Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2009

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:42, 28 September 2009 [1].

---

List of US ballot initiatives to repeal LGBT anti-discrimination laws

Nominator(s): Otto4711 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria for featured lists or if not can be updated easily to meet them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Even though it would make it longer, shouldn't the title be amended? This article is entirely about the US, and doesn't even appear to mention that the rest of the world exists. Yes, the US is the only place to use the term "ballot initiative" rather than "referendum", but that's pure semantics; an Italian publicly proposed legislative referendum is exactly the same mechanism, for instance. – iridescent 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• My only reluctance to rename is that the title is already extremely long. If the title as is becomes a barrier to promotion then I have no objection to a rename. Otto4711 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I also agree that the title should be change to reflect how it only covers the US.—Chris! _ct 03:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• You could just append "(US)" to the end of the title, which is only five more characters (counting the space). Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Or call it "U.S. LGBT anti-discrimination laws" Hekerui (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone have any comment other than about the name? Otto4711 (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only refers to American initiatives, therefore massively incomplete. There's a whole world out there... -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 14:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• As several people have pointed out, issues of scope can be addressed by adding the letters "US" to the article name. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• But why hasn't this been done?—Chris! _ct 20:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Because changing the name of the list in the middle of this discussion breaks the links between the article and the review. Otto4711 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• That can easily be fixed. Just move the article and I or another FL regular will fix the rest. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unfortunately. Domestic partnerships and "bans of anti-discrimination laws" are not anti-discrimination laws, but their repeal/approval is included as if they were. Less important and perhaps debateable is the fair-use rationale "no free image is known to exist" for the image - I think one can write an email to any number of organizations involved in these efforts, including the one at hand, and reasonably expect to obtain a free image. Hekerui (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I do not understand the first critique. Domestic partnerships extend limited rights to same-sex couples who are discriminated against under federal and (most) state marriage statutes and the repeal of ordinances guaranteeing those rights are certainly within the scope of this list. Leaving out the local Oregon initiatives on the basis of their being proactive presents an incomplete picture of the situation in that state. As for the second, there is no requirement that images must be non-free, just that they comply with fair use policies. As a non-free image of a historical event, I believe this qualifies. Otto4711 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• The two types of laws, partnership and nondiscrimination, are treated as distinct from each other in legislatures and it is not reported that anti-discrimination laws are repealed when domestic partnerships get repealed, or not? There's nothing "anti" from the outset in a domestic partnership law, because rights are extended. Hekerui (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• In most cases they are, in some cases they are not. The distinction between removing protections and withdrawing "extended" protections seems a rather semantic fine hair to split. I'm not sure what "there's nothing anti from the outset" means exactly, but repealing partnership benefits strikes me as very "anti" as repeal takes away rights, protections and privileges. Otto4711 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think they always are. How about the fact that anti-discrimination laws apply to individuals and partnership laws don't? Domestic partnerships grant some or a substantial number of rights of marriage, anti-discrimination laws don't. Hekerui (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is having five entries on DP ordinances that have been targeted for repeal really such a massive threat to the integrity of this list? Really? Is it not at all possible that inclusion enhances the list, even just a little bit, by covering instances of laws designed to protect LGBT people being targeted for reversal? Are we really so mired in pedantism? Otto4711 (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll stay neutral on the FL worthiness, as US politics is opaque to me. But i also wondered why domestic patnerships comes under this articles purview. While it could be argued that revoking DP rights is equivalent to revoking anti-discrimination laws, that arguement could be applied to the whole decriminalisation of homosexuality, no? And unless a law is explicitly an anti-discrimination law, many people would argue to not allowing same-sex DPs is not discrimination (I've read at least one article saying it wasn't discrimination, as gay people are still fully within their rights to marry the opposite gender). But reader usefulness trumps all imo, so i would say keep them here (maybe needing a further retittle though).YobMod 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:42, 28 September 2009 [2].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag

Nominator(s): Hometech (talk), Abeer.ag (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because It failed recently but can make it to FL. Hometech (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Not sure of the correct etiquette but as Abeer.ag is the creator, main contributor and was nominator last time around, you should probably leave a note on his talk page and IMO it would be advisable to be co-nominators. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply I am one of the major editors and can manage this. Why does the wiki prioritise main editors? Hometech (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Because it's part of the rules of nomination. While not hard and fast, it's a generally accepted standard here that the editor who has contributed "the most" in collaboration (a very subjective term) is supposed to be the editor who nominates the list. If several editors choose to co-nominate a list, that's fine too. It's part of that big blue box posted at the top of WP:FLC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• In theory, because the primary editor probably has a deep knowledge of the subject of the article, and if he/she was responsible for making major improvements to the article, then he/she probably best knows when the list is ready to be submitted to FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to co-nominate please; it is pretty ready for FLC. Abeer.ag (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• Repetitive phrasing here: "His highest score of 130 was also scored against them...". Try replacing one of the "score"s.

• Changed

• Is Express India (reference 12) a newspaper? I'm an American and don't have great familiarity with that site. It's probably fine, but I just wanted to ask to be safe. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, its one of India's oldest newspapers.

Thanks for you comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:42, 28 September 2009 [3].

---

List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been substantially improved since I last nominated it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's been fixed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - the lead is a little short.—Chris! _ct 06:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what else to write, as I based it off another featured page on a similar topic. Any suggestions? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Greatest concentration of universties (are they concentrated around Boston, in the western part of the state, on the Cape?), something about the inactive institutions (which currently aren't addressed at all the lead, which needs to summarize the whole list)... I'm sure others can come up with more ideas. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not on the Cape, which has two active colleges. They're concentrated around Boston mostly. I'll get right to it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• All but one of your external links duplicate references, so remove them per WP:EL. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Your current references #1 and #2 are search engines; they do not link to the information, so the entire first table is essentially unreferenced right now. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I could re-reference the first section, as they were removed because some editor complained that they were linked to the page of the college. While this is true, I know that the table should be references. What do you think? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against the source; you just need to reference each row separately for each school. For example, [4] is a good source for Amherst. It has your type, enrollment info, and location. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Does anyone want to help me because otherwise this will take a long time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note User:Inquietudeofcharacter has removed the references that I just added, so I told him about this after restoring them. Also, what is the opinion of adding NEASC information to the page? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Why are there citation needed tags in the lead? Please address them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked the editor the same question. I want to remove them personally.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Please add more images to the side of the list. I mean from the 100 institutions only one image is there? Please add more with ALT texts of course.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• On smaller monitor resolutions, this will crush the table. It looks fine as is on my widescreen monitor, but when I viewed it at work on a smaller resolution, the table is the entire width of the screen. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There were more, but they were removed by the same editor that added the tags. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest having a section of the list for Private colleges and universites and another for public ones. The Table seems to be split among the two anyhow. Each of the section should then contain a paragraph about the history of this kind of education in Massachusetts and the relevant institutions. I think this would improve the Lists navigation a lot.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can try to do that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:33, 21 September 2009 [5].

---

List of Real Madrid C.F. players

Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990 16:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i think it's a good list Hadrianos1990 16:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose from Killervogel5

Being "a good list" and of featured quality ("our best work") are two very different things. This has a lot of MOS violations (bold, images, etc.), has no inline citations and only one general ref, which doesn't even look to verify the table, and almost no content in the lead. Consider withdrawing and re-working the list. See the featured list criteria, other similar featured lists, and recently promoted FLs for examples. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from me (can probably speedy close)

• I suggest a peer review and ask editors from WP:FOOTY to get involved. This list has major flaws
• The lead is far too small.
• MOS issues (bolding that is unneccessary)
• Limited references, you have only one reference which is an external link, you need more authoritative sources
• Table is not sortable
• Gaps in the positions field
• A lot of redlinks, for me, at least 80% of the subject (ie the players in this case) should have an article.
• Arbitrary criteria. How has Alonso made a significant contribution to the club? There is no point in having criteria if you then have random players in this list. José Luis Borbolla has played two games for example.
• The captains table can be integrated into the table

• All in all, a good start but a long way to go. Woody (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK If this is not good enough, see List of Manchester United F.C. players which is very similar. Only difference is that is a featured list. Can you explain?Hadrianos1990 04:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:WAX. Just because an article might have reached FL in the past which doesn't meet the current guidelines doesn't give a free pass to other articles that don't meet them -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Right I've had a go at trying to salvage this FLC, it's a long shot but worth a go, I think it's in a better state now then before, so I would invite reviewers to comment again and new ones to comment also, cheers. NapHit (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – This is an admirable attempt to salvage an FLC that got off to a bad start. That said, there are still issues that remain, some of which are major.

• Who is behind the leyendablanca and madridista.hu websites? Considering that these are two of the three main sources, we need to ensure that they're reliable.

leyendablanca : a quote from the site: « REFERENCES: Data from periodicals: Madrid Sport, ABC, La Vanguardia, Marca, AS and bibliography books about Real Madrid.». And also madridista.hu based on that and I will try to verify more.--KSA^connect 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• The lead states that the list includes all players who have taken part in 100 matches. Why are there 18 players (my count) with fewer than 100 matches on the list? The selection criteria is much improved from what it was at the start of the FLC, but having these players blurs it somewhat.
• In the first sentence, don't use "who" to refer to a sports team. Try "that" or "which".
  • Just a note that British English tends to use "who" for organizations, so the original example would be acceptable if the article follows BritEng. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Commas before and after "including Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao".
• The second and third sentences in the lead could use references.
• Another comma after first use of Raul in the second paragraph.
• Try not to start a sentence with a number such as 224.
• Punctuation in third paragraph: Comma should be added after "were scored in league competition" and semi-colon should be placed after "Ferenc Puskas holds the record for the most goals in a season".
• En dash needed for 1959-60 (there's one already in the piped link).
• Two players aren't sorting properly. Both are named Angel with diacritics, which throw off the sorting function for some reason. The easiest fix I've found is to take off the diacritic in the sortname function, leaving it visible for readers.
• Consider em dashes for blank cells in the Captaincy column.
• The Real Madrid category could be removed, since a sub-category is also present. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think all done.--KSA^connect 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Why does ref C not have a reference?

Done Hadrianos1990 08:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you're going to list Angel de los Santos Cano with his full name (who should have a diacritic on the "A"), why is he listed in the As?

Done Hadrianos1990 08:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Foreign-language refs need to be denoted as such—use |language=Spanish in the ref templates.

Done Hadrianos1990 08:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://leyendablanca.galeon.com/Base.htm a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.madridista.hu/web/index.php?menu=57? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

leyendablanca : a quote from the site: « REFERENCES: Data from periodicals: Madrid Sport, ABC, La Vanguardia, Marca, AS and bibliography books about Real Madrid.». And also madridista.hu based on that. Hadrianos1990 08:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:35, 21 September 2009 [6].

---

Phil Collins discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i have been doing alot of work on this article in the past week to improve its layout, formatting and content. Everything is now fully sourced and correct and i believe it is a good representation of the artists work. Mister sparky (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Good list, but mvdbase.com and imdb.com are not reliable sources, hence my oppose. There's a few other problems I see, but nothing major; the unreliable sources are the only big issues at the moment. Drewcifer (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

hmmm i didnt think they would be :( its a real pain trying to find reliable enough sources for the videos. vh1 and mtv only have a handful posted on their sites but i'm struggling to find anymore. so if anyone could help out it would be great :) Mister sparky (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For the Disney videos, I know they use to be hosted on the website, or probably even on the DVD's. --Lightlowemon (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

yea i did look at the disney main site and the disney records site and couldnt find anything about the video directors :( thanks tho Mister sparky (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, I checked my Brother Bear DVD and there was no info there. Sorry I can't be more help. --Lightlowemon (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Has Drewcifer been asked to revisit this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

has now :) Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• You forgot to include the following videos:
  • The Singles Collection
  • Seriously Live in Berlin
  • Live and Loose in Paris
  • Finally... The First Farewell Tour--Cannibaloki 21:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

have added the vhs/dvd releases. i know the refs need formatting, just testing their validity at the mo... :) Mister sparky (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments The lead is far too long. Can you cut it down to 3 or 4 paragraphs? Also, you don't need comments like "according to The Times". That's in the citation. Also, remove the bit in brackets about Billboard's Adult Contempory chart. The lead should summarise the article, not repeat the whole article in paragraph form. Ask a copyeditor to help. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your comments! the lead was a bit long so i have shortened in a bit, its much better now and have also given it a copy-edit. Mister sparky (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've given the lead a brief copy-edit. You might want a look through the manual of style at some point (yes, I knnow it's boring). By the way, "U.S." is standard, rather than "US". -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Ref 17 link is shown invalid, needs to be fixed. And don't references 22-31 need to be cited the way others are? (Not sure on this one). Suede67 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

forgot about ref 17, fixed now. the other ones for the dvd's i have removed because looking at other FL's they don't need to have individual sources. thanks tho :) Mister sparky (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Suede67 (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:35, 21 September 2009 [7].

---

List of Project Runway contestants

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 01:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. I recently got List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests to FL status, and this Project Runway list is very similar. Do please look at the talk page to offer a suggestion about how to deal with the age discrepancy for Daniel Franco. Hoping to see this list here soon. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 As a closet fan, I would hate myself if I didn't comment on this list. Hope these comments help. Lead seems very short; it seems like the three paragraphs should have more information in them. Any suggestions for expansion? I didn't want to go into too much detail about the format of the show itself, as that can be read on the Project Runway article itself. I'll try to think of other ways to display information about the contestants. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Possibly reasons why there were different numbers of contestants in certain seasons. You don't say anything about who the champions were, which is a must. You could also probably insert maybe one or two more sentences about the format without going into excessive detail. Those items would really help the length of this lead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I don't believe that the show logo is necessary, especially at such a small resolution. Since this is a list of contestants, a contestant's picture would be much more appropriate for the lead. Lead images can be up to 300px in size. Removed logo, as requested. Left contestant pictures along the right-hand side of the page to correspond to the table. In the key: the asterisk should be inside the blue box, not outside. How do I do this? --Another Believer (Talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Can't be done with the legend template; current usual use is a single-row table. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Is there an example of this somewhere I can look at? Not familiar enough with table construction to do this off the top of my head. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC) You can use the format from List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, an FL I've worked on. You'll have to delete the excess rows, though; that key is about 7 rows deep if I recall. Let me know if you have problems and I will take care of it for you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the help. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Blank cells should contain em-dashes rather than en-dashes. Done. Linking to the footnote for state abbreviations isn't enough. They should all be spelled out. I certainly don't mind spelling them out, but I used the same method for List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests, which was very recently promoted to FL status. It was decided this would be appropriate. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) In that case, the width of the table makes it more appropriate; however, this table is quite a bit narrower. According to MOS:ABBR, "Current and former postal codes and abbreviations—such as TX for Texas, Calif. for California, Yorks for Yorkshire—should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text." I understand that consideration was given for the other list, but we shouldn't break rules unless it absolutely keeps us from improving the encyclopedia. I don't think this qualifies. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Perfect. I appreciate the explanation! Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) There is no way to get the sorting back to the original order of the table once you've changed it. I would suggest a hidden sortkey on the "season" column that would allow the sorter to click on that column and restore the original order of the list. There is a way to get back to original order. From any configuration, just have to click on Finish column twice to put in descending order, then click on Season column twice to put in ascending order. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC) That doesn't work for me; it's still mixed up. There are some random ones stuck at the bottom of the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I think it is due to the emdashes. Would work fine if not for those. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Then you need to add hidden sortkeys to that column. {{sort|16|16th}}, {{sort|00|—}}, and so forth. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Like so? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Exactly. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC) The navbox needs a direct link (not a redirect) to this article, or it should be removed. Done. I'll check back again after these are completed, but it looks good! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My comments have been resolved; my current support is conditional based on other reviewers' impressions of the lead of the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I quickly ran through the lead; check to make sure my changes were good. I think all looks good at this point. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC) People should be sorted by last name; use {{sortname}}. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC) No, you just reorganized the names. I meant that you need to use Template:sortname to make the names sortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Oh! I apologize for the confusion. Will try to figure the template out now... --Another Believer (Talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks, but now it gets hairy. In the default order (i.e., without pressing a sort button), the contestants for a given season should be arranged alphabetically. For example, starting with Season 1, the first contestant would be Mario Cadenas, and you would list the rest of the Season 1 contestants in alpha order until you reached Alexandra Vidal, the last contestant (alphabetically) in Season 1. Then, you would start Season 2 with Raymundo Baltazar, etc... Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Similar lists have the default order sorted by Finish placement, giving some sort of chronology to the list. I think sorting based on last name would be confusing, not only because contestants are typically known only by their first name, but because there wouldn't be any sense of how the contestants placed (at a quick glance). Users can always sort the Name column, then the Season column, if they were interested in seeing the list in that manner. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Ah, I forgot the finish column. In that case, wouldn't it make more sense to sort from 1st to last instead of vice versa? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Well, descending order illustrates the progression of the show itself. As you read down the list, you see who the finalists are. Plus, it would look like a large gap in the table for the current season if default sorting was ascending as opposed to descending. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The alt texts are basically carbon copies of the image captions. Alt text is only for information gained by looking at the picture; therefore, proper nouns are not suitable in alt text. Look at recently promoted FLs for examples of good alt text. I understand that alt text is for "describ[ing] the image to someone who cannot see the image", but I don't see how to describe someone without using their name. I included the contestants names, describing their wardrobe, but no other proper nouns are used. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Use "man" or "woman". You use the names in the captions, anyway; visually impaired readers can see both alt text and caption. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) The fair-use image is not vital to the article, and should be removed. Done. Removed image and replaced with one of Kara Saun. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Inconsistencies in capitalization of "season" ("season 1" or "Season 1", pick one and stick to it—references too). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Capitalization is consistent throughout article, except "season" is lowercased in the references section as this is how the 'cite episode' template works. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks! I noticed you changed "89" to "eighty-nine"--I thought numbers above 10 were to be written numerically. Makes no difference to me, though! I appreciate your suggestions and contributions to the list. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, it's a picky style issue; we don't start sentences with numerals. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Good to know--thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks so much, Dabomb. Have all issues been addressed? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

• Daniel Franco should have the blue background on both of his entries, so that readers can find both more easily. Also, how did Daniel be aged 28 the first season, and then 33 the next, when the two seasons are only one year apart?

Done. Seeing as Franco was born in November 1971, I think it would be correct to say he was 33 at the start of the first season, and 34 at the start of the second. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any way you can find website references for the ages, hometowns, and finish?

Most of the information for Seasons 4 and 5 are cited via web sources, since the premiere episodes did not provide this information to viewers. For the other seasons, I thought the premiere episodes would be the best and most appropriate sources for the information. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Alt text, dabs, and external links all check out fine.

Lead

• Project Runway is an American reality show in which contestants compete to be the best fashion designer, as determined by the show's judges. -- +"television" in is an American reality show

Done. Went ahead and linked "reality television show". --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Season 6 began airing on Lifetime on August 20, 2009. -- Stating that it began airing on Lifetime makes it seem as if it was broadcast on a different network before. If it did, that should be mentioned. If it hasn't it should be stated earlier that the series has always aired on Lifetime.

Done. Indicated the first five seasons were on Bravo. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Each season, selected competitors are progressively eliminated based on the judges' scores until only a few contestants remain; these finalists prepare a complete fashion collection for New York Fashion Week, in which a winner is determined. -- A)Each season --> "During each season," B) in which a winner is determined, I think from which a winner is determined would sound better here.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• The lead should state something about the Hometowns.

Nothing terribly interesting as far as the Hometowns goes. Only observation I can make is that a majority of the contestants live in NYC or Los Angeles, understandably. Any other thoughts or suggestions? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tables, references

• Check out fine.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree strongly with coloring Daniel Franco's cells differently. He is the only one to appear twice, while the asterisk makes sense, I see no reason at all to use color. It gives him way too much emphasis. He, in the great scheme of things, was not that special. --Golbez (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to address. Personally, I like the coloring for emphasis. However, I think others would have to comment as well, as none of them had a problem with the coloring before they offered their support. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

But you're emphasizing something that isn't important. That's over-emphasis. --Golbez (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Being the only contestant to appear on the show twice is something unique and important. The network could have easily barred him from competing a second time, especially in consecutive seasons, but they didn't. I don't think the color needs to be in the entire row, though; it should just be on his name. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

More important than winning? --Golbez (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but that was never highlighted to begin with, and shouldn't be as far as I'm concerned. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but... if winning is more important, and winning isn't highlighted, then why should Franco be highlighted? :) --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Then highlight winning. Whatev. The fact of the matter remains that it's referenced, it's notable, it's unique, and it should be highlighted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's referenced, it's notable, it's unique, but it should not be highlighted, it should be footnoted. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that would convince me that this is the proper course of action, which is why I continue to oppose the change. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I feel strong enough about this to oppose. Right now you're making Daniel Franco appear more important than everyone else - including the winners. An asterisk is sufficient, color has no place here. Heck, I propose changing it from the asterisk to a simple footnote; if another contestant comes on the show again then we can make something more formal, but as it is, this is a fluke, not something that needs this much attention on the list. --Golbez (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• There are no grounds for opposition. MOS:COLOR and WP:ACCESS, the two guiding points of style that oversee this matter, say nothing about color used in this fashion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's undue emphasis of a list entry, which must be a ground for opposing the promotion of a list. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Then reduce the emphasis, as I mentioned above. It shouldn't be on the entire row anyway. The color assists users who cannot see the asterisk easily. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it shouldn't be an asterisk, it should be a footnote. If this happens again then make it more formal. I would reduce the emphasis to where I feel it belongs but I think I would be reverted. --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
        • You would indeed, because there is no consensus. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:35, 21 September 2009 [8].

---

Pink discography

Nominator(s): 03md 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have expanded the lead to an adequate size, it is well referenced and accurate. I have not had the article peer reviewed as I have often had long waits for responses. 03md 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. There are also several dead links (not just Billboard either). It would be helpful if you could check the toolbox while waiting for reviews. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

dead links now fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

References

1. The references are a mess. All references should have citation templates. Please change all references that don't like Reference 2 and 20.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

   Citation templates are not a requirement, although I agree that the references need a bit of work WRT formatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

1. What are the references for "Studio Albums" for Australia, France, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand and Ireland?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from JD554:

Resolved comments from JD554

The lead section as a whole needs a good copy-edit for grammar and punctuation. I need someone else to do that as it looks fine to me as the author I gave it a quick run-through. Let me know if there are still issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The lead section has too many paragraphs, some of these could be merged so there are only two or three. See MOS:LEAD#Length. Done Film titles should be in italics, see MOS:TITLE. Done, I think The fact she took her stage name from the film Reservoir Dogs should have a citation. Added reference I think you're trying to say that "There You Go" and Can't Take Me Home were both released in 2000. If so "in 2000" needs moving to the end of the sentence. Done In paragraph three you say "The album was again successful worldwide", but there is no mention before this about anything being successful. Removed "again" Instead of "native country" and "United Kingdom", say "Billboard 200" and "UK Albums Chart". Done "first number-one single", where? Clarified I think there may be a missing "and" from the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. I'm not sure where you mean now I have altered the prose structure The compilation albums link in the infobox doesn't work - rename the "Compilation" section to "Compilation albums" to fix this. Done Why are the b-sides listed in the infobox when there isn't anything in the article about them? Removed from the infobox I count more than 24 singles. Altered figure to include promo singles, Feel Good Time and Lady Marmalade The "Soundtracks" section in the infobox is for complete soundtrack albums recorded by the artist, not individual songs. Removed section You should include the labels and formats as well as the release date for all the albums. Done The certifications column header should link to Music recording sales certification at least the first time. It should also have "(sales thresholds)" in small text below it. Done There are no citations for the Australian, French, Swiss, Austrian, New Zealand, Belgian, Swedish and Irish chart positions. are now. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC) If there aren't UK certification or sales figures for Pink Box then remove "UK" from the relevant column. If there are, then they should be there with citations. Done The "Sounttrack/Other" singles should be integrated into the main singles table, so should the single certifications. Done with the soundtracks References #1, #2, #21 and #28 should be in a separate "Footnotes" section. not sure which ones you mean now cuz they've changed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC) A number of the reference link simply to a search page. These should have specific instructions about how to get to the page which verifies the information. For example, you could add: "Note: User needs to enter 'Pink' in 'artists name' and click 'search'." Non-print publications in references (eg, Allmusic.com, British Phonographic Industry) shouldn't be italicized. Quite a few references need "retrieved on" dates. done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Reference #19 and #20 shouldn't be bare links. fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Reference #49 and #50 need the title parameter to be completed. fixed, if i'm thinking about the same ones.... Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Quite a few problems need fixing here, looking at other FL-Class discographies and WP:CITE should help. --JD554 (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've addressed the majority of points, made a few notes and still have some things to sort out

These still need to be addressed:

• Columns which are for the same thing (chart positions, certifications, etc) should be the same width even in different sections.
  • The "Album" column in the two singles tables have different widths, as does all the "Certifications" columns.
• "Certifications" and "sales thresholds" should only be linked the first time, see WP:OVERLINK.
• Has Pink Box received a certification? If not, the column needs removing.

--JD554 (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Definately a good start, but I see alot of problems, many of which could be addressed by taking a look at MOS:DISCOG and other FL discogs promoted recently. A few issues:

• Neither Discogs or MVDbase are considered reliable sources.

both removed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• MOS:DISCOG recommends a total of 10 chart columns, and some of these tables exceed that limit by a little and some by alot.

fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not all of the chart positions are sourced.

they are now. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• References need to be formatted, as some are missing information and some are raw urls. I recommend using citation templates to help with that. Also so references have redlinks in them, where they need not be.

done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• One of the music videos is missing a director.

doing this evening. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

after i removed mvdbase there was more directors needed. found most of them but still missing "Feel Good Time", "Last To Know" and "Nobody Knows". so if anybody could help out that would be great :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Try to avoid citations in the middle of a sentence.
• Alot of dead links in the references.

fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• An External links section would be nice.

its now there, a very nice it is. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There are more problems I see, but these are the major ones which lead me to oppose the list's nomination. Drewcifer (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments - The music videos table is broken and there are some spelling errors in your references that make redlinks come up in the references section. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I think "Sing" should be added, as she was a featured performer.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

good point, adding this evening. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Status? Many unresolved comments, no response by nominator for nearly two weeks. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't responded because I am in need of some help with some of the issues, particularly the formatting of references that were already in the article, as I asked earlier in the review. 03md 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

i'll help out with some of the issues and formatting if you'd like? Mister sparky (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be good. I'm not used to dealing with the finer points of discographies! 03md 21:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

well i have helped you out with formatting, sourcing, organising of tables etc! :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I just have one comment before I support the list, why was the sales information removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pink_discography&oldid=309972939 and there are some dead links since today: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Pink_discography Check those and I'll support. I'm also wondering why Mister sparky and Dabomb87 didn't support yet.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

fixed the dead links. i removed the sales info because a couple of them came from blogs which had to be removed anyways. i also looked at other FL's and they dont have sales info. it's hard to maintain and keep accurate and its the most common thing vandalised. if you'd like it restored, then i will. and i didnt think i was allowed to support as i was a major editor to the article? Mister sparky (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• You use "Pink" and "P!nk" interchangeably. Be consistent.

• Changed most to P!nk - which is the preferred version as I have seen it written both ways in other media? 03md 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Did "Last to Know" not have a director? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• We are still trying to find a source for who directed it. 03md 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

when looking for the others i searched for ages to try to find it but couldnt find anything. it was a live performance video but would still have a director wouldnt it? Mister sparky (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 09:57, 5 September 2009 [9].

---

List of Christian rock bands

Nominator(s): Darchaf (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the information is now completely acurate, and neatly arranged, adequately sourced, and meets the criteria set out for a featured lists. Darchaf (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I completely support this nomination. I believe that this article is a well organized list of information, a complete list that is really helpful for people (like me) who want to find christian rock bands quickly. I think that this list is in great condition, is greatly organized, and is a great asset to the Wikipedia site.Edwied (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This list still has a ways to go; I'm not sure that it is ready for FLC. Wikipedia is definitely not a reliable source, and what makes http://www.drindustrial.com/bandList.php and http://www.musicfaith.com/Artists reliable? The lead is nearly nonexistent (see leads of recently promoted FLs), and there is no mention of the inclusion criteria. The list also seems heavily systematically biased with regard to US bands. I strongly suggest withdrawing and submitting for peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (edit conflict, agree entirely with Dabomb). I appreciate the newly-acquired enthusiasm for Wikipedia that both of you have, but this is some distance from being an example of Wikipedia's finest work. At a quick glance, compared to the criteria:

• "Prose. It features professional standards of writing." There's no prose at all, and there should be.
• "Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." Featured lists don't start "This is a list of Christian rock bands. Only add names here if the band has their own article on Wikipedia - anything else will be removed." And as that's the entire lead, it falls significantly short of what's expected.
• Content: "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." Genres are given, but without sources. We are not told, for instance, which bands are active and which are defunct, or perhaps date of first album (which could then be a sortable column if it was presented in a sortable table - not saying it should be, just a passing thought).
• No proper references - three general links, one of which is a WikiProject page, and I'm not sure about the reliability of the other links.
• Lots of overlinking of genres, none of which appear to be sourced in any case (I shouldn't have to go to the article about the band to find citations).
• Inappropriate use of flags - see MOS:FLAG. Some are bizarre - why does Liberation Suite get an EU flag for touring parts of Europe?

It's unfortunate that Edwied didn't take heed of the (earlier) views of Dabomb87, a very experienced contributor in featured content, that this list was not of featured quality. Take a look over recently-promoted lists for inspiration and ideas for improvement; consider withdrawing this nomination, working on the list then taking it to Peer Review before renominating it. This list can get much better. Bencherlite^Talk 02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry guys, but clearly doesn't meet FL requirements -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Cool idea for a list, and I'd like to see this back here at some point, but I also feel it has a long way to go. The comments above pretty much hit the nail on the head. My main concerns would be around MOS-type stuff (all the flags, over-linking, poor lead, disproportionately large images, etc), and the obvious neutrality issues with having so many American bands and so few from anywhere else. Drewcifer (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm speedy failing this list. Please address the numerous concerns above and take it to peer review before returning it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:08, 5 September 2009 [10].

---

List of United States district and territorial courts

Nominator(s): MZMcBride (talk), MBisanz (talk), and BD2412 (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured list because I've worked on this article with MBisanz for a few months, worked it through DYK and PR and I believe it is now ready for featured list status. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Nice article! A few comments:

• Mention what the Courts of Appeals are in the lead.

• Done

• See also goes before refs

• Done

• Expand the lead explaining the former courts and subdivided courts. Reywas92^Talk 21:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed bullet two. Still need to work on bullets 1 and 3. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment For the subdivided courts, is it accurate to use the date on which the un-divided court was established? For example, the District of Alabama was established in 1820, and was subdivided in 1824. Yet, for the Northern, Middle, and Southern courts, you have their date of establishment as 1824. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Because "District of Alabama" is listed under List of United States district and territorial courts#Subdivided courts with the 1820 date and the subdivision date, I think it's fine. Do you think it's unclear or have a better suggestion for presenting the information? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the table is fine as is, but the table could use some points of clarification. I'll expand on this I review it later. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The courts hear both civil and criminal cases and each court is paired with a bankruptcy court." "court" (or a variation) is used thrice in this sentence. How about "The courts hear civil and criminal cases, and each is paired with a bankruptcy court."

• Done

• "United States District Court for." Logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotation mark.

• Done

• I think the table needs a key. For example, what is "Citation" referring to here? "Est." is also commonly used to abbreviate "estimated", and as I explained above, it should be explained that subdivided courts use the establishment dates of the original court.

• Done

• What is a "meeting place" in the context of the courts?

• Done

• Use {{sortname}} for the chief judges.
• For the "Citation" column, you should probably sort by the state's abbreviation.
• Edit bunching needs to be fixed in the "Active courts" section; see Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links.
  • Done—Chris! _ct 04:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• The alt text needs a bit of work. Alternative text describes things that can only be verified by looking at the picture. For example, "Exterior view of the Richard C. Lee Courthouse" isn't useful because readers don't know what the Richard C. Lee Courthouse is. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Done MBisanz ^talk 16:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The rest of my comments haven't been addressed. The alt text needs work, but I don't have time to provide guidance. Consult Eubulides (talk · contribs). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That doesn't appear to be a registered user. I think MZM is doing the sort stuff. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • No edits have been made in five days. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• The third general ref needs a publisher.

• Done

• Refs 4 and 5 need publishers and last access dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done

Comments

• Empty cells should have emdash

• Done

• I think it is helpful to include the locations of the courts

—Chris! _ct 04:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• For many of the districts, there isn't one primary location, and listing 8 names for those with many locations seems cumbersome. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text is mostly present, but needs work.

• Most of the alt text entries are near-duplicates of the caption. Alt text should minimize duplication with the caption; see WP:ALT#Repetition. For example, the alt text "A map of the boundaries of the United States Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts" is largely a duplicate of the caption "Map of the boundaries of the United States Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts".
• Generally speaking, this alt text shouldn't contain proper names such as "E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse" because a non-expert can't verify them simply by looking at the image. See WP:ALT#Verifiability.
• Two images lack alt text; see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. The big seal Image:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg and the little pair of scales File:Scale of justice.svg are both decorative, I expect, and can be fixed with "|link=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. The big map Image:US Court of Appeals and District Court map.svg needs some alt text (but presumably not that much) as per WP:ALT#Maps.

Eubulides (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Two things only. After you fix them, I'll support.

• "The number of district courts in a of a court of appeals' circuit varies…" doesn't make sense.
• "The largest courthouse is…" In terms of physical size? Clarify. Mm40 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 19:18, 19 September 2009 [11].

---

List of AWACS aircraft operators

Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all featured list criteria afterwards considerable work. Eurocopter (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose see comment below. Woody (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Woody; 3b content forking; should be incorporated into main article. Buckshot06(prof) 03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues for User:Woody

'''Oppose''' for now ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_AWACS_aircraft_operators&oldid=313836117 Original reviewed version])</s>

• Oppose over comprehensiveness and 3b, see below Support pending a discussion about the flags. I am looking for other opinions from other reviewers on that. As far as the rest of the list goes, I think it now meets the FL criteria. It is comprehensive as far as I can work out, a quick look on google and I couldn't find any omissions from the list. I checked the image licences and they look good (you could move the one outstanding image to commons). Regards, Woody (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. If you figure out ways of improving the visuals in the main table and making it more easier to read just let me know. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetics is subjective as is utility. Sometimes we have to take increased utility over aesthetics as this is an encyclopedia after all. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Little things first

• Santiago is a dab page
  • done.
• You need alt text for the images, see WP:ALT
  • done.
    • Not really. You haven't explained what the image actually shows. A better version for the first one would be "A white plane with two propellors under each wing and a large disc on top of the fuselage is flying over an industrial landscape." You need to actually explain the image not repeat the caption.
      • Done now, I believe. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I had a tweak for a few of them, so striking this
• Some overlinking in the lead.
  • done.
• Why are the operators in bold?
  • for better visuals. Can I leave them as they are now or is it necessary to de-bold them?
    • Should be de-bolded per WP:MOSBOLD. There is no need for it, particularly as you already have the colours for that presumably. Woody (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• What is up with the US line? It isn't bolded and isn't centre aligned
  • fixed. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bigger issues

• What made you go with that scheme for the table? Why have you got colour that shows nothing? It just looks distracting to me
• I don't think you would need the colour at all if you moved the operators into the table itself rather than colspans.
• WIAFL: 4 Why isn't it sortable? (A: You can't have sortable with colspans, see above)
• Are the Flags really neccessary? If so, should they not be the forces flag, say the RAF ensign for the RAF?
• You could then put the citations into a separate column. (Mock-up below)

So, a few things to think about for now. Woody (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

{

Flags

• Still not sure the flags add anything. Woody (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Removed flags, though I believe the table is quite dull and visualy unfriendly now. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the statement was open, I was looking for your opinions on why they should be in the table. I want your reasoning, particularly why you have the national flags and not the force ensigns for example. Personally, I think they are distracting, and take up space, but you obviously see something redeeming in them. Put them back in if you want and see what other reviewers think. Woody (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all we don't have available force ensigns for all the air forces (for some we have only roundels and for few we don't have any air force specific marking at all). Secondly, I believe that we should add a representing marking for each air arm and be consistent in the same time (we shouldn't use national flags only were air force ensigns are not available). --Eurocopter (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• As I say, your decision, and yours to justify how you best see fit in terms of MOS:ICON. Woody (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Added flags back for now, at least until other opinions come out. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Omissions (ordered aircraft)

• My apologies for opposing again but a further look on google suggests there are some omissions on this list. How did you draw this up? I note that India has been cleared to buy the Hawkeye E-2D and the article states they are the second country to be cleared after the UAE. Neither of these are listed on here. This article says that India now had "the first of 3 A-50 Awacs" delivered last month. The table currently states they have 1 AWAC in operation. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you hurried up a bit and missed the essence of the sources you've cited above. First of all, to be cleared by the US Congress in order to purchase an aircraft does not mean that you submitted an order or signed any contract (it simply gives you the right to buy the aircraft). I must say that currently there is no source stating that India or UAE ordered any E-2D Hawkeye aircraft. Regarding the Indian A-50, yes they have one operational and was delivered earlier this year (is the article stating anything different?). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Lets try a different tack then. The list as it stands does not reflect ordered aircraft. It attempts to with the future operators section, but it only does half a job by omitting aircraft ordered by a country already operating AEW aircraft. I know the difference between an order/contract/tender etc. and a clearance to buy. I suppose my point was related to the future operators and I realise now that I should have laid this out A,B,C for you. So here goes: Why are India not listed under future operators if they have two on order? The current setup has no way to factor this into the list. The future operators needs to be able to reflect the E-2D developments for the US, as they have ordered aircraft. In response to your bracketed comment The article doesn't state it, but it doesn't elaborate either. If you truly want to reflect the current circumstances then you need to either integrate the ordered aircraft into the future operators section or you need to remove the section. At the moment it only does half a job. Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, I'll try to answer you as clear as possible. India is listed in the current operators section because it already operates the type of aircraft, therefore is not a future operator of it (Beriev A-50 in this case). Are you telling me that the US Air Force is not a current operator of the F-22 Raptor because it has in service only 130 of the 180 aicraft ordered and should be considered a future operator? This is nonsense. In my opinion the current shape of the article together with all the notes explains pretty clear which are the current and the future operators. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Does the current list deal in any way with ordered but not operational aircraft for a country that currently operates existing aircraft? (eg. India or USA) No. Should it? Yes. Read my above statement, look at the list, read it again, then understand my point. There is currently a gap in this list. The future operators section needs to be refactored, something along the lines of future aircraft which then widens its scope to the aircraft discussed above. Woody (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually yes, it deals with ordered aircraft - see footnotes 4, 5, 6 and 9. I would not agree with a future aircraft due to long term uncertain dates as usually on aircraft orders. Such a section would be difficult to update and probably innacurate. What I would agree with is expanding the footnotes by adding expected delivery dates.
            • There we go, I missed those. So will readers. Why can't we have this in a table? I don't think it is very accessible in that format. The delivery dates are no more flaky as those for future operators, essentially they deal with the same issues. Woody (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
              • If we add the notes in the table we'll make it even more cluttered and difficult to read. I'll make them more visible than they are now, although I'm sure they are visible enough in the current form. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
                • In the main table, yes, in the future table, no. The future table can be easily adapted to meet the task. Woody (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition of AWAC, Omission of helicopters

• Why are the Sea Kings ASaCs not listed? They are also considered AWACs under the definition in the lead are they not?
  • You are not paying enough attention again. By simply reading the first three sentences of this article you would figure out why the Sea Kings are not included. Do not confuse AWACS/AEW&C capabilities with airborne surveillance/AEW. There are currently no helicopters capable of flying at high-altitudes to fulfill AWACS tasks. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Question my intelligence and observational skills, excellent discussion technique. I am paying attention, I have paid attention, I have read very thoroughly on the subject, believe me when I say I am not confused. I think it is the list that is generally confused. The Royal Navy describe the Sea King variants as airborne surveillance and control aircraft (ASaC). The exact specifications of the system are not publicly available for obvious reasons. If you are clinging onto the high altitude aspect, then this needs to made clear in the lead. Something along the lines of: 6 helicopters currently fulfil the Airborne early warning task but these are not included in this list as they cannot fly at high altitudes. If you are using this list solely for aircraft without known command and control capabilities then this also needs to be made plain. Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I did not question anyone's intelligence and observational skills, so let's not make it personal. I know you since few years as a reliable editor with precious contributions for the project and I don't question neither your knowledge or good faith. Regarding the subject, this is a list of AWACS (airborne warning and control system) aircraft operators and the Sea King helicopter is not an AWACS aircraft. If you disagree with this I can bring you loads of sources supporting it. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
        • You are not paying enough attention again. That is directly questioning my skills. I sense we are hitting a wall here, you have your entrenched opinions, I have my own. I am not disputing the fact that Sea Kings do not utilise Boeing's AWACs system. I am disputing your definition of AEW/AWAC/ASaC in this list. I will oppose this FLC until there is a satisfactory statement about helicopters and their AEW role in the Lead. It only has to be a good sentence. Woody (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Questioning your attention does not mean that I question your skills. First of all, I have added a footnote in the lead regarding the helicopters. If you think it isn't enough, or you insist that it should be a sentence in the lead, please feel free to add it yourself, I won't have any objection. Secondly, it isn't "Boeing's AWACs system", AWACS is an internationally used aircraft designation by press, military organisations, governments, online arms databases as following: [12][13][14] [15]http://www.defencetalk.com/india-to-acquire-first-awacs-aircraft-18814/ [16]. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
            • They go hand in hand. That footnote is very subjective and not very visible. Check other featured lists. The idea of the lead is to summarise and introduce the topic of the list. Any exclusions should be explicit within the lead. That some people misuse it does not mean that we should continue to. I refer to vacuum cleaners as Hoovers, I am wrong to do that. AWACs is a limiting term that is more specific to a country. It is one system that has come to erroneously represent the whole industrial area in the media. AEW&C is a more general and more modern term that has a wider scope; a scope that this list fails to address. Woody (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Very well, I'll add a sentence in the lead. Regarding your statement that AEW&C is a more general and more modern term that has a wider scope; it is POV unless you provide reliable sources which support it. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

3b content forking

• I also have 3.b concerns. After looking into it some more, I think this can fall quite easily under 3B regarding content forking. This list duplicates information currently found in Airborne early warning and control under Airborne early warning and control#Operators. There is no need for this to be a standalone list in that the table can quite easily be integrated into that article (replacing the current setup).
  • The operators section in the AEW&C article gives information regarding aircraft procurement history and further capabilities details. This section should be expanded with such information and should not contain table/lists/etc. The purpose of this list is to show tail numbers, units, airbases and other data unsuitable in a section that contains normal prose. I'll give you an example: in the Royal Air Force article the Aircraft section describes aircraft procurement, capabilities and service history details, while the List of active United Kingdom military aircraft shows aircraft numbers and other data for statistical purposes. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree. There is no need for that section to be in prose as it almost entirely duplicates this list. This table could quite easily slot into that article seamlessly and as such it is almost the definition of a content fork. Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Disagree, I guarantee you that there is no more than 20% common information. Also, I'm planning to add more information to that section regarding the procurement programmes and the capabilities of the aircraft for each operator. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, we will see what other reviewers think. 3b is still a relatively new, and quite subjective, criteria. Woody (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• As such I cannot continue to support the promotion unless these are addressed. My sincerest apologies for changing like this but the further review highlighted some serious questions regarding the FL criteria. Woody (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Considering my responses above, I object your oppose and expect further input. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I object to your objection to my objection... Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming of list encompassing definitions again

• Another thing which I have only just thought about, why is the title of this list under the American brand name. AWACs is the Boeing system utilising the Westinghouse radar dome. Given that the majority of countries use the more general Airborne early warning and control name, would it not be mor appropriate to have the title (if the list should exist) at List of AEW&C aircraft operators? Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The title is List of AWACS aircraft operators because this is the most commonly used designation for this type of aircraft (a quick google search will convince you). Furthermore, the main source used in the list names them AWACS aircraft, not AEW&C. I disagree again with your comments with the exception of the note in the lead saying that this list excludes AEW/airborne surveillance aircraft (though it's pretty obvious). Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Why is our article called Airborne early warning and control then? Just because some people may erroneously call a vaccum cleaner a Hoover does not make it the correct usage. AWAC is a brand name used by Boeing and is directly analogous to the Hoover scenario. Do you consider all airborne early warning systems AWACs? Google is a poor argument. Woody (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't name it and I don't know why the article was named in this way. However, I will propose to be moved soonly, but that is not my priority for now. Regarding the fact that "AWACS" is Boeing's brand name and is copyrighted you are terribly wrong. AWACS was the designation used for the program undertaken by the US Air Force in the late 1960s in which competed Douglas, Lockheed and Boeing. Boeing was the winner of the competition and therefore was awarded the contract to build the AWACS aircraft. In conclusion, the aircraft was named AWACS well before Boeing started any development of it. See other examples of programes such as: Advanced Tactical Fighter. Is "Advanced Tactical Fighter" a brand name of Lockheed Martin because Lockheed was the winner of the contract for the program? Certainly no. The only difference between these two designations is that "ATF" is not currently widely/internationally used. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I am not saying it is copyrighted, I am saying it is the name that Boeing use, not the whole international community. (copied from above:)"That some people misuse it does not mean that we should continue to. I refer to vacuum cleaners as Hoovers, I am wrong to do that. AWACs is a limiting term that is more specific to a country. It is one system that has come to erroneously represent the whole industrial area in the media. AEW&C is a more general and more modern term that has a wider scope; a scope that this list fails to address." I will ask you again Do you consider all airborne early warning systems AWACs? Woody (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I explained you above several times as well as in the footnote placed in the lead. Airborne surveillance or any other aircraft with higher or lower AEW capabilities are not AWACS aircraft and therefore not included in this list. Definition of the AWACS term: Aircraft fitted with long-range radar used to carry out airborne surveillance and command, control and communications functions for both tactical and air defence forces from high altitude. Those in bold are capabilities which airborne surveillance/AEW aircraft such as Sea King helicopters do not have. Am I explaining clear enough or not? I really don't know what to say anymore, I'm repeating for the third time an obvious thing. I'm starting to have the feeling that no matter how many issues I resolve you still find other new ones, some of them, apologise my sincerity, are absurd. Also, I believe that your latest raised issues are not objective and do not reflect any real problem of the article, but instead are a personal ambition due to our previous divergences - though I might be wrong considering that I'm quite irritated by the fact that I wasted so much time and energy arguing on such issues. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• As am I. This isn't about the nominator or our "previous divergences", this is about the perceived inaccuracies in this list that I can see. Trying to get this list to a correct title is not an absurd issue, nor is the accessibility of this list. That is why we have PR (which you missed) and FLC, it is to get other people's opinions on this list. At the moment, my opinion is that it does not yet meet the Featured List Criteria, hence why I will maintain my oppose. Other readers, reviewers and nominators can see my concerns and do what they want with them. Given that you now erroneously consider my comments to be a personal slight, I don't see how any comments that I make will be taken in a positive manner, hence my issues remain unresolved.
• Issues:
  • Omission/Integration of ordered
  • Definition of AWAC, Omission of helicopters
  • 3b content forking
  • Naming of the list which again encompasses definitions
• The extant points are listed above and I have sectioned them off above; my oppose remains and I am disengaging from this review now. Woody (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • • The above issues raised by User:Woody were adressed above and do not represent current accurate problems of the article in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Eurocopter, you ought to step back, take a pause, and reflect on Woody's comments. All of them are very valid and need to be addressed. Certainly the helicopters should be added, for example. Buckshot06(prof) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • This is exactly what I'm doing, though I regret wasting my time on this. Perhaps someone could withdraw this FLC? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Serial Numbers

I have just checked some of the serial numbers against the http://www.scramble.nl/index.html military aircraft database, those which I checked were spot–on! Farawayman (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Air Forces Monthly should be italicized every time it appears in the article. Also don't overlink it. Just link it in its first appearance.—Chris! _ct 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• I have to oppose also in light of the issued raised by User:Woody—Chris! _ct 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I really like this list, and think that its definitely a potential FL, but I echo Woody's concerns about what it includes and excludes. In particular, I don't think that Turkey should be listed as a current operator of 4 aircraft, as none of these aircraft (which are still being brought to operational status by Boeing) appear to have been accepted by the Turkish air force yet. I agree that the British AWACS helicopters should also be in the list; it's a bit of an arbitrary decision to exclude them. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, the British Sea King helicopters do not fall under the AWACS aicraft definition and therefore are not included in this list. See [17]. I will move the TurkishAF to future operators soonly. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (for now) unfinished work. Wikilinks that are redirected. eg AWACS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 12:54, 21 September 2009 [18].

---

List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans

Nominator(s): Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...the opening paragraph relates to the topic (Easy Company). Most information (Birth, death date, Residence, Military Rank etc.) for each individual is cited with a reference and or footnote. External links are included. Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from KV5

I would love to support this list, and think it's a great topic, but it's got a lot of issues at the moment that probably should be dealt with at a peer review before coming to an FL review. Just for starters: violations of WP:COLOR and WP:FLAG; still a lot of "citation needed" templates (which we can't have at all); names should be written in standard first-last format and the {{sortname}} template should be used. The lead is a total of three sentences - not nearly long enough. No images at all. There are British date formats used in a US topic. Notes column shouldn't be sortable. We don't know at what point the ranks are current... is it when they left the service? Is it when they joined? Are they all on the same date? There's still missing information in the table. The reference section... I don't even know where to start. In short, I suggest a withdraw and PR before re-nominating. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Btw, thanks for the comment, I appreciate it! Do you think that I should delete the deceased veterans of Easy Company and add them to the E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) page if some are already not on that page? It seems quite biased to add only the ones that have information about them and not the other 100 some odd members of E Company. Im considering just having living Easy Company members on the page.--Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• That would probably be one of the worst things you could do, because then the list loses any semblance of stability. It essentially becomes self-deleting. I see no reason why this list's format couldn't be merged into the main company article, because right now it might fail criterion 3B as a content fork. Make sure to familiarize yourself with the featured list criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Have attempts been made to address the concerns above? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Aside from the issues raised above by KV5, this list clearly isn't comprehensive. A US Army infantry company of World War II had an authorised strength of over 100 men. Given that most Allied infantry units which fought in the liberation of western Europe suffered over 100% casualties it can be expected that there would have been, at minimum, at least 150 men who saw combat with this unit and many more who served with it during other periods rather than the 50 included in the list. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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