Watch out for colloquialisms in the episode summaries (e.g. "his place")
• Expand WP:CONTRACTIONS
  • I couldn't find a single one. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 1 is not reliable due to it being in the encyclopedia part of ANN (editable by anyone), it would need replacing or a second source (possibly foreign language).
  • Changed. Technically, ANN is reliable for the theme songs, but I'll continue looking for a better reference and replace it if possible. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• What is citing the airdates??
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Can you use a non ANN source to replace ref 4. I know you have said "Technically, ANN is reliable for the theme songs", but I think we have different ideas of reliable. Anything user edited (for example Wikipedia) is not reliable by our standards. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the episodes themselves source the theme songs, I feel it is largely unnecessary to source them otherwise. I can cite the episodes if you prefer, and I will continue to look for sources. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure if the episodes would actually cite the title and artist. But I'm not too fussed about this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The title and the artist are actually sourced in the credits. Every anime that I've seen and that I can remember has done this. Do US television shows do this as well? I'd expect they would have to for copyright purposes... Anyway, cited. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• "It was then licensed and heavily edited for a dubbed release in English by 4Kids Entertainment." However ref 3 cites none of this. It might possibly cite the sentence following that the "re-adaptation of the series has yet to reach the fifth season" but I'm not sure. So I am concerend with the sentence about airing on Fox Television Network (you should possibly mention as part of the FoxBox block) and that it aired "omitting seven of the season's thirteen episodes". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There technically isn't anything citing that, as ref 3 cites the dates it was aired, so I've added sources. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking a random sample of two episode summaries:

• Ep 125, 99
  • "snags" to colloquial
  • "As the bandits aim the finishing blow, Zoro returns and takes over." | "finishing blow" does that mean killing? aimed at who?, takes over what?
• Ep 142, 103
  • "the Henzo he once knew" -> in the past Henzo
  • "slingshots" | I don't understand
    • You need the context of the show. As Luffy can act like rubber, he stretches himself out and "slingshots" himself to other locations. It's impossible to explain without context and reading Luffy's article should inform any reader of what "slingshots" is referring to. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Wikilinked. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "The town's large tower falls onto the water" -> into the water

Out of interest are you familiar with the One Piece? If you are, it would be worth getting someone who isn't to take a look. Then they can give you an idea of what parts are missing context or are unclear. I realise you have done copyediting yourself but sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Fixed with a single note. I am familiar, but not well-acquainted with the series. As such, there are plot holes I wish to fill but cannot, as I neither know the episodes very well nor have them on hand to write summaries from. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I may not have time for more than a handful of edits per day at the moment, but I could certainly fill those holes, if you would name them. I probably won't even have to look at the episodes to do it. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Alright, some comments then.

1. Nami's mapmaking can be expanded in ep132.

   I'm not sure how. She really is only drawing maps. Though I could expand on what the rest of the crew is doing... -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Epi134 - "Usopp then takes matters into his own hands and fulfills her parents' dreams." needs to be more specific. I could guess at what happened, but I don't want to put false information.

   Specified. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

3. Epi135 - "Later that day, a group of bandits, led by a man with a much higher bounty, plunders the village." -> Is the original meaning still present after I copyedited this line? I was unsure of my fix here.

   Yes, it is still correct. But -- not wanting to mess with your copyedit -- this sentence seems wrong: "As the bandits prepare to kill the pair, Zoro returns saves Johnny and Yosaku." -- Should it be "returns to save" or "returns and saves"? -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

   "Johnny and Yosaku become his followers. " -> Quick, if irrelevant, question: Is it just me, or do we never see these characters again? What becomes of them?

   They travel with the Straw Hats during the Baratie and Arlong arcs. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Epi136 - "do his work in his place." -> What work? More specifics needed.

   Specified. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Epi137 - "Chopper's diagnosed three days have long passed, which Zoro realizes, much to his chagrin." is definitely unclear. What does Zoro's reaction have to do with anything?

   Well. The episode is very comedy heavy and the plot doesn't really make sense. The point is as follows: They work like mad, while Zenny's condition is constantly improving. Zoro gets suspicious, while the rest of the crew try to make the man they think is dying feel better. But by the time he convinces the others of that and they decide to leave, Nami already lost ownership of their ship, thus stranding them. (Don't even get me started on the random party they're having afterwards...) -- I tried to make that more clear, but the summary will never make perfect sense, because the episode itself does not. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

6. Epi139 - "Sanji encounters a tax collector who wears an electric battle suit." <-- Relevance of the electric battle suit?

   The suit is not relevant outside of their fight (rewrote to make more clear that they have a violent "encounter"), but the whole scene revolves around it. So I think, mentioning it is giving it due weight. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

7. Epi140-143 - I was incredibly unclear as to who the Pumpkin Pirate were, and why they were referred to as "children" when they were children several years prior. If Hanzo has grown, why haven't the children?

   The Rainbow Mist is some sort of alternate dimension/time travel phenomenon, but it isn't sufficiently explained in the series to write about it like one probaly could if it were an episode of Star Trek (for example: I can't make a quality statement like, "inside the mist, time flows slower," because that would be original research). Facts are: Fifty years into Henzo's past, his friends, the Pumpkin Pirates, entered that mist. For them, inside that mist, much less time has gone by (more than a few days but less than years). And during the last episode it is shown, that they left the mist some decades ago. That is how they can then suddenly show up as marines and arrest Whetton and his gang. -- I did a small change. I hope that makes it clear enough. If not, let me know. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

8. Epi143 - "There, Luffy fights Whetton and destroys Whetton's suit." <-- Similar to epi139, if the suit has relevance, can you make it more clear?

   Same as above, the suit is completely unimportant to the overall plot. It's an interchangable weapon (like Don Krieg's "Great Battle Spear", Arlong's saw-toothed sword, or Sir Crocodile's poisonous hook, ...), that is the focus of attention during the fight and the destruction of which marks a changing point but is otherwise neglect-able. Mentioning it is merely giving the length of the scene due weight. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's all I can think of right now, but there may be more. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Alrighty then. A couple as quick remarks because I'm far too lazy to respond individually to your points (if you'll forgive me). As long as there is a reason for not expanding on some of the sections I marked, we should be fine. I keep forgetting to suspend disbelief when it comes to anime, but that's beside the point. I think your fixes should do the trick, and hopefully Rambo's Revenge and Dabomb will agree with me when they review this again. Thanks for your hard work! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: I apologize for my slow/non-existent replies. This FLC has been open for quiet a while and I currently don't have the time I had at the time of nomination. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to "take over" this? I doubt I can push this through, but I can take care of some of the concerns... NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'd like that. Here's a few things that might help:

Reliable sources for all but one English airdate

• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/the-click/2007-09-22
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/the-click/2007-09-01
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/the-click/2007-08-04
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/the-click/2007-08-11
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/the-click/2007-08-25

Possibly reliable sources for all Japanese airdates

• http://www.myst.cn/article/1140760826.html
• http://www.meoo.com/ask/dongman/112271.html

-- Goodraise (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [2].

---

List of the titled nobility of England and Ireland 1300–1309

Nominator(s): Lampman (talk)

I should probably explain the purpose of this list. The upper nobility of medieval England can best be compared to modern-day government cabinet members, except that they were much more important, because in addition to administrative duties, they were also politicians, generals, patrons of art and religion, and normally the wealthiest people in the country. A list of the nobility at any given time will almost inevitably be a list of the most important people in the realm – with the exception of the royal family and a few churchmen and courtiers.

Unlike cabinets, however, they were not changed at set periods, but came and went individually with the accidents of birth, death and forfeiture. This makes it more difficult to present them in a systematic manner. Lists of succession, like the list of Earls of Warwick can give a good vertical view, but for a horizontal view we need to take snapshots. At first I started making lists for individual years ending in 0, like the list of the Peerage of England and Ireland in 1310, but this way certain individuals could fall through the cracks. Then I got the idea from User:Ugen64, who had created several lists based on decades, such as the List of peers 1200–1209.

I have limited the list to the titled nobility, which at this point is only the earls, because if I should also include barons the list would become too long and unmanageable (the baronage was not very well defined at the time). Hopefully I've found a good formula which can serve as a model for further lists. Lampman (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"The following is a list of the titled nobility of England and Ireland in the years" FLs don't start like this. See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging opening sentences. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tried to fix this. Not sure about the use of wikilinks in the bolded part though; WP:BOLDTITLE didn't quite answer the question. The problem is that these words don't reoccur, or not until a bit further down. Lampman (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment If all the decades are going to have similar numbers of entries (with lots of overlap), i think this is still too finely divided. How many entries would 1300-1350 (or 1337) have? I think such lists only needed to be separated due to length reasons or historical reasons. This doesn't seem to have either. A 100 year range would be more useful to a reader, imo (or 50 year if 100 is too long for readability).Yobmod (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A list covering a 50-year period (1300-1350) would contain around 50 individuals. This probably wouldn't be of a prohibitive size, but it would defeat what is the primary objective of the list: to present the political situation at a given point in time. It would be near impossible for the reader to get an overview, as it would cover several changes of personnel in most cases, and include the reigns of three different kings. An analogy to this list would be the List of state leaders by year, which in my opinion is a bit too fine-tuned, with annual lists. Lampman (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But with sortable lists, readers could sort by date of birth and date of death for example, making a combined list more useful in every way. If they are interested in a decade, they can sort by date and see that decade. If they are interest in 1308-1311, they would currently have to read 3 short lists, combining them in a sortable table would make this far easier.Yobmod (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem I had with sortable lists was the wide variety of different date formats (c., before, shortly before, 18/19 etc.) Is there any way to use a sortable list even when many of the dates are approximate? Lampman (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Using a sort key, you should be able to sort approximate dates as normal dates, or even to before or after the precise date. So approx. 1308 could be made to sort to before or after 1308 depending on if the uncertainty ranges to before or after. Maybe no one else minds the overall list being split into the smallest possible ranges that give "10 or more" items, then i wont oppose just for this (many of the reviewers do this themselves to get the highest number of FL) - but weak oppose from me, the places, names dates can be sortable even withing this date range.Yobmod (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly not my intention to maximise the number of FLs, my only concern is to present the information as clearly as possible. If this can be done with a sort key that would be great, but I'm not quite sure what template you're talking about. I've loked at {{Template:Dts}}, but I don't think that can do it. Lampman (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you use the general sort key (template:sort), i think you can sort in any order you want. As this list will not be changing and is comprehensive for the dates, you can even sort them using a number, although i recommend using the date. If a date is ambiguous, then simply changing this key can place the entry at the beginning or end of the year.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "of only one rank up until 1337" "of his reign the number was at only eleven." What number? "with six earls dying in the years from 1295 to 1298"-->as six earls had died from 1295 to 1298 "the wealthiest and most powerful was without comparison Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster." "without comparison" isn't necessary. Fill empty table cells with em dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Lampman (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [3].

---

List of National Monuments of the United States

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk

I have worked significantly on this list, adding references to every listing, greatly expanding the monument descriptions, and writing a lead. I'm not great with prose, so specific comments would be helpful, including any additions or changes to the lead I have forgot, as well as anything needing a reference. The biggest problem will surely be the images, so simply give me the name of the monument and I will fix or replace the image. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

LEAD

• The aim was to protect all historic and prehistoric sites on United States federal lands and to prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities.[2] - remove the ref from here since the following sentence is also source with ref#2
  • Done
• The first National Monument was Devils Tower in Wyoming, proclaimed by Theodore Roosevelt on September 24, 1906. - add "built" or "created" before was
  • Done
• Most recently, George W. Bush created three new Marine National Monuments in the Pacific Ocean on January 6, 2009. - the Pacific is pretty big, any more precise location?
  • No. They are three different monuments in different parts of the Ocean.
• Arizona has the most National Monuments, with 18, followed by New Mexico, 11, and California, 10. - add "with" before the other numbers
  • Done
• National Monuments are in 27 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Minor Outlying Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. - 1)(optional) But you should add "location" before in 2)add "in" before the District of Columbia
  • Done
• Fifty-four National Monuments protect places of natural significance, including 9 geological sites, 7 marine sites, and 5 volcanic sites. - be consistent with the number formatting, fifty-four should be "54"
  • Done, though a reviewer said in a previous FL not to use a numeral to start a sentence. But I don't want to write them all out.
• Twenty-four National Monuments are associated with Native Americans. Twenty-one are other historical sites, including 10 forts. - twenty four should be "24"
  • Done
• Fifteen presidents have created National Monuments since its beginning; only Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush did not. - 1)fifteen should be "15" 2)Since what beginning? 3)did should be "have"
  • Done; removed have instead.
• Bill Clinton created the most monuments, 19, and expanded three others. - be consistent with the number formatting, three should be "3"
  • Done, but for single digits you're not supposed to use the numeral.
    • Yeah, but for other single digits in the lead you use numbers, so you have to go through it and review it for accuracy in its formatting.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Theodore Roosevelt designated 18 National Monuments, though only nine remain. - 1)Teddy Roose is already linked and spelled before, so it should only be mentioned as "Roosevelt" since FDR is not mentioned in the lead. 2)though should have a comma after it
  • I just delinked him. To be consistent with the other presidents I kept the full name. No, another comma does not belong there.
    • Its not correct however when you already spelled it out before, it clutters the lead and is repetitive. Sorry, I was thinking about the word "however".--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Sites that are no longer National Monuments can be found at List of areas in the United States National Park System#Decommissioned National Monuments - period needed at the end
  • Done
• Some of the paragraphs need to be merged together, such as the second and third; and the fourth and fifth.
  • Done

MONUMENTS TABLE

• The table and wording on the monuments maintained by each bureau should be made into a separate section.
  • Will this be done?--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That was done, unless you were looking for something else. Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• I recommend seeking a copyedit of the descriptions, these are just some of the problems I found.
  • Will this be sought?--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Part of Tongass National Forest in the Alaska Panhandle, Admiralty Island has more brown bears than the entire lower 48 states. - the last part is a bit trivial. Is it that notable?
  • I took all the information from their respective articles. There isn't much about Admiralty Island, so I took that, but I can remove it if you really want.
    • I would because its trivial and not really adding to the description (the part about the bears)--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• It was discovered in 1991 during excavations for a new Federal building. - federal doesn't need to be capitalized
  • Done
• Surprise Lake within the volcano's six-mile wide, 2,500 ft. deep caldera is the source of the Aniakchak River. - comma after caldera
  • Done, and after Lake

REFERENCES

• Ref #1 needs a publisher.
  • Done, though that one's harder because the three links come from a template.
• Are different cite templates being used? I see different formats of the dates.
  • Yes, but that's not it. I just copy and pasted the dates from the monuments' websites, and they were in different styles. Fixed.
• --TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! All comments are fixed. I hope with some more reviewing you can support. Reywas92^Talk 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I don't have time to go through the entire article; please find someone to proofread it.

• • I will be asking some others to copyedit.
• "mostly prehistoric Indian ruins and artifacts — collectively termed antiquities — on federal lands in the West." Em dashes should be unspaced.
  • Done
• "There are one hundred National Monuments in the United States." Not sure why the number is not in numerals.
  • Done
• "though Congress can create monuments as well" I don't think "create" is the correct word here. Congress did not build the monuments themselves.
  • Changed to designate
• "Many National Monuments would later become National Parks." Unnecessary.
  • Removed
• "The first National Monument created was Devils Tower in Wyoming, proclaimed by Theodore Roosevelt" Add "as such" after "proclaimed".
  • Done
• "National Monuments are located in 27 states"
  • Done, but that's what Truco said
• "54 National Monuments protect places of natural significance, including 9 geological sites, 7 marine sites, and 5 volcanic sites." Don't start sentences with numerals. It is better to change all these numerals in this sentence to words, because numbers under ten should be written out and comparable quantities should be written the same.
  • Done
• "24 National Monuments are associated with Native Americans. 21 are other historical sites, including 10 forts. 15 presidents created National Monuments since the program's beginning; only Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush did not." Same comment here.
  • Done
• "some of which later became National Parks."
  • Done
• "though only nine remain."-->although only 9 remain.
  • Only did although, so the numeral isn't inconsistent with the others.
• "Sites that are no longer National Monuments can be found at List of areas in the United States National Park System#Decommissioned National Monuments." I would put this in the see also section.
  • Done
• "There is also the Greens Creek mine and the Point Retreat Light on this seventh-largest US island."-->The Greens Creek mine and the Point Retreat Light are also on the seventh-largest US island. Watch the inconsistency with "US" and U.S. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for your comments, I will get further proofreading. Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments Oppose from Nev1 (talk · contribs)

• It feels like there should be a lead image, perhaps a shot of one of the better known monuments or maybe a map. (I know there’s a "map of all coordinates" link, but maybe have a map outlining the states with colour coding for the number of monuments in each one. This would give an overall impression of the distribution of monuments.)
  • I have added a lead poster of the first NM. I could make a map if really necessary, but that's a lot of work and there's already the coordinates map as well as an external link with one.
    • Nice. It's not necessary to draw the map; it might be useful, but isn't important. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• "… prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities": that’s not actually what the source provided says. Buried material can be excavated as part of preservation.
  • Reworded.
• It's mentioned that some of the monuments Roosevelt designated have since been delisted. I think it would be worthwhile explaining under what circumstances this can happen and whether it's happened to any other monuments.
  • Well, it can happen under any circumstance. It's often the president's call. Some were upgraded to National Park, others given to state control. It has happened to a lot of monuments, and the link to the partial list is in the see also, per Dabomb's comment. I'll see what I can do.
    • Can a site be a National Monument and a National Park? Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • No. I'll mention something along those lines.
• Is the year the monument was formed really relevant? Surely the date it was formed is pretty much on a whim? By all means, mention it in the monument's individual article, but I'm not convinced it needs to be mentioned here. Maybe it would be more useful to give the date the monument was built/formed (in the non-legislative sense).
  • I find it to be plenty relevant. It says how long it's been protected and one can tell what president proclaimed it, and it can be sorted. The formation date would be impossible because half are natural and millions of years old, and a quarter are Indian and are only estimates as well.
    • Fair enough about not having any foundation date. The date they were listed surely just reflects the topic of interest of the day or the president rather than the importance of the site; they're all NMs so are presumably all equally important. But it's not as if the column's taking up valuable space that could be used by another column, so it's your call. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I actually wasn't the one who originally put all that in there. I find dates interesting so I'd like to keep them, and the space is fine for now.
• What is meant by "pre-contact times" as used in the row for Alibates Flint Quarries?
  • Before the Spanish made contact with the Indians. I changed it to Pre-Columbian.
• "Pueblo" is inconsistently capitalised, but I'm not sure if this is intentional.
  • Some are Puebloan peoples, others are pueblos, which are their buildings. I double-checked the caps and all are correct.
• Some of the descriptions seem poorly written to me. For example: "Buck Island is an uninhabited 176-acre (0.71 km2) island with a large elkhorn coral barrier reef that provides cover for a great variety of reef fish, sea turtles and Least Terns. Most of the 19,000-acre monument is underwater" feels like it's the wrong way round. Shouldn't it describe the monument first and then significant features such as the island? Another example is the Bandelier NM: "Frijoles Canyon contains a number of Ancestral Pueblo homes, kivas, rock paintings and petroglyphs. The monument is also a historic district" doesn't explain what the whole monument is, only one part.
  • I have fixed these two. Just give me the name and I can work on it.
    • Better, I'll list any more as I come across them. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think {{convert}} needs to be used more widely. Some units have metric equivalents, but not all. This should be consistent.
  • If you hadn't noticed, most of the information is taken directly from the NMs' articles. Some used convert and some didn't. I will work on adding this template to all units.
    • Although nps.gov doesn't always provide conversions, using the convert template prevents you having to do any working out yourself; just plug in the starting value, tell you what you want it to be converted to and from, and it does the hard work. For example, {{convert|4|mi|km}} gives 4 miles (6.4 km). There are other fields which allow you to choose rounding, and whether hyphens and abbreviations are used, so I'd recommend checking out the documentation that goes with Template:Convert. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I believe all units now are in both Imperial and metric.
• "The monument includes a statue of Cabrillo and coastal artillery batteries built to protect the harbor of San Diego from enemy warships": when were the batteries built?
  • I've added 16th-century. Specific dates are not in the article.
• "The crater is 400 feet deep and its rim is a mile in circumference": what might be more useful than circumference is the diameter of the crater.
  • Okay then, it now says "over 1500 feet in diameter."
• Re the Carrizo Plain: what is a "native grassland"?
  • A grassland with a native species of grass. Now linked.
• Some of the descriptions could be a bit more detailed, for example about the Casa Grande Ruins: "This monument preserves a group of structures surrounded by a compound wall in the Gila Valley that were built by the Hohokam people in the 1100s to 1300s" what purpose were the structures? Just habitation? Also, when did they go out of use? The phrasing of the description is that they were built over a 200 year period. Also, 1100s and 1300s means the first decade of the 12th and 14th centuries respectively when I think the entire 12th and 14th centuries are meant.
  • No, 1100s and 1300s almost always mean the entire century, just as the 1800s should be taken the same as the 19th century; context would show it in their rare use as the decade. Again, these short descriptions were just taken from the key points of their articles without getting too long. I have expanded on this NM; just give me the names and I will expand others.
    • Fair enough, but WP:CENTURY from the manual of style would prefers the use of centuries over 1300s etc. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Done then.
• Castillo de San Marcos: "This Spanish fort, called Fort Marion when first protected, served for 205 years under four different flags" when was it built and when did it fall out of use? Who used it? Is there nothing more to say, was it involved in any battles?
  • Expanded.
    • Better. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• There's also some inconsistent spelling between archaeology and archeology; both are correct, the second one is the US spelling. It doesn't matter which you use IMO, but pick one and stick to it.
  • All are now archeology.

There may be more issues, but this is enough for me to oppose I'm afraid. It's a reluctant oppose though, as clearly a lot of effort has gone into compiling the information. I think the article would benefit from a thorough copy edit. I've made a couple of changes to the article myself, and Reywas92 might like to check them over to check that I haven't changed the meaning of any sentences. Nev1 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you for you comments, and any other specific suggestions would be appreciated. I hope that with further review you will be able to support, though apparently that may need to be at a later FLC. Reywas92^Talk 00:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Because response has been prompt, I'll make an effort (probably tomorrow) to go through the rest of the list. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 03:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

References question

Reywas92, I see you added a reference to each description pointing to the main federal page for that monument. I'm not sure in all cases though that that page is actually a reference for all the points made in the lede. I worked on many of these articles back in September as well as reformating into the table with descriptions, dates, etc. I'm not sure I always used only the single reference to write the lede. Wherever possible, I used multiple references to build the articles. dm (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some of the information about the monuments was taken from its article, so not all of the information is actually listed on its NPS page. I'm not sure how it relates to the lead section of the list though. The NPS pages are not extremely detailed, so not everything in the list is backed up by them, though what isn't given probably isn't major. Let me know what facts are problems and need additional sourcing and I can fix it, though lists are generally allowed to be more general. Reywas92^Talk 21:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

NOTE: FLC comments corrected after this page was archived have been noted on this pages talk page.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [4].

---

2008 World Series of Poker Europe results

Nominator(s): I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon

And another contribution from WP:Poker.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 08:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - prose, table, and references problems.

Lead

• The World Series of Poker Europe (WSOPE) is the first expansion effort of World Series of Poker-branded poker tournaments outside of the United States.| 1)Unlink United States, its a common geographical term 2)Unbold World Series of Poker, its not the literal title of the article, you can, however, link it.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since 1970, the bracelet events have occurred every year in Las Vegas. The inaugural WSOPE, held in 2007, marked the first time that a WSOP bracelet was awarded outside of Las Vegas.| It should be better explain here that the WSOP bracelet represents the winner of the event/tournament.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• With the purchase of these casinos Harrah's decided to expand its WSOP label into Europe.| comma before casinos

Done Are you sure? It looks wrong to me, but grammar is not my strong suit.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• European casinos typically have a different environment than those in the United States.| I suggest abbreviating the United States to "US" or "U.S."

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• On July 5, 2007 Harrah's announced an alliance with Betfair, one of the largest online gaming companies in the world located in England.| 1)Unlink the date 2)Comma before located

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Merge the third and fourth paragraphs.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• The U.K. Gambling Act of 2005 allows for legal regulated online poker sites.| Spell out U.K. to "United Kingdom"

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Furthermore, as the laws governing the age of gambling differ in England than the U.S. The WSOPE admitts younger players.| 1)Remove as 2)It would be best to merge these two sentences with a semi colon 3)Typo on "admits"

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• In 2007, one of these younger players, 18 year old Annette "Annette_15" Obrestad became the youngest player to ever make it to win a WSOP bracelet event.| 1)Remove the nickname, its not proper/professional to place it in the prose. 2)Remove make it to

About the nickname, I disagree. Annette_15 is her online handle, and she is also known for her online poker playing. It is also common in Poker to use nicknames: "Greg 'Fossilman' Raymer" "Chris 'Jesus' Ferguson" "Stu 'The Kid' Ungar." So, while it may not be appropraite to use nicknames with a Football player or basketball player, I would argue that with Poker Players we are dealing with a culture where nicknames are expected. I did the other change.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• The second World Series of Poker Europe took place between September 19 to October 1, 2008.|1)Unlink the World Series of Poker Europe 2)Add ",2008" after September 19

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Remove the extra space between the lead and the first section.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Key

• The title of the columns should be in bold because that's how they are represented in the table.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Results

• Add a colon after References in each entry.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would make all table sortable, it would be best.

Disagree. None of the tables is longer than 9 records, 2 of the 3 records are sorted descending. Thus, the only column that somebody might sort on is the players name, and I don't think for a table that is 8 or 9 records that it is necessary to make them sortable.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why isn't the currency in which is used here explained in the lead, it confuses readers, like me.

Added note in the table to that effect. Think making it a line in the lead would be superfulous---it is in England, most people would expect it to be in pounds our Euros.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

References

• Which citation templates are being used? There is an inconsistency with how the fields are presented, like the dates.
• Error with the citation template in ref #9.
• Consistency with the publisher of Poker Listing: is it Poker Listings? or Poker Listing?
• Ref #5 is missing a publisher, in addition to being dead.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 02:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment- The word "results" in the article name should be lower case. I don't know if moving it during this process will break anything so I won't. Otto4711 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "outside of the United States"
• "Since 1970 if one wanted to compete in the World Series of Poker, one had to travel to Las Vegas."-->Since 1970, participants have had to travel to Las Vegas if they wanted to compete in the World Series of Poker (WSOP).
• "While the WSOP held circuit events in other locations, the main tournaments, which awarded bracelets to the winners were exclusively held in Vegas."-->Although the WSOP held circuit events in other locations, the main tournaments, which awarded bracelets to the winners, were exclusively held in Las Vegas.
• "awarded outside of Las Vegas"
• "in the London area - Fifty, Leicester Square" Should be en em dash (—).
• "U.S.." Double periods.
• "did not relying upon its reputation alone" Wrong tense.
• "On July 5, 2007 Harrah's" Comma after "2007".
• "Harrah's announced an alliance"-->Harrah's announced its alliance
• "is intended to play on Betfair's European reputation" "play on"-->build on or take advantage of.
• "In 2007, U.S. laws prevented the WSOP from accepting" Confusing, were the laws passed in 2007?
• "youngest player to ever to win a"
• "Leicester Square, London" Don't link common geographical terms such as "London".
• "Three time bracelet winner " Hyphenate "Three time".
• "The 2008 WSOPE was particularly notable as Jesper Hougaard became the first person to ever win a bracele"-->The 2008 WSOPE was particularly notable, as Jesper Hougaard became the first person to win a bracelet
• "Ivan Demidov made news as he was one of the November"-->Ivan Demidov was one of the November
• Captions that are not complete sentences should have periods at the end.
• Link seven-card stud. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Ref 5, the "BluffMagazine.com. Bluff Magazine" is not necessary; just put "Bluff Magazine".

Comment: RL just got real hectic for me... will try to take care of the above issues this evening or weekend.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Real life is taking its toll... I won't be able to work on these last few chages. I'll see if somebody else from the Poker project will tackle this FLC, but if not, go ahead and close it with the next batch.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 03:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd hate to see it fail, so I will resolve most of these myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [5].

---

Black Eyed Peas discography

Seems to be complete, and obviously comprehensive. I reckon it meets all of the FL criteria.  GARDEN  20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The first paragraph needs citations for the information regarding the group's founding. Gary King (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ack, sorry about that, completely overlooked it - done now.  GARDEN  21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - FLC is not a substitution for WP:PR. Lead The discography of the Black Eyed Peas, a Los Angeles-based hip hop group, consists of five studio albums, one extended play, one compilation album and three DVDs. - 1)Remove the bold, it is not the official title of this article. This is also not consistent with how other discographies begin. So just link to Black Eyed Peas. 2)Add a comma before and. While I believe the current formatting is correct I have removed the bold. I will not however fix the comma. Darn that Oxford comma, I can never get that thing right.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Black Eyed Peas were formed as the Atban Klann in the late 1980s by will.i.am and apl.de.ap. - If what I suggested is done above, remove the link in this sentence. Mhmm. After changing their name to Black Eyed Peas they had major member changes, briefly including Kim Hill in their line-up, and enrolling Taboo and Fergie. - 1)Add a comma before they 2)Well if Hill's membership was brief, when did it end? Done, and that information is not necessary as this is a discography. Yeah, but can at least you say in what years, her membership is questionable considering people are more aware of Fergie and Taboo.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) This list does not include material by the band under their old name. - why not? Its still the same group. The same group that have since been signed. Huh? I'm asking why is material by the old group not in this one if its the same group?--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Because they had a different name and a completely different lineup. I'll go say that. The debut album by the group was Behind the Front, in 1998. - how about "In 1998, the group released their debut album, Behind the Front." Done. The album was received well,[3] but did not chart very highly. - 1)Received well by whom? 2)Did not chart very highly on what chart(s)? Allmusic, as the link suggests? All charts in general? ... What link? The ref? That should be elaborated in prose, you can't always expect the reader to click the ref.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Done. The sophomore album by the group, Bridging the Gap, reached a peak of number 67 in the United States,[4] but did best in New Zealand, reaching number eighteen. -1)Reword the beginning of the sentence to "Their sophomore album," 2)Add "position" before of 3)Which chart of the United States? 4)Remove the link to United States because it is a common country. 5)Remove the link to New Zealand per the same reasons. 6)It reached number eighteen on which chart specifically? 7)Generally, in this type of number formatting, numbers greater than ten should be spelled out. 8)Remove best its WP:POV wording. 1) Ok. 2) God knows why, but Ok. 3) Stoopid US and their stoopid charts. 4) That is POV. You link to every country. For example, I'm not American but I link United Kingdom. 5) See 4. 6) Erm, ok.. 7) ... you mean less than 14, per MoS. 8) Sure. In response to the country links, see MOS:LINK#What generally should not be linked--TRUCO 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) This also applies to continents.--TRUCO 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Their breakthrough single came in 2003 with the release of "Where Is the Love?", which featured Justin Timberlake. - which album was this from? Erm, sure. This reached a Billboard Hot 100 peak of number eight,[7] as well as several number one positions in other countries. - Reword to "It reached a peak position of number eight on the Billboard Hot 100, as well....." Was this done?--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Yes. Their third album, Elephunk, reached number fourteen in the United States after release in 2003,[4] but was their biggest triumph globally, gaining top five positions in many charts across Europe. - 1)Take my tip above about the number formatting. 2)Only the first instance of the United States should be spelled out, other instances should be in abbreviated form. 3)Add "its" before release 4)Change many to "various" 4)What's verifying this statement, or is it in the table already? 1) That follows your tip above. 2) Erm, not sure I agree, but ok. 3) Mhmm. 4) The table. Although I'm not stating that as it would reference the article, something to be avoided per MOS. Somewhere. I get what you mean for #4.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Their fourth album, titled Monkey Business, released in 2005, was their most successful in their home country, with a Billboard high of two. - reword the final part of the sentence to .."with a Billboard peak position of number two." What's up with your hatred of music jargon? :P Because of this =P--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) It also spawned their two highest-peaking US singles, "Don't Phunk with My Heart" and "My Humps", which both reached number three. - on which chart? ... one of them? Pfft, added. They are due to release their fifth album, The END, during 2009. - "in" not during Why? Changed, but I would like an answer. Because during is saying the album will be released "throughout" 2009, yet it will be released in "2009" (a specific time period).--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) erm, ok then. Discography The global certifications shouldn't be in small text. Ok, but the table will look crap. Yeah, but other discographies are formatted like this.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Ref #8 should be used again to verify their 2009 album in the "Studio albums" section Yup. It should be located on the album name.--TRUCO 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Sources to verify their EPs, video albums, and DVDs are needed. Erm...that may take some time. Done. I forgot to mention the compilation albums as well.--TRUCO 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Sources are needed to verify their 1998 singles. Ditto. Done. Sources are needed to verify their music video directors. Not needed. See Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Bloc_Party_discography/archive1. That was way before the FL criteria became more strict back in mid/late-2008. See the recent FL log for recent discographies which have directors sourced.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, well, sorry. Can you prove that source's reliability, it is a source generally not used reliably here at FLC.--TRUCO 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) References The sources need to be properly formatted using {{cite web}}, some have errors in the formatting.--TRUCO 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC) That may also take a while. Done now. Truco: Thanks for the feedback, but note that I was NOT using this as PR. I fully feel this list is ready, and do not agree with a number of your fixes. Sorry, but that opening comment really irritates me - I don't need patronised, thanks.  GARDEN  23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I would like to apologize for making you feel that way, its just that I would expect this type of list, especially from you, to be in tip top shape with few errors. My comments are based on previous featured list nominations and policies on Wikipedia, its not like I made them up.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)}}

Followup comments

• The compilations album still needs to be sourced.

• On it.
• All the references for the DVDS, and etc. need to be located on the name of the title not the release date, because that implies that the ref is only verifying the release date.

• Oh, alright.

• Some of those sources aren't really reliable from my view point, but I will let User:Dabomb87 to review them, until the sourcing issue is resolved, I can't support.--TRUCO 21:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, I'll double check.  GARDEN  22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I asked Dabomb to do a check on them, so he should get to you as soon as possible, I support the list prose/content wise, but the sourcing could be a issue, I hope you understand.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This list is ready, and I agree that most of the comments above are somewhat silly. iMatthew // talk // 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

I definitely agree with a lot of Truco's points above. These lists should be in perfect shape, and this article isn't there yet.

• "were formedbegan as"
  • Done.
• Unlink the years, like 1980s
  • Done.
• "they had major member changes" – "Major", according to the reference? Or whom?
  • Done.
• "was received well" – "was well received"
  • Done.
• "chart very highly" – Why the "very"?
  • British thing, I guess. Like, saying "I didn't do very well" rather than "I didn't do well". No idea. Gone.
• The word "Billboard" in "Billboard 200" needs to be italicized.
  • Done.
• "butand reached"
  • Done.
• "Their sophomore album, Bridging the Gap, reached a peak position of number 67 in the Billboard 200,[4] but reached its highest peak position in New Zealand, reaching number eighteen on the country's album chart." – This sentence uses "reach" three times. Cut that down.
  • Done.
• "TheirThe group's breakthrough"
  • Done.
• "which featureds Justin Timberlake"
  • Done.
• "Their breakthrough single came in 2003 with the release of "Where Is the Love?", from Elephunk, which featured Justin Timberlake." – Can probably be written better, like "Their breakthrough single was "Where Is the Love?" in 2003, from Elephunk, which features Justin Timberlake."
  • Done.
• "It reached a peak position of number eight on" – These sentences can be written more concisely, like "It peaked at number eight on"
  • Done.

• Some of the references have errors of missing title fields.
  • Will fix.
    • Done.

There are similar issues throughout the prose, which I haven't gone through completely. Gary King (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, done most of those. Thanks,  GARDEN  10:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak support, all issues resolved. Will fully support when the final source issue is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Oppose for now from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I don't want to get involved with the above situation (now moved to talk), but please don't take Truco's points personally. He is an experienced content writer and reviewer—especially with FLs—and is right when he says that these articles should be pretty close before FLC. That is all I will say. Now, for the comments: "After changing their name to the Black Eyed Peas, they had several member changes, "-->After changing their name to the Black Eyed Peas, the band experienced several member changes, Done "and enrolling Taboo and Fergie." "enrolling" is not the right word here. Sounds like they were registered for a class or something. Done "This list does not include material by the band under their old name, due to the line-up changes since then." No comma necessary. Done "by allmusic" Allmusic should be capitalized, and not in italics. Done "The group's breakthrough single was "Where Is the Love?" in 2003, from Elephunk, which features Justin Timberlake." Is it possible to clarify what a "breakthrough single" is? Done "It peaked at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100,[7] as well as well as several number one positions in other countries."-->It peaked at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100, and reached number-one positions in several other countries. Done "It also spawned" Done "which both reached number three."-->both of which reached number three. Done There should be a note that "—" denotes releases that did not chart—see Rufus Wainwright discography. Done "They are due to release"-->They will release Done "fifth album, The END" Album names should be in italics. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Done Also, the dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Done Sources Spell out all abbreviations in the publishers (RIAA, CRIA, ARIA). No need to spell out MTV though. Done Allmusic should be capitalized and not in italics. Amazon and MTV should not be italics either. Done What makes EveryHit reliable? I know it is listed as such at MOS:DISCOG, but there is no indicated method of fact-checking. Hmmm, I might struggle to find another source for that. I'll look. Got one! Huzzah! Discogs is not considered a reliable source. Again, rather difficult to verify. Just cited the DVD. What makes http://www.hsilondon.co.uk/Director.aspx?id=25 a reliable source? Because that's the company that Saline Project work for. Refs 26 and 29 need page titles. Doing... done Several links show up dead. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Typical! The same day this FLC started! :P I'll get to it.  GARDEN  14:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) That's them all done now.  GARDEN  21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• The Amazon issue needs to be resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Overall looks pretty good, but there's a few issues that I'd like to see addressed:

• The first sentence "The discography of..." reads very poorly, try looking at some other FLs for some smoother introductions.
• The singles table's year column is kind of wierd right now.
• The singles table still has 11 columns.
• The singles table is also getting a little wide. The certifications and album columns could be much slimmer, as there's alot of wasted space there. I also think that if you manage your column widths better, you wouldn't need to make the font smaller.
• Some catalog numbers of the releases would be good.
• "U.S." and "US" are both used. Stick with one.
• Consider writing "number 67" as "#67".

The above concerns have yet to be addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

I'd like to see "Global Certifications" changed to the more standard column header (again, see the Prodigy discog). "number eighteen", and similar instances, should probably replaced with a number. The exception being "top five positions", since I think it works there. There's alot of citations mid-sentence, which should be avoided. If you can find a single citation to cover the whole sentence that would be best, but if not just put them all at the end of the sentence. In the music videos section, repeated directors should be combined into one big cell, using "rowspan". Citation #28 has a funky title. Avoid using Amazon.co.uk as a source, since they are a retailer. Drewcifer (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Mainly, there is way too much chart data. MOS:DISCOG recommends a limit of 10, but here you've got way more than that. So much so, that it ceases to be informative, and borders on an indiscriminate stat dump. Some external links would be good. See The Prodigy discography for a good example. Done all of them, I think. Although I didn't literally do them - some other kind souls did (thanks a million!)  GARDEN  22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Contrary to what Drewcifer said, I prefer "The discography of..." over the current sentence. Many of the recent promoted discogs begin this way. I think the current sentence is creeping back to "This is a list of...", which has fallen out of favor.
• You do need to be consistent with "U.S." vs "US". In this case, "US" is correct because "UK" is used
• The album was well received ... but did not chart highly. where? the US or in all markets?
• You may wish to say that Renegotiations: The Remixes was only sold in Best Buy and iTunes stores in that bullet point "Remixes of songs on Monkey Business"
• "Union" has a music video according to Monkey Business (album). This is missing from the music video table. I'm not saying the album article is correct, so just make sure
• Wasn't "Mas Que Nada" released as a single?
• Label: Interscope vs Label: Interscope Records No need to link in the EP section either
• Any reason you haven't given the certifications from BPI?
  • Where is the Love -- Platinum
  • Elephunk -- 4x Platinum
  • Shut Up -- Silver
  • Monkey Business -- 3x Platinum
• There are also other certifications you could include for the albums and singles from their articles.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from JD554 (talk · contribs)

• Similar columms should be the same width: Album details/EP details/Video details, the certifications columns, and the year columns.
• The singles table needs to have the font increased and the 100% width removed (this will help with the above).
• The album titles in the singles table don't need to be wikilinked again (already done in the albums table).
• The charts in the singles table should wikilink to the chart not the country (there's a list at List of record charts).
• Either remove "Boom Boom Pow" or add a citation and note to say it's a future single and (if you go for the latter) remove the dashes, or (if you go for the former) change the hyphens to mdashes.
• I disagree with Drewcifer about #67. As you've already used a word for eighteen, it would be better to say number sixty-seven per MOS:NUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words.
• Can you provide formats for the albums, EP and videos?
• Have they never released any compilations, live albums or had an otherwise unavailable track released on a various artists compilation? --JD554 (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

References

• 7, 8, 9, 11, 26 and 29 need language tags.
• 12 needs to say what search term is to be used.
• 13 needs to give instructions on what to do.
• 31 and 33 can be combined.
• 40 has (DVD) and [DVD] and doesn't need a retrieved on date. --JD554 (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 19:36, 20 February 2009 [6].

---

List of Prison Break episodes

I will fix all of these issues, and post this FLC again as soon as FLC has a better backlog. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare _(Talk), Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Prison Break

If you feel you too have worked on this article, please feel free to add yourself to the Nominators section.

I cleaned this up, mostly today, actually. Do you feel that this meets the FL Criteria? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NocturneNoir

Review from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs) Fix the dab. Some of your refs have moved. The first Prison Break should be italicized as well. "A hiatus over the 2007 Christmas period occurred because of the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike before the third season resumed on January 14, 2008 with the airing of the last five episodes." is passive. Change it to the active "The show's third season went on hiatus over the 2007 Christmas period because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. It resumed on January 14, 2008, and the last five episodes of the season were aired." "Prison Break has been released on DVD in Regions 1, 2, and 4. The first three seasons have been released on DVD." Repetitive much? Try "The first three seasons have been released on DVD to Regions 1, 2, and 4." Your "List of Seasons" section claims that there are four specials, but I only see three in your "Specials" section. White text on a gray back for the "Specials" section? I could barely see the words! In the episode summary for Access All Areas, it says "Like the other two special episodes, Access All Areas focuses on the beginning of its season." but fails to mention which season it is in. Similar issues for the other two specials. In your refs, Prison Break is sometimes italicized and sometimes not. Make sure it is either always italicized or always not. Ref 10 says "Tvshowsondvd.com" and has different capitalization than the other refs. You also switch between linking it and not linking it. It should be linked. (Ref 7, Ref 14) Has not been fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Amazon.com is not linked for Ref 8, but is linked for Ref 11. The format of your "Retrieved on" dates changes. Pick one format and stick to it. A similar issue occurs with the "date=" field. All above fixed. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Is there any particular reason the widths of columns of the tables change from season to season? It would look better if it was the same for each season. The formatting is automatic, and works based on the length of the names. I am unsure how to fix this. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Try something along the lines of : {| class = "wikitable" width = "98%" |- ! bgcolor="#CCCCFF" width="3%"| # ! bgcolor="#CCCCFF"| Title ! bgcolor="#CCCCFF" width="15%"| Original release Also take a look at formatting at List of Oh My Goddess! episodes and other similar lists. You should be able to do something similar on each individual list (i.e. each Season list) and purge the main list to fix it. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I, as well as one of the Featured List directors (Scorpion), can't seem to fix it. Hopefully, this won't be a sticking point. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The External Link is not relevant per WP:EL. That link is already on Prison Break (I hope) so it is unnecessary here. Gone. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, and I forgot this earlier: this list needs an image, preferably a logo. I'll grab one. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC) NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 02:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Finally completely cleaned up. Fixed the widths myself (TAKE THAT, SCORPION!). Good work! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead As of February 19, 2009, a total of 73 episodes of Prison Break have been aired, in addition to three special making-of episodes. -- Is it necessary to bold 73? I have seen it before that way in other FLs, but I have debolded it, as it doesn't seem that necessary. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC) A similar schedule applied for the second season, which premiered in the United States on August 21, 2006. -- Its redundant to state that it was in the United States since you mentioned it is American earlier. Removed. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC) It resumed on January 14, 2008, and the last five episodes of the season were aired. The fourth season, consisting of 22 episodes, began in September 2008. -- Began what? Changed to began airing, for addition clarity. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC) List of seasons IMO it would be best to have a centered emdash in place of a blank column. Oops, can't believe I missed that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC) References Why do you link thrfeed? If you want to link it, you may as well link all other publishers. Changed. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC) --TRUCO 02:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• One last thing before I fully lend support, can the section headers such as "Season 1" be made into subheaders of the "List of seasons" header?--TRUCO 23:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done, with a slight reorganization. . NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• File:PB S4 Intro.png fails NFCC.
• Since this FLC we no longer transclude episode lists.
• "the Tattoo", doesn't merit a capital letter
• Can we cite the Specials as they are not covered by IGN.
• Can you make season 3 have black title headings as the white is a bit difficult to read
• Was PB simulcast in any other countries? I think it was, possibly Canada and/or the UK. If so that needs mentioning, to adhere to a worldwide point of view.
• Mention digital media releases after DVD/Blu-ray bit. These may include Amazon Unbox, Hulu, iTunes Store, Xbox Live Marketplace etc.
• I would be strongly in favour of including the viewing figures. This is a recent series and they are not difficult to find.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The nominator has withdrawn this candidate.[7] Please leave {{FLC}} on the articles talk page until the bot processes it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 19:36, 20 February 2009 [8].

---

List of Jericho episodes

I'll fix these errors, but I am going to withdraw this now until my other two are further down the list, to give you guys some additional breathing room. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare _(Talk)''

What would you do if 23 nuclear bombs went off in the United States?

Does this meet the Featured List criteria? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You have three FLCs going on, all of which have been nominated in the past two or three days. Please let up a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked Scorpion, and he said that it was OK to nominate these as long as I didn't break Gary King's record of 18. I am in no rush; please feel free to review other articles, even if this FLC gets close to the bottom of the list. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will ;) It would be nice if you did too. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's probably a good idea. I've asked a lot from you guys recently, and I have only really done one small check for Ironholds. I'll do a couple. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Like Dabomb stated its best to hold off on the nominations due to the backlog and lack of reviewers.

Lead

• Jericho is set in the fictional town of Jericho, Kansas and follows the town's struggle to survive in the aftermath of nuclear attacks on 23 major U.S. cities. -- Comma after Kansas.
• The first season begins almost immediately with the detonation of the bombs, and initially focuses on the physical effects of the bombs. Later on, the focus shifts to a battle against a neighboring town.[1] The second season begins with the arrival of the new government, and focuses on the transformation of Jericho into a police state, as well as Jake Green (Skeet Ulrich) and Robert Hawkins' (Lennie James) attempt to expose the masterminds of the attack. -- A lot of repetition of the word focus, can a synonym be used at least once?
• (Opt.) Some of these types of list state the timeslot and day of the week it aired, which would be located in a sentence like Jericho originally aired from September 20, 2006 to March 25, 2008 on CBS in the United States.
• After a large fan outcry[5] CBS agreed to order seven additional trial[6] episodes for a second season, which began airing on February 12 and ended on March 25, 2008. -- (1)Be consistent with the date formatting, the previous sentence stated the date as February 21, 2007 to May 9, 2007 [which has the year in both dates, unlike this one] (2)Comma after outcry
• Jericho went on hiatus after the "fall finale" episode of November 29, 2006 and returned with a recap episode on February 14, 2007. -- Comma before and

Seasons

• Remove the colors from the column headings or use lighter colors, the ones in place now are too distracting.
• There are a lot of redlinks, consider creating some stubs or not link any at all.

Footnotes

• Remove the full stop, the statement there is not a complete sentence.

References

• There is a problem with the bolding in some of the references. This can be resolved by not listing Jericho as the work because IGN publisher their information and it is their work (as in writing it). Some, like Ref 5, I'm not sure; there could be a bolding issue in that citation.--TRUCO 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The nominator has withdrawn this candidate.[9] Please leave {{FLC}} on the articles talk page until the bot processes it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 04:11, 19 February 2009 [10].

---

List of The Batman episodes

Nominator(s): JayExperience (talk)

Originally posted on top of the former FLC page here. I have archived that one and started a new one here. Someone may need to add the things that the preload normally does. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that nominator support is assumed and isn't taken into account at FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick-fail/Strongest Oppose. This isn't as bad as the others (as it is a Former Featured List), but still has many problems. The lack of references is very worrying. Epguide is not a reliable source, and none of the directors/writers are cited. We do not start lists like "The following is an episode list for" anymore. The whole lead is effectively uncited, with the exception of the "Kids' WB" channel is aired on. That source doesn't appear reliable either. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail for the reason that the same issues plague your other FLCs. Insufficient summaries, no refs for the episodes and airdates, and I am not sure what makes any of those sources reliable. I would advise to withdraw some or all of your FLCs and submit them to peer review one at a time. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Quick-Fail -- Lead needs expansion and better referencing to reliable sources. Does not meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, I didn't read the criteria properly, I'll continue to work on the page and hopefully resubmit it one day. Thanks for your help anyway. ^The Scarecrow... 02:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Hope to see you back soon! Don't remove the {{FLC}} template from the talk pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 15:58, 19 February 2009 [11].

---

List of Batman animated episodes

These are the previous FLC's of this when the article was under difrent names. 1st FLC, 2nd FLC and 3rd FLC --129.25.31.103 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): JayExperience (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it qualifies and I have put in a lot of effort in fixing up the page. Thanks in advance. ^The Scarecrow... 08:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail. This still has old tags for cleanup that have been there since April 2008! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick-fail Sorry, but if articles have cleanup banners, those issues should be taken care of before FLC. One- and two-sentence episode summaries do not suffice. The tone is not always encyclopedic, and there is a section full of original research. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Quick-Fail -- Lead needs expansion and better referencing to reliable sources. Does not meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing note. This candidate was withdrawn by the nominator. Please leave the {{FLC}} template on the articles talk page until it is archived automatically. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 04:11, 19 February 2009 [12].

---

List of Batman: The Brave and the Bold episodes

Nominator(s): JayExperience (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meet shte criteria and I have put in a lot of effort in fixing the page as it looked very messy before I begun editing it. Thanks. ^The Scarecrow... 08:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail. This still has request for expansion tag from November 2008 and cites no references at all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail No references, insufficient episode summaries, the lead isn't large enough and there is an expansion tag. I will also that it is bad form to nominate two FLCs in quick succession, please consider giving at least a day in between. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Quick-Fail -- Lead needs expansion and better referencing to reliable sources. Does not meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This nomination has been withdrawn; don't remove the {{FLC}} template from the talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [13].

---

List of National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy people

This list is well structured, illustrated and includes references to all entries. I believe it deserves to be featured.Silin2005 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment We don't start lists out "This is a list of..." anymore. I can tell you right now that the lead needs expansion (summarize the list more and talk about the university more) and that all web citations need titles, URLs, publishers and last access dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick-fail You have not made a single contribution to this list and are therefore not a significant contributor. You do not appear to have consulted any of the significant contributors either. Aditionally this list has quite a few flaws. All references are missing publishers, the lead seems too short. For the image of the seal you uploaded, did you make the seal? If not then surely you are not the author and cannot release it into the public domain. This also needs an image review for bad/incomplete licenses (e.g. File:Skovoroda.jpg). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment there have been 87 edits to this list. The nominator has made 77 of them. Ostap 02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm very sorry I was using the contribution tool on the wrong FLC, and confused the multiple tabs I had open. I have struck my qf, but I still Oppose due to the other issues mentioned. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [14].

---

Rufus Wainwright discography

I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all of the qualifications and I have made improvements to the article based on a recent peer review session. I believe I corrected all concerns raised during PR, except that I left the 13 chart columns on the album discography (I do not think it is excessive, and according to MOS:DISCOG approximately 10 charts are suggested; 13 is close to 10).

Also, it was suggested that the Operas section be deleted, though I would like to get additional feedback regarding that request. I realize this is a Discography, and the opera has not yet been recorded and distributed as an album. However, this is a major work and I still wonder if it is worth listing. At the same time, I am more than willing to remove the section if consensus reveals it should be eliminated from the list. Perhaps a list of composition could be created, since Wainwright has composed other pieces as well? If there is a "List of compositions" template or example I could follow, I'd be interested.

Sorry so long. Anyways, I think that apart from the aforementioned concern, this is an informational, highly-referenced list that I would love to see join the other FL discographies. Thank you so much for your time, consideration, and assistance. -Another Believer (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Wainwright's self-titled, debut album was released under DreamWorks Records in May 1998. - there is no need for the comma Done. I have a comment of placing a comma between two adjectives. His first music DVD, Live at the Fillmore, accompanied Want Two and features live concert footage from a March 2004 performance at The Fillmore in San Francisco, California. - features --> "featured" (past tense) Done. Wainwright's second EP, titled Alright, Already: Live in Montréal, was released by Geffen via iTunes in the U.S. and Canada on March 15, 2005, and later in Germany on March 29. - 1)no need for the titled 2)spell out the United States in its first occurrence 3)Unlink Canada and German, common countries Done, done, and done. All I Want, released under Geffen in April 2005, contains a documentary (A Portrait of Rufus Wainwright), live performances, music videos, and more. - and more is WP:WEASEL wording. how about All I Want, released under Geffen in April 2005, contained various pieces of work, including a documentary (A Portrait of Rufus Wainwright), live performances, music videos, and more. (you can replace the pieces of work if it doesn't fit well) Done. Want, a repackaging of Want One and Want Two as one album, was released under DreamWorks/Geffen in November 2005 and contains two extra tracks. - comma before and Done. Release the Stars, Wainwright's self-produced, fifth studio album, was released under Geffen in May 2007. - no need for the comma between self-produced and fifth studio album Done. Again, there is that habit of mine... Coinciding with the album, Rufus! Rufus! Rufus! Does Judy! Judy! Judy!: Live from the London Palladium is a DVD release of Wainwright's tribute concert to Judy Garland, recorded in London during February 2007. - remove the comma after album (no need for it) Done. In response to the comment about the opera, I agree on its removal, its not technically its discography and stands out in the article. Done. Thanks for the additional feedback! Studio and live albums For the blank entries on the certifications, add an emdash (the long dash) there. Empty spaces are unappealing. Comment: Trying to figure out how to do this... See WP:EMDASH to read on how to add it to the articles, the emdash is basically the dashes that are in this article's tables under the charts in which the piece of work did not rank on.--TRUCO 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry for the confusion. I understand what the emdash is, I just cannot figure out how to display it properly on the chart. -Another Believer (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Never mind! I was making things more difficult than they really were. DONE. Compilation albums Move the ref to the title of the album, not the format. Done. Capitalize the first word in the notes. Done. Extended plays Move the refs to the album name, and add a ref to the 2007 album. Done. Capitalize the first word in the notes. Done. I also capitalized the first word in the Description column of Guest appearances for consistency. Video albums Add emdashes to the blank certifications entries Done. What is verifying the 2007 album? Done. Featured performer Why isn't this part of the compilation? Comment: I am not sure what this means. I only have "featured performer" under the Singles section. If you are referring to "To America" with Joan As Police Woman... this is under the Guest appearances section since it is JAPW's album. Yeah, that's what I am referring to, why isn't this under the compilations section since that's what it technically is.--TRUCO 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) "To America" is a song on Joan As Police Woman's album. This album is not a compilation. -Another Believer (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Oh okay.--TRUCO 03:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Contributions There are some entries that don't have references, what is verifying them?--TRUCO 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC) I know these entries exist, but I am still trying to find online references for verification. Can Amazon.com be used for track lists? I found this library entry and this for Hear Music Volume 7: Waking, though I am not sure if either are considered reliable. -Another Believer (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Library entries are reliable, the other ref isn't. Amazon isn't really reliable since the track listing is placed there by the person selling it.--TRUCO 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Then I shall use the library entry. -Another Believer (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) I simply cannot find a reference for Eklektikos Live, though I know he appears on the album. Should I just remove it from the list since it cannot be verified? -Another Believer (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC) IMO its best to remove it because leaving it in the article will violate WP:OR and is WP:UNSOURCED, which can be challenged and removed. If in the future, a reliable source can be found, it can always be readded.--TRUCO 03:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Eklektikos Live has been removed from the Compilations list. DONE. -Another Believer (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC) I have another question. This is a compilation album compiled of songs CHOSEN by Wainwright. He does not perform on the album. It is a collection of songs he likes, plus two of his songs performed by a string quartet ("Hometown Waltz" and "Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk"). Does this belong anywhere on the list? -Another Believer (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Not necessarily, he didn't release it for his promotion so its more like a tribute type albums.--TRUCO 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Okay. I didn't think so, but Allmusic has it listed under his Discography so I thought I'd ask just in case. -Another Believer (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, its good that you ask.--TRUCO 03:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks again for all of your assistance! I hope this addresses all of your concerns and suggestions! -Another Believer (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Your welcome!--TRUCO 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Though success was limited"-->Although his success was limited... Done. "resulting in the #1 position on the Heatseekers Chart and #117 on the Billboard 200." Unclear on what exactly reached those charts. Comment: The sentence follows a statement about his debut album. On the Heatseekers Chart, entries are listed with the artist's name along with the album they released--so in this case, Wainwright and his album were listed on the chart. "while Want Two was released "-->and Want Two was released Done. "previewing songs that would be appearing on Want Two."-->previewing songs that later appear on Want Two. Done. Numbers over ten should be written in numerals. Done. Changed "twelve" to "12". "the 2009 award" Include award as part of the link so it doesn't look like you are just linking to a year link. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Done.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.soundtrackcollector.com/catalog/soundtrackdetail.php?movieid=75992 a reliable source?

Comment: I'm afraid I cannot find any newspaper articles or other more reliable sources with the track list. If this, this, this, or this cannot be used, I will simply have to remove the entry. I think part of the problem is that this film was released in France so there is little English text about the film/soundtrack. -Another Believer (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you show that any of these listed sources are reliable through support by a reliable third-party institution, being cited by a reputable publication/institution, or methods of fact-checking? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I've gone ahead and removed the entry. I can add it back later if I come across a reliable source. -Another Believer (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise http://www.radio-canada.ca/radio/emissions/document.asp?docnumero=51525&numero=1354?

Comment: radio-canada.ca is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's French site. I've update the reference to display Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as the publisher, rather than Radio-Canada. I hope this helps.

• You need to add a publisher to the Billboard sources. Billboard is the work, and Nielsen Business Media, Inc is the publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you so much for your time and assistance! -Another Believer (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Very thorough, but I do have a few complaints that I hope you can address.

• My complaint has to do with the 13 charts. Yes, 13 is close to 10, but I see no justification or rationale for going past the suggested 10. On the contrary, there are many reasons not to go past 10, which are in fact the same reasons why 10 is suggested in the first place. I think it would be very easy to trim the fat on this: the German, Austrian, and Spanish charts aren't particularly notable or useful in my opinion, and that would bring it down to the magic number.
• My other main complaint is that the list is over-referenced. (Yes, there is such a thing as too many citations). For instance, it's extreme overkill to provide a citation for every single release, when one or two general references would suffice. Take a look at the reference section of The Prodigy discography for an example of what I mean.

I have some other more minor style-based complaints, but those are my two main ones. I don't have time to do a full review at the moment, so I'll save those for if and when the other two are addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The difference between the Rufus Wainwright and The Prodigy discographies is that the latter does not list 77 contributions to soundtracks, compilation albums, and albums by other artists. I do not think the article would look "over-referenced" if it were not for that extensive list. However, I feel the contributions list is very helpful and necessary, showing the extent of his involvement with many projects. If I could find a single reliable source that listed many of his contributions (including track name, album title, etc.), I would reduce the number of references. Since I cannot, I will leave the list as is for now. Thanks again! -Another Believer (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting getting rid of citations that aren't coverable by general references, and if the soundtrack contributions need specific citations then that's fine. But for a start, a citation for every studio album, live album, compilation, EP, and video album seems unnecessary. A single link to allmusic covers alot of this. And a single link to his website covers alot of other stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So just use the allmusic link you provided to reference all of the albums? It just seems the references provided (that direct to Billboard) note more information--album name, date, release formats, peak positions, etc. In other words, they provide details allmusic does not. In no way am I unwilling to change/improve the article, nor do I take offense. I am really just trying to make sure I understand why the article should be edited to contain fewer references when those references may be more useful to the reader. I hope other users will express their thoughts on this issue. Are there any other issues that need to be addressed in order to earn your support? -Another Believer (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well let's compare the Poses pages from Allmusic link and Billboard link. They both have title, label, catalog number, and release date. Billboard has some chart positions (though so does Allmusic, it's just one click away rather than on the same page). So for this one release they're essentially the same. The difference being allmusic has a all-inclusive discography page link, where as Billboard does not. So that is why I would say Allmusic is better, since one link can provide information for a whole bunch of releases, rather than one link per release. Hope that makes sense. It also looks like Allmusic is a little bit more inclusive, as it includes Yellow lounge, but Billboard does not. I think this may be because Billboard only lists things that have charted, though I could be wrong.

The reason less citations is preferable is because 124 of them is just data overload, and it implies that if the reader wants to find out more they need to go to 124 places, rather than a few all-inclusive ones.

Aside from the citations bit, there's still the 13 charts thing that needs to be addressed. And I'll try and find some time soon to do a more thorough style-based review of the list. Drewcifer (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [15].

---

List of awards received by Michael Jackson

I'm nominating this because I believe it meets all FL criteria. It's comprehensive and cited with reliable sources. Pyrrhus16 13:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be: "List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson"? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no nominations listed. It would take forever to find every award he has been nominated for. Pyrrhus16 14:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pyrrhus on that point, the logistics of having every award Jackson has won and been nominated for would be entirely overbearing on a reader. There would be difficulty loading the page for a start. — R² 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If the list is only for the awards Jackson won, shouldn't the result in the table be removed. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way to remove that column. Besides, it's also used to differentiate between awards won and hall of fame inductions. Pyrrhus16 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How about renaming the list to "List of awards received by Michael Jackson"? Gary King (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what Gary King said is OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Frcm1988 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the nominated work is missing: for example in the Soul Train Awards, in the Best R&B/Urban Contemporary (Music Video), what video was nominated?

• The book in which I used for reference doesn't state which video won that award.

• Did Jackson actually won the BRIT Award for Best British Album?

• According to the reference book, yes.

• Africa should be replaced for Gabon.

  Done

• In the International Awards there are only the names of the countries but not the name of the Award, and also what was the nominated work.

• Again, the book doesn't state and I wouldn't like to assume.

• In the Golden Globe Awards, which award did he won? Best Original Song I suppose.

• Done

• The MTV European Music Awards should be in a table like the rest of awards.

  The MTV Europe awards? They are in a table, unless I misunderstood the comment?

• Some of the awards are lacking a description, like the Smash Hits, or in Mix Magazine he won for Best Foreign Male Singer but it dosen't said from which country is the magazine.

  Added the countries. Pyrrhus16 18:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• The seventh child of the Jackson family, he debuted on the professional music scene at the age of 11 as a member of The Jackson 5 and began a solo career in 1971 while still a member of the group. - comma before and

• Done

• Rename the article to List of awards received by Michael Jackson (per consistency with other awards lists)

• I can think of a few FL lists that aren't 'consistent'... but consider it done. Pyrrhus16 09:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Will move after FL discussion, it was messing with the link to here - despite a redirect. Pyrrhus16 10:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• The lead needs to be expanded a bit, I see many many awards listed, some of those should be summarized further in the prose.

• Added a bit more info to the lead. Pyrrhus16 10:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

List

• Some of the entries are missing the description/purpose of the awards.

  Little is known about some of the awards. Pyrrhus16 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  Research will have to be done then because you can't just have some awards that don't list their purpose, it questions the reader as to what they were nominated for.--TRUCO 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the entries are missing references for the description/purpose of the awards.

• Which descriptions do you feel need a reference? Pyrrhus16 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Many of them, some of the awards have descriptions as to why they are held, but this is not verified with a reference. It seems redundant to source it in this article, but you can't have original research in the article.--TRUCO 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since this is a list of his awards and not his nominations, I find it redundant to list the result in every entry.

As I said above, I don't think there is a way to remove that column. However it's also used to differentiate between awards won and hall of fame inductions.Pyrrhus16 09:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess, this should be discussed at the template page or the respective project page to see if the "result" field can be made optional per lists like these. What above my first 2 comments in this section?--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

See also

• This section goes before the references per WP:SEEALSO
  • Done — R² 07:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

References

• The grammy award reference should have Grammy award piped linked in the publisher field.
  • Done. — R² 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pipe link to Grammy, not Grammy award.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Done — R² 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• The RIAA should not be piped to www.riaa.com, it should be just RIAA, or the acronym should be spelled out.
  • Done — R² 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• The reagan-utexas.edu should be linked to the appropriate article
  • It doesn't have a corresponding article on Wikipedia, that I know of.
    • It looks like its an alternative to Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, so that's the best to place in the publisher field.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh I see, thanks, done. — R² 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• ABC News needs to be linked.
  • ABC News is linked in the footnotes once, on the first occasion it is used. Do we need to keep relinking the same publisher each time in the notes? I'm not a fan of linking for the sake of linking. — R² 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

--TRUCO 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I didn't see that it was linked already. No, no need to link it again.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• No problem. — R² 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There are some basic errors that result from not having an outside editor looking through it with a detailed eye. Luckily, the problems aren't large; a twenty-minute proofread by someone new to the article should suffice. A larger problem is that lack of description for awards. Examples:

• Birthdate not necessary; this isn't his main article.

• Done

• "The seventh child of the Jackson family" Another irrelevant detail.

• Done

• "at the age of 11"
• "and a RIAA certification" Spell out RIAA on its first appearance.

• Done

• "has also been honoured "

• Done

• "is an organisation which helps"-->is an organisation that helps

• Done

• "whilst facing"-->while facing

• Done

• Jackson has went on to collect 22 "-->Jackson has collected 22

• Done

• Why is there no description of the American Video Awards?
• "BET Awards" Once again, there is no description.
• Many of the awards have no description.
• "The Billboard Music Awards, sponsored by Billboard magazine" Comma after here.

• Done

• "has won a total of 40 Billboard related"-->has won 40 Billboard-related

• Done

• "hem as royalties to those members" Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done Pyrrhus16 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Those were only examples; please find somebody to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done

Sources

• Citations with multiple page numbers should use the notation "pp."

• Done

• Dates should not have leading 0s. Example: "Retrieved on February 03, 2009"-->Retrieved on February 3, 2009 Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done

• http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2008/11/07/prnewswire200811071005PR_NEWS_USPR_____NY44689.html (ref 26) deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done Pyrrhus16 10:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• When does the Michael Jackson ceremony take place? What I mean by that is that List of Saturn Awards, List of BAFTA awards, List of Grammy Awards would be okay, because they are awards of Saturn, the BAFTAs, Grammys. There are no Michael Jackson awards, only awards received by Michael Jackson. The page title should reflect that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • We will certainly find a more suitable name when the FLC is closed, as you can imagine, this is not the best time to go changing titles. — R² 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think you need to start with "Michael Joseph Jackson". It isn't the name he goes by as a performer, and it is given at Michael Jackson.
  • Done. — R² 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any progress? I still have not heard a reason for why many awards have no descriptions. Language concerns still – "Bravo is the largest teen magazine within the German-language sphere." Why such a jargony and vague word like "sphere"? "Its membership comprises hundreds of music companies including" Comma after "companies". "a weekly publication devoted to the music and coin-operated machine industries which was published from July " "which"-->that. "Jackson was awarded with a humanitarian award, from the Crenshaw Community Youth & Arts Foundation, in 1994.[14]" Repetition of "award" and the comma is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to find a description and reference for all 80+ awards. It would certainly take more than the 10 day allocation, therefore, I suggest withdrawing this and resubmitting when all concerns have been met. Probably submitting it for Peer Review beforehand. I hadn't anticipated the work that goes into Featured Content and submitted this way too early, as you can see here. Pyrrhus16 10:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we know what needs doing, it's just going to take some time. Best to let this close, we will be back. :) — R² 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [16].

---

List of Popotan episodes

previous FLC (23:14, 20 January 2009) Rambo's Revenge notified

I have addressed all the issues that caused the list to fail last time including copyediting and finding sources that were requested.じんない 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Still not there prosewise. Ask User:Malleus Fatuorum to copy-edit, he is an excellent wordsmith. "Popotan is a 2003 Japanese" First of all, "Popotan" should be in italics. Second, it should be linked to the appropriate article. "which are referred to as "popotan"" "Twelve episodes were produced, which originally aired aired"-->Twelve episodes were produced. They originally aired... "and was also made available"-->and were also made available "The anime was released on Japanese DVD by Bandai Visual, in six discs of two episodes each." No comma necessary. "Unbeknownst" Unnecessarily archaic, chop off the last two letters. "After hearing Daichi spreading a rumor that the mansion" "spreading"-->spread. "The episode concludes with Daichi waking up to find himself lying"-->In the episode's conclusion, Daichi wakes up, finding himself lying "Mai, who has never liked the journey through time, has been depressed for some time by the constant loss" "she resolves this time to aggressively keep" "because it's " No contractions. "Mii goes around town trying, with varying degrees of success, to help" Is there a more descriptive verb than "goes"? These examples were picked out without much effort, there is much more that can be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Done. I do not know what to say since I found someone in PRV who was suppose to be good at copyediting.じんない 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Did you ask Malleus? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Yes. It appears he's done some minor cleanup in addition to your suggestions for the lead. Nothing serious.じんない 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) We have a bit of time. If he doesn't do any more, I will try to find time. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Looks like he may do more over the weekend.じんない 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Since work is ongoing, I will strike my oppose for now. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't myself call it "minor cleanup"; it's not always easy to find the right words, or the right way to express an idea. Anyway, I've now done what I can without kmowing anything at all about this series. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) I have tried to help with a few of these anime/manga articles now, despite it not being something I have even the slightest interest in, but I am not some tool to be deployed. I have interests of my own, which must take precedence. Copyediting is a difficult and thankless task at the best of times. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Well I for one am thankful because I know I'm poor at best when it comes to copyediting other articles.じんない 22:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Good work Malleus. I will try not to refer anybody else to you in the near future :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note that I could not evaluate the foreign-language sources for reliablity. Having said that, what makes http://momoi.info/discography/under17/ reliable?
  • I removed it since when I put it on, it had been referenced by another reliable source, but it looks like that source has taken them off. It does not affect the article though as the remaining source can verify the statement.じんない 18:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 2 (official website) needs a publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.じんない 18:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

This list had definately improved from last time, however I still have some issues with it and so will not support just yet.

• "Between December 12, 2004 and March 22, 2005, it produced three DVDs each with four episodes.[17][18] A final box set was released on August 14, 2007, shortly before Geneon's demise.[18] Unlike the Japanese DVD releases, the English ones had no promotional content." The whole of this part is currently referenced only my refs 17 & 18 which (per previous FLC & WP:ANIME) are not considered reliable. I don't know what exactly parts are being referenced but this source might possibly help.
  • The episode numbers I cited from the dvd back cover. It's the release dates that are the problem because I cannot seem to find any press releases except on the 2nd DVD nor any coverage about the release dates except ANN for English market. I'm not sure where to look for the release dates for the 1st and 3rd DVD that would meet WP:RS.じんない 01:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually would Target Target #2 be considered a reliable for the release date?じんない 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I would consider it much more reliable. The fact that target.com has different DVD release dates from the list currently also strengthens my case for not using ANN. However the box set release date, "shortly before Geneon's demise", and "English without promotion content" still need sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I changes them to Target then. I will cite Geneon's demise statement later. Geneon's demise is cited. As for the "English without promotional content", i again ask you, how do you cite a negative? No one is going to say "This item doesn't come with promotional content." If it's a matter of just citing the DVDs themselves, i can do it with the appropriate template.じんない 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• The general ref "Episode titles". Popotan (TV). Anime News Network. Retrieved on 27 October 2008. may be better suited to the external link section (due to its reliability).
  • I disagree here since it is being used for a secondary source for the episode titles rather than just the primary. Per the criteria for ANN it does say it can be used if it's backed up with another source.じんない 01:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Um okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• "which features character designs by Haruka Sakurai based on the original concept by Akio Watanabe,[2][3] under the alias of Poyoyon Rock,[4][5]" No comma in the middle I think.
  • Done with that point.じんない 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More comments

• What is currently citing the original airdates?
  • The director's homepage. The fact he poorly designs his webpage so you can't get back to the main page without manually editing the address is not an excuse not to cite it.じんない 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I meant the individual ones in the table not in the lead. Also for the lead the directors homepage only gives the dates in range YYYY-MM, whereas you include the DD which are not specified on the cite. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Currently the seperate references 15 and 16 are the same website. Should this be the case?
  • That was wrong. I accidentally cited it incorrectly. I changed the statement and will correctly cite the statement later. I have cited 4/6 from Getchu. If you think that's not enough, you'll have to wait until after the convention for me to cite the last 2.じんない 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Even more for when you're back

• "indivisual DVDs" -> individual?
  • removed indivisual. Should sound better now.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Refs 20 & 21 look funny beacuse the inclusion of "[DVD]" in the title causes an error.
  • I corrected it in the least intrusive (to the title) as possible using nonwiki.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• General ref, and refs 5, 22, 23: Need a space between "Geneon,Long Beach,"
  • That is a template issue, not a FL issue. Geneon is in a seperate section to Long Beach, California.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, I fixed the template, so this is no longer an issue. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Refs 8 & 16 are the same; 9 & 19 are the same.
  • Corrected.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Put the sentence about box set release into the paragraph above.
  • Done.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Inconsistent airdates: The lead says "October 3, 2003" but the table says "October 2, 2003"
  • Table is correct. I found 1 WP:V source citing July 31st which would help it conform to the weekly standard time. Unfortunately, www.popotan.com is missing a lot of dates for that time period and TBS doesn't keep info archived for non-current series for playtimes.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 24 seems to be dead (checked manually as Checklinks is down)
  • Changed it. The format was causing the broken link and it was not reliable anyway.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have a convention to run this weekend so I'd ask you to give me until atleast monday before doing anything.じんない 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Update on my stance

Right, it might be easier for you (and FL directors) if I summarise my thoughts on the above. Currently I'm going to have to oppose again. You have done some good work, and been prompt in addressing many of my concerns, however I still have one major objections which is:

• Currently the all but one of the original airdates are not verifiable, you state the table is correct but that not good enough for WP:V (even if I believe you).

Sorry, but if this is not resolved I cannot support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I believe you are putting undue weight on what WP:ANIME has said with reguard to airdates. That I was able to find at least verification for 1 air date and the fact that shows are done weekly should be considered WP:COMMON SENSE as i can't find anything to indicate that somehow Popotan was the 1 exception to the rule, I believe ANN does verify the information.じんない 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• ANN actually contradicts what you said. It states that episode "4: All Alone" aired on the August 8, whilst your suggestion of a weekly pattern would imply August 7 (the date in the table). It is these types of inconsistencies that IMO validate my oppose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Anyway after looking around I managed to find this page. That also confirms the first and last date at least.じんない 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)じんない 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just incase you question that site, it is listed as a valuable resource site that has a published version by Penn Library.
• [EDIT] The site also lists the day of the week of the broadcast, 木, which corresponds to Thursday in English.じんない 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [17].

---

Midnight Oil discography

I am nominating this list because i believe it meets all FL criteria and also the guidelines of MOS:DISCOG. Myself and two other editors have been working on the list, so i felt there was no need for a peer review. Thanks. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead Midnight Oil began under the name Farm in 1972, establishing their own record label Powderworks in 1977 and releasing their debut self-titled album, Midnight Oil, in 1978 along with their first single "Run by Night". - 1)comma before and after the record label name. 2)Full stop needed after 1997. Start the next sentence with "They released" done On top of number one in Australia, Diesel and Dust peaked at number 20 in the UK, was certified platinum in the US and three times platinum in Canada. - 1)Reword the beginning to "In addition to number one in..." 2)replace the comma with a semi colon and start the next part of the sentence with "it was" 3)It should be made aware that this UK is the chart and not the country itself done Midnight Oil followed up the success of Diesel and Dust with Blue Sky Mining in 1990. The band's seventh studio album was their first and only to peak in the top 20 of the Billboard 200. - it should be made aware the it was their seventh album in the first sentence not in the second one done The second single "Forgotten Years", also charted at number one on the Modern Rock chart. - remove the comma done Their last Australian number one studio album came in the form of Earth and Sun and Moon, bringing another three top ten singles on the US Modern Rock charts. - came in the form is awkwardly worded, how about "Their last Australian number one studio album was.." done Over the next decade Midnight Oil released a further three studio albums which all registered top ten chartings in Australia, but failed to live up to the success of their earlier efforts. - 1) comma after decade 2)reword to ..."Midnight Oil released three further studio albums".. 3)comma before which 4)add "on the" before top ten 5)chartings should just be "charts" done In 1997 they released the greatest hits album 20,000 Watt R.S.L., which has since gone on to achieve four times platinum sales in Australia. - 1)comma after 1997 2)remove times done. Didn't remove times, it doesn't make sense saying: on to achieve four platinum sales in Australia? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC) It should be made aware earlier in the lead or in the intro sentence that they area "former" band. done. Let me know if the former is in the wrong place, looks fine to me. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC) The first instances of US and UK should be spelled out. done. Not sure i needed to change UK from the wikilink, but anyway. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Discography Whats verifying the video albums? They are all listed on Discogs and/or Allmusic in external links, does that suffice or should i search for direct references to put in line with the listing? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC) In the notes section, they don't make sense, they need to be reworded into complete fragments. done What verifying the 1986 EP and the 2004 live albums?--TRUCO 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Same story as the video albums. Although i've never seen the need to prove a releases existence. Thanks for your comments. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Followup comments They need to be verified because at this point, the information is not verifiable and is WP:OR. So a direct reference will be needed. Please do not use {{done}} templates because they slow down the load time of this page, instead just simply right Done or use {{done-t}}.--TRUCO 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Don't use {{done-t}} either, because they suck up template limits. Just do the simple typing. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC) No worries, will do from now on. All references added. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC) All empty entries in all tables should have a centered aligned emdash (the longer dash) [an empty space is really unappealing]. The refs that you added to the video albums should be on the name of the video album, not in random areas of the stats for the album.--TRUCO 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I've reluctantly done the reference move (titles really shouldn't have references along side them?). However, we were previously asked by drew to remove the emdashes and leave blank spaces ("I would also say the dash in those columns is unnecessary, as is the note in the footer of each column. Most FL discogs just leave those cells blank."). k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC) It should be because it shows that the ref is verifying everything of that album. That's odd, it seems really unappealing, but I'll let it go this time.--TRUCO 04:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Followup comments Their fourth album (1982) was their first to reach the top 10; 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 peaked at number three in Australia. - the (1982) should go after the album name not after fourth album Done The album's first single "Power and the Passion", was their first top ten single in Australia, at number eight. - add comma before the single's name Done Instances of US should be U.S., US is not an official accepted acronym of the United States Was this striked out on purpose? Yeah it was, it was a wrong comment.--TRUCO 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Instances of number-one shouldn't have a dash. Done contrary to another reviewer's opinion. Yeah because consistency is needed, like when you say it was number 20 not "number-20"--TRUCO 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) What's verifying the 2004 video album? Reference 26: [18] Move the ref in the 1986 EP to the title.--TRUCO 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Done k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose very good work overall, but there's a few issues that keep me from supporting. The first comment is the main one, while the others are just less-important minor stuff I noticed in no particular order.

• "The name of the Director for these music videos has not been found in reliable sources." I'm glad to see that you're honest about it, but without this information the list is incomplete. The information exists out there, it's just a matter of finding it.

Have undertaken thorough searches of most databases but have been unable to locate detials of the directors of early music videos.Dan arndt (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We've gone through album liner notes, searched google endlessly, Midnight Oil fan club and official sites, of course MVDbase, we've basically extended to all resources i know of. Unless there is some out of print Midnight Oil biography book which lists them, i doubt they've been published. What do you suppose we do if this list passes in all aspects apart from some superfluous information about some irrelevant director? (ps. Other discographies have managed to pass? 1, 2, 3? Including this Powderfinger, which was never fixed. I don't suppose we'd be removing FL from these if they were reassessed?) k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one agree that the music video directors are a bit unnecessary (much like I disapproved of the producers being listed). But that said, the standard seems to be to include them. A featured list is expected to be complete, so it's not okay to just include the information that is convenient/easy to include. Also, as standards are improved, older articles like the Powderfinger list you mentioned are bound to seem a little lax in many respects. Many older discogs need to be updated badly, but this is a step I've been hesitant to undertake until MOS:DISCOG becomes official, and not just a guideline. That does not excuse newer articles from our newer standards, however. Honestly, this seems like an issue beyond the scope of this one FLC, so discussing the pros and cons of including directors might be better done at the MOS:DISCOG talk page, and not here. If you'd like to undertake that discussion there, I'd be happy to chime in there. However, since the consensus right now seems to be to include them, I have to stick with my oppose until it is addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Have added details of all Directors that I am able to locate 32 out of 35 videos. Am unable to still find any details for the outstanding videos. Given that many other video tables in other FLs are incomplete (as you state at least we are being honest) are you willing to change your position on this matter? Dan arndt (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction 34 out of 35 videos. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Better, but still not 100% there. Incomplete is still incomplete. But that said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and at least retract my oppose. Otherwise it's a well-done discography; I just don't think it's FL quality until it's complete/finished/comprehensive, based on the current standards. Drewcifer (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The first series of year columns are 35px, but the singles are not.

done

• The certification column headings need only be wikilinked in the first table. I would also say the dash in those columns is unnecessary, as is the note in the footer of each column. Most FL discogs just leave those cells blank.

done dash removed from column & not corrected, done Certification links

• "Released on 5 May 1992" is inconsistent with other FL discogs and the label and formats of each release as well. I'd recommend "Released: 5 May 1992".

done

• The producers of the albums are unnecessary details, and better left for the album articles themselves.

done producers details deleted

• As for labels, some releases denote multiple labels. My suggestions is just to go with the original, home-country label, since listing every label could be a slippery slope, given re-releases, releases on various formats, and releases in various territories.

done multiple release details deleted

• Some general references would be good, say a la The Prodigy discography.

done

• For multiple releases in the same year, use rowspan="#" for the year columns.

done

• Discogs is not considered a reliable source. And Amazon is usually avoided as well, since they are a retailer. Also don't abbreviate publisher names (ie ARIA). Drewcifer (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Discogs is only used as a second reference for music videos, so i can remove that no worries. Amazon refs replaced, one with Allmusic which should be fine and the other by Xponentialmusic, which looks to be the label which have released the CD. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Contrary to what you said, the article would have benefited from a peer review. Problems with prose and sourcing:

I really could not be bothered posting something on 5 different Wikiprojects just to get 2 replies in a peer review, i don't spend all day on here like some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiac (talk • contribs) 3 February 2009 (20:02 UTC)

But that doesn't mean come here unprepared and put the burden on the reviewers. This FLC has turned into something of a peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, if it is such a burden for you, maybe you should take a break. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily a burden for me, I was just saying. Anyway, disregard that comment, I was just blowing off steam, no harm intended. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Disambiguation links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "consists of 11 studio albums, 39 singles, two EPs, four video albums, three live albums and two compilation albums." Comparable quantities should be writtent the same way, either all numerals or all in words.

Done. I'm sure this should be explicitly stated in the discog style sheet, a lot of lists have it wrong, thanks for the pickup

Good idea. Going over there right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not necessary to put it there. MOS:NUM says it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Their first three albums all charted" Done
• "Australian Kent Music Report, with Head Injuries being certified gold and Place without a Postcard platinum, in Australia." Unclear; were both certified in Australia? Try: "Australian Kent Music Report; in Australia, Head Injuries was certified gold and Place without a Postcard was certified platinum." Notice what I linked "Australia" to. Done
• "However, it wasn't until their fourth album in 1982 that they reached the top 10" Much too wordy, try: "Their fourth album (1982) was the first to the top 10"

Done, might want to check this one, your wording didn't really work either

Oops. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "It also brought their first feature on the United States charts" Huh?

Huh? Replaced feature with appearance

Ah. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "number one album"-->number-one album Done
• "highest charting Australian "-->highest-charting Australian Done
• "which came in at number one"-->which charted at number one Done
• "number one studio album"-->number-one studio album

Done. There was also a few more there that i've changed

• "Over the next decade"-->In the next decade Done
• "which all registered on"-->all of which registered on Done
• "but failed to live up to the success of their earlier efforts" In what way?

In the way that is explained later in the tables, this is just an introduction to the list, not a novel. The trailing off album peaks, the lack of certifications, one single charted in their last 6 years as a band. Do i have to somehow explain this in an already extensive lead?

• "In 1997, they released"-->In 1997, the band released Done
• "which has since gone on to achieve four times platinum"-->which has since achieved four times platinum Done
• "In 2002 lead vocalist Peter Garrett announced his decision to leave Midnight Oil, concluding the band's 30 year career." Comma after "2002", hyphenate "30 year". Done Dabomb87 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Replies by k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Let me start off by saying; some of these are a rediculous waste of time. Have you never reviewed a discography before? A little research yourself would have helped, and saved me the bother.

Take a look here and I think you can tell I have reviewed some. I don't have all the time in the world to examine every source thoroughly, I have to make educated guesses sometimes. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well nevertheless thankyou for the review. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why is IMBd used?

IMDb is used to verify the existence of the Video albums.

• What makes the following reliable sources:
  • http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=753

Trusted Australian music website. Used here and here

Removed, information is stated in the other official ARIA reference.

• • http://www.cautionlifeahead.com.au/

Official website of the release. All it is saying is that the song existed on the album? Surely this verifies the material justifiably

• • http://www.deadheart.org.uk/news_and_info/songdb/song.php?subSongId=26&subVersionId=296

Can this DeadHeart link be replaced by a link from a preview of the book on Google books?

Can a reader find the info from that preview? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.mvdbase.com/artist.php?last=Midnight%20Oil&first=

List of U2 awards, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, Powderfinger discography, Hilary Duff discography, Metallica discography, Soundgarden discography, Delta Goodrem discography and Paul Kelly discography. Need i say more?

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that other articles got through under lesser scrutiny doesn't set a unbreakable precidence. The fact that these things slip through is just a result of FL and similar processes being imperfect and prone to human error. If guidelines, community consensus, or Wikipedia policy says it should be done a certain way, then we should go by that and nothing else. Obviously this is not an issue with just this one unreliable source, but with many of the arguments you've made so far. Drewcifer (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am very much aware that that is not a good basis of any argument, however i would tend to assume if it has been accepted in a dozen plus featured lists, then it has been reviewed before. Nevertheless, i have removed MVDbase, as the same information was cross-referenced in the album liner notes. Good day to you. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.alldownunder.com/oz-p/aria/1991-aria.htm

Changed to official ARIA website

• • http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=5104

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Useful resources:

• • http://hem.passagen.se/honga/database/m/midnightoil.html

Removed and replaced

Unnecessarily, IMO, the Australian Government recognises Australian Rock Database here. That makes it reliable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.howlspace.com.au/en/midnightoil/midnightoil.htm

Front page of site states: Ed.Nimmervoll's in-depth, informed up-to-date profiles on Australia's finest (Ed Nimmervoll)

So how does that make it reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the site states that a highly notable and reliable Australian musical journalist, wrote the article. How else am i meant to prove this? If there's a problem, take 2 minutes to explain and i'll do my best to help. Isn't that what wikipedia is about, helping each other, working together? Not scrutinising and burdening others who are voluntarily contributing. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. What I mean is, just because the site states that he is notable or reliable does not automatically make him so. Per the guideline on self-published sources, you have to prove that they are reliable. Have they written any well-regarded publications or has a reputable third-party institution recognized them as an expert in this area? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's alright, no harm done. I wasnt indicating the site had said that, just that it stated he had written the article, badly worded on my part. Moving on, Nimmervoll has edited GO SET magazine (Aussie charts and so forth) and was founding editor of JUKE magazine (the ABC reports). He has also had articles published by the ABC and AllMusic (Googled it because there's an absolute shitload of them). A few more publications. I think the AllMusic link should be sufficient - if his work there isn't reliable then we have a big problem with a lot of pages on WP!! Thanks for being patient. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 15:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I will return later for a final checkover. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• • http://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/various_artists___labels___sony_music/a_commitment_to_excellence_in_australian_music/

Removed

• • http://www.deaddisc.com/disc/Deadicated.htm

Removed. Good old AllMusic

• Spell out abbreviations in publishers such as ABC and BPI. Done Dabomb87 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Partial replies (hopefully find some more useless time to waste later) by k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that "so-and-so" source was used on another FL doesn't prove anything. It just shows that nobody checked the sources or b) nobody questioned that particular source. We need to know what kind of fact checking those sources do. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Should promotional music videos be included in the list? Also, how would i go about verifying the likes of Undercover as reliable? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't strike through reviewer's comments. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The only place i ever striked through your comments was where the information had been removed, thus making it irrelevant. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, fail with the criteria numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6, in WP:FL? Cannibaloki 02:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannibaloki, could you provide specific examples of how this article fails those criteria? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannabaloki, Dobomb87?--Cannibaloki 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I choose to cancel my comment.--Cannibaloki 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this is going to need another complete revision since Cannibaloki thought it necessary to chop and change the entire lead. I'm really not liking WP's promotion to FL process. Every reviewer has different opinions, there's no clarity, you guys have your own opinions (which is alright), just that something that could be completely ambiguous to one person - another comes along and it's suddenly a massive problem. There should be some kind of set standard because this is just not working for us here. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, although I haven't studied the history to see if you've reverted back. Note that English is not Cannibaloki's first language, but either way, it's a Wiki, open for anyone to edit. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment My earlier issues have been addressed, but in light of the recent major revisions and the oppose from Drewcifer, I will not support yet. Has someone contacted Drewcifer? I will try to copy-edit the lead some in the next two days. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A message has been left on Drewcifer's talk page, seeking his position in relation to the assessment. Dan arndt (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments I am very sorry to hear that you are disillusioned with the FLC process. Nevertheless, the fact that you have treated FLC like some sort of Peer review may have something to do with it. So you can't be bothered to post it there;[19] what if we couldn't be bothered to review it? It shows a lack of respect for the people who spend their time here. The fact that this has had so many comments, some of which you feel are conflicting (I don't see too many conflicting comments), shows to me at least that it wasn't FL ready when it was nominated. Now you seem to be complaining that people have actually taken the time to give it an extensive review, but you don't like that because it's still too much bother.[20]

With regards to that second quote, all articles should be verified through reliable sources. That is especially true for Featured content. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb is questioning the reliability of the sources to make sure they meet this policy. The onus is on the nominator to make sure or prove that they do, and correct them if they do not -- not the reviewer.

We are aware that some lists do not meet current standards. Last summer the WP:Featured list criteria were updated, and not all the Featured lists have gone through WP:FLRC yet. Some of the discogs you have referenced were promoted before the criteria was updated. Aside from anything else, consensus (and standards) can change, so something that was deemed okay three months ago may not be okay today. For example, just because http://www.mvdbase.com "has been accepted in a dozen plus featured lists", this may have been before WP:RS deemed it unreliable. I certainally haven't seen it used in recent Featured discogs.

As for other FLC ettiquette, per Template:FLC-instructions which is transcluded at WP:FLC (and WP:TPG), please do not strike out comments, even if you feel they have been addressed. You may say "done", "not done", etc instead. Leave it for the reviewer to strike, cap, or otherwise state that his concern has been addressed to his satisfaction.

• Do you have full dates for the first 6 album releases?

Nope

• 20,000 Watt R.S.L. states a different release label
• So does Capricornia, Midnight Oil and Species Deceases
• In fact, all the articles for the studio albums, except Earth and Sun and Moon, Breathe and Redneck Wonderland contradict this page with regards to the labels

In reference to the previous three points - Wikipedia should not be used as a source, even for these, people make that shit up all the time. Nevertheless, those are labels for the USA, I originally had multiple labels added, which was deemed unnecessary and they were removed. The home country of Australia's release details were used as far as i am aware.

Thank you. I was not aware that we couldn't use WP as a source. I just thought the inconsistency was odd. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• "12 February, 2002" MOS:NUM states that Wikipedia doesn't put commas between months and years

Fixed

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing stopping them from giving it an oppose straight away and sending me off to peer review, nothing. They've had the courtesy to FL review it for me and i thank them for that. As for your comments, they were unjust. Dabomb's issues were resolved a week ago. My issues with his issues were resolved 20 mins after i wrote them. No need for the lecture. MVDbase was removed. I was not aware that striking was illegal in these parts, my bad. My problem quoted above, was the fact that this all runs by so much personal opinion. Cannibiloki (spelling?) came in an did his own edits, i know he is a reviewer himself and am not pointing any blame on him - the edits contradicted the instructions of the other reviewers (eg. It was made quite clear that self-titled debut album should not be linked, but instead have , Midnight Oil, follow it). And in effect we have come back to square one with the lead, after 2 (3?) reviewers had no problems with it. Now i am sorry this review has stalled, but i have been making sure my house does not burn down in these bushfires. Thank you. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't lecturing, I was trying to explain how the FLC process works because a day earlier you said I'm really not liking WP's promotion to FL process... There should be some kind of set standard because this is just not working for us here. I went through the nomination to see what had been happening, and responded. Very sorry to hear about your house and the fires in your country. I know what that's like; I live in Southern California. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the toolbox, there is still one disambiguation link left. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [21].

---

Seinfeld (season 2)

I believe this list meets criteria and follow the same style as similar FLs. --Gman124 ^talk 02:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - does not meet WP:WIAFL Unfortunately, its premiere was postponed one week due to the commencement of the first Gulf War. - 1)Unfortunately is not adhering to a WP:NPOV (neutral POV) 2)Link to first Gulf War Done Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) It comprises 12 episodes and concluded its initial airing on June 26, 1991. - compromises should be compromised Done Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Starting this season, Seinfeld was filmed before a live studio audience on stage 19 of the CBS lot in Studio City, California. - by Starting this season do you mean "Beginning with this season," or do you mean it as "The season began"? Done Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) The DVD boxset for seasons 1 & 2 was released by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment in Region 1 on November 23, 2004, thirteen years after it had completed broadcast on television. - change the & to "and" Done Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) As well as every episode from the two seasons, the DVD release features bonus material including deleted scenes, exclusive stand-up material, and commentaries. - the beginning of the sentence should be reworded to "In addition to every episode from the two seasons," Done Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Production and Reception To be consistent with the preceding season, shouldn't the cast be in a "Crew" section? In the previous season, all of the sub-sections of the Production seacion have been merged together. Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) The ratings at the start of season two were extremely disappointing and caused NBC to put the show on hiatus until its return almost two months later. - extremely is also not adhering to a NPOV, reword to "were poor" or something along those lines like in the season 1 article Done Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) NBC pulled the series was from its Wednesday night at 9:30 timeslot after just four weeks. - remove the was Done Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) When the series returned in April, its high ratings over the following weeks led to a thirteen episode order for the 3rd season. - be consistent with the format of the season names, changed 3rd to "third" Done Changed it to third. Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) By the end of this season, Seinfeld was being declared a "hit" by critics. - is this verified by ref #10? I put a ref after this line. Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Episodes George takes Jerry's advice and breaks off their relationship. - wouldn't this be "breaks up"? "Breaks off" is acceptable English. After George tells him that he doesn't mind his dating Marlene, Jerry decides to pursue her. - his should be "him" No, "his" should be "his" because "dating" is a gerund, which needs to be preceded by a genetive. Otto4711 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Jerry makes an off-color remark ("I hate anyone who ever had a pony when they were growing up!") at an aunt's dinner, which subsequently may have led to her death. - 1)Why is Jerry linked here? It should be linked in the first episode and or not at all since its in the body prose already. 2)redundant to link to Pony IMO Done Gman124 talk 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) When she finally arrives and they leave for the restaurant and see it is snowing. ---> When she finally arrives, they leave for the restaurant and see it is snowing. Done Gman124 talk 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) as they walk a short distance during a snowfall, Jerry's jacket gets ruined. - capitalize as Done Gman124 talk 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Though at first excited, Jerry later realizes how intrusive Elaine might become. - comma after though Done Gman124 talk 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Jerry is furious, and, with the help of Kramer, plots to pour a bag of cement into the washing machine. - remove the comma after and Done Gman124 talk 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) George goes with Kramer's advice, and when George, Kramer and Jerry meet the holistic healer, he gives George tea to fix his tonsil problem. - comma before and Jerry Done I have put the comma, but I think it is acceptable both ways. I think it doesn't matter if there is a comma before and in a list. Though, I may be wrong.Gman124 talk 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Jerry, George and Elaine decide to get dinner without reservations at a Chinese restaurant, but are repeatedly stymied by the maître d'. - comma before and Done Gman124 talk 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) References Like in the season 1 list, make the references in to general and specific references.--TRUCO 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Done --Gman124 talk 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - one of the rules for WP:FAC is that the same editor may not nominate more than one article at a time. I am unsure if the same rule applies here but if so then this nomination should be closed until the nomination for Seinfeld (season 1) is concluded. Might want to check with an FL wrangler. Otto4711 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not at WP:FLC, users usually are usually able to nominate up to 3, since lists are less complex to review and is a less complex process as opposed to FAC.--TRUCO 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I have asked the FL director, Scorpion0422, and he says he has no problem with more than one nomination by the same editor. Gman124 ^talk 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It is usually fair that for each FLC nominated, the nominator should review another in return. Gman124 seems to have done that, so it is all fair and well. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The writing in this article is better, but it is still not at FL quality yet. If I feel up to it, I might do some copy-editing myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "start on January 16, 1991. Its premiere "-->start on January 16, 1991. However, its premiere

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "It comprised of 12 episodes "

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "This season received"-->Season two received

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "thirteen years" Numbers over nine should be written in numerals.

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "This season was directed " Same as two bullets above. The "this" back-reference is often a bit confusing, better to refer to the noun directly.

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• " Barney Martin replaced Phil Bruns as Jerry's Father starting this season." Understood from larger context.

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "and caused NBC to put the show on hiatus"-->causing NBC to put the show on hiatus

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "after just four weeks"

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "thirteen episode order" Compound adjective, should be "thirteen-episode order"

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "rings with truth and familiarity, as well as laughter and just plain silliness." Logical punctuation (WP:PUNC), period should be outside the quotation marks.

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "The episodes "The Pony Remark" You are only talking about one episode here, why "The episodes"?
• "The episode "The Deal" was also" Understood by now that you are talking about episodes.

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "George comes to Jerry complaining about his girlfriend Marlene"-->George complains to Jerry about his girlfriend Marlene

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "George takes Jerry's advice and breaks off their relationship" Not clear who "their" is.

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "George insists Jerry see Marlene to get back some books" Repetition of "insists" is a bit annoying. Insert "that" after "insists". Is there a better word than "get back"? (rhetorical question)

• Done How about if I use regain or reover--Gman124 ^talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Jerry suddenly finds himself in a relationship with Marlene." Not possible. Clarify.

• Done Changed the sentence a little bit--Gman124 ^talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "However, after seeing his act," Which act? Don't leave readers in the dark.

• Done --Gman124 ^talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are most of the issues from the lead through the first episode summary. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Further down: "a starving Elaine mentions that she is so hungry that she would eat food off of another patrons plate" Spot the two redundant consecutive words.

• Done I think it's fixed now. --Gman124 ^talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "They question her as she walked away, losing the wager." So they lose the wager as they question her? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Elaine looses the wager. --Gman124 ^talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [22].

---

Ipecac Recordings discography

Despite there being a shedload of discography FLs, there is something of a dearth of ones pertaining to record labels. This, I hope, is sufficient to meet the bar. Seegoon (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose/Commentsfrom Truco (talk · contribs) - fails FL Cr 1, 2, 3, and 4.

• Ipecac Recordings is an independent record label based in Orinda, California, founded in 1999 by Greg Werckman and Mike Patton. - you have three options here, reword to Ipecac Recordings is an Orinda, California based independent record label founded in 1999 by Greg Werckman and Mike Patton. , Ipecac Recordings is an independent record label based in Orinda, California. It was founded in 1999 by Greg Werckman and Mike Patton., or Ipecac Recordings is an independent record label based in Orinda, California that was founded in 1999 by Greg Werckman and Mike Patton.
  • I think I've solved this by removing some extraneous information.
• Its creation also provided the Melvins – friends of Werckman and Patton's – with a label. - 1)capitalize The since its their proper name 2)Source for this statement?
  • 1) Not quite; they're known simply as Melvins. I could simply remove "the", though. 2) Done.
• Ipecac has distributed other artists including Isis, Dälek, and many of Patton's other projects and collaborations. - you mean "signed" not distributed since we're talking about people
  • I've added "material by", as I don't actually have a source regarding contracts and so forth.
• ..it has also released works of comedy and soundtracks as well as a book and DVDs. ---> it has also released books, DVDs, soundtracks, and works of comedy.
  • Altered.
• Alongside original content, it has been responsible for re-releasing older and imported recordings originally handled by other labels as well as vinyl releases of later albums by Queens of the Stone Age. - comma before as well
  • OK.
• The lead needs to summarize the list more, in terms of what was the first release, most recent release, and other significant releases.
  • The first release is mentioned, and the most recently released is bound to change at least once a month. I wouldn't mind changing it, but I'm not sure that's so vital.
• A key should be made to explain the table terms like IPC-###
• Releases are in the form of compact discs (CD) or vinyl; either 7 inch singles (7") or long plays (LP). - if a key is made, the acronyms don't need to be here they can be in the table
• The dashes need to be right aligned, like the rest of the entries in the table
  • Do you mean left-aligned?
• Some of the entries, like "Antivermin", need to be in a {{sort}} template to sort with other entries of the letter "A"
  • Done. Fantastic, thanks. I didn't know how to address that.
• Why aren't the album entries for the The Melvins in italics?
  • Those are singles; WP:MUSTARD dictates so.
• The refs need to be formatted correctly according to the instructions at {{cite web}}
  • Could you be a touch more specific please?
• The refs need to be in a general/specific format, in which the general ref verifies the entire list and the specific refs verify specific statements, as seen in this FL's references.--TRUCO 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.
• Thanks for your feedback. I feel I've addressed everything except for those I've noted and what you've mentioned regarding a key. Do you have an idea regarding how I could go about this? I agree it would be handy, but I'm not sure how to implement it. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Followup

• Why is kid not capitalized? I checked his article and his name is not in lowercase

• Cool.

• For the {{cite web}}, disregard.
• For the key, make a table like its seen in this FL, and add the entries I noted above.

• How's it look?

• Disregard all my comments regarding the Melvins, including their singles.
• I meant left-aligned for that comment above.

• Done.

• I meant add a bit more to the prose than just the first/most recent release, more needs to be added for a more thorough summary.--TRUCO 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• • OK, I'm going to have to give this some thought... I'm not sure what is pertinent at the moment.

• It looks much better now, including the key, but the lead still needs to be expanded because its not representative of the list itself. So give that some thought, until then I can't support.--TRUCO 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I hope you know what I mean by this comment.--TRUCO 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Ipecac Recordings is an American independent record label, founded in 1999 by Greg Werckman and Mike Patton. " Comma not necessary.
  • That was a leftover, thanks.
• "The label was established in order to
  • Okely dokely.
• "Ipecac has distributed material by other artists " Comma after here.
  • Yup yup.
• "Though the label's main output is rock and experimental music, it has also released DVDs, a book, soundtracks and a work of comedy." Needs a source.
  • Like what, the main general source itself? This is fairly self-evident when the table is consulted.
• WP:CAPTION, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods after them.
  • OK.
• "Flower With No Color"-->Flower with No Color
  • Thanky.
• "Delìrium Cordìa"-->Delìrium Còrdia
  • Tasty.
• "Neither Here Nor There"-->Neither Here nor There
  • Yuss.
• The link to Isms is incorrect, I think.
  • 'Tis indeed.
• "Mouse On Mars"-->Mouse on Mars
  • Affirmative.
• "Otto Von Schirach"--> Otto von Schirach
  • Jä.
• "A Senile Animal"-->(A) Senile Animal
  • Of course.
• Era Vulgaris should link to Era Vulgaris (album).
  • It should.
• "Bohren & Der Club of Gore"-->Bohren & der Club of Gore Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • ...jä? Thanks for your comments! Seegoon (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: My comments have been addressed, but I am waiting for Truco's issues to be addressed before supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments Looks pretty good. A few suggestions/comments, mostly based on Dischord Records discography and Load Records discography:

• The "IPC" before every catalog number is redundant. We all know they're Ipeecac catalog numbers, so just go with the numbers.
  • I see your point. Though it should still be apparent how they're formatted; do you think that information could go in the key?
    • I think that would be a fine place to put it.
• Columns with numbers (ie the date column) should be centered. Also, I think it would be better to put the year column to the left, as per pretty much every other FL discograpy (artist and label).
  • Is there a way to centre them all at once instead of doing it over a hundred times? My only issue with moving the year column is that it breaks the sortable function if the rows are blended; also, they're not precisely chronological. But yeah, you're right for the sake of uniformity.
    • Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way to center a whole column all at once. And if you want to keep the sort function you don't need to merge the cells. I prefer them merged, but that's just a personal preference. But I would say the positioning and the centering of the column is more important than merging cells.
• As per the other label discogs I mentioned, and based on info from the lead, co-releases between multiple labels should probably be noted.
  • Are you referring to the Queens of the Stone Age vinyls? If
    • Yes, if those are the only ones. What about 10, 12, 15, 36, 37, and 41 (for a start)?
• "Live - Psalm 69 Tour 1992 [cancelled]" needs a citation.
  • Sure.
• What makes scenepointblank.com or furious.com reliable sources?
  • They probably wouldn't be for simple information, but they are each hosting interviews with Greg Werckman, one of the label's co-founders.
• Some external links would be good.
  • Sure thing, good idea.
• A column header shouldn't be a symbol (#). Replace with "No."
  • OK.

If you can take care of these, I'd be happy to support. Drewcifer (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback – I'll get to work right away! Seegoon (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Because of image placement, please read WP:BUNCH
  • Done, thank you.
• IPC-009, Live - Psalm 69 Tour 1992. I'm guessing the [cancelled] means it was never released. If so it doesn't belong in a discography.
  • It's in there at the moment because of a desire for comprehensiveness; should I trash it completely, add a footnote, or put it in the lead?
• Is there anything that shows that the releases or even the label are notable? The page relies heavily on WP:SPS and primary sources.
  • I see what you mean, but I was following the precedent set by two preceding label discography FLs. What criteria does it have to satisfy? As for the sourcing, I'll add some third-party listings as are present in the other FLs.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm going to get on addressing these issues straight away. Seegoon (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [23].

---

List of furry conventions

Well written, and has pictures and citations. If you have concerns, please address them. And, I will fix them as soon as possible. Thanks. miranda 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• Uhh...shouldn't this list list all the furry conventions, not just the ones from 2008 and 2009? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 02:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It does, look at the "discontinued conventions". I put the recent dates for the conventions because those where when they were last held. miranda 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I really think you should remove the Date column then, since you or someone else will have to update the list every time a convention is over. If there is a extremely good encyclopedic reason why the Date should be there, throw it on me. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 02:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The date column is relevant to the conventions, to show the reader, or anyone who is interested in going to the conventions, when they would be held. Also, not to be a bother, but, your sig is over the signature limit. Could you please change the length? Thanks. miranda 08:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you or someone else will have to update the list every time a convention is over. Could you just at least change the column name to something else? Date could be all the dates, or the event was only for that period of time. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 08:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That really won't be a problem, since some of Wikipedia's articles will be updated everyday. Sure, people and I will update the article once conventions are over with. miranda 08:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But could you rename the Date column into something more specific with the reason above? Thanks. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No. :) miranda 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh...ok...can you at least tell the readers what the column is for? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Next held" would be a more descriptive title? Or "Date occurring", since it may have been held without a new date being announced. GreenReaper (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the "Next held" idea, but some dates are the last ones. I think you should just put a note for those that are most recent. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Cites to wikis are not reliable sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Citations to WikiFur are reliable, since it's relevance to the subject matter. And, people who sponsor these conventions post on this website? miranda 02:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the link says. "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources." (italics mine). How do we know that the people who post on the website are reliable? You would have to prove their reliablity as dictated by WP:SPS. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In Miranda's defense, if there's anywhere that has reliable information other than the convention sites or staff journals, it's WikiFur. We're a wiki, but we have a community of experts. We get details like attendance directly from people who run or attend the convention, normally within a day or so (I chase a few con chairs up every year to ensure that our timeline is complete). We also cite multiple sources if we think official ones may be questionable.

There are probably some conventions without any other published sources for this information. Unfortunately updating websites is usually the last thing people have on their mind after a con. They also have a habit of throwing away their old websites every year, so it can be hard to keep the primary source around. You may be able to find attributable reports in our list of convention resources.

The ones least likely to keep good records also tend to be the smallest, which may help if it is necessary to exclude them. GreenReaper (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that the information is accurate? Anyone can edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that information posted on any website is accurate? Some of these events are at the level where the official website is one page of HTML, and good luck getting media coverage of a foreign event involving 200 people. In some cases, we are the only source available. If that's not good enough, I suggest you ask those concerned directly, like I do. GreenReaper (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We can never be 100% sure of any source's reliability, so we have to go off what is more likely to be reliable by looking at their reputation and methods. For example, the New York Times is an established publication with a reputation for fact-checking; therefore, it is considered a reliable source. For less well-known sites, an about page or proof that the site is supported or owned by a large publishing company is helpful. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I've been here a while, I know how it works. :-)

WikiFur has run almost four years now. It has original news coverage and even a convention coverage checklist. I believe it is highly reliable on the topic of furry convention attendance. However, there may be no sources you consider reliable to back this statement up. There are occasional links from newspapers, but given that the last time the site was mentioned it was called an image archive, I feel they lack authority in this area.

WikiFur was never intended to be completely verifiable; given its topic, the site would exclude 90% of potential content with such a policy. I encourage you to make your own determination of its reliability, perhaps based on comparison of our figures for those events which do have other sources. The references concerned only rely on WikiFur because editors know of no better source. GreenReaper (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WikiFur. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

←Someone has replied to the effect that WikiFur has no reliability and the direct citation should be used whenever possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the latter. The former may be the only conclusion possible within Wikipedia's definition of reliability as a function of verifiability. GreenReaper (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• In major conventions, attendees receive a bag with a convention book (or conbook), a lavishly illustrated volume featuring themed artwork, fiction and articles submitted by members and the Guests of Honor, along with a description of the event's programming, staff, rules, guests and any charity being supported by the convention. - this sentence has a lot of punctuation, it would be best to split this up in some way because it reads akwardly.

I split the sentences into two. miranda 08:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• The lead does not summarize the list itself very much. I.e. first/most recent conventions in each geographical region or where they are held, etc.
  • How about this?--TRUCO 17:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduced in the late 1980s, furry conventions originated in California, with ConFurence. I'll add more later. miranda 16:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well until then, I can't support because this is substantial to the prose of FLs.--TRUCO 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The references column should be unsortable.

Can you please help me with that, because I am kind of a intermediate n00b on that issue. miranda 08:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See Help:Sorting#Making a column unsortable.--TRUCO 17:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed. miranda 01:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not all browsers can handle 3 reference columns, see {{reflist}}

I will do two. However, I tried with IE and Firefox. miranda 08:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Since this has future events, an {{future}} template should be added.--TRUCO 03:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will do. Thank you. miranda 08:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I probably won't get around to a full review today, but please check the article for MOS and prose glitches:

• Date ranges should use en dashes, see WP:DASH.

Fixed. miranda 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Ran and staffed mostly by volunteers" Why are you using the past tense here? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the conventions should be in present tense and the discontinued should be in past tense. miranda 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But these conventions still exist; it should be "Run and staffed..." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Quite a few dead links, see the link checker. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed those. miranda 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I am looking at the table format, and the tables look very bad (i.e. not able to be readable). Please change the format back to the original. miranda 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How it should look (800px width)

Can you be more specific about what you find to be "not readable" about it - are we talking about a physical readability issue, a clipping problem, or something else? If it is a technical issue, what browser and what OS you are using? I have attached a picture of how it should look.

The original table is unusable on small/low-resolution devices (anything lower than 1024) - for example, at 800x600 the description of Anthrocon is spread across 17 vertical lines (as opposed to four in the redesign). The intent of the changes is to split the combined description and references onto a second row, where they can make full use of the width of the table, while decreasing its minimum width. The date column was placed to the left so that both it and the name could remain sortable (sortable tables don't like colspan in general).

Aside from compatibility with handheld devices/netbooks, I feel this makes it more readable, and makes better use of the space available, as it ensures that you don't have a five or six-line paragraph stuck in one corner (which happens even on higher resolutions). This will become increasingly relevant as further details are added to those sections over time.

The comment about Chrome in the history is in relation to a clipping issue; it does not imply that it was intended solely for Chrome, just that it was one browser I was testing on. The design was prototyped on Firefox. I am aware of the "grey line extending into the second row" issue in IE7 and I am actively working on fixing it. There is also a flow issue on the Windows 7 build of IE8 (Beta 2), but that has been fixed in IE8 RC1.

And if you're referring to readability of the wikitext itself - I agree completely, but it can be converted to a template used by each convention entry, potentially ending up quite a bit more readable than before. I just didn't have time to fix table issues and do that last night. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you can revert me back. miranda 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmm....well, I kind of like how it's formatted now, but you can ask other people if they object to the formatting issue. miranda 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The initial version laid the information out in a clear manner, but it demanded too much in the way of width, and caused the height of items to vary wildly depending on the description. You can resize your browser window to see how it looks as screen size decreases (30% of WikiFur users are on 1024x768; it still functions at that width but is definitely getting longer). The challenge is to make it as clear while also allowing it to occupy less space.

I'll have a go at fixing it up to use templates and improving the presentation of both the wikicode and the displayed table later tonight when I get off work, incorporating all your changes to that point. I'm reasonably confident we can reach a version that everyone is happy with, even preserving the images on the side. GreenReaper (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now implemented this. The relevant templates are {{furry-con-list-start}}, {{furry-con-list-start}}, and {{furry-con-list-end}}. The initial versions of these correspond to the original table style. Changes can be made to the list page containing the data without affecting the formatting, and vice versa. GreenReaper (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've re-implemented the style changes I made earlier using these templates, along with a few tweaks (adding a bit of padding, hacking around the column line on IE and turning the background of the second row white to distinguish it from the next item). You can see a comparison of the designs on my Nokia N800. This is admittedly a contrived example, but it's not that far-fetched. GreenReaper (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The use of ISO date format is very confusing, especially for the date ranges. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How so? There's only one possible interpretation of an ISO date. It also happens to be sortable; the original format was not, even though it was in a sortable column. GreenReaper (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The dates should NOT be in ISO, but following this format. miranda 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And as it says right there: "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness." Now, it is unfortunate that the - (hyphen) in the middle of there conflicts with the wish to use – (en-dash) to indicate a multi-day event; this is why I used . instead of - to separate the day, month and year. I'm open to other representations that are easier to understand while maintain conciseness and sortability, but I things like "September 29 - October 2, 2009" are both too long and unsortable. GreenReaper (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to make regular date formats sortable, using {{dts}}. The date formats themselves aren't confusing as such, but the ranges are messy. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• As a worldwide Encylopedia, is there a reason the article is structured as US and "rest of the world", as though a dichotomy? Are Furry conventions a particularly US phenomenon, requiring that the US is treated differently? Furry conventions happen all over Europe (UK editors remember Eurotrash on Ch4?) - is the rest of the world list really comprehensive? Only 2 in the UK, which is 1/5 the size of the US?
  
  • It would probably be OK to merge them. I think the main reason we had them separate to start with was that attendance was very different (more tens and low hundreds than hundreds and thousands) and it would not be fair to compare a non-North American con to those in other areas. The original list came from WikiFur's timeline of attendance, so it was particularly intended to display that factor. And yes, there really are only two in the UK. There's not such a history of big sci-fi conventions over the pond, and furry fandom was relatively unorganized there until RBW and ConFuzzled started up, although there are some long-running and well-attended furmeets. India and China are far more populous and don't have any! :-) GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• There is an un-needed scrollable box in the table that should be removed (i assume the text in it was shortened?)
  
  • Can you be more specific about the box? What browser are you seeing this on and what OS? (Maybe a screenshot?) There is a scroll directive there - it was added to prevent IE from clipping off the text, and the scrollbar should not actually show up as there is enough space; but there may be another way of doing it. GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Firefox with XP, at 1280 x 1040 px. I see scroll bars under the descriptions for FA:United (in New Jersey) and Furry Fiesta (in Texas). Did you check this at different font sizes? I use the one larger than default for example. Can think of any other reason. But why are they needed? I cannot actually scroll anywhere - all the text is visible already.

• The dates look unappealing and confusing to me. Hidden sort key should be used, then the date can be formatted in any way, which keeping sortability. Isn't there even a specific date sort key template?
  
  • Yes, see the discussion above. I'm still uncomfortable about the space it will take up, but I can take a look. GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Considering it is a sub-article, is there a need for such a long lead. Sticking to WP:LEDE is not the be all and end all, but this one is the length of some Good Articles. Some of the info given seems very specific to certain cons. Yobmod (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would also prefer to see less in the lede (furry convention is already a good article) and more text in the list entries, which are wanting in some areas. GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the long lead would be necessary, because past FLs have a long lead before the list. miranda 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A good introduction to the subject is always welcome, but there are no rules saying that it must all be in the lead. Many other FLs have (short) prose sections after the lead but before the list itself. Thelead only needs enough detail to introduce the topic, so an ignorant reader like myself can understand what is being listed and why. More information might be needed, but can go to a prose section.Yobmod (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note that "Nähe von Hamburg" is not a place, it is a description. Should be tranlated as "Near Hamburg".

Okay, I will change. Thank you. miranda 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Ref #3's title is different from the actual title of the webpage

Taken out. miranda 04:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Date format is incorrect. It should be YYYY-MM-DD, rather than YYYY.MM.DD according to MOS:NUM, though I fail to see why they need to be in the ISO 8601 format at all

Yes, I agree with this, and changed it, but Green Reaper wanted to change it back to the ISO. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the way in which you had done so broke the ability to sort by date. GreenReaper (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not if you do it like MOS:NUM suggests, and do {{sort|2008-11-01|1 November 2008}} Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

Right. And it wasn't done like that. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why not do Irvine/San Diego, California, reducing the repetitiveness

Done. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Inconsitency when the list states "Canada" when they take place in Canada, but not "America", "US" or "U.S." when in the US.

Took Canada refs. out. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fur Affinity redirects back to furry fandom

I took that out. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Scrolling in the Camp Feral! and Mephit Furmeet entries should be removed per WP:ACCESS and other MOS guidelines

I can't see via Firefox, but I do agree that the scrolling should be taken out. miranda 04:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sponsored by the Northeast Anthropomorphic Association and community website Fur Affinity, FA: United had 310 participants during the first year in 2007. sounds too much like an advertisement

Took the advertisement out. miranda 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Beginning in 2005, the only furry convention held on a cruise ship. is not a complete sentence

Made it a complete sentence. miranda 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• In 2008, sponsored New Leash On Life and Pays De L'ours. is also not a complete sentence, and it is unclear whether the convention sponsored the two, or if they sponsored the convention

completed the sentence. miranda 04:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• English relative clauses
• Furry in ==See also== redirects to Furry fandom, which also appears in that section

Taking out. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Midwest Furfest in Footnote 1 redirects to furry convention

Taking out. 03:58, miranda 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Per MOSNUM, (post by registration coordinator on 2006-11-20 needs recasting with the date written in words because it is part of a sentence
• from 2008 to 2009 -- should be "between 2008 and 2009", I believe.
• I stopped about halfway down the page because there's no point repeating myself for other list entries that do the same.

On a more general note, The Lede is well written, but the convention descriptions need work. Are they supposed to be reviews, summaries, or what? Many of them are extremely flowery and read like advertisements.

I'm unhappy about the number of primary sources for the conventions, especially those WP:SPS hosted on sites such as Geocities, LiveJournal, etc. There are also a number of references that still point to WikiFur, which has been determined at WP:RS as an unreliable source. The list should establish notability for each and every convention by use of reliable sources as Dabomb87 described above. If they haven't been covered by reliable secondary parties, they're probably not notable enough for inclusion, just as they're not notable enough for an article (I presume, otherwise they would have articles). Further to that, notability isn't inherited, and so even those conventions with articles should use secondary sources in this list to establish notability, rather than expecting the reader to click on the link to see if that article does it. Right now the page looks like Wikipedia is providing notability for the conventions, and it shouldn't be that way. I understand that this may be difficult based on the subject, but Featured status is not something that is easily attained either.

Secondly, it appears as if the authors wish to provide a guide for furry fans or potentioal convention attendees. I come to this based on the flowery, advert-type descriptions and what the nominator said above, "The date column is relevant to the conventions, to show the reader, or anyone who is interested in going to the conventions, when they would be held." Same as with our episode lists which are also subject to fan attention, the list should not pander to this audience, but provide encyclopedic information to any potential reader such as one who may click on Special:Random.

The specific concerns should be fairly easy to address, but my other concerns I think may be more problematic. I hope you're not too disappointed, but at the moment I don't think it's ready. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not disappointed at all, myself; I know it is a high standard to meet (that's why it has a reward), and I appreciate the detailed feedback. I think the tone of a few of the list entries is more to do with anons who added them; regardless, it's something to address.

I don't personally see it as a bad thing for encyclopedia articles (or lists) to serve the needs of the most likely audience, as long as they satisfy other audiences as well. I'm a little surprised at all the date-hate; yes, this means the list needs updating regularly, but "when is it?" seems like a rather important item of information for almost any event (consider Wikimania).

The entries are meant to be summaries of known information relevant to a convention's notability - the sort of things you'd see in an article lede. Attendance might be split out into a separate column; it's something every convention should have, and is presumably of encyclopedic interest (so you can easily turn it into a list of conventions by attendance).

I would appreciate details of the browser/version/OS combination that exhibits scrolling, as it is not something I am seeing. GreenReaper (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We have several featured lists which are kind of categorized as to the Special:Random category. miranda 04:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not of the date-hate camp. I didn't think I came across that way, but the date format is incorrect. For sortability, do "{{sort|2008-11-01|1 November 2008}}" Perhaps the way to satisfy people is to just give the date of the last convention, not the date of the forthcoming one. Again, referencing TV shows, unaired episodes rarely get articles until very close to the airdate and FL episode/season lists do not list episodes until they have aired. Same with FL discogs -- unreleased albums and singles are disallowed, even if the release date is confirmed. A wikt:convention, is a meeting or a gathering of people. If the people haven't gathered yet, the convention hasn't happened.

My reply re: notability is not different from what I stated earlier, but I do think an attendance figure would be better more encyclopedic than a slogan and may help to establish notability. The problem with that is who is providing the figure? The convention organisers themselves? May they be likely to falsely "up" their numbers to make it appear as if their convention is more popular that it is?

I will upload an image with regards to the scrolling. I believe it is because of the templates being used in the tables and the images next to the table. The template probably has some size/resizing issue.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Furry list.png. I am using Firefox 3, Win XP SP2, 1024×768, 19" monitor. I will delete the image when the FLC has closed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture. I'll try and reproduce that particular setup. The issue is likely to be the use of the scroll CSS parameter, which was used to get around a (worse) clipping issue with IE. In theory the scrollbars should not actually show up, but browsers vary. There may be another way to avoid the clipping problem.

ConFurence had governance issues; figures from it, at least up to the turn of the century, should be regarded as "best estimates". To the best of my knowledge, this problem has disappeared with the advent of non-profit organizations keeping computerized records. There's the occasional debate about official figures of all kinds; so far they've turned out to be either within expectations or fundamental shifts mirrored a later at other events. Obviously, there's pressure to look good, but any organization caught falsifying records would face an internal and external backlash. Public financial filings from the larger conventions tally with their reported growth, and those not doing so well have reported declines. However, attendance may only be reported verbally at the closing ceremonies. WikiFur gets this figure within days, if not hours, but it's hit or miss as to whether the convention's website is updated, and not all publish historical figures. GreenReaper (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I partly agree with USER:Matthewedwards. I expected a list at this title to be a list of notable and/or recurring conventions, but this seems more of a guide to this years & upcoming conventions. As it can be expected to double (at least) in size each year with the current format, I think that it would be best refocussed on notable/recurring conventions, and seperate lists made for 2008/2009 (although they may fail WP:NOTDIR). I suspect that this is also the reason there have been lots of comments, but not supports/opposes - the whole focus of the list seems wrong for a FL. I think that such a drastic overhall would be too much work, considering it is already in the "urgently needs revies" box. So i'm going to say oppose at this time, with no predudice agains a list of recurring/notable conventions in the future.Yobmod (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a list of recurring conventions. Events intended to be one-offs are not included. The growth rate is more like one or two events a year (perhaps three if you consider the discontinued event section). GreenReaper (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If it a list of recurring conventions, i think the date should be the last column, not the first, and should be renamed "Date of last con" or somesuch. There should also be an indication how long they have been going in the table imo. This is more encylopedic than the date of the last/next con - cons with 10 year history are qualitatively different from those with 2 years, so this should be easily seen.Yobmod (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it's at the front is due to deficiencies in the sortable table algorithm's handling of colspan - if I put it later, sorting got screwed up. The date of the first convention might also be appropriate. GreenReaper (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [24].

---

List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks

Meets the criteria and is up to par with other lists that follow the same topic (List of New York Jets first-round draft picks, List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks, etc.) --Pbroks13^talk? 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't start lists as "This is a list of ... " Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• done --Pbroks13^talk? 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Better, but it doesn't provide context for the average reader. See some other NFL featured lists, such as List of Tennessee Titans head coaches. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• This is a list of first-round draft picks made by the San Francisco 49ers of the National Football League. - FLs are discouraged to begin as This list of _____
• The team joined the NFL along with the Cleveland Browns and the original Baltimore Colts in 1950. -the link to Baltimore Colts needs dabbing
• Teams are ranked in inverse order based on the previous season's record, with the worst record picking first, and the second worst picking second and so on. - comma before third and
• In the first three years as an NFL team, the 49ers picked three consecutive future Hall of Famers in the first round: Leo Nomellini, Y.A. Tittle, and Hugh McElhenny; since then, the team has picked three more future Hall of Famers in the first round (Jimmy Johnson, Lance Alworth, and Ronnie Lott), making it six in total - 1)be consistent, in the previous sentences, the date in which the players were chosen was noted, it should also be noted in these sentences 2)the last part of that sentence should be ;six overall.
• A list of this topic should be made sortable, so the table need to be able to sort.
• The references need to be formatted correctly using the {{reflist}} templates. In addition, use a general/specific refs format as seen in this FL.
• Footnote#7 is not correct, the ref should not be in that way it should be made as a specific reference
• The refs need to be correctly published with {{cite web}}.

• Please note: Use of {{cite web}} is not required; it is merely a tool to help with construction and organization of references. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• True, but the citations still need to be formatted properly, and the citations to #7 and #12 at this point are not. Rlendog (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• All the footnotes need to be verified.
• For the entries in the table that don't have notes available, they should have emdashes (the long dash located in the toolbox).
• The color coding explanation should be in the key not above the table itself.--TRUCO 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Most of the transactions should have in line citations. One of the general references seems to cover them, but that is just a cover page, and one has to search to find the appropriate transactions. The transaction citations should link to the page that supports the transaction. Rlendog (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [25].

---

Seinfeld (season 1)

I am renominating this list at FLC. --Gman124 ^talk 15:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - its improved since then, but still some problems Lead NBC executive Rick Ludwin believed the series had potential, and gave Seinfeld a budget to create four episodes, which began airing on May 31, 1990. - remove the comma before and (in this context its not needed) Done --Gman124 talk 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC) The season finale was aired on June 21, 1990. - remove the was (it serves no purpose and the same is stated w/o it) Done --Gman124 talk 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Seinfeld later went on to become one of the most successful sitcoms; - this statement is going to need more verification than just what TV Guide stated about it, this is a controversial statement and needs more verification Done --Gman124 talk 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Seasons 1 & 2 DVD box set was released by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment in the United States and Canada on November 23, 2004 thirteen years after it had completed broadcast on television. - comma after the date Done --Gman124 talk 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Image caption: The front cover of the Seinfeld: Seasons 1 & 2 DVD boxset, the first two seasons were sold together as one boxset. - change the comma to a semi colon Done --Gman124 talk 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Production The series is set in an apartment block on New York City's Upper West Side; however, the first season is mostly filmed at Ren-Mar Studios in Hollywood. - the semi colon is best as a comma Please note that the semicolon is grammatically correct in this case. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Claire was billed as one of the stars of the show; however, when the series was picked up it was decided that there was no need for a regular female waitress, so Garlington's role was dropped. - add a comma after picked up Done Gman124 talk 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC) In the pilot, Jerry refers to Kramer as Kessler; however, his name was changed to Kramer in rest of the series. - the semi colon should be a comma Please note that the semicolon is grammatically correct in this case. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Kramer was named after a real person, he was called "Kessler" in the pilot episode because of worries about the rights to use the name. - the comma should be a semi colon Done Gman124 talk 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC) "Eileen" was the original name for the Elaine character; however, it was changed just a few days before production. - the semi colon should be a comma Please note that the semicolon is grammatically correct in this case. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC) In response to all of your comments, it can be either or, because I've seen sentences like this in FACs, and they were in commas, so it can be in either form.--TRUCO 18:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I think KV5 is correct, if you search for how to use however in sentences it always says to use a semi-colon before however and a comma after it. Here are some of the sites I searched up about punctuation rules [26] [27] . Gman124 talk 19:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Wow, that means FAC reviewers were wrong.--TRUCO 19:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Seinfeld was produced by Castle Rock Entertainment and distributed by Columbia Pictures Television and Columbia TriStar Television (now Sony Pictures Television) and was aired of NBC in the US. - comma after the parenthesis Done Gman124 talk 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC) The pilot was directed by Art Wolff; however, when the series was picked up Tom Cherones became the director for rest of the season. - comma before Tom Done Gman124 talk 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Reception Soon after the "Stock Tip" aired, NBC executives ordered 13 additional Seinfeld episodes to air as midseason replacements during the 1990–91 season. - it should be made clear that "Stock Tip" is an episode Done Gman124 talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Brandon Tartikoff, the program executive for comedy programming, kept a scene from "The Stake Out" cued up on his office VCR to show guests how funny Seinfeld was; despite this, NBC held off broadcasting the last four episodes until summer. - add "the" before summer and what year is this? Done Gman124 talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Episodes Jerry tells George about a woman named Laura he met in Michigan and is coming to New York. - change the and is to "that is" Done Gman124 talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) George gets a stock tip and after going in for $5,000, he passes the tip on to Jerry who invests $2,500. - comma before and Done Gman124 talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) References Is there a reference which is verifying the entire list? In that way it can be made into a general ref like it is in this FL? On the Official site you can search the individual episodes by selecting a season at the following site [28], I don't know whether to add as a General reference or not. --Gman124 talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I think you can make this a general reference.--TRUCO 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Done --Gman124 talk 21:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Ref #10 is missing a publisher Done Gman124 talk 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC) What makes tvdvdreviews.com or Americanherticage.com reliable?--TRUCO 17:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I don't see why they can't be use. Are they like user edited sites, so is that why they can't be used? --Gman124 talk 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC) IDK but some of those refs don't seem 100% reliable, but I would let the source checker check those out.--TRUCO 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• To correct a correction, when referring to a person or fictional person, use who and not that. Also, "was aired of NBC" should be "aired on NBC". no need for the "was" and "of" is obviously a typo. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done --Gman124 ^talk 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Doesn't meet criterion 1 (professional standards of writing) of the FL criteria. Examples from the lead alone:

• "The pilot met with poor reviews, as a result, NBC passed on the show." Not a grammatical sentence; the first comma should be a semicolon.
  • Done --Gman124 ^talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "and gave Seinfeld a budget to create four episodes" I think "allotted" is a better word here.
  • Done --Gman124 ^talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "which began airing on May 31, 1990" So all four episodes began airing on that date? I don't think so. Try: "the first of which began airing on May 31, 1990
  • Done --Gman124 ^talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Seinfeld later went on to become one"-->Seinfeld became
  • Done --Gman124 ^talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "one of the most successful sitcoms" In terms of what? Popularity, revenues, cultural references, etc.
  • Done fixed to most popular as stated in the USA Today article. --Gman124 ^talk 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "As well as every episode from the two seasons"-->In addition to every episode from the two seasons
  • Done Gman124 ^talk 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• "features bonus material" Comma after here. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done Gman124 ^talk 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - First, I was under the impression that there was a minimum number requirement for featured lists. I'm not seeing it in the criteria but I have seen it mentioned in other FLC reviews. Five items may be too few for a featured list. If not, then my concerns are...
• Episode summaries may be too detailed, possibly implicating copyright as a derivative work although I am not an expert in that field.
  • I don't think they are too detailed, in fact I think it could be longer. When this list was nominated previously, someone opposed it having one line summary and said it should be "3-4 times bigger than they are". Now that they are 3-4 lines long now you're saying it should be less. I don't know what the heck's goin on with that. --Gman124 ^talk 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• As I say, I'm not an expert. I'm going by WP:PLOTSUM and my own previous experience with GA nominations for films and TV episodes. The ideais that plot summaries shouldn't serve to replace the experience of viewing the episode. If others feel that the summaries as written are acceptable then I'll certainly defer to their judgment. Otto4711 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Otto4711

All publication names in references need to be italicized. Use the "work" field in the template. Done --Gman124 talk 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 fixed it. --Gman124 talk 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) What makes tvdvdreview.com, lovetoknow.com, tvshowsondvd.com and epguide.com reliable sources? Would this be ok, if I use it to replace tvshowsondvd.com? --Gman124 talk 23:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC) That looks all right to replace the one website. Any ideas about the others? Done --Gman124 talk 05:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Prose remains awkward in a number of places, mostly because of overly fancy use of semicolons. I suggest in some instances making multiple sentences. Particular prose issues: "Season one of Seinfeld...originally aired its pilot..." No, NBC aired the pilot. Is it necessary to note that NBC is a US broadcast television network? I suggest stopping the first sentence after the date and Starting the next sentence along the lines of "Originally called The Seinfeld Chronicles, the series name was..." Done, though I have to ask that do everyone around the world know what NBC is? Gman124 talk 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC) "Claire was billed as one of the stars of the show; however, when the series was picked up, it was decided that there was no need for a regular female waitress; therefore, Garlington's role was dropped." needs to be reworked. "Claire" wasn't billed as a star; the actress was. Multiple semicolons in the same sentence is ungrammatical. I think it has been fixed, but not sure. --Gman124 talk 23:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) "However" in many cases is unnecessary and more will be made unnecessary with a rework of the prose; it's also repetitive. Same with "therefore." Done removed all instances of therefore and only one However remains. --Gman124 talk 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) The entire "Crew" section is in passive voice, also rendering it repetitive. Every sentence is structured "Foo was boo." Vary the structure. Done I have shortned and merged it with the production section. --Gman124 talk 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Still in passive voice. Vary the sentence structure. "Castle Rock Entertainment produced Seinfeld and Columbia Pictures Television and Columbia TriStar Television (now Sony Pictures Television) distributed the series. Seinfeld aired on NBC in the US." Changed it to how you wrote. --Gman124 talk 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) "...allotted Seinfeld a budget..." I realize you changed this in response to another reviewer and "allotted" is fine but surely it should be "...allotted the creators..." or "...allotted the producers..." Done Gman124 talk 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC) "The pilot met with poor reviews." → "The pilot was met with poor reviews." Suggest cutting the semicolon and the phrase "as a result" in favor of a simple "and" both in the lead and the reception section. Done Gman124 talk 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC) The bit about the producer giving a four-episode budget is confusing. If NBC funded four episodes, did they really "pass" on the series? It seems like if the series went into production for NBC then NBC actually picked up the series, especially since you go on to talk about the four-episode budget being an order. Done I think I have fixed this part now. I have also removed this sentence from the reception section, since it was already stated in the lead. --Gman124 talk 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC) This is still not clear to me. I don't understand how a show that is ordered by a network executive is considered not picked up by the network. Was Ludwin acting on his own initiative without network approval? Did he have some sort of a discretionary fund that allowed him to budget the show without the network picking it up? I just am not getting it. That Executive didn't immediately ordered more episodes, he did it almost a year later, so wouldn't it be considered not picked up from the time NBC decided not to pick up the show until the executive dedided to have more episodes? I have added "almost a year later" before the bit about the executive. --Gman124 talk 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC) The first and second paragraphs of the production section should be merged as they both deal with casting and changes. Do the setting and filming location bring additional value to the article? Done I have merged entire production section into one section, and removed the line about location. Gman124 talk 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Under the current casting and changes delete the second use of the phrase "in the pilot". Done --Gman124 talk 04:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC) "US" → "United States". Dabomb87 fixed it. --Gman124 talk 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) US to United States in the first paragraph of the Production section. "due to" → "because of" This is a personal peeve of mine as I loathe that construction but if all other concerns are addressed I would not continue to oppose on this basis. Done --Gman124 talk 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I think that's everything. Some kinda nitpicky stuff but other things that are more important. Otto4711 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Otto, I think there is some sort of exception for episode lists (WRT listed items), especially since this one has a production and reception section. 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Some additional issues: All retrieval dates in the references section should be in the same format. Those are different because note 8 uses the cite news template while others use the cite web template. I'm not sure how to make the date come up on cite news, like it does on cite web. --Gman124 talk 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Is there a difference between "Sony Pictures Home Entertainment" and "Sony Pictures" for sourcing purposes? "Sony Picture" is a television and movie production company, and a subsidiary of "Sony", and "Sony Pictures Home Entertainment" is a home video distribution company, and I think a subsidiary of Sony Pictures. --Gman124 talk 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC) "DVD box set" in the lead should not be italicized. Done Gman124 talk 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Two uses of "originally" in the lead. Done Gman124 talk 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Perhaps explain what a "show runner" is? Done --Gman124 talk 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Perhaps include a link to Nielsen Ratings? Otto4711 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Done Gman124 talk 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose

• The reception section is not WP:NPOV as there are no negative reviewers. I notice a negative mention in the lead I suggest using it to balance out the reception section.
• Ref 3: TV.com is not a reliable source
  • That is not TV.com it is actually TVGuide.com --Gman124 ^talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry that was a complete error on my part. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Prose problems - a few examples, by no means the whole story
  • "NBC passed on the show" - passed is to colloquial
    • Changed passed to decided not to pick up --Gman124 ^talk 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • " Larry David was the main show runner for this season, who was also one of the producers" - also is redundant, and it reads funny with the "who". Use "and one of the producers" instead.
    • Done --Gman124 ^talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Soon after the "Stock Tip" episode", the table calls it "The Stock Tip", which one is it?
    • Changed it to The Stock Tip, since that's the episode name. Gman124 ^talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I just removed the line also. I don't know if it is necessary to say how many more episodes wee ordered after saying that the next season was ordered in the previous line. --Gman124 ^talk 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "the first of many nominations" - not very neutral, try listing them instead of using weasel words like many.
    • I have removed this. --Gman124 ^talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• In fact on further investigation "This episode was nominated for a Writer's Guild Award, the first of many nominations for the series. Brandon Tartikoff kept a scene from "The Stake Out" cued up on his office VCR to show guests how funny Seinfeld was; despite this, NBC was held off broadcasting the first four episodes until summer." is purely copied from [29] - this copyvio (this caused me to change to a "Strong Oppose")
  • I removed this, but kept the Writer's Guild nomination part. Also is it still copy-vio if we add the link where we got the stuff from as a reference? --Gman124 ^talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You would have to put in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have struck some comments, but still oppose as I still feel this list is below featurable quality.

• Ref 11 in no way cites the production codes.
• "The pilot met with poor reviews" Like? Try and give an example.
• For WP:NPOV try and provide a worldwide perspective. Did it air in any other countries.
• Is Seinfield available on any digital medium. iTunes, Amazon Unbox and the like?
• Citations for DVD region release dates?

I realise there was there are only 5 episodes but the whole thing (lead, reception section) just seem a bit short. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I think an article that only lists 5 things is really not a FLC. It should be reviewed as a normal article. The criteria for FL are to address specific challenges in the wrting of encylopedic lists, that this article doesn't face. I know the "at least 10 items" is unoffical, but this article shows why it exists. Eg. We don't consider a 5 book series to need a list.Yobmod (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Closing comment General feeling is that this isn't a list with some prose, but an article with a list, so even though it's well written and may well meet all the FL criteria, if it isn't a list it can't be listed at WP:FL. I think you'd have a good chance at WP:GA WP:FAC though. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [30].

---

List of Cincinnati Reds managers

Nominator(s): jj137 (talk)

All right, I think this one is ready. Let's see how it fares. All comments are welcome. (And yes, I am in the Wikicup, if that matters at all.)   jj137 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - prose and format problems The Cincinnati Reds are a professional baseball team based in Cincinnati, Ohio. - per consistency with other lists and because they are an American baseball franchise the word "American" should be added before "professional" Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC) There have been fifty-nine different managers in their franchise history; four during the era of the Cincinnati Redlegs (1953–1958), and the rest under the Cincinnati Reds (1882–1952, 1959–present). - 1)the semi colon should be a colon 2)Remove the comma 3)Be consistent with the statistics, you can be explaining some of the coaches with actual numbers and then say the rest, give the actual number Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Since 2003, the Red Sox have played their home games at Great American Ball Park.' - Red Sox? Also, what about before 2003? Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Sparky Anderson managed the most games with 1,449 and wins with 863 with the Reds. - this would be better represented as it is in the List of Washington Nationals managers FL Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Anderson is the only Reds manager to have two World Series wins, coming in 1975 and 1976. -->Anderson is the only Reds manager to have won the World Series twice, in 1975 and 1976. Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Pat Moran, Lou Piniella, and McKechnie had one World Series victory each; Moran was the manager during the infamous 1919 World Series. - why was it infamous? Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC) McKechnie won his championship in 1940, while Piniella won his in 1990. - I'm pretty sure they "led the team to the championship", since they can't literally win the championship Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Jack McKeon is the only Reds manager to win the Manager of the Year Award, winning in 1999. ---> Jack McKeon is the only manager to have won the Manager of the Year Award with the Reds, which he won in 1999. Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Is it necessary to force the TOC? It leaves a white space in between the prose and the TOC table Removed.   jj137 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Ref # 5 should be made into a general reference and the in-line citations in the table to this source should be removed if the gen. ref. is added. Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Why isn't the # column sortable? Fixed. I didn't see a point in that originally I guess.   jj137 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC) All the entries should be center aligned, minus the achievements This is actually not a requirement; I do it in my tables for aesthetic reasons but it doesn't have to be. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC) The achievements should be in a "World Series (1975, 1976)" format Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC) The lead should be expanded a bit more, who is the owner, who found them, etc.--TRUCO 21:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Fixed, I think.   jj137 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5

• Managerial records all needs references. None are provided, and neither is a general reference, though specific ones are preferred.
  • I added references for these.   jj137 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• No playoff ties in the table, so not needed in the key.
  • Removed.   jj137 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't believe that you need the footnote in the "#" column if there are no repeated managers.
  • Removed.   jj137 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Differentiate between players inducted to the Hall of Fame as managers and as players (see List of Baltimore Orioles managers for an example).
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• "baseball team"→"baseball franchise"
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• If you aren't going to use the abbreviations NL and MLB, it's unnecessary to explicitly define them in the lead.
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• "in their franchise history"
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• To expand lead: add discussion that complements the most successful managers shown already, such as managers with highest and lowest winning percentage, etc. See List of Philadelphia Phillies managers for ideas.
  • Added.   jj137 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with the above, in that linking to the Black Sox scandal isn't enough to define it, especially since it's an Easter Egg link, which isn't the best to start with.
  • I removed it.   jj137 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please note in the key that linked years link to the corresponding MLB or baseball season.
  • Fixed.   jj137 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

May come back later for more, but I think this should do it for me. Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Last thing that I can see is that Baseball Almanac is not considered a reliable source by the Baseball WikiProject. You could replace those links from Baseball Reference or add references from BA/Retrosheet to each manager's table row. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Where does the Baseball WikiProject state that Baseball Almanac is not considered a reliable source? Rlendog (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm just going by what I was told in my first two FLCs by other reviewers; I had to remove all of the references to Baseball Almanac because it wasn't reliable. I would say that perhaps this page establishes reliability, but I'm far from an expert on the subject. What's your opinion, Rlendog? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I actually asked because I had a similar experience. I just thought from your comment that there might be something on WP:BASEBALL noting that, rather than it being the opinion of one or two particular reviewers. The reason I was given was along the lines of "they claim to have x number of pages and y number of facts, but how do we know we can rely on their factchecking process." And I am not sure how that can be addressed, or why Baseball-Reference or BaseballLibrary don't generate similar concerns. I can't say I use Baseball Almanac as much as BR, but I haven't found any problems with the information there (I did actually find an error in BR that I think Basball Almanac has correct, where they listed a Kansas City Athletics home game - not even against the Red Sox - being played at Fenway, not that I am suggesting BR is unreliable as a result). My view is that at the very least the information on BA should be viewed on its own merits, rather than a blanket statement that it is considered unreliable. For example, I would think a box score appearing on Baseball Almanac would be as reliable as that box score appearing on any other source. Or if a Baseball Almanac article contains some information that can traced back to a different accepted reliable source but also some additional information, there is a good chance that the additional information is reliable as well. That said, I believe that the information referenced from Baseball Almanac in this article is also available on B-R, so it may be best to just switch the ref to deflect any concern. I may just add the B-R ref myself if I get a chance tonight. Rlendog (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Just a note: Baseball-Reference was proved reliable at this FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
          • What am I missing? I don't see Baseball-Reference discussed at all at that FAC, and the FAC was failed. In any case, I have no problem considering BR a reliable source. I'm just not sure what it would take for Baseball Alamanac to be considered a reliable source, and even if it is not considered a reliable source for everything, it would seem that it would be a reliable source for certain things, such as box scores. With respect to this FLC, I changed the ref to BR. In this case, it is clearly superior to BA, since it includes games managed. BA only has the won-lost record, and so the games managed was apparently determined by adding the two. But this is a problem, since it ignores tie games, and there were also some typos or arithmetic mistakes. I think I fixed all those. Rlendog (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Reds are members"-->They are members
• "There have been fifty-nine different managers in the team's franchise history," Comma should be a colon.
• "regular season games"-->regular-season games
• "regular season game wins"-->regular-season game wins
• "Pat Moran, Lou Piniella, and McKechnie had one World Series victory each" "had"-->have.
• Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods.
• File:BidMcPhee3.jpg needs an author. How do we know that the image was published before 1923? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.baseball-almanac.com/mgrtmcr.shtml a reliable source? We need to know their methods of fact-checking.
• The Baseball-Reference citations are inconsistent. This is how they should be formatted: "Baseball Hall of Fame Inductees". Baseball-Reference. Sports Reference LLC. Retrieved 2009-01-27. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I fixed the issues with games managed and the references (see above), but I think the list should reflect League Championships (e.g., 1970 and 1972) in addition to World Series Championships. Rlendog (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• I don't know if this still stands, but wikilinking articles like this: 1940, violates WP:MOS. Don't know for sure now, but hope that more users will comment on this situation. You could wikilink it like this: 1940 season. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• MOS:LINKS -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• "...in regular season games managed (1,449)..." The table lists 1,450.
• "...with 1,380 and 744, respectively...." The table lists 1,386.
• Please fix the disambiguation links.

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• • The discrepencies in the number of games managed came about when I corrected the number of games in the table. I fixed those numbers in the lead now too. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment This FLC seems to have stagnated; the nominator has not edited since January 27. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 18:27, 8 February 2009 [31].

---

List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes

I am nominating this list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. My goal is to bring it and its four sibling lists to FL status in the near future. Many thanks to User:Ruhrfisch for his usual good job in peer reviewing the list. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN - clearly I am not going to be able to satisfy the nit-pickery without completely stripping out the images and I am unwilling to do so since in my view they are fully and completely and obviously well within even the ridiculously over-restrictive image use policy that is designed to discourage some editors who want to actually improve the project and empower others whose preference is to diminish it by playing image police. Every time I nominate something for featured status it's because I've forgotten the level of petty criticism that's attendant in the process and without fail I'm well reminded of it by the time the process is over. If anyone ever sees my sig on a featured nomination again, please call a psychiatrist because certainly it will mean that I've gone insane. Otto4711 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "prior to"-->before. "These included such programs as"-->These included programs such as "Hurst was praised by early homophile group the Mattachine Society" Comma after this phrase. "A brief break from this formula" So these episodes followed a strict formula? "also appeared on-air" I don't think the hyphen is necessary. "featured anthropologist Margaret Mead discussing homosexuality"-->featured anthropologist Margaret Mead, who discused homosexuality It would be helpful if you explained in the lead what happened during the Stonewall Riots (what were they, what happened) "In the 1960s"-->During the 1960s, Calling the last header "Synopsis" is inaccurate, as not all the descriptions were summaries of the episode. "Carleton Carpenter with Ann Sothern. Ann does not want to hear it!" Why the italics? "In "Shakedown", police track down a blackmail ring targeting"-->In "Shakedown", police track down a blackmail ring that targets Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods. Why do some TV episodes have citations while others don't? Empty cells should have em dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Sources Ref 4, "TIME magzine"-->Time. Ref 6, make the citation date format the same as that of ref 4. Comma added after "Society". "formula" changed to "pattern". caption punctuation fixed. ref 4 fixed. ref 6 is generated by the template so I can't fix it. em-dashes added. Re citations. Per WP:PSTS the episodes serve as sources for themselves so any entry that is just an ep description doesn't need a separate ref. References are for material that goes beyond what is visible on-screen. Re italics and other word choices, they're just stylistic choices, which I think are reasonable as is. Otto4711 (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I struck through issues that I felt were resolved. For bullet point one, "before" is more concise. "prior to" is just misplaced formality. For bullets 6 and 11, the noun + -ing structure is awkward and ungrammatical. What makes http://www.stevecap.com/alternatechannels_net/articles/kudos.htm a reliable source? The image caption with the italics and exclamation point is unencyclopedic. You didn't say anything about changing the header of "Synopsis" or describing the Stonewall riots in more detail. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Steven Capsuto is a leading researcher and lecturer on LGBT images in radio and television. His website is an extension of his book and lecture series. He is identified by the media as an expert so I believe his site is reliable. The caption is merely an attempt at injecting a little humor and I don't think it hurts anything. I disagree that gerunds are ungrammatical and "awkward" strikes me as an opinion based on personal preference. Which is fine, I detest the use of "due to" instead of "because", but I wouldn't fail an article on that basis. I really don't care what the column is called. "Synopsis" seems reasonable but if you have a suggestion feel free to implement it. I would rather not go into detail about the Stonewall riots because the riots are not the focus of the article and going into detail about them diverts the focus. Otto4711 (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC) The purpose of an encyclopedic article is to educate, not inject humor or color commentary. For noun + gerund, see User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing. Maybe change "Synopsis" to "Description"? Plain English is better than old-fashioned formal words. Remember, we are catering to all types of English speakers here, and "before" is much better than "prior to" for this purpose. FYI, I am not "opposing" the article's nomination to FL status. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I appreciate that you're not opposing the listing, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on these few remaining style points. I'm not wild about "Description" (kind of a boring word) so I'll keep trying to think of something better. Otto4711 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC) OK, I will concede on the misplaced formality and noun + -ing. I will not back down on the image caption; it is simply not of encyclopedic tone. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Fun part of caption deleted ya party pooper ;-) Otto4711 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Images I struck the support above because I just noticed that the article uses four non-free images. Please be more detailed in the fair use rationales than "for illustration and critical commentary". Judging by the consensus on a peer review for a similar article, there should not be so many. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• The images in the article are of of critical historical importance to this topic. The first identifiably gay character on television, the first self-identified gay character on television, an image from the first national television program on homosexuality and an image showing the lengths that fear of identification drove interviewees to conceal their identities. I can certainly expand the fair use rationales, although I do not think any such expansion is necessary since all that the licensing template requires is what I've written, but under no circumstances will I agree to the removal of any of these images. Fair use images are perfectly acceptable in featured material and the idea that four images in an article this size is too many is nonsensical. There is no numerical limit on such images per article so "there are too many of them" is not a legitimate reason for opposing the promotion. The point is not how many images there are but whether they comport with the (IMHO far too restrictive and stifling) image policy. These clearly do. Otto4711 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—on images—true, pure numbers of non-free images is not a reason to oppose based on image criteria. But WP:NFCC has several bits that undermine your defense. First, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". So for example, if you wanted to use File:Tcjones.jpg, File:Tc jones 1965.jpg would be better as it's a free image (you could argue the transvestite thing, but that's a different argument altogether. File:Gayplant.jpg is frankly a crappy image that does zero to increase my understanding of the topic, "significantly" per NFCC or otherwise. The other images are just actors, meaning that it's conceivable free shots would suffice to represent the same content; either way, images of them is not significant to reader understanding, and the FUR are weak. If you had historians talking about how pivotal the role was, and some element of their appearance, then you would have a more defensible case. In addition, there's a lack of citations throughout, leading to blatant original research. Who says "Turnabout Intruder" has LGBT themes? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:PSTS episode content serves as its own sourcing. Content drawn directly from an episode in no way implicates WP:OR and everything else is cited. There is no way that a free image of the characters can be created. The point is not to show what the actors look like. The point is to show how the characters were presented.

Comment Oppose - I have a real problem with the images. Not their rationales, but their placement in the article. They stretch the table horribly and make it look completely unprofessional. Can something be done with them - perhaps merge them into single composite image at the top of the article? Skinny87 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• After looking at David's comments above and the article again, I have to agree - how I missed that I don't know. The lack of citations is indeed a big concern, and as a Trekkie I'm confused over the two TOS episodes selected. Frankly the Trouble with Tribbles looks tacked on (Tribbles are a reference to LGBT?), and who says the Turnabout Intruder has LGTB themes? Skinny87 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Um, yes, when an entire species is described on-screen as "bisexual" then it is a reference to the "B" in LGBT, which stands for "bisexual". When a male is in a female body and vice-versa, that is a reference to the "T" of LGBT, which stands for "transgender". Otto4711 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's still OR. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's OR to note the fact of a species' bisexuality? It's OR to note the fact of a body switch and an actor's altered mannerisms? I do not think "OR" means what you think it does. This is no more original research than any other description of an episode's plot. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Note This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [32].

---

List of Metallica concert tours

Nominators: Nergaal & Igordebraga

Asides from minor cleanup, I believe this list is ready to be featured. Constructive comments are welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs)

• Metallica is an American heavy metal band, founded in 1981 by Lars Ulrich in Los Angeles. - state that he is a drummer
• Since 1982, Metallica has performed numerous times in North America and Europe, but has also performed in other parts of the World such as South America, East and Southeast Asia,[1] Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and South Africa. - 1)unlink the countries/continents, they are too common terms 2)decapitalize World
• As of 2009, the band has performed live gigs during each year with the exception of 2001, in a total of over 1500 shows. - gigs is not an encyclopedic word, should be events (as well as other occurrences of this)
• The prose needs to be expanding substantially, by summarizing the list more and telling more on the background of Metallica
• All phrases in the notes in the tables should be in past tense not in present tense
• Unlink the countries/states/continents in the table
• What makes Metallicaworld.co.uk , Metsanitarium.com, Encycmet.com., All Metallica. , Last.fm., and Metroactive.com. reliable?
• Consistency is needed in the publishers for the references, like the encyclopedia reference
• Add |format=PDF to the PDF files.
• The notes need to be seriously copyedited, they need to be in complete sentences or in a better worded fragment.--TRUCO 01:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Followup comments

• The notes need copyediting still need copyediting First gigs as a band is not grammatically correct.
• The intro should have the first, most recent tour, and other significant tours.
• The sourcing issues need to be resolved--TRUCO 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Some more copyediting is needed in the notes, example: Festival tour. (this is not a complete sentence, so no full stop needed, there are others also with grammatical errors, this is just one. Some of the notes are sourced, while others aren't, so some are being verified with references, and others aren't, which makes the list unverifiable. Some of the references also look unreliable, but check with User:Dabomb87 for a check on those.--TRUCO 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• You mean something like First gigs as a band were not played as a tour. needs a reference? Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.--TRUCO 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The lead is too short and not very well written or organized.
  • metallicaworld.co.uk is a fan site, as is AllMetallica and encycmet.com (AllMetallica is the only one of the three that does not admit this on their main page) and is Last.fm useable?
  • The format appears to be modelled after List of Kylie Minogue concert tours, but personally I like the format used at List of Nine Inch Nails tours (although listing the band members would not be necessary). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Please fix the dabs. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of replacing fansites and Last.fm refs, but else do you suggest in the intro? I picked that format to add notes on tour events, specially because not all tours have their pages. igordebraga ≠ 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've improved the prose of the notes significantly. Please give specific suggestions for the introduction, because I have no idea what is missing right now. Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "Since 1982, Metallica has performed numerous times in North America and Europe, but has also performed in other parts of the world such as South America," – "Since 1982, Metallica has performed in North America, Europe, South America,"
• "As of 2009, the band has performed in live events during each year with the exception of 2001, in a total of over 1600 shows." – "As of 2009, the band has performed in live events each year with the exception of 2001, in over 1600 shows."
• Please provide more information for the image captions, such as what city they are in. Frankly, we should learn something new from the image; an image of a concert is just like the image of any other concert, unless we learn more about that specific image.
• "was the "Kill "
• The lead is three short paragraphs. Either expand them or merge them logically.
• The en dashes should be spaced if not between two elements of the same type, like two numbers or two months. So "Mar 14–Nov 30, 1982" to "Mar 14 – Nov 30, 1982". Also, I would very much prefer seeing full month names.
• "Saxon, [4]" – Remove the space after the comma.

Gary King (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Done all but two - the original source for the Damage Inc. photo is a dead site, so I can't find the location (but expanded the captions a bit), and need to know what could be done in the lead. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For the lead, talk about their concerts, perhaps typically how much money they gross, and so on. There is only 1000 bytes of prose in the article right now, surely there can be more. This is the only article about Metallica concerts, so let's make it good. Nine Inch Nails has an entire article dedicated to their live performances at Nine Inch Nails live performances. Gary King (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I will review fully tomorrow, but what makes http://www.rockthebayou.com/Bio.aspx?id=27 a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a festival website. If it's not written by the organizers, it's a press release from the band. Either way doesn't fail WP:RS. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick question: is this site reliable: http://www.ilikethat.com/metallica/ ? Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [33].

---

List of One Piece episodes (season 9)

An anime episode list. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple things, mostly WP:MOS-JA related:

• Kônosuke Uda → Kōnosuke Uda: circumflexes are deprecated in favor of macrons (the page linked to should be moved as well). In the same vein, Eiichirô Oda → Eiichirō Oda.
  • Links changed and move requested. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Title emphasis and WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books, CDs, movies, etc.: BRAND NEW WORLD → "Brand New World"; the tildes in "We Are ~7 Straw Hat Pirates variant~" need to be replaced with something more appropriate (parentheses, maybe); ADVENTURE WORLD → "Adventure World".
  • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• "seiyūs" → "seiyū": non-naturalized Japanese words are not pluralized with "s".
  • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rōmaji titles should be title-cased, as seen in episodes 313 on. And some fixes along with that:

• episode 302, 305: "Rucchi" → "Rutchi": っち is "tchi", see Hepburn romanization#Double consonants
• episode 303: "oozakura" → "Ōzakura"
• episode 311, 320: "zenin" → "zen'in": んい and に need to be disambiguated, WP:MOS-JA#Body text #5
• episode 319: "Jī-san" → "Jii-san": WP:MOS-JA#Body text #1, kanji/hiragana *aa/*ee/*ii are not macronned unless used with ー (e.g. らーめん rāmen)
• episode 320: "Tsuini" → "Tsui ni": don't attach particles to the preceding word
  • All done. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

—tan³ tx 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, but when I went to title case the rōmaji, I glanced over a couple spelling errors and a wording error; the episode summaries should be given a closer look. No comments on content, as I've not watched this series past the first fifty episodes. —tan³ tx 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's what you meant with "title-cased". Thanks for doing it. I'm reluctant to mess with the romanizations. I'd propably break more than I'd fix. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Needs a copy-edit. Depending on whether I can take care of my other real-life and wiki obligations, I may return to look at the prose again.

• "The Special Chapter contains episodes, recapping the back stories of the Straw Hat Pirates, and five omake adaptations of short comics by Oda, originally published in the One Piece Log fan magazine. "-->The Special Chapter contains episodes, which summarize the back stories of the Straw Hat Pirates, and five omake adaptations of short comics by Oda, which were originally published in the One Piece Log fan magazine.
  • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "over fifty-seven episodes" Numbers over nine should generally be written in numeric form (57).
  • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "These episodes seamlessly continue the story of season 8." "seamlessly" as opposed to what...?
  • Fixed. (Rewrote that paragraph.) -- Goodraise (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Together with the sea train conductor Kokoro"
  • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "They crossed the yearly occurring storm" Why are is the past tense suddenly used here?
  • Fixed. (Rewrote that paragraph.) -- Goodraise (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• "in order to" (multiple occurences)
  • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Enies Lobby drawing near"-->As Enies Lobby draws near
  • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "and as his friends gaze in awe"-->While his friends gaze in awe (add a period before this phrase)
  • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "All goes smoothly at first, but by the time the" Who are "they"?
  • Fixed. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• "ten-thousand men. "-->10,000 men.
  • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The Galley-La foremen and the leading members of the Franky Family arrive late at the second gate, but they are bringing with them the family's king bulls mounted on caterpillar tracks."-->The Galley-La foremen and the leading members of the Franky Family arrive late at the second gate, and have brought along with them the family's king bulls mounted on caterpillar tracks.
  • Not done. Fixed in an other way. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• "With their combined forces" comma after this phrase. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Striking oppose, will come back to copy-edit over the weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to weak support, the prose actually gets better as you move down. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The general ref is missing a publisher.
  • Fixed. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Refs 3 to 7 should not have the title in all caps. Make it in sentence case. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:37, 4 February 2009 [34].

---

Wind power in Romania

• I think that this is a featurable list on Wiki. Mario1987 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that peer reviews should be closed before coming to FLC... I closed it for you this time. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Now, pertaining to the list, I don't think that the title "Wind power in Romania" is accurate. It sounds like the article is an overview of wind power in Romania, which it is not. Wouldn't it be "List of wind farms in Romania"? To that end, what was the inclusion criteria for the wind farms? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The criteria was all wind farms over 10 MW installed capacity. Mario1987 09:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The name should stay as it is to be consistent with other Wind Power in Country articles. One quick comment is that "in romanian" in the references needs to be capitalized. Reywas92^Talk 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • But those are not considered lists. See Wind power in the United States. This article should either be copy-pasted into a new article or moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Should i move it to "List of wind farms in Romania"? Mario1987 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Don't move per se, maybe create a new article through cut-and-paste, and leave some info (the lead) here. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I created a separate article List of wind farms in Romania. Should i propose that as a featured list? Mario1987 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes. Do not remove the FLC template or withdraw this nomination yet. Let the FLC director take care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For article history purposes, it would be better to close this one, then start a new one for the List of wind farms in Romania. This one is closed. Mario1987, you can create a nom for the new list whenever you are ready. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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