Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2011

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 Giants2008 20:09, 31 May 2011 [1].

---

List of The Bad Girls Club episodes (season 4)

Nominator(s): AJona1992 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel, in some aspects, that the list can be a featured list. I am willing to donate my time in fixing any problems that anyone will bring up here. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick oppose

• Avoid bold links in the lead per MOS.
• The lead tells me virtually nothing about the show. Look at other FL season lists for a guide to what to be aiming for.
• Bad Girls table, why is the last col sortable?
• "seven individual self-proclaim "bad girls" who..." grammar.
• "who move into a luxurious bachelor pad in Los Angeles who are dealt with numerous camera crew who films" grammar.
• "In every season of the Bad Girls Club one or more girls will be asked to leave the house either from violence or physical fighting which then gives the producers a chance at a new "bad girl" who arrives to the house in a day or two to replace the fellow bad girl" really needs a copyedit from a native English speaker.
• Look at WP:HEAD for how to format section headings (i.e. avoid over-capitalisation).
• Episode synopses are about twice as long as they need to be. Also all need a copyedit from a native English speaker.
• The notes have colourful squares, what is that all about?
• Some raw URLs in the references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - per TRM's comments, but mainly because the standard of prose is very poor. I can't even begin to work out what "Raged for her backstabbing UStream videos, puts the bad girl in question." means, for example..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note I will be fixing all concerns tomorrow. Thanks for the comments, AJona1992 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  Any update here at all.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  Question How long should episode summaries have? I didn't think I went "over-board" with what I did. AJona1992 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well this sort of thing is usually governed by wikiproject style guidelines, but I'll opt for WP:SUMMARY which would recommend just making sure you hit the pertinent issues of each episode. I don't think you're far off, but perhaps a 25% trim or so of the long summaries would be a good idea. Plus, have you addressed all the other issues noted here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2011 (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 Giants2008 20:09, 31 May 2011 [2].

---

List of University of the Philippines Los Baños people

Nominator(s): Moray An Par (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it sufficiently lists notable UPLB people. Moray An Par (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments on a first glance. My browser makes the images appear first and then the tables creating masses of white space. I'm using Safari for Mac. "director" is a disambiguation link. Lead is a little short, could use bulking up a bit in my opinion. As of 2009 in the lead. It's now heading to mid-2011. Can we update that? Put (UPLB) after the first use of the full title in the lead. Is this list complete? I doubt it so perhaps consider using the {{incomplete list}} template. "Sergio Osmeña III" has a discipline of a very wide horizontal line. This should just be an en/em-dash and should be noted as to why. "Agribusiness management" or "Agribusiness Management"? Probably the former. What does that mean? Avoid superscripts, so 20th should just be 20th. Don't think you need to link "singer". Or Theater actor. Or spider. or president... When did LLD become a "relationship"? Something odd going on with the image of Sirindhorn. Some red link text, comments to the left of the main image... not sure what that's all about, but it needs solving. "has had 7 chancellors." seven. Are they notable? If not, why are they in the list? If so, why aren't they linked to articles (or red-linked)? Names should sort using the {{sortname}} template so they use surname rather than first name. Use en-dash in year ranges, e.g. refs 36 & 37 need to be 1895–1986 not 1895-1986 or 1895 -1986. That applies to chapter ranges too (e.g. refs 41, 42). Ref 45 has a bare URL. About.com is not reliable. I'm not sure about a number of the sources you use, but I don't have time now to go into detail. Perhaps if you fix up the above, I'll see what I can do on a ref check. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I have addressed the above concerns. I'll find a replacement for the About.com reference. I personally believe that UPLB chancellors fail the WP:Professor test, and are not independently notable. I'll integrate Emil Q. Javier into the faculty list. I'll also find an update summa cum laude list. As for the lead, I based it here List of Wilfrid Laurier University people. What other information would you like mentioned? I'll do these when I get the time later. I think the list is sufficiently comprehensive, at least, according to Wikipedia articles. I came up with that list by searching all BLPs mentioning UPLB. I just then searched outside references to confirm it. But that doesn't mean that that's all the notable people from UPLB. I'll search alumni forums for list of other alumni. Maybe I'll find a number who are notable, and have Wikipedia articles. Moray An Par (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Ok. I have included additional personalities in the list but I also realize that these must not be all. So I added {{dynamic list}} at the top. What other concerns are there that I still have not addressed? Moray An Par (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – It's great that abbreviated versions of the college names are given right after they're first used, but they probably don't need to be included in the wikilinks. A little less blue text isn't a bad thing sometimes, and they can still be placed right after the colleges they represent. Minor point, but reference 4 should go after the comma. Above a couple of the tables there are hatnotes with definitions. In both the hyphen should be an en dash. Minor style issue, but FLs should get all the style issues right. The dash that was put in is the wrong one. If you use the list of symbols at the bottom of the editing page, the en dash is to the left of the one you're using. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Reference 11 should have the publisher (Philippine Daily Inquirer) in italics because it is a printed publication. Any time there is an article from a newspaper or magazine, the publisher should be italicized. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Done. Moray An Par (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Done. Moray An Par (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of summa cum laudes updated to 2011 per The Rambling Man's request. Moray An Par (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The tables need table headers and scope tags to comply with WP:ACCESS. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for instructions.

• Ref 42 has an added period to Inc. Albacore (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done removing the dot (.) after Inc and putting scope tags. As for the table headers, are they really needed? I am yet to see a featured list on university-affiliated people that uses such. Moray An Par (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

They are needed to comply with WP:ACCESS. However, once they are added, the subheaders can be removed. The "name" column throughout the article needs scope row tags. Albacore (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for being dense but did you mean:

! scope="row" | {{sortname|Nilo|Alcala}}
| Undergraduate || Development communication || [[Musical composer]] || <ref name='Nilo Alcala'>{{cite web | url = http://nilo_alcala2.webs.com/profile.htm | title = Nilo Belarmino Alcala II | publisher = Official website of Nilo Alcala | accessdate = 2011-04-21 }}</ref>

Moray An Par (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Albacore (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I feel it weird though. Even List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford doesn't use it. Is this a new guideline? Why wasn't this required for other FLCs? Moray An Par (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2011 (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 Giants2008 19:09, 24 May 2011 [3].

---

1951 Asian Games medal table

Nominator(s): Bill william compton^Talk 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a my second nomination for FL which is again of Asian Games related medal table [first one is still in process]. It is fully sourced and all concerns will be addressed by me, thanks. --Bill william compton^Talk 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest the list and accompanying prose are too short in content to appropriately designate this as "featured". I've previously been advised of an unwritten but generally accepted lower limit of 10 items. StrPby (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  I appreciate your comment, but I didn't find any such thing on FLC; that there should be at least 10 items on list, moreover, this is a medal table, static in nature, which I can't change; if you've any better idea to expand it then please tell me. I'd agree on prose, but I don't know what else to add here. I could try to add more information, but that would be either irrelevant or should be covered within a main article. Denying this list for featured status because it contain less number of items would be gratuitous. --Bill william compton^Talk 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  The earlier discussion where this came up was here. Since you agree that the prose is lacking, I will formally oppose based on criterion 3(b) of WP:WIAFL, specifically "In length and/or topic, it ... could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." In this case, given what little there is here, I would say there is no argument for a stand-alone medal table article. This is not an oppose based on the number of items in the list, but the fact that both the list and accompanying description would easily (and "reasonably") be included in the 1951 Asian Games article without needing to be split out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But how it could be possible that any article of list class could never be good enough to be a featured part of an encyclopedia. If you think that prose need more work then in spite of directly opposing it you may mention it as your concern and I could work on that and I'll try my best to make it fit for 3(b) of FLC. Also shouldn't be a main thrust of the process (nomination) is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria and if you've noticed after your first comment I've already started working on prose. If 1896 Summer Olympics medal table could be a featured list then why not this one. So, please make comments and ask for changes, but don't just oppose it because you think it can never be a stand alone list; give me some time to resolve your comment. --Bill william compton^Talk 15:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Essentially a 3b oppose is based on the belief that the article should not be a part of the encyclopaedia, at least as its own article. Courcelles 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments (strictly here as a reviewer, not a director)

• It is a little short and it could be integrated back into the 1951 Asian Games article. It is certainly not your fault the parent article is very poor and I'm certain you created the list in good faith.
• However, focusing on the subject matter, i.e. the medal winners, perhaps you could expand it to include content about the winners of the medals.
• Otherwise you will have trouble convincing people this shouldn't just be integrated into the parent article I'm afraid. And then you'd need to head to WP:GAN or WP:FAC I'm afraid.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is possible [in between a nomination procedure] then please give me a time of one week, this is my exams time and can't do much research on this topic. As much as I aware of, this list has some potential for FL status and I'm trying very hard to improve the status of Asian Games related articles on Wikipedia, which is worst as compare to Olympics (this is just a healthy comparison for my personal motivation), thanks. — Bill william compton^Talk 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no major rush. You only nominated a few days back, typically this won't be archived (unless we get some serious opposition) for a couple of weeks. Get stuck in, and let us know if you need our help. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Even on my tight schedule I've worked on article, please take a look there and recommend more changes, thanks. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but now there's so little in the main article that isn't in the list (in fact, the list is far superior to the article), perhaps it's worth considering merging the list and article, but still keeping a FLC perspective. It may be that this is only going to be suitable at WP:GAN though. Perhaps we need to see what others think. Good work so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to express it in your guidance of focusing more on the subject matter with medalists. Do I need to add more about the individual athletes? and if still superiority of list over the main articles is an obstacle then I can improve the main article too, give me just two or three days and I'll bring it up to at least B-class status and may be will nominate for GA or FA. Please don't compare it with the main article, just consider it a "stand alone list". I've no problem in working extra, just like I created 15 new articles before the PR and nomination of 1982 Asian Games medal table. This is first Asian Games medal table and I want from my heart to especially see it as FL. As I earlier mentioned, we also have 1896 Summer Olympics medal table as FL, then why not this one? what else I need to make it fit for FL? — Bill william compton^Talk 21:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You've done a good job, don't get me wrong, but the reason it's different from the 1896 medal table is that the main article for the 1896 games is huge and a featured article so creating a medal table list was quite permissible under the 3b criterion. This list is actually much better and bigger than the main article, so there's a reasonable argument that it should be merged into the main article. Of course, this is simply my opinion, perhaps we should wait to see what others think? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have been asked to revisit my oppose from above. Despite the very commendable efforts of BWC, I still do not think this a viable stand alone list, especially given the very disappointing state of the parent article. I find myself in agreement with TRM. As merging this list back to its parent would improve the quality of the latter and not lead us to lose valuable content, I am not currently persuaded to change my 3b oppose. Sorry. StrPby (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You first opposed it for not following a 3(b) criteria which you still think it doesn't satisfy as the state of parent article is very poor, but if I improve the parent article would you again consider your opposition? because I don't wanna to loose this nomination just because the parent article's state is not satisfactory, I'll finish my work within two days. — Bill william compton^Talk 11:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with merging this information back there, working on that article itself and then going to GAN/FAC with it? It'd be more productive that way. My point is not that the main article is lousy, but that this list can and should be merged back into the main article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill, I agree with StPy, it's not intended to discourage you for what you've done, but I think your best bet now is to merge this info back into the main article and then head to GAN possibly i.e. make one article out of the two, the main one "1951 Asian Games", and see how it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And I agree with StPy and TRM. If the parent article is going to be improved with the information used in the lead here, then there's no good reason for this page to exist, considering the list itself is given in its entirety in the main article. I just don't see how 3b can possibly be met by this list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of optimistic by nature, that's why I was waiting to answer, now my work on article has almost finished, I'm ready to make my point. First I'd like to answer StrPby— In your second last comment, you said by yourself "very disappointing state of the parent article", now you're saying that your"point is not that the main article is lousy", I'm puzzled which point you're trying to make; also there is nothing wrong in merging this article with its parent one, but in this way there is also nothing wrong in merging all those featured medal tables with their parent articles and can I kindly ask you to give some special features of 1896 Summer Olympics medal table or of 2010 Winter Olympics medal table, that they are eligible for featured status, but not this one.

Rambling Man— I'm kind of confused about the objections arising here. As according to your second last comment, you weren't in favor of this because this list was much better and bigger than the main article, but now as I said, current article is also in good shape (see the difference — current and before), then what else do I need here?.

Giants2008— The parent article is not just improved by using information used in the lead of the article of concern. I know it was kind of reverse procedure that medal table was improved first than the parent article, but if you'll see now, the information used here is only the summary of whole parent article, which is the same trend we use in other medal table lists. We also have 2000 Summer Olympics medal table, in which lead is just the 5 line summary of 2000 Summer Olympics and has one other section of Changes in medal standings which is again extracted from 2000 Summer Olympics#medal table, but this list and many of like it are of featured status and here we've only differences that the concerned list (the actual medal table) is not big, which I can't change and the article is not of Olympics. — Bill william compton^Talk 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The difference between this list and 2000 Summer Olympics medal table is that the 2000 list has 80 entries. The main article has the top 10 nations and leaves the rest for the list. There's plenty of content in the list that isn't in the main article, and an 80-entry list is too much for the main article to comfortably handle (meaning the balance would be thrown off). Although the 2010 list is more moderate in size, the same is true. In this list, there's nothing in the table that isn't comfortably included in the main article; in fact, the tables are the same in both. It doesn't matter that the number of items can't change, or that this isn't an Olympic list. There are some lists that can never be featured, often due to size, and I think you unknowingly picked one of them to work on. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't pick it up "unknowingly", I chose this one particularly because — 1) If you'll see my edit history I'm working exhaustively on Asian Games related articles to improve their status, which is extremely poor and this is a list of very first Asian Games, which makes it a full candidate for my special attention 2) I had an example of 1896 Summer Olympics medal table, which also has some 11 entries but still has featured status.

Policy that tables shouldn't be same on both the articles is applicable on 1896 Olympics because parent article doesn't have any medal table but a little description of top medalist nations and medals. So in this way it shouldn't be wrong if I apply same here, is it? because, now the parent article is also in good shape, so that removing a list from it won't make it look odd, also I have sufficient material to add there. I'm not stubborn that I've sticked on it that this list should be a featured one, but I'm still not finding a good reason to deny it, however, 1896 medal table is featured one, also if it was any arts related award list then I'd never even nominate it, but this is a medal table, which would never be change. I respect my colleagues, specially those who are much senior to me (of course, in terms of working experience) and if you still think that I'm not giving a valid point then I'd withdraw this nomination by myself, thanks for giving your valuable time here. — Bill william compton^Talk 20:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, then you can go and send the 1896 table to WP:FLRC. But I must suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. X is an FL, so Y must be too is a silly argument. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a tough break I think. You've done an excellent job on the main article, but there's really little justification (in my opinion) on carving out just the medal table for a possible FL. There's just not enough there to warrant an independent page at this time. I sympathise with your feelings about the 1896 list, but as StPby says, it's not a reasonable justification to say that's an FL so this one should be too. Standards have changed considerably since that particular list was promoted and I feel it would be dealt with similarly to this one. I know it's not what you want to hear, but right now I'd be tempted to move back to the main 1951 article which you've expanded drastically and head to FAC with it. And let me know when get there so I can help you with it! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw – I formally withdraw this list from featured list's candidateship. I shouldn't have compared it with the 1896 Olympics list in the very first place. I apologize for my irrational conduct and wasting precious time of other users. Pardonne-moi — Bill william compton^Talk 19:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Bill, your work on this list and the main article has been fantastic, and the last thing I want to see is you feeling discouraged by this outcome. But as I said, your four-fold expansion of the main article means nominating it at FAC is a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rambling Man for recognizing my work, I'll let you know when this article becomes ready for FAC and I think I'll need your help on this, merci encore. — Bill william compton^Talk 00:35, 23 May 2011 (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 Giants2008 19:09, 24 May 2011 [4].

---

Wale discography

Nominator(s): Michael Jester (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because its lead section shows great writing skills, the lead section is well written and describes what the article is about, the article is easy to navigate, the article follows all the appropriate Manuel of Styles, and the article has visual appeal Michael Jester (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the mixtapes notable enough for inclusion? Are they official releases? What label were they put out by? Have they received comprehensive coverage in reliable sources? The fact they exist isn't reslly enough to warrant inclusion. The individual article pages didn't help ascertain any of this. They either have zero references or very little unreliable ones.
• Self Made Vol. 1 says it was released on May 24, 2011.. so it hasn't been released yet, doesn't really exist, and doesn't belong on a page listing his releases. Also, it's not referenced
• Why are the references for chart positions in the Singles' "As featured artist" table next to the positions, and not in the header, which is the accepted standard for discogs?
• References should have publication dates where available
• What makes http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.13318/title.wale-confirms-move-to-rick-ross-maybach-music-group a WP:Reliable source?
• What makes the blog http://www.2dopeboyz.com/2008/06/20/wale-paint-a-picture-mixtape-req/ a RS?
• What makes the blog http://www.getrightmusic.com/2008/05/30/wale-mixtape-about-nothing/ a RS?
• Or any of the following:

• http://www.5starhiphop.com/2010/wale-mixtape/ ?
• http://vibesource.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/wale-hate-is-the-new-love-mixtape/ ?
• http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2010/08/04/wales-second-seinfeld-themed-mixtape-more-about-nothing-somehow-better-than-the-first ?
• http://hiphop-n-more.com/2011/04/maybach-music-group-presents-self-made-vol-1-album-cover/ ?
• http://www.musicvideocast.com/wale-waledance-music-video.html ?
• http://www.prefixmag.com/media/wale/family-affair-video/29451/ ?
• http://www.prohiphop.com/2009/11/ucb-pat-your-weave-music-video-ft-wale.html ?

• Refs 19 through 23 need correct attribution
• "kazeem" with a K
• names of websites, broadcasters, etc (Myspace, MTV, Ultratop, Vevo) should not be in italics in references. Only the titles of magazines, newspapers, books, journals, etc.
• Prose in the Lede isn't a bit iffy in places. The reader shouldn't have to read the first paragraph to understand the second (It begins "The next year", requiring the reader to read the first to figure out what year.) Just start it with "In 2008"
• What is a "hometown hit"?? Please don't say it got a couple of spins on some local radio station and was popular with clubbers and hip iPod wearing high-schoolers. Is it "Dig Dug" (Shake It) as the text says, or "Dig Dug (Shake It)"?
• Is Maybach Music Group a record label or musical group? The prose and the table don't make it clear.

Overall there's a lot of very dodgy-referenced stuff here, especially the mixtapes. I wonder, if with all the non-notable stuff removed, this wouldn't be better placed at Wale#Discography. 1 album, 7 singles, and a few more music videos..? Seems to fail Criterion 3(b) as an unnecessary fork. All that plus the poor Lede means I have to Oppose at this time. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The mixtapes are official released. Also, I fixed most of the references problems. I still have to find a couple more, though.

That didn't answer my original question. Anyone can self-publish a mix tape. What makes these notable enough for inclusion? Where have they received comprehensive third party coverage? Your references just prove they exist, which I'm not disputing. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Still showing "Self Made Vol 1", which hasn't been released yet. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So after some research, I decided that his most recent mixtape, More About Nothing, is probably the only one that is worth including. Does this mean the others should be taken out of the lead section? I also took out the compilation album. Michael Jester (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Have Matthew's concerns been addressed? If not this should be archived at this point. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:06, 24 May 2011 (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 Giants2008 19:09, 24 May 2011 [5].

---

Timeline of town creation in the Hudson Valley

Nominator(s): Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe all issues raised by the previous FL nomination prior to my extended wikibreak were taken care of, unfortunately I went on a break thinking everything was done and it would be promoted. Another editor came with concerns while I was gone, I have addressed those that are addressable, other concerns that I found to be incorrect or impossible have not been fixed due to obvious reasons (ISBN is not possible to put for a 1880 source for example) or that I found nitpicky (location for publisher I find unneeded on sources; format of diagram I am not compromising by turning into a table).Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Refs 4 and 5, which were identified as, at best, being of questionable reliability, are still present. The research still looks lacking and limited to what is available online. Courcelles 23:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I find references 4 and 5 to be reliable and am willing for it to be brought to RS/N and abide by their decision. Research, even if it was limited to being only online (which it wasnt) would not be a problem for FL status from what I recall of the criteria. The claim that online sources must be backed up by something physical is a strange request, some of the books sourced to an online source like Google Books are ones I do physically own, but linking to Google books seemed a good help to users since this IS an online encyclopedia. Second- Courcelles asked in the previous FL whether I had looked at a full source or just the "50 word summaries of each page", makes me think Courcelles does not know how Google Books works, as the entire book is available on Google books and he/she seems to have been confused by the where the link drops you off at.Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

First, you can't prove unreliability, you have to prove reliability and you've made no attempt to do so. One would be entirely justified to oppose this on 4 and 5a grounds without considering the quality of research- the structure and visual appeal are lacking, and the entire thing is quite difficult to understand as a result of the stylistic choices. Courcelles 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments - the onus to prove reliability of questionable sources is on the nominator. I agree with Courcelles that (as a minimum) refs 4 and 5 need to be demonstrated to be reliable. How you achieve this is up to you, but if it's anticipated to take more than a couple of weeks, I suggest you find alternative sources which are reliable or withdraw the nomination. In other news...

1. Several "double period" issues in the references caused by use of the template and a period at the end of a field, e.g. ref 15.
2. Don't mix date formats in the references.
3. Should La Grange be LaGrange (like our article on it?)
4. "The timelines only represent which town(s) a particular town was created from and does not represent.." shouldn't that be "and do not"?
5. Images all seem to be individually set for different sizes. Not ideal. Use thumb and upright where applicable.
6. Is there an explanation of the difference between solid and dashed lines?
7. Why is Chester placed as it is? Its line crosses others, are they supposed to merge? It's unclear to me.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1-fixed extraneous periods

2- I believe I fixed all date formats, let me know if I missed one.

3-fixed

4-fixed

5-some images are smaller due to constraints on size of the timelines, if all images are made the same size they would have to be all the same as the smallest I suppose. Is that the best remedy?

Yes, I would say so. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

6-Yes, there is an explanation of the dashed lines in the section in which dashed lines appear. I could add an explanation in the lede if that is prefered as well.

No, not necessary, I missed that, my apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

7-yes, chester is supposed to merge, can work on placing Chester so that is more apparent.Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be wise. In electrical diagrams, lines which are supposed to merge have a dot at the junction for this very purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2011 (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 Giants2008 19:09, 24 May 2011 [6].

---

Isis discography

Nominator(s): Seegoon (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For your delectation: the discography of a fairly obscure metal band, without the bells and whistles you might find in the discog of a worldwide pop star or venerable rock group. Instead, it's a fairly warts-and-all account of Isis' release history, with minimal chart performance history, no worldwide sales counts and one or two silly and arcane early releases thrown in for good measure. Although it looks pretty bare, I like to think it's got all the bases well and truly covered. I eagerly await your feedback and will jump upon any recommendations with fervour. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Serious oppose - basics, suggest you withdraw until you've looked at...... "Visible in back is drummer" I think we'd generally say "at the back" rather than "in back". I didn't write this; I presumed it was an American colloquialism so left it in. Regardless, I've changed it now. After "extended plays" put "(EP)" because the infobox uses that terminology. Okay. "Isis were formed in Boston, Massachusetts, in late 1997 Aaron Turner" - some words are missing here, or maybe some punctuation. Probably after 1997. And late-1997 should be hyphenated. Yes, a word was missing. "Late 1997" shouldn't be hyphenated, as it isn't being used adverbially here. If I said "the late-1997 formation", I'd need a hyphen. Here I do not. "around the release of The Red Sea " when? what is this? It does actually say 1999 in parentheses after The Red Sea. I've altered it anyway. "line-up" or "lineup"? Fair enough. Lineup it is. "Isis released their debut full-length, Celestial, and its sister EP, SGNL>05 (on Neurot Recordings), in 2000, as their stature within metal music began to grow." too many clauses, and cite the final claim. Fair. I've pared this down and removed the offending claim as nothing's to hand to cite it with. You're right; it should've been cited. "In 2002, Oceanic was released to great critical acclaim, and was the subject of a series of four vinyl reinterpretations by various contemporary artists; the series was consolidated into an Ipecac Recordings release, entitled Oceanic: Remixes & Reinterpretations. Growth in stature necessitated relocation to Los Angeles" a lot of unsubstantiated claims in this phrase. Again, fair enough. I should've been more thorough. Cited. "This attention was matched by their next record" not great English. Look for a decent copyeditor here. No need to be so harsh; it's an ugly phrase, certainly. And redundant. I've excised it fittingly. "although critical reception was not so warm and the band do not look upon the album fondly." even worse. Perhaps you're misreading the intention of the 'so' – it is intended to be comparative (i.e. as warm as the previous album), so I've reshuffled. Ambiguity means something was afoul, I guess. " peaking at #98" avoid use of hash to represent "number" per WP:MOS. I wasn't aware of this and have removed it. "posthumous" means after-death. The band didn't "die" did they? Well, no. I've reworded this. Releases that didn't chart anywhere need their own reference. I'm not sure exactly what it is that needs referencing, but I expect allmusic is as good a source as any. I've done my best here. Please check to see that I've done what you've asked for here. Where are EPs referenced? As above. Singles are unreferenced. As above. Most collaborations are unreferenced. As above. DVD is unreferenced. As above. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I can appreciate all of your concerns; I hadn't really considered that the existence of each release needed citing in and of itself. Things have changed since I last nominated a discography here and I haven't kept up. I've done my best to address your concerns (except the Live releases and the demo, which I'm working on). Many thanks, Seegoon (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Live albums are unreferenced. I'm just going to look for some viable references for these now. I know it's taken me forever to find these, but after some serious Internet archaeology this afternoon, I feel I've sourced these fully. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Just one quick one from me: reference 36 shouldn't be in all caps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I had no idea that needed changing. Altered appropriately. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That's fixed, but current ref 28 also has some all caps. Sorry I missed that before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
      • You're right; I probably should've scoured it myself anyway. Fixed. Seegoon (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Please increase text size of the notes. There's not so much that they can't be in normal size in the boxes. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fair indeed. Amended. Seegoon (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Opening line: "Isis were an American post-metal band ..." Change to: "Isis was an American post-metal band" There is only ONE band that is discussed here. Jimknut (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ah. This is one of those AmEng-BrEng disparities. I've edited to fit AmEng style – thanks for the spot. Seegoon (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (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 Giants2008 18:21, 17 May 2011 [7].

---

Pink Floyd discography

Nominator(s): Nima1024 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think after my edit and clean up to this article, it now meets the condition, it's highly configured and the tables are at their best, they are all have same size and all the charts have the reference much info added and templates re-created, I think it is now ready. Thanks Nima1024 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest withdrawal This list is not ready for FLC; there are several things unreferenced (for example the Music video section is completely unreferenced), several "citation needed", some albums haven't even labels, wrong publishers, some parameters are missing (like the language parameter or the format parameter), uncharted albums not referenced, to many certs (for example Brazil is unnecessary, as it was not charted there), the Video albums section hasn't got a chart column, and I am sure it was charted at least in Billboard, the countries in the chart columns go to the countries, and not to the chart company (!). I was actually going to improve the list, until you nominated it. I hope you have contacted the main authors?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:24, 17 May 2011 (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 Giants2008 18:21, 17 May 2011 [8].

---

List of tennis stadiums by capacity

Nominator(s): TGilmour (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. TGilmour (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick fail I'm afraid, but some words of advice before that happens...

• We don't start lists with "This is the list..." any more. Have a look at some of the recently promoted FLs to see what we currently do.
• The lead should be expanded to at least three decent paragraphs.
• Headings should be formatted per WP:HEAD.
• Check how things sort, e.g. sorting by rank has 1 followed by 10=, when it should obviously be followed by 2.
• All those sources should be correctly formatted references using a suitable template if preferred, such as {{cite web}}.
• Consider making table column widths the same from section to section.
• Look out for disambiguation links, there are five here including ITF, ATP, WTA...
• It's not clear what the inclusion criteria are here, is there a cut-off point for attendance?
• Check the ordering of sections, See also should be ahead of References.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I got to "Arthur Ashe Stadium is the stadium with the highest capacity built in 1997 in New York City for US Open." and immediately agreed with Rambling Man. That one sentence has multiple grammatical issues. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2011 (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 Giants2008 18:21, 17 May 2011 [9].

---

The Simpsons (season 10)

Nominator(s): ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a list about all the episodes of the 10th season of The Simpsons. It doesn't have any problems that I can see.

Criteria

1. Prose

   The prose is good, with very high standards.

2. Lead

   The lead is very clear and a good summery of the season.

3. Comprehensiveness
   • It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.

     It has lots of information, putting all into 1 list. It has images with annotations, has major items, and with words anyone can understand. Very practical.

   • In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.

     All checked, it doesn't duplicate material of an article in the list or an related one. It would be hard to reasonably include it into an related article ether.

4. Structure

   Good sections, easy to navigate and well-made tables.

5. Style
   • Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.

     Text layout is very good, the formatting with all is put well together. There are 2 tables with info. Nice colours and there is only 1 redlinked article.

   • Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly.

     It has good images. Some of them are non-free but comply with the policies. They used to have some problems as saw on the talk page but there are none now. They have good captions too.

6. Stability

   Edited about 1 time per month.

~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments really quick ones.

• Lead too short. Probably need another two paras here.
• Bare URLs in the refs is a no-no, use {{cite web}} or similar.
• Pay heed to WP:DASH, where we use en-dash not hyphen to separate page ranges, year ranges etc.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
• Put references after punctuation where possible (e.g. look at [20] right now).
• Have you asked all major contributors if they're happy for you to nominate this article? How many times have you edited this list?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• The nominator had edited the article only once recently before the nom (and that was right before nomming the list). There have been a few subsequent edits, but I still think the major contributors should be notified and asked if this is okay, per the instructions. If they respond negatively, this FLC should be withdrawn. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:16, 16 May 2011 (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 Giants2008 18:21, 17 May 2011 [10].

---

Backstreet Boys discography

Nominator(s): KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a lot of work into it and I do think it should be a featured list KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Certifications are awarded for units shipped, not units sold. Therefore it is incorrect to list sales figures in the "Sales Based on Claims and Certification-Awards" column based on certs alone.—indopug (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done. I removed all sales based on certs and changed the title to 'Sales' KingdomHearts25 (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Could link discography. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "twenty three" hyphenate. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) " three compilation albums" infobox says four. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "which managed to peak at only number sixty-" -> "which peaked at number..." Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "However, the single quickly became a success throughout Europe." prove it. I've rephrased the sentence as 'made the top 10 in many European countries'. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) " certified three times platinum in Europe,[3] and Diamond in Canada" consistent capitalisation for the certification, no need for linking Canada. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "and would eventually become" -> "eventually became". Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "the best selling " hyphenate. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "At the same time, they released their self titled debut album in the United States" confusing when you've already linked to an album called "Backstreet Boys". Perhaps re-iterate it's the "second self-titled album".. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "Never Gone's follow up" -> "Never Gone's follow-up"... Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Link Grammy Award in the lead. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) What does dash mean in the tables? Look at other discogs. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Last para is predominantly about awards not discog. Three compilation albums have no references. Well, it's listed in the discography. Should I give references to prove that they exist? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "Crawling Back to You"" is not referenced anywhere. What do you mean? The peak positions are referenced at the top. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Since none of these positions indicate that the single charted at all, could you show me which references show it was released at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC) "Crawling Back To You" has charted in some Billboard charts and Bigger made it in the Japan Hot 100 and Slovakian charts (Week 51, 2009) KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Nor is Bigger. Same. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Same. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Please use spaced en-dashes in the reference titles, not spaced hyphens per WP:DASH. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC) More Mixed dates in the refs contravenes WP:MOS. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Bare url in the refs (ref. 76) Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Please actually reference those releases which didn't chart anywhere, i.e. Bigger, Crawling Back to You, the last two compilation albums... Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "and four World Music Awards including five categories in 1998, one category in 1999, four categories in 2000 and two categories in 2001." The only way the number of categories makes sense is if they are a combination of all four award wins mentioned in this sentence. Is that the case? Yes, it is. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC) References 9, 14, and 45 should have publishers italicized since they are from printed publications. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Remove all caps from ref 53. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Publishers of refs 13, 54, 60, and 72 should be spelled out. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC) aCharts (ref 62 and 65) and everyhit.com (ref 71) have always been found lacking when it comes to reliability. Why are they now reliable? aCharts: WP:BADCHARTS states that aCharts is not reliable only for some countries like Italy. As far as the American and Canadian charts are concerned, it is definitely reliable. I am saying this not only because the website is not listed for these countries at BADCHARTS but also because every position of the top 100 weekly singles at acharts corresponds exactly with the top 100 singles at Billboard. I doubt it would pass muster at FAC, and I don't see why our sourcing standards shouldn't match theirs. Is there anything better that can be used as a source for the info? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC) As for acharts.us, please note the language at WP:GOODCHARTS explaining the green star symbol used with acharts.us: Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links, and should use official sites and licensed archives where possible. There's no information at acharts.us that cannot be found at a licensed site.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Done. Removed aCharts. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Still see it in current refs 63 and 66. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Done. Removed aCharts completely. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC) everyhit.com: Done. I have removed everyhit.com KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC) In addition to the aforementioned ref 76, ref 75 needs further formatting. Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Not certain that Platinum, Diamond should be capitalised in the prose
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• "After the Black & Blue Tour in 2001, the Backstreet Boys entered a two-year hiatus. They released their fifth studio album, Never Gone, in 2005." My maths must be off because 2001 + 2 years = 2003. So what happened between 2003 and 2005?
  • Done. Removed the "two year". KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• When used as a conjunctive, "However" shouldn't start a sentence. Easy fix: change "blah blah blah. However blah blah blah" to "Blah blah blah; however, blah blah blah". Better fix: remove it altogether and recast the sentence.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Compilation albums table has the Sales column, but it's empty. Why not remove it?
  • It would be a better idea to have it because the studio album table has the column and it would be inconsistent not to have it here, even though there aren't any sales mentioned. Linkin Park discography is an example. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The WP:FL? require the list be complete. An emtpy column of sales figures implies we forgot to put it in, someone removed it, and that the list is incomplete. Removing the column removes that worry. Since the albums did sell copies, if you insist on leaving the column in, you need to put sales figures. Think about writing the article for the album. Would you put "The album sold __________ copies" and leave a gap because we don't know the figure, or would you simply not mention it? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Inserted sales. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Is Backstreet Boys "For the Fans" a notable release? Should it be included here?
  • Done. Removed it. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• A discography is supposed to catalogue releases. NKOTBSB is set for release in May. It isn't out yet, doesn't really exist, and so isn't part of their discography
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Table header is fucked up in the Singles, for Canada. Why not just put the reference by the chart position for that one?
  • Done, fixed it. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Please use correct ISO-3 names for the countries. NL, GER, SWI mean nothing
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Copied from Matthewedwards' talkpage:

      Hey, this is regarding your comment while reviewing the BSB discography on FLC that NL, SWI, and GER should be changed according to ISO-3. I did what you said but another editor reverted my edit saying that this system is not used anymore. He kinda seems to be right as most discographies, including featured ones, seem to have SWI, GER, etc. So, should we leave it as it is or should I still change it? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
           Then he's probably the one going around changing them. All the discog FLs I've done, I've been asked to do ISO-3 names as they're official. I've also seen other discog nominations being asked to make them ISO-3, as well as a discussion on a talk page somewhere at WP:DISCOG, perhaps the style page. Check out some of them from the date they were promoted, you'll likely find more. GER and SWI have no meaning and are simply wrong. but the thing is that small edits like changing DEU to GER and SUI to SWI won't flag people when they see the edit on their watchlist because no bytes have been added or removed, and so they end up being left that way. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We always want to make sense when requiring for certain styles. SUI=suisse is in French, DEU=Deutschland is in German; in other words, if we are going to ask editors to post these two in their native languages, we might as well ask for all other markets be posted in their native languages including Finland which would be SUO=Suomen and not FIN, Sweden which would be SVE=Sverige and not SWE, Austria would be ÖST=Österreich and not AUT etc.. The country abbreviations are in English also at Discographies/style/samples. --Harout72 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

ISO 3166 is an internationally recognized standard for country codes and abbreviations. Requiring SUI and DEU is not asking for abbreviations in native tongue, just in the internationally recognized standard. Check out ISO 3166-1, a fully referenced and FL article about the codes. The ISO 3166-1 code for Germany is DEU, for Switzerland it's CHE (Latin for "Confœderatio Helvetica"; I made a typo before when I said "SUI" without thinking). For Finland it is FIN, for Sweden it is SWE, and for Austria it is AUT. SVE, SUO and ÖST have nothing to do with anything. You're right, we do want to make sense, and I agree, using those three doesn't make sense. Using made up abbreviations because we want pre-teen and teen Backstreet Boys fans to understand what county we mean doesn't. We're an encyclopedia. Let's educate. Let's, since we require professional standards of writing at WP:FL?, use the ISO-3166 codes, which do make sense. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

While I'm aware of ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, I don't think we necessarily need to implement those internationally recognized ISO codes in discography tables. I do recall seeing the ISO codes in the past in the tables, but they haven't been in use for quite some time now. Can we really call it a teen desired made up abbreviations? I don't know, but the fact remains that there are no featured discographies with ISO codes implemented in them for DEU=Germany, CHE=Switzerland. However; if this is something that some reviewers desire to see changed, surely the sample table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style needs to be amended first. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair to single out one discography.--Harout72 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If they haven't been used in quite some time, and I'm not sure I believe that, it's probably because a person or people have been surreptitiously changing them. As I said previously, changing DEU to GER won't flag anyone who is watching the page because there is 0 bytes of change. Even the odd ±5 bytes here and there wouldn't cause a page watcher to stop and check out what's changed. Then, because eventually those people have changed enough pages without raising eyebrows, because it isn't noticeable unless you're looking for it, it becomes accepted as the norm. It isn't. They're incorrect abbreviations. The sample table at the Discog style page doesn't need amending first because it isn't a Manual of Style guideline or sub-guideline. It hasn't even been "officially" approved as a style guide by the discog people. There's a huge notice at the top that it's a proposal and it has been for years. The page is effectively dead. It hasn't been updated to reflect what's required at FLC, which sets the standard of what is "the best example [of a list] Wikipedia has to offer", and there hasn't been any discussion on the talk page for months. Besides, a proposal isn't set in stone and even an accepted MOS has changes made to it periodically. While ever they continue to be in the article,FLC is the only place the Discog people discuss their articles. This page is being "singled out" because it has been put up for review, and I'm reviewing it. I'm not reviewing any other, but if I do I'll ask for the same. If you don't want it singled out, don't nominate it, simple. As with all the discogs I've put up, and the ones I've been involved in reviewing, they have been asked to use internationally standardized abbreviations. Perhaps the Discog folk have gotten lax in their standards in my absence, but I'm here again, and while ever we have incorrect abbreviations in an FLC for no good reason other than WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'll stand by my oppose because being wrong does not sit comfortably with "exemplifies our very best work". Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The only time "GER" would be an acceptable abbreviation for Germany is in Olumpic-related or football-related articles, possibly some other international sporting events that "borrow" the IOC codes. Same for "SUI" (not "SWI") for Switzerland (That's why I typed it earlier!). Since discographies and the music industry doesn't have an "official" list of country abbreviations, we default to the ISOs, as with every other subject that doesn't. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was invited to this discussion by Harout72, and I'm going to wind up agreeing with both of you. Harout72 is right that discographies don't normally use ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes. That isn't because of people making surreptitious changes, that's because WP:DISCOGSTYLE doesn't use them. It just makes up it's own codes. Matthewedwards is right that that isn't how it should be: discography articles should use a standard system. I think the discussion of which system to use belongs at WT:DISCOGSTYLE, and I wouldn't have any objection to any editor that decided not to support any more discographies becoming WP:FLs until the matter is resolved.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Instead of a footnote that makes the reader scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, just do a line break and small font to say "Don't Turn Out The Lights" is performed with New Kids
  • Done. I just brought the note to the single section, so the user doesnt have to go all the way to the bottom of the page. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Rows for Number 1 hits and Top 10 hits aren't standard and are not needed. Any half-wit can count all the 1s in a column and figure out how many number 1 hits they had in a country.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps retitle the Videos section as Home videos?
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 2, 21, etc Billboard is a magazine, so it should be italicised. Be consistent between "Billboard" and "Billboard magazine"
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• What makes Rockonthenet.com a Reliable Source?
  • It has reliable information, is not blacklisted, the certifications and awards posted there seem to be accurate, I don't know what is unreliable about it. I think it is a pretty safe site to use. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Many sites that are unreliable aren't blacklisted. We need a bit better reassurance than than "it seem to be accurate" and "I think it's pretty safe to me". What do you base this on? To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
    • This applies equally to the acharts reference that Giants mentioned earlier. How can they be considered totally unreliable for some information but reliable for others? It doesn't make sense. If the site is wrong, it's wrong, it doesn't matter that some of what they have is right. Surely there are other sources available? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Removed it. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Hung Median and Chart Stats shouldn't be italicised as they're just website names, not publication titles
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• BPI is a company, and that shouldn't be italicised.
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 51, 55, etc remove riaj.or.jp from the attribution
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not too bad, but needs a bit of work. Oppose for now. Please ping my talk page for a revisit. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Additional

• What makes enotes.com a RS?
  • Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• What makes infodisc.fr a RS?
  • Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• What makes videostatic.com a RS?
  • Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• What makes discogs.com a RS?
  • Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• What makes Imdb.com a RS?
  • Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• What makes Chartstats.com a RS?
  • Done. Changed to a more reliable source. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• cmt.com --> Country Music Television
  • Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:41, 23 April 2011 (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 Giants2008 18:21, 17 May 2011 [11].

---

List of Mir spacewalks

Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to put this list forward for consideration as a Featured List because I believe it cover the topic accurately & fully and meets the Featured List Criteria. I also believe I have dealt with all points raised in the closed peer review. It's very much based on the List of ISS spacewalks. Many thanks in advance to any reviewers! Colds7ream (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment An interesting list on an area I know very little about..

• In the lead why is Extra-vehicular activities in bold?
• In the list is there any reason why the logical process of one sub head and table per year is not followed in 1987–1988? - you could easily put the three for 1987 in one table & the four for 1988 in a separate one.
• The tables for 1993 and 1998 are a different width than the others - any reason?
• In the references some of the isbns have multiple hyphens (eg 978-0-387-23011-5.) when others have single hyphens (eg 978-0071372305)?— Rod ^talk 17:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, glad you find it interesting! :-) In response to your questions, I emboldened EVAs after it was suggested in the peer review that 'List of Mir spacewalks' wasn't a good opening line, and I wanted to highlight the fact that the list concerns them; I've no major objections if you think it needn't be. I've split the 1987/1988 table up, but I think the table widths are due to the shorter lengths of the summaries in those tables; if you know of a way to force them to all display as the same width, I'd be very grateful. As for the ISBNs, I've simply entered them as I found them in the publications in question; again, if they need to be put in a standard format or something, I've no objections. Colds7ream (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think EVA should be bold according to the WP:MOS as it is a link to a different article. I have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables) but I'm sure there is a way of making them all the same width but suggest using % (eg 90% width) rather than number of pixels. I also spotted on this look that 1992 doesn't have a title for the Duration column which all the others do.— Rod ^talk 07:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've reformatted the ISBNs, and I believe the table merge has dealt with the column width issues. The link to EVA is no longer bold. Colds7ream (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion: try adding colors for the key to make the table a bit more appealing. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What colour codes would you recommend? Colds7ream (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For † and * color the background of the "Mission" column. Also, I am not sure that splitting every year is ideal since it leaves the likes of EO-24 split over two tables. Can't you merge them? Nergaal (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just completed the merge. I meant what hex codes would you suggest I use? Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been suggested below that the fewer colours involved in the table, the more WP:ACCESSible it is? Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments I have to say it's really good to see some niche lists here, welcome! Avoid bold links, no need here to link either Mir or Spacewalks (even though that's now no longer linked!). Lead image doesn't need a period. "With a greater mass than ..." would prefer that as "mass greater than..." "third generation of space stations" what were the first and second generations? (speaking strictly as a non-expert here) Second lead sentence is too long, split after "modular design". Don't intersperse "small" coding in the lead, leave the years in full size. " completing 15.7 orbits per day." a long-shot but perhaps consider saying each of those are "earth" orbits? Yuri Romanenko is Yury per our article. "The longest EVA was performed on 17 July 1990, when EO-6 crewmembers Anatoly Solovyev and Aleksandr Balandin conducted an EVA ..." poor and repetitive, don't repeat EVA here. Given the list name, suggest you replace one of the EVA with spacewalk. Why is the list split into multiple sections by year? Why not just add a horizontal navbox at the top which is anchored to various entries of a single merged list? Have you checked that these tables meet WP:ACCESS? I would always recommend a pass by User:RexxS who is abundantly generous with his time in this situations. Not yet, will do. Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Perhaps "duration" needs explanation because it doesn't add up for EO-3 EVA 1, EO-3 EVA 2 for example. I think I've fixed these, do please let me know if there are any other discrepancies. Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) What's the blue line between 6 and 7? As described in the key, it separates EVAs conducted during different expeditions. There's others throughout the table. Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Why doesn't every EVA have an EVA designation? Lots and lots of redlinked EOs, can you do something about this? We're working on this as a project, but it'll be a while. Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Not relevant if you merge the lists (which would be good) but if you insist on keeping them split, then can you make the col widths the same from section to section. Odd gallery towards the end... needs context. Simply based on the one at List of ISS spacewalks. Suggestions? Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Refs 1, 2, 6 and 8 are really "general references" and, as such, would do better without being continually re-used. Should I just list them as bullets in the references section? Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Ref 3 needs an en-dash. Ref 11 has a spare period (you need to "cheat" the template) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Hi, thanks very much for the review! The merged-list-with-navbox sounds like a great idea, how do I go about coding that? Colds7ream (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Similar to this list, I knocked up a sandbox for boxing champs, here. It sort of does what I'm suggesting here. Let me know if there's anything that needs explaining. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Grand, thanks - I'll have a go at coding that in tomorrow. In other news, I think I've dealt with most of your other comments, with exceptions that I've noted above. Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) How's that looking? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Apologies for taking so long to look at your list, but I hope I can be helpful. Improving the accessibility of an article isn't an "all-or-nothing = pass/fail" process, so I hope you'll understand that my comments are mainly suggestions, not requirements for my support (apart from a couple of things like column headers and alternate text).

• All images have (copious) alt text, which work well with the captions. It is possible someone (not me) may think there is too much alt text, but the effort that has gone into this aspect is commendable.
• There is always going to be a problem where information is being conveyed purely by visual means, so the use of symbols in the legend is good, but the † symbol is not very accessible, so you could improve that by using the {{†}} template, and giving it some alt text.
• The part about "EVAs conducted during different principal expeditions are indicated by a wide blue separator" is problematical. If someone can't see the wide blue separator, then they will not get the information you intended them to receive. I don't know how to help you because I've followed the link to List of Mir Expeditions and read it; but I'm none the wiser about what a principal expedition is – or how it differs from a non-principal one. I can see that EO-2 and EO-3 are in a different group from EO-4 and EO-5, but I don't understand the significance; and a blind reader probably wouldn't even be able to get that far.
• The table itself needs some extra markup to identify at least the column headers, ! scope="col". See MOS:ACCESS#Data tables for the guidance.
• The table would benefit from extra markup to identify the row headers, ! scope="row". If you're unsure, I've made a short version of your table at User:RexxS/Mir spacewalks#Minimal markup, where I've stripped out all of the visual formatting and added the header markup, as well as the dagger template, so you can see what I've done.
• In general, the simpler the structure and formatting, the more likely a table is to be both usable and accessible – but this is a suggestion, so you can ignore it without penalty if you don't like it.

If you'd like to try out any or all of these suggested changes (you really need to do the column headers), but are unsure, I'm happy to help – either in doing some for you, or in helping if you get into difficulties while trying them out. I know the reviewers here won't complain if the list gets a few edits as a result; improving accessibility doesn't reduce the stability of an article! Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this, and thank for your kind words on my alt text! I think I've sorted out the dagger signs, and the issue with the principal expeditions was because some of them disappeared. I've restored these, and clarified the description on the List of Mir Expeditions, so hopefully that makes more sense. I've also identified the columns (but how do I make the title row blue again?), but when I set the rows, the table displays weirdly, and I'd like to keep the description cells where they are, so how do I sort this out, please? Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The daggers are good, thank you.

I can see now that each EO-X was a different principal mission, and so the separators are redundant. That means that a screen reader won't miss out on the information that is provided only by colour.

The markup on the column headers is good - don't forget that they become bold and centred by default when they become headers.

Why should the first row have a blue background? (It's the #CCCCFF that produces it.)

I can't find the diff where you set the rows, so I can't tell how the table displays weirdly. Could you be a bit more specific about the problem you had? --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This happens:

#	Mission	Spacewalkers	Start (UTC)	End (UTC)	Duration
rowspan=2 |1	EO-2 EVA 1 †	Yury Romanenko Aleksandr Laveykin	11 April 1987 19:41	11 April 1987 23:21	3 hours, 40 minutes
Inspected the rear port of the core module following the failure of Kvant-1 to achieve a successful hard docking on 9 April and discovered a piece of debris left behind following the departure of Progress 28 on 27 March. This was removed, and the subsequent hard docking of the new module was observed.

Distressingly, I can't seem to find a place to put it in the code which doesn't result in something similar? Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

#	Mission	Spacewalkers	Start (UTC)	End (UTC)	Duration
1	EO-2 EVA 1 †	Yury Romanenko Aleksandr Laveykin	11 April 1987 19:41	11 April 1987 23:21	3 hours, 40 minutes
		Inspected the rear port of the core module following the failure of Kvant-1 to achieve a successful hard docking on 9 April and discovered a piece of debris left behind following the departure of Progress 28 on 27 March. This was removed, and the subsequent hard docking of the new module was observed.

Rowspan and scope are both attributes of the tag, so there's no '|' between them. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How's that looking? I must say, this FLC is turning out to be great - friendly help and advice from everyone and a tutorial on properly coding tables! The FAC people could learn a lot from you folks! Colds7ream (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. It looks good to me. All of the accessibility issues are resolved as far as I can tell. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Question – I see that much of the list is cited to Encyclopedia Astronautica. This is a site whose reliability has been questioned at FAC before, and it was removed from the International Space Station article before it was promoted. Why should it be considered a reliable source when it hasn't been proven reliable at other major content processes? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, User:MBK004 said here that the website is recommended by NASA's own PAO. On the other hand, the table happily stands on the other references, so if people massively object it can be removed pretty much with impunity. Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say remove it. If there's any doubt, and the table is fully backed by other sources anyway, that seems to me to be the best thing to do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to argue for keeping it, partly because I personally believe in its reliability, and partly because the other sources are books which will be unavailable to the vast majority of readers - having this website available allows them to check things. Colds7ream (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• In intro: is "non-monolithic" the same as "modular design"?

Yes, but I can't think of a better way to word it. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How about just removing the last part of the sentence ("with a modular design.") since it is already implied by "non-monolithic"? bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• What is a 3rd generation space station (or what are 1st/2nd gen.)?

1st & 2nd were monolithic, 3rd non-monolithic. The space station article needs work to support this. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Would be good to have a wikilink or footnote or make it more clear in prose that 3rd gen. implies non-monolithic. bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I've sorted this out, let me know what you think. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Better but the sentence: With a mass greater than that of any previous space station, Mir was the first of the modular space stations, constructed from 1986 to 1996., makes me wonder: what other modular space stations were there? And what does the phrase "constructed from 1986 to 1996" refer to, to Mir or to "modular space stations"? bamse (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Should "deorbit" be linked to Deorbit of Mir?

Yes, done. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Was "technologies required for the permanent occupation of space" the only research interest on Mir?

No, they also researched biology, human biology, physics, astronomy, meteorology, as it says prior to the comment on spacecraft systems. The primary aim of the entire programme was the technology development. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence says: "...experiments in biology [etc] in order to [develop space technology]". I read this to mean that the research (in biology, physics, ...) was aimed at space technology and not at general technology development. bamse (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Is the boldfacing of "Mir" and "Spacewalks" (separated by a paragraph) according to the MOS? I don't think boldfacing of the title (or parts of title) is required or even desired in featured lists.

Done. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand the "but" in the sentence "The longest EVA was performed on 17 July 1990, when EO-6 crewmembers Anatoly Solovyev and Aleksandr Balandin left the station to repair their spacecraft, Soyuz TM-9, but encountered difficulties shutting the airlock hatch upon their return."

Replaced with 'then'. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure the sentence "EVAs conducted during different principal expeditions are indicated by a wide blue separator." is clear (but I am not a native reader/speaker). Possibly something like "EVAs conducted by different principal expeditions are separated by a ..." would be more clear.

Done. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How about: "indicated by a wide blue separator"->"separated by a wide blue line"? bamse (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I also changed "indicated"->"separated" which is more to the point in my opinion. bamse (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can "hard docking" be wikilinked or explained (in footnote or text) or is it obvious?

I can't find an appropriate article to link to, but I think its fairly obvious. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Does it mean permanent docking, or something else? bamse (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the legend repeated after the table?

Removed. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why are there always two spacewalkers? Were they walking at the same time? Were they exiting/entering together? Can this be discussed in the intro?
• References 1 and 2 seem to reference almost all spacewalks and should probably be made into general references.

You mean just put them as bullets in the references section? Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and put them in a subsection "General" or something like it. I've also seen often used references mentioned in prose in the lead, which could be an alternative. Anyway, this is just a suggestion, so feel free to do whatever you think is best. bamse (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• References 1 and 8 need accessdates.

Done. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• In which way is ref 5 used?

The '15.7 orbits per day'. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on which input values for (Semimajor axis, Mass of sun, Mass of planet)? bamse (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Is ref 6 part of ref 3 and is ref 7 part of ref 4?

Yes. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So 3 and 4 cite whole books while 6 and 7 only part of those books? Would be good to have page numbers for 3 and 4 as well (unless you really mean to cite the whole books). bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Book references should have page numbers IMHO.
• What do "EO" and "STS" in the mission names stand for?

экспедиция основная (mission primary) and Space Transportation System. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Could it be explained somewhere (lead, legend,...)? bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I put it in the legend. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Are the images at the bottom, the only images we have of Mir spacewalks?

Yep. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, just wondered whether we could have images for every table entry, i.e. inside the table. Since there are so few, that does not make much sense. I think image galleries are somewhat discouraged in featured content, but here it looks good and adds nicely to the table in my opinion. bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

bamse (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied to some, working on others. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Further improvements. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (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 Giants2008 19:14, 10 May 2011 [12].

---

List of Giro d'Italia general classification winners

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, although it's been a while since I brought a list here I think that this one is ready to become featured and hopefully meets all of the criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments Is the Netherlands a neighbor of Italy? Really? he was 20 years, 158 days old when won... - he was 20 years, 158 days old when he won... was 34 years old, 180 days, when... - Is the comma before "when" necessary? the "Stage wins" column should be explained in the key. h, ' and " should be explained in the key, as well. I think these are pretty much self-explanatory, and don't really need to be put into the key, especially when the column highlights what they mean. NapHit (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC) In the references, "in french" should be "in French" --Cheetah (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Apart from the one issue I have fixed done everything else, thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support It looks good to me.--Cheetah (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Just an initial response to the above, "stage wins" is fine for me. I'm not sure how close to OR reporting bare statistical facts goes, although I do understand because it's sortable, it could give some kind of "impression" of significance that isn't warranted. However, as long as it's clear that most stage wins doesn't equal overall winner, not a major trauma. There is a bit in the lead which states what the stages represent and the key eplicitly says the column represents the number of stages the cyclist won, so I don't think there's a problem. NapHit (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Coppi's caption doesn't need a full stop. "wears the pink jersey." a minor semantic point for me but this could just as well be "wears a pink jersey" since "pink jersey" isn't a proper noun or linked or anything. This applies et seq. "each cyclist having won the competition five times" - don't think you need to reiterate they're cyclists, why not just "each of them having won.."? "the most Giro's" don't think that should be hyphenated (et seq.) "are third with 6 wins." ->six. When, in the "calendar" is this held? First sentence in the lead states this. NapHit (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) "The first race was won by Luigi Ganna, " make it "The first Giro.." because in between time you've mentioned the Tour de France. "20 year old team " hyphenate -> 20-year-old team-mate... " five time Tour de" - five-time. "1960,[13] and 1964, " why is 1960 ref'ed and not 1964? "His first victory came in 1968, another triumph in 1970 " not sure the comma is the right thing here, maybe a semi-colon or replace with "while". "the following year" you link only "year", I'd link "following year" as a whole. "Giro in 2000 after he won the penultimate stage to take" no, he won it by the standard rules. Winning the penultimate stage wasn't the sole reason he won the Giro. Years which weren't contested, can you not put colspan's in with "Not contested" or something? Shouldn't mess up the sorting... Salvodelli -> Savoldelli (according to our article). Ref 2 needs an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments they have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose For lack of verifiability of the team column. Will change to support once acceptable source for the teams is found. (The current source only shows that the riders rode for the displayed team at a certain point during the year, not that they rode for the team during the Giro.) See discussion below. It might be nice to inform the reviewers that List of Tour de France general classification winners, a similar article, is a Featured List already, nominated by the same nominator, and that this article apparently tries to be consistent with it. This may explain why certain stylistic choices were made, although I am perfectly aware that this does not make them immune for discussion. I have corrected some mistakes in the prose. You might want to check that text for style/grammar; my English is decent but it is hard to explain the jersey thing... That seems to run better now. There is little point in me going over the text as I am familiar with it, so its harder to spot mistakes, that is best left to the reviewers. NapHit (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I am not talking about the text that you wrote, but the text that I wrote. You might catch my mistakes. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The table is lacking sources. The general references only show the winner, but not the margin, total distance, winning time/points, sponsor/team and won stages. You can use this source as a source for distance, winning time and margin, but not for sponsor/team nor for won stages. The Tour de France winner list had a table with several mistakes, so I suspect this will also need correction, and sources are needed for this. Include that reference thanks for that, much better than the previous one. Yes that is a problem that there is not a reference for the other columns, it's a shame that there is a not a wider general reference as there is for the tour and vuelta. NapHit (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC) It is a big problem that there is no reference for these columns, in my opinion a problem that would prevent this list from becoming featured. Where did you get this information? Just give your sources, that might be enough. Currently, then the main information of this list is unsourced, and I think this list should not be featured as long as it remains unsourced. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The "Stage wins" column can safely be removed, in my opinion. I have never seen it in other overviews (except from List of Tour de France general classification winners, and even there it was explicitly questioned in the FL-review, and no reason was ever given for inclusion). I think this serves a useful purpose as it illustrates how dominant the winner was during the Giro, it will interest some readers to know that riders have won these events without winning a single stage, on this basis I think the column should remain. NapHit (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC) It does not really show how dominant the winner was, as it does not show how many stages there were in total. No other source that lists the giro winners shows the number of stages they won that year, so I am afraid this gets close to original research. To summarize: my first point, about the jerseys, is probably no problem. The third point, about the 'stage wins' column, is something we disagree on, but I'll ignore that for now, and hope some other reviewer will give their opinion on it. The second point, no sources, is a major problem, and until that is solved, I will oppose. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1924 winner has no team or sponsor. Needs a note/en-dash etc. In fact, the 1919 to 1924 editions were not contested in teams, because the economic situation after world war I stopped companies from sponsoring the cyclists. The sponsors in the 1919 to 1923 editions mentioned here may have been the personal sponsors of these cyclists in the rest of the year, but not during the Giro. This is a good example why this table needs sources... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Well. if this is so I'm going to need a source otherwise the sponsors will have to remain, I understand your concerns about the the table but the problem is that sources that cover the statisitical side of the Giro are thin on the ground, so I can make the most of what I have got. NapHit (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) I hate to throw wikipedia rules around, but in this case WP:BURDEN is very clear: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Still, I tried to back up my claim with the source I used, but I found that I probably clicked wrong and found results for the Tour de France, not for the Giro d'Italia. On the other hand, I also could not verify the information that is currently in the article. Where can I check that, in the 1923 Giro, Girardengo was part of the Maino team? Where did you get this information from? If you can not give sources for this information, it should not be part of a featured list.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 21:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Well you were right to query my sources as according to this source Giradengo rode for a different team in 1923. What I'm going to do is use that website as the source for all the teams, which hopefully should resolve that issue. NapHit (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The teams are all correct now and the source is included in the general refs, this also covers the stage wins, although you'll have to navigate there. I could include the two separate pages for the cycling archives references instead of the one general reference if this is preferred. Anyway hopefully that clears any issue with the legitimacy of the information in the table. NapHit (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, it does not. The source that you give shows that Girardengo rode for the Gurtner-Hutchinson team and for the Maino team in 1923. It does not say for which team Girardengo rode the Giro, it does not show that that the Giro was contested in teams, and if it were contested in teams, it does not show if it was contested by national teams or sponsor teams. I am not making up unlikely alternatives; the Tour de France (the Giro's older brother) has varied from individual participation to national team participation to sponsored team participation. I have tried to find a source that shows which format Giro used, but sofar could not find one.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC) For this case either team article does not show that they won the Giro, so it could be that he rode individually, but I think this information will not be ascertained without coming from official channels. However, that source is fine for the majority of the other teams, so I think it will have to do as the main source for the teams. There will not be better source than that unless the Giro released a historical guide along the lines of what the Tour did. NapHit (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC) There are many other possibles sources: Books written on the Giro, newspaper overviews on Giro winner history, old newspaper reports on the Giro, a biography of the Giro winner, and cycling result databases. The source that you use does not show which team the cyclists rode for during the Giro, as the Tour example shows. If this list is to become featured, it should be 100% correct, and 100% verifiable. Currently, there is good reason to doubt some of the teams before WWII, and the information is not verifiable. It looks like you are saying "there is no good source, so a bad source will have to do", and although I understand this logic, a Featured List should follow higher standards. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for non-verifiable info in the table (specifically: teams before 1940)--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Strange Passerby (talk • cont)

*Original comments 12:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC) "Italian cyclists have won the most Giro's, 39 cyclists have won 65 Giro's between them." Grammar. Giro's what? If it isn't a possessive or contraction, there shouldn't be an apostrophe there. This happens quite a bit in the article. "The first Giro was won by Luigi Ganna, Carlo Galetti won the two following Giro's." Per first point. I'd personally add the word "while" between the two names to make the sentence flow a bit better. "From 1914 onwards the scoring format was changed from a points-based system to a time-based system, in which the cyclist who had the lowest aggregate time at the end of the race would win." A ref for this would be nice, although this may be a bit picky. "The dominant figure in the 1920s was Alfredo Binda, he won his first Giro in 1925 and followed this up with another victory in 1927, in which he won 12 of the 15 stages." Shouldn't the first comma be a semicolon? Alternatively, "he won" could read "who won". In the table, kilometres is spelled out but miles isn't. Is there a reason for this? Shouldn't it be standardised to km (mi) or kilometres (miles)? Addressed all your comments, I can't find a reliable source for the switch to time based system, but I'll keep searching and I might find one eventually. NapHit (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC) I found a source ([13]) from RAI, the (leading?) Italian broadcaster, that gives general information about the winners of the Giro, I guess similarly to what this article does. Unfortunately my Italian is not good enough, but it may include something on the time based system, or something else... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Used googel translate and there was nothing regarding the witching of the scoring method unfortunately. NapHit (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Three more instances of "Giro's" left in the article. Once changed I'll support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Got them, Cheers. NapHit (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Comma after "Italian cyclists have won the most Giros" should probably be a semi-colon. Remove comma after "of the Liquigas-Doimo team". History: Semi-colon after Alfredo Binda should be a comma. The opposite is true for the comma after "called to the head office of La Gazzetta dello Sport in 1930". Is it "Giro's" or "Giros"? I see both in the article. De-capitalize Team and Points in the table. Are the last two general references reliable sources? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately those two sources are the only ones that cover most of the table, I believe that they are reliable, the cycling archives website is very extensive and updated regularly. The bikeraceinfo one is edited by two people who have had books published on the subject, so I believe the source would be reliable. Thanks for the comments I have addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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