Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 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 promoted by Giants2008 21:08, 30 June 2011 [1].

---

Grammy Award for Best R&B Album

Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 02:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list (again) because I believe it meets the criteria. Crystal Clear x3 02:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments didn't see this nominated before..? Four lead paras is a little excessive. "Award recipients included " include - it's still current, right? Just for You is a dab link. Boyz II Men caption needs a full stop. Fanmail -> FanMail. Sisqo is missing a diacritic. Isley Brothers -> The Isley Brothers. Blige caption needs a full stop. Benet missing a diacritic. No need for Category:Grammy Awards since you have a more specific Category:Grammy Awards for rhythm and blues. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC) I have adressed all of your concerns. Crystal Clear x3 22:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – This user already has an active nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Long Form Music Video/archive1, which has one support at the moment. The FLC instructions say that "Users should not add a second FL nomination nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Is one support really substantial? I'm not certain that it is. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair point, I hadn't noticed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support: This list looks pretty good. I support its promotion to FL status assuming the concerns of all other reviewers are addressed. Good work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment:: I don't believe it's necessary to have two U.S flags. Also the Seattle Times Newspaper should be linked along with it's publisher.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Crystal Clear x3 02:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Another great addition to the Grammy lists well done!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I couldn't find anything wrong with it. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 16:03, 26 June 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 promoted by Giants2008 21:08, 30 June 2011 [2].

---

List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F)

Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My first FL for a while. This is the first part of a three-part set that I think completes the VC lists. The alphabetical lists have been something of a labour of love for a while now. It is complete now and meets the FL criteria in my opinion. I hope you agree. Thanks, Woody (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a question more so than a criticism, but doesn't every listing in the table require a citation? At least that was the feedback I got when compiling the lists for Knight's Cross recipients. no dabs check the external links please. The connection to nationalarchives.gov.uk timed out on me References are missing the locations Hosptial Apprentice? Should that be Hospital Apprentice? Regarding the rank column, is this the rank at the time the VC was awarded? Maybe a note makes this clear. "Died of his wounds" should end on a full stop like the other notes Nicely done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC) The National Archives works for me. Does it work for you now? Might have been temporary? I've fixed the typo, added locations and a note about ranks. In terms of references I don't think that is the case, I think it would be counter-productive in this case to be honest. All of the people are listed alphabetically with rank in the last 14 pages of one of the books. The ref names would have about 100 people in even a two-page ref name. In that sense I don't think it is needed here. Every item is referenced to the general references. It has been ok for previous lists though has it now become necessary? Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Strange, the link now works fine. Regarding the citations, as I said, this was the feedback I received while working on the Knight's Cross lists. Let's see what the other reviewers have to say. However, I have to admit that enforcing this on me was actually beneficial. I found a number of inconsistencies and minor errors by going over the lists and citing every entry. This may not be necessary in this case since the number of VC recipients is smaller than the number of KC lists. Oh thinking about this while a type, this list is by nature not complete. Unlike the KC the VC is still being awarded so you should consider how potential new entries are added and sufficiently cited. Just a thought! Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I would like to know if every listing in the table requires a citation? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "for saving his brother, Lieutenant Hugh Gough. Hugh Gough...". Try not to have this repetition from one sentence to the next. Honestly, I even think this could be a single sentence. Minor, but a comma after John Gough would be nice. Can we get a dash in the section heading (A-F)? The comma after "Indian and Nepalese convention is for the family name first and the given name second" would be better served as a semi-colon. References 4 and 6 appear to be identical apart from a semi-colon; any chance they could be combined? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Done those thanks. Woody (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments The National Archives links to a list of national archives, it could be more specific. Can you reference the notes? Ref 12, the government isn't a work, it's a publisher. I'm not 100% sure but when using author names in repeated refs, as long as there's no ambiguity, I think you can just use surnames... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Moved the archives link to external links, I didn't use it when creating this list. I've referenced the Chavasse note as that was a specific one but the other two cover many people as a generic situation. I don't see how I could cite each one using the notes format. For ref 12, it was created by the New Zealand Government but published by Scoop a news site, which is why it is in the publisher field. Should it be switched or Scoop removed, I'm not sure what to do in this case? In terms of the repeated refs I thought as long as it was consistent, there isn't an issue. I'm happy to switch but I don't see a particular need here. Thanks for the comments, Woody (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Referencing notes is tricky, I always have to look at WP:REFNOTE. I would tend to use the original publisher of the work, in that case the NZ government, but it's not a huge deal. As for the repeated names, like you say, no need to switch. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Switched the publisher now, thanks. Woody (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support no obvious issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Seems to fit the criteria. Afro (Talk) 22:08, 29 June 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 promoted by Giants2008 21:08, 30 June 2011 [3].

---

Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story

Nominator(s): PresN 21:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back with the... 15th of 14 lists. I swear this is the last one; there aren't any other Hugo awards left. I originally wasn't going to FLC this one as I was worried that it was too short, but I didn't get a definitive answer when I asked on the talk page so I'm giving it a shot. It's functionally identical to all of the other lists except for only being 3 years old (and 16 rows long). If you think it's too short just give it a quick thumbs-down and I'll remove the nom. (or give it a quick thumbs-up! I'm not picky!) --PresN 21:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Support — It looks good to me. I don't think the length of the list is a problem. It will obviously grow in years to come so it's best to get it correct now. Jimknut (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments "he annual Woldcon" shouldn't that be Worldcon? The article it links to makes no mention of a Woldcon. "In the 3 years that the award has been active, 16 works from 10 series" -> "three years ... , sixteen from ten..." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Both fixed. --PresN 20:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Given the title of the article, why is the bolded part given as Hugo Award for Graphic Story, without the Best? Was that intentional? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unintentional, fixed. --PresN 01:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Support, echoing Jimknut. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Legolas2186

• Why not merge the years in the table for the other nominated works?

• I'd love to, but it's not possible to have a sortable table and merged cells.
  • I understand how that can be problematic. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm really impressed that you have archived all the existing links. Well done.

• Thanks!

• The award has been described as --> It has been described...

• Done.

• The Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story has been awarded --> It has been... avoid consecutive repetitions.

• Done.

• Worldcon is an abbrv for WSFS or is it the short-form?

• Worldcon is the commonly-used shortform for World Science Fiction Convention, not for the WSFS.

• Do you need the colwidth to be 30em? I thought {{reflist}} works fine.

• I think 30em is the most-prefered type now over 2; for most monitors it is the same but for tiny ones it leaves it as 1 column and for large ones it does more than 2; it's just a bit cleaner.
  • Actually I commented on that because I felt that the total number of references are quite less so that {{reflist}} itself will work. But I see that this is an emerging list and references will increase eventually. So no big issue.

These are some issues I saw. Overall great work. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Replied inline; thanks for the review! --PresN 18:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this works fine as a list and definitely passes FLC? criteria. I'm happy to support it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:56, 29 June 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 16:35, 27 June 2011 [4].

---

List of Cornwall CCC List A players

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 11:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria and has been modelled on current FLs such as List of South Africa women ODI cricketers. I have an open nomination in List of international cricket centuries by Andrew Strauss, however all current comments have been resolved for that nomination. As usual, all comments are welcomed! Harrias ^talk 11:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments Link "List A" in the second sentence. Done. "appearance" "appeared" repetitive. Changed second use to "played". Links for Natwest trophy and C&G? "of the competition..." ah, is this the same competition with different branding? Perhaps a note, or something for the non-expert? Added a note to this effect. Timothy Walton is a dab page. Fixed. Do you "take" a stumping or do you "make" it? Good point, you make it. Have added it in, although it might be worth reworking slightly? Maybe worth noting only three non-Englishmen in the list. Added a sentence, though it isn't very exciting! Can we consider making the table accessible with row and col scopes? User:RexxS is usually a diamond geezer for this kind of thing. Pretty sure I've managed this now: I had concerns before due to the emboldening, but with the "plainrowheaders" option, I got around that. Harrias talk 08:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Any reason the captain's table is centrally aligned within the article? No, it's now left-aligned, like the rest of the article. Not keen on a red-linked category. It's now blue. Daily Telegraph should be The Daily Telegraph. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments: I've had an initial quick run through your points, and will come back to the others later. Harrias talk 19:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support no issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Nit-picks only from me... "closely followed by Jonathan Kent who made eleven appearances." Minor, but a comma would be nice after the name. "Players are initially listed in order of appearance, where players made their debut in the same match, they are initially ordered by batting order." Two things. First, the first comma would be better as a semi-colon. Second, "ordered by batting order" is a touch redundant. That could use a different term. One more minor one: reference 1 could use a PDF designation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC) It's been almost two weeks and there's no response here or above for a couple of TRM's comments. Not that these are the most important things in the world, but it would be nice to see them addressed all the same. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Apologies, I've been pretty busy in RL lately, and let this slip through the cracks. I've addressed all of your points now, and I believe the only one outstanding from TRM is the row and col scopes, which I will look into, but I'm no expert in that yet myself. Harrias talk 08:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support now issues are resolved. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good enough to me, no issues. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Are cricket clubs singular or plural? "... was formed...", "...their..."? Don't mind, but should be consistent. Johnlp (talk) 22:41, 26 June 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 16:35, 27 June 2011 [5].

---

Grammy Award for Best Long Form Music Video

Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 22:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Crystal Clear x3 22:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

:*There is one dablink and several external link errors. fixed Music video is more about short form videos to promote singles fixed Rhythm Nation is a song. I think you mean Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814. fixed (but I've left the title unlinked and as Rhythm Nation 1814 since its most likely a video from her 1989 tour and because Rock On The Net simply lists the name as that.) I think {{n/a}} would be better than dashes in empty cells done Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your inout. I believe I have corrected all the problems you pointed out. If there are anymore please let me know. Crystal Clear x3 02:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Rock on the Net is unreliable. Use [6] as the general ref and replace other ref(s) done You cannot simply remove links if they are dead. I have found many dead Grammy.com links at the wayback machine. Thanks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments Should use the spaced en-dash, not spaced hyphen between artist and song title in the table. fixed Same for year ranges, although in the prose I'd prefer to see just "In 1984 and 1985". fixed "a musical program must be" program? I thought we were talking about videos? fixed "It was then subjected to another title change..." -> "It was renamed in..."? fixed "The Grammy Award for Best Short Form Music Video recipients include the artists, directors, and producers ..." not in 1984 or 1985...! fixed "The Girlie Show - Live Down Under';" is that semi colon needed? fixed "award winner for directing the music video," which one is "the" music video? done Avoid all caps in the ref (e.g ref 3). fixed Rolling Stones are The Rolling Stones. fixed Comma needed between Hammer and Don't. fixed Image captions that are complete sentences need full stops (e.g. Sting's caption). fixed Beach Boys is The Beach Boys. fixed And once again, White Stripes -> The White Stripes. done Don't have see also links for things you've already linked in the article. done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I believe I have corrected all of the above issues. Crystal Clear x3 21:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: References look good. You should use the sortname template in the Performing artist(s) column so that artists sort by last name rather than first name. Also, be sure to watch capitalization based on Manual of Style (see my edit to the list for examples). I imagine some of the nominated works need to be linked. At least on my browser, one or two additional images could be displayed along the side. More thorough review to follow. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to the article and advice. I have added several more images to the 'recipients' sections and used sortname in the performing artists column. Crystal Clear x3 20:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: I think it looks very good, but there are some things to do...

• • In 1993, the name of the video is Diva not Drive

done

• • I think Madonna's videos are very well representated in wikipedia, I believe that you could find the link to all of them.

done

• • In 1998, Steve Purcell is credited as director, along Morissette.

done

Jaespinoza (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I have corrected the above problems. Crystal Clear x3 05:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Jaespinoza (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The several honored categories are presented...". The grammar here doesn't seem to be as good as what is usually in these Grammy Award lists. I looked at the Short Form list for an example, and it started a similar sentence with "Honors in several categories are presented...". I admire the fact that you're looking for additional improvement in this series of lists, but in this case I think a fix was applied to something that wasn't broken.

done

• Check the sorting in the Performing artist(s) column. Huey Lewis and the News doesn't seem to be sorting in the proper alphabetical order. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not sure how to properly correct that (I tried to sort it like : Huey Lewis and the News - Huey Lewis| and the News) so I just removed the sort template and put them in link brackets. Crystal Clear x3 05:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• I think it will be helpful if you add below the images for which video they got the award. done

• Try archiving the pdf links, they disappear too soon. ..........I do not know how to do that

• The Work column is not sorting alphabetically. The Beatles Love – All Together Now is coming in the second position. fixed

• En-dash for The Girlie Show - Live Down Under. done

• En-dash for Trapped in the Closet Chapters 13-22 done

• En-dash for "Charles Dutoit & The Montreal Symphony Orchestra - The Planets" done

• This is confusing. --> Ella Fitzgerald – American Masters: Ella Fitzgerald – Something to Live For. Isnt the videos name American Masters: Ella Fitzgerald – Something to Live For? So the whole name should be italicized. fixed

• Have you checked whether all video names are wikilinked? ........double checking now Crystal Clear x3 21:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC) done Crystal Clear x3 01:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

— Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support, great work and as for archiving the links, I would take that request off-FLC, as it does not hinder me in supporting the article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 08:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cheesy (only a few) "In order to quality" should be "In order to qualify". done "Between 1984 and 1985, this accolade was originally known as Best Video Album. It was renamed in 1986, being awarded as Best Music Video, Long Form." This seems a bit clunky and doesn't read well in 2 sentences, try "From 1984 to 1985, the accolade was known as Best Video Album, but in 1986, it was renamed to Best Music Video, Long Form." done After that, consider my vote a support. Great work. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 16:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 27 June 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 16:35, 27 June 2011 [7].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best Pop Album by a Duo or Group with Vocals

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is well referenced and have an expanded lead. The list is part of the Grammy Wiki-project, and it is the third one for the pop genre, after two successful nominations for Latin Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Album and Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album. Thank you to all reviewers for their hard work. Jaespinoza (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Link check: No dablinks or dead ELs. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

*Comments "Award-winning albums have been performed by Mexican artists more than any other nationality" - albums aren't really "performed" Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC) None of the captions should have a full stop Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC) The general ref only goes up to 2008 Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC) How so? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Since the general reference only covers from 2000 to 2008, I added references for 2009 and 2010. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC) These refs should be placed in the ref column. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support No major issues. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments "to established duos or groups" just noticed this. What does "established" really mean? What are the criteria for being "established"? Fixed, it was a mistake, in the guidelines it does not say established. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Ref 5 is in Spanish, should be noted as such. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Ref 19, lose the leading zero on 08 September. Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – The sentence "Since its inception, the award category has had name changes" is confusing me since it looks like there was only one name change. The last part should be "has had a name change" or "has had one name change", or something about the award having two names. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I see no major issues. Support assuming other reviewers' concerns are addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: "In 2000 the award was known as Pop Duo/Group with Vocal, and from 2002 to date it has been presented as Best Pop Album by a Duo or Group with Vocal." you mean Vocals rather than Vocal right? Only issue I found. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for your comment. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:14, 27 June 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 promoted by Giants2008 18:06, 23 June 2011 [8].

---

List of tallest buildings in Austin

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been worked on for a while and it appears to meet all of the requirements of an FL article. I have checked the article multiple times, and it has been checked with the criteria as well. The list is modeled after the already FL status List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque, which in turn is modeled after a number of other featured lists. When you state any concerns/suggestions, please do so in an understanding fashion, which would be simple, yet understanding and comprehensive. As always, your comments will help this article, and I will do my best to fix your concerns if any. Remember to respond positively and with constructive criticism. Also remember that the use of graphics is discouraged. Again, thank you for your comments. TheAustinMan (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Nice to see one of these again. Just this week I was thinking it's been a while Don't be self-referential (This list of tallest buildings in Austin ranks...) It's almost the same as "This is a list of talles buildings in Austin", which was done away with a couple of years ago. The cat article doesn't begin "This is an article about cats" or "This article about cats describes...." "56 floors", "56 floors", "21 skyscrapers" need no breaking spaces "more than 30" --> "more than thirty", "in the past 3 years" --> "in the past three years" "Multiple buildings proposed in Austin could possibly finish in the top 12 if constructed." top 12 of what? "The city is going through a second building boom, with a multitude buildings already built, under construction, approved, or proposed in the past 3 years." Both statements need fixing to a specific date or rewriting ("Between 2008 and 2011" or something for the second one, perhaps) William B. Travis State Office Building doesn't have a year of completion in the table Something's up with the sorting with the year and rank. After clicking the year column a couple of times, and then Rank, the rank gets sorted either as 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 46, 44, 42, 4, 38, 37, 36, etc, or 1, 10, 11, 12 ... 19, 2, 21, 22 ... 3, 30, 31, 33, etc. It only happens after clicking the year column first.. perhaps it's to do with that empty cell Neutral for now. Not too bad, just a bit of cleanup. I'm assuming the refs are all okay as they have been in previous tall building lists. Haven't checked the image Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Partially Complete: I have fixed most of your concerns. Unfortunately, however, I could not find a completion date for the William B. Travis State Office Building. Also, what do you mean by "a non breaking space" and how do you fix that? Sorry, I just have kind of a low html editing skill (I'm only 11 :-/)TheAustinMan (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't go telling people that if I were you. A non breaking space means that at screens where the 56 is at the end of the line, it puts it at the next line so the following word is next to it, not separated. Instead of a regular space, type & nbsp;, so you have 56& nbsp;floors (no spaces -- don't know why "nowiki" won't work Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Forgot to add -- I'm guessing by your name you're from Austin, can't you go to the State Office Building and see if there's a plaque on the wall or something? That should be okay as a primary source. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Done: I fixed your concerns. I added the non-breaking spaces, and I found a link for the year of completion for the William B. Travis Building (1985). I tried sorting the years and rank and few times, and it seems like its all in good order. If the problem with the sorting persists, then I'm not sure what's going on then. If you have any more concerns, please state them. TheAustinMan (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC) It might also be useful to have image mapping for the first two photos (thy skylines), which I can do if you don't know how, as long as you tell me what all the buildings are. If not, at the very least I'd like the image captions to state which buildings are which, from left to right, and from which compass direction they photographs were taken. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC) 400px Well I don't know how to map images, but I'll give you the info. I'll provide you wikilinks, if any, so you can check with them to see if they match. You can also search them up on Wiki Commons. I'll go left to right with the descriptions below: The first sizable building on the left is AMLI II, or the short one on the left. The building sticking up above it (with the red "trimming") is One American Center The prominent building on the left half of the image, the tall gray/blue one, is W Austin Hotel and Residences Smack dab in the middle (the blue one) is the Frost Bank Tower The apparent tallest one in the image is The Austonian. Overlapping the Austonian is The Ashton The Ashton itself seems to overlap 100 Congress (the one with the triangle face) On the furthest right with the staircase design is One Congress Plaza This photo was taken in Butler Park, facing a north or northeasterly direction 400px Furthest left with barely any lighting on is Spring (building). It's the green one. Sneaking behind Spring is The Monarch. Next right is a building that has a semi-circular top. That's 300 West Sixth. After that is a building with a bunch of antennas and red lights. That's One American Center. Moving in front of One American Center is the Chase Bank Tower. (It's black and has a white top). Next right is 360 Condominiums. It is probably the building that takes up the most photo space out of all the others. The brightest building in the image (next right) is the Frost Bank Tower. The building with the green lights is AMLI II. The only building under construction in the picture is W Austin Hotel and Residences. The next building (with the crown lighted in blue/white) is The Austonian. The building who's color is crimson-brown is The Ashton. The Ashton overlaps 100 Congress. The building with the blue lighting around its borders (like an outline) is One Congress Plaza. It has the moon directly above it. The next building is San Jacinto Tower. The building behind S.J.T. that has a bundle of red lights on top is Four Seasons Residences. This image was taken from Lou Neff Point, facing an ENE direction. TheAustinMan (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC) OK, I'll get on this later. I've hidden the pics for now.. Probably not best to have two big pics in the middle of an already lengthy page at FLC. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Did the first image map, was pretty easy, but check that I did it all correctly, especially 100 Congress which I'm not sure I identified correctly. I'll let you identify each building in the caption (I'm pretty sure screenreaders don't work on image maps but you'd have to check with WT:ACCESS for confirmation). The caption shouldn't be too hard to find; it's in the Image: line just like a normal image caption would be. Just don't wrap it in square brackets or you'll break the template. Also suggest identifying the buildings on the file description page at Commons as most people will want to click the image to get a larger view. It's past midnight now so I'll do the nighttime one tomorrow. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and I forced the thumbs to 400px. I'm sure there's a style guideline orimage use policy somewhere that says don't force image sizes, but oh well.. there's no point mapping it if it's too small to be seen. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I checked with WT:ACCESS, so an answer will probably come in. I'll put it on here if the question has been answered. :) TheAustinMan (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• OK. Meanwhile I've mapped the second photo. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment At the risk of giving contrary advice, I don't think "56 floors" or "21 skyscrapers" need non-breaking spaces ( ). Nor do I think there is any policy or guideline that suggests that non-breaking spaces should be used in such cases. I would also expect per WP:ORDINAL that "more than 30" would be preferred (although I don't find "more than thirty" to be poor style, it does contradict our guidelines). --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't it that words above ten that can be spelled out as one or two words should be? Like thirty and thirty-one are ok but three-hundred-and-sixty two aren't? Figures in prose just looks jarring to me, but it's not a huge deal either way. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• From WP:ORDINAL: As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words. But it's not a big deal for me either. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• All the images except the first have alt text, and the alt text given is reasonable (remember that screen readers will hear the alt text and then the caption, so we don't them to be too duplicative). --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I mapped the image last night and may have removed the alt text. I'm not sure if it works with mapping, though. The guys at WT:ACCESS will let us know. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I added the alt text. Seems like it works. I just need some old computer with dial-up to see if the alt text shows up :D TheAustinMan (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• The alt text does show up, thank you. The image maps convey information not accessible via the keyboard, so fail WCAG 2.0 but MOS:ACCESS offers no guidance on the issue. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• But you said at WT:ACCESS#About Image Mapping and Captions that the image map links do work with a keyboard, by using tab, enter and backspace. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry to be blunt, but please try it for yourself, so that you can actually see what happens before making any more guesses. Yes, the LINKS work, although they take the viewer to a non-existent article half of the time. No, the TOOLTIP doesn't work if you use the keyboard, and as far as I can see the image map was implemented principally to display those tooltips, which fails accessibility standard WCAG H24: Providing text alternatives for the area elements of image maps. --RexxS (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• The table needs scope="col" for the column headers, and would benefit from having suitable row headers marked up with '!' and scope="row". There's a description at MOS:ACCESS#Data tables and a tutorial linked from there. However, if you want assistance with the markup, either I or one of the regulars here would be happy to help. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't really know how to do that. And no, the tutorial doesn't really help me either sadly. TheAustinMan (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for doing the scope="col" charts and all that. You've earned my gratitude. TheAustinMan (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've marked up the table in three stages. It may be worth examining the diffs to see what each step does for future reference. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest removing <br><small>[[Foot (length)|ft]] / [[metre|m]]</small> from the Height header, as it is doubly redundant. The units are given explicitly in each data cell in that column and WP:OVERLINK has this guidance: Avoid linking common units of measurement. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done The measurement "legend" has been removed. TheAustinMan (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments While I love the mapped skylines, the second one means the table (on my screen) is really constrained horizontally. Not ideal. Might also be worth saying which direction (left to right e.g. north-east to north or whatever) these panoramas show. "of varying statuses. " what does that really mean? Read the first para of the lead and count how many times "building" is used. Makes the prose repetitive and dull. Any reason why the Scarborough Building isn't linked in the lead? Second para, count the "Austin"s... I guess eight? Again, needs some work to make the prose less repetitive. "in the top 12 of Austin's" why top 12? Mostly it's top 10. Just curious. "fifth in height if completed." in US or just Austin? Sorting by name, I'd expect 21 Rio to sort before 100 Congress. Use the {{sort}} template. Frost Bank Tower - "Known as the first skyscraper" - well either it is or it isn't. Which is it? "One Congress Plaza was ..." caption needs a period. Be consistent when linking the Austonian. Sometimes you say "The Austonian", sometimes "the Austonian" and sometimes you just link "Austonian". Don't mix date formats in the references. Either all yyyy-mm-dd or human-readable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Oh hey Mr. Rambling Man. Thanks for your comments. I fixed some of them, but the majority I'll work on later. TheAustinMan (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

*Comments One dablink I appreciate that you want the various buildings seen in the images, but 400px is a bit excessive. Could you reduce it a little? Maybe 275–350px? Is there any point in making the rank column sortable, when it sorts in the same order as height? Year→'Year built' or 'Year erected' "If built, will take all titles The Austonian has" - this makes it sound a bit like a real estate takeover. Surely the only "title" that is exchanged is 'Tallest building'? "Emporis.com" should be "Emporis" or "Emporis Corporation" Dates should all be formatted one way. YYYY-MM-DD or Day Month Year or Month Day, Year, but not a mixture. I would suggest the first or third format, as the second is British English. The note should be source with inline citations, not in-prose ELs. Also the last reference is a bare URL. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC) This has been fixed. TheAustinMan (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC) "SkyscraperPage" → SkyscraperPage.com. Skyscraper Source Media This still needs to be addressed. Oh, sorry. I didn't notice that concern. But yes, its been resolved. TheAustinMan (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support All my issues have been resolved. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I only increased it to 400 for, like you said, to see the buildings better when moving the mouse over, but if the images being at 400px causing the problems The Rambling Man has with horizontal constraint, then it might be best to reduce size to 350 or 300px. Or use {{clear}} Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done The concerns listed by The Rambling Man and Adabow have been generally resolved. Answering the question from the Rambling Man, Scarbrough Building is not wikilinked because it does not have a page. However, even though I have generally resolved your concerns, I don't know how to operate the sort template. If anyone could help me, that would be great. TheAustinMan (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• But... should One American Center, One Congress Plaza and One Texas Center be sorted under the letter O or the number 1? I've left them as O for now, but what do people think/what's usually done in this case? Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• I took a look at List of tallest buildings in New York City, which is a pretty big featured skyscraper list. They have a lot a buildings that are known as "One..." instead of "1..." When sorted, they file alphabetically, in that the go between N and P, rather than sorting at the top of the list. Using that, I would suspect that the buildings in this list sort under "O", as usual. TheAustinMan (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 8 needs an accessdate.
• What makes "Wikimapia" (ref 43) a reliable source?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• You mean reference 28 right? Fixed. Wikimapia is not a reliable source because it is a open to edit thing. However, it is the only source of information regarding the completion of the William B. Travis Building. Should I remove the reference, along with the information though? TheAustinMan (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I did, thanks. Unfortunately, with respect to wikimapia, unless you can source the information more reliably in keeping with WP:RS, I don't think it's wise to keep the information in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Did you see if the building has a plaque on it or anything? That could be used as a Primary source? Maybe something at Austin Library has something in a book you could use. Matthewedwards :  Chat  08:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Remove space before reference 1. "with a multitude of buildings proposed or were constructed." The "were" is clogging up the flow of this sentence. A couple of the notes in the main table are lacking periods at the end. They should likely have them, especially if there's one at the end of "Tallest all-hotel building in Austin." The ones without periods have a similar structure and should be handled in a similar manner. Timeline of tallest building: "This list includes buildings who have held the title of the tallest building in Austin." Buildings aren't people, so using "who" in this context is inappropriate. Try "that" or "which" instead. Is there a cite anywhere for "Residents' fears of losing views of the state capitol kept buildings shorter than it for nearly a century"? I don't see one here or in the table. Photo caption: "Since then, it has been surpassed by 16 other buildings." There are 17 buildings now taller than it, so I assume this refers to when it was knocked down to the second-tallest in Austin. The problem is that the caption isn't that clear; it only refers to when it was completed and how long it was tallest, without a date when it was first surpassed. Second word of See Also section heading should be without the capital letter. Why is Skyline capitalized in the one note? Is the one website Skyscraperpage or SkyscraperPage? The references, and note/EL, give the name two different ways, which creates an inconsistency. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Done: I have resolved your concerns. For your 5th concern, I simply erased it, because there was no source I could find. Cheers. TheAustinMan (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rai•me 07:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

*Comments - First of all, great job with this list! It is great to see another tallest buildings list get nominated. However, I noticed that you used List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque, one of the lists that I nominated, as a reference, but unfortunately that list is slightly outdated compared to other buildings list. I am trying to go around to all of my old buildings list and update them to new standards, but I haven't gotten to that one yet. A better model to use is List of tallest buildings in Mobile or List of tallest buildings in San Diego; there have been some table formatting changes. Why are there two images in the introduction? It seems like one should be sufficient, especially given that they seem to be taken from a similar vantage point. Is there a panorama shot of the Austin skyline that could be added to the article, below the Table of Contents? See List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia for an example. As with List of tallest buildings in Mobile and List of tallest buildings in San Diego, it would be great if an image could be added for each building in both the main Tallest buildings list and the Timeline; you can add a new "Image" column between the "Name" and the "Height" columns. It appears that many of the buildings in the city have images (see commons:Category:Downtown Austin, Texas, and adding more images would be be especially useful for the buildings that don't have their own articles. For buildings that do not have an image, just add an em-dash ({{sort|00|—}}) to the empty cell. The height column shouldn't have "ft" and "m" written out in every cell. I realize that you are using the convert template, but including the measurements every time is redundant. Just use the measurement in feet followed by the conversion in meters (for example, "683 (208)" for the Austonian). If possible, a coordinates column should be added after the Year column (this applies to both the main Tallest buildings list and the Timeline). See WP:COORD and Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. You can use the GeoLocator tool to find coordinates for the buildings; let me know if need help with this. The "Year built" column should be titled "Year", as you have already described what it means in the introductory paragraph of the list. "Year built" is also vague, as typically buildings take several years to be built. The "Rank", "Height", "Floors", and "Year built" columns should all be centered. In addition, in the "Notes" column, every entry that does not contain text and just contains references should be centered as well. Rename "Tallest buildings under construction and proposed" to "Tallest proposed", as there are no under construction buildings in the list. In the Tallest buildings under construction and proposed section, why is the "Year" column filled with "Proposed"? And do any of these buildings have estimated dates of completion? If so, they should be listed. In the Tallest buildings under construction and proposed section, all empty cells should have centered em-dashes (use the code {{sort|00|—}}). In the Tallest buildings under construction and proposed section, the note "Table entries without text indicate that information regarding building heights, floor counts, and/or dates of completion has not yet been released." needs to be revised. All the buildings do have floor counts, and the use of "and/or" is discouraged. I would suggest: "Table entries with dashes (—) indicate that information regarding building heights or dates of completion has not yet been released." In the Timeline, it would be great if a "Street address" column could be added (see List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia), as that is standard for lists of tallest buildings. I know this contradicts a reviewer above, but fragments in the Notes column should not contain periods. Since most of your statements are phrases, they do not need periods - use semicolons to separate fragmented ideas, and only use periods if there is a complete sentence. For example, Spring should read Tallest building in the West End district while 360 Condominiums should read Stood as the tallest residential building in Texas until the Austonian surpassed it; the building was originally planned shorter, but more floors and units were added. The building was originally planned shorter, but more floors and units were added sounds a little awkward. What about The building was originally designed to be shorter, but more floors and units were later added? The Austonian is the tallest residential building in Texas and west of the Mississippi River and tallest building in Texas outside of Houston and Dallas → Tallest residential building in the United States west of the Mississippi River; tallest building in Texas outside of Houston and Dallas (don't need to write it as a complete sentence, and don't need to repeat building name) Shouldn't the T. Stacy and Associates Hotel & Condo Tower have its own article? I think you should remove all information about skyline ranking; I have been going back to remove it from older featured lists, as it is very subjective. You can mention instead that the city has more high-rises than any city in Texas besides Dallas and Houston. You should also probably mention that the city is home to 118 high-rises with 3 more under construction, per this Emporis source. The Tallest under construction and proposed section should have the same cutoff as the main Tallest buildings list (pick either 180ft or 250ft). Don't use the word "currently" in prose; use "As of May 2011" instead ({{As of|2011|05}}) In the Timeline, I don't think you need the sentences All buildings that have claimed the title have always been at least 300 ft (91 m) tall. Currently, The Austonian holds the distinction of the tallest building in Austin, and has been doing so since 2010. These facts are both easily determined by looking at the timeline. Overall, good job with this list! Cheers, Rai•me 00:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Partially Complete: I have worked out most of your concerns, the rest of the coords and all the centering will be worked out later. To answer your question, the T. Stacy Tower does not have a page because the first time it was created (a few years ago), it was deleted due to a consensus that the project was canceled, and that it was non-notable due to the lack of verifiability. (Click for discussion) It was created later, but it was deleted once again according to the Speedy Deletion Criteria G4, in that quote, "Essentially the same as the previous version. The additional sources in this version are fora and not RS." The project, once canceled, has been moving forward with plans again, but I still think it's wise to wait until later. Also, I would like to say that I think a coordinates column would be better in the timeline than a street address because the coordinates also appear in the other list. TheAustinMan (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Hey, how do you do (| align="center") with cells that have (rowspan=2)? TheAustinMan (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I don't think you should use rowspan=2 if it means that the "Rank" column cannot be sortable. It is important that that column in particular be sortable so that readers can return to the default ranking settings after sorting other columns. Just use #= for buildings that have the same height, and note in the lead that "An equal sign (=) following a rank indicates the same height between two or more buildings." As for the above, I definitely agree with your reasoning behind the T. Stacy Tower - if the article has already been deleted twice, I don't think it should be recreated a third time until after the building has begun construction. As for the timeline, I think that both a street address and a coordinates column should be included, as that has been the standard for other recently promoted lists. My apologies for linking the Philadelphia timeline as an example, as it hasn't yet been updated with a coordinates column; List of tallest buildings in Mobile is a better example. The street address column is generally important because buildings that have changed names multiple times can become more identifiable by their street address than their current name. Here are a few more final comments: The Image column should not be sortable, and 100px images are a little large - I would recommend 75 or 80px. Each image should also contain alt text. The dashed entries in the image column and the coordinates column should be centered. The Height column and the cells in the Notes column without text in the "Tallest proposed" section should also be centered, as should the Height, Years as Tallest, Reference, and Coordinates columns in the Timeline. (You were probably already going to do this, but I thought I would point it out just to be sure) In the "Tallest proposed" section, you can remove the Status column, as the section header implies that the status of each project is "proposed." Although, looking through some of the references, it appears as through some of the buildings have been approved (see the Emporis ref for the Hotel Van Zandt), so if this is the case the section should be retitled "Tallest approved and proposed" and the projects that have already been approved should be marked as such in the Status column. SkyscraperPage doesn't differentiate between approved and proposed projects, so you should only use Emporis or other sources for this information. The two notes in the "Tallest proposed" section are fragments, not sentences, so they shouldn't have periods. The first sentence of the introduction, Austin, Texas, is the home to a number of skyscrapers and high-rises built, under construction, or proposed, could use some polishing. It is confusing to say the city is home to many under construction high-rises when you later go on to say there are only 3, (especially when none are tall enough to meet the list cutoff). Also, a city isn't "home" to a high-rise that is only proposed and hasn't been built yet. I would reword it to something along the lines of the first sentence of List of tallest buildings in Miami: "The U.S. city of Miami, Florida is the site of 295 high-rises, 59 of which stand taller than 400 feet (120 m)." In the introduction, you should add references for the building heights mentioned. Also, "second tallest building" should be written as "second–tallest building" (with the en-dash). Similarly, in the third paragraph, "fifth tallest" should be written as "fifth–tallest." I think that the introduction should mention the fact that the Austonian is the tallest residential building in the United States west of the Mississippi (as well as mentioning that it is the tallest building in Texas outside of Houston and Dallas), as that is quite an interesting piece of information. But that is just my opinion :) "The third tallest is the Frost Bank Tower, which was Austin's tallest from 2004 to 2008." → "The third–tallest building in the city is the Frost Bank Tower, which was Austin's tallest structure from 2004 until 2008." In the second paragraph, where you talk about the building booms, you may want to give examples of buildings constructed in each "boom". For example, you could say: "Since 2007, the city has been going through a second building boom, with a multitude of buildings constructed, including the Austonian and 360 Condominiums. Additionally, over 30 high-rises are proposed for construction." (The latter fact is also taken from this Emporis ref) "As of May 2011, only one building is under construction in Austin over 100 ft (30 m), the Federal Courthouse" → "As of May 2011, the Federal Courthouse is the only building under construction in Austin that is planned to rise over 100 ft (30 m)." For this Emporis ref, use <ref name=> so that it doesn't appear multiple times in the list of references. Cheers, Rai•me 07:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Complete: I think I'm done with your concerns, but if I missed a note by accident, please tell me. :P TheAustinMan (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I'll do the alt text later, there's a hefty amount of alt to do and its nightfall already. TheAustinMan (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Comment - It has been over a week, but the images in the table still have no alt text. In addition, the "Coordinates" column needs to be centered in the main tallest buildings list. Cheers, Rai•me 03:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Complete: The alt text has been added and the coordinates column has been centered. TheAustinMan (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - Just a few more comments before I can support. Is there a reason why 501 Congress is not listed in the Tallest approved and proposed section? It looks like it would be one of the tallest buildings in the city if constructed, and should probably be listed in both the table and the introduction. Also, is there really only one building approved out of all of those proposals? That seems unlikely to me - have you checked all of the building's entries on Emporis? Finally, the alt text really should be more descriptive than just the name of the building. A better example would be something like "Slightly elevated view of a 60-story skyscraper with a glass facade set atop a rectangular pedestal; the building has balconies on every floor and has two small setbacks near the roofline." for the Austonian. See List of tallest buildings in Mobile for more examples. I will support once these three concerns are addressed. Cheers, Rai•me 03:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Your concerns have been noted, but I am busy now, so they might not be resolved quickly. 501 Congress is not listed because it is the same as the T. Stacy & Associates Building, you can look it up. Even though they are the same, Emporis lists 501 Congress as 'visionary' while it lists the T. Stacy Building as proposed. You can also confirm they are the same building by comparing the pictures of 501 Congress with those of the T. Stacy and Associates Complex. Is 1 building approved out of all the rest? Yes. I have checked on Emporis. Like I said, I am busy right now, but I have started on some of the more comprehensive alt text. They will be finished within a week from when this comment is signed. TheAustinMan (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Would you consider adding {{GeoGroupTemplate}}? For that to work as intended, |name= parameter would need to be added to all coords. GregorB (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. "56–story" should be "56-story", i.e. a regular hyphen instead of a ndash. Ditto "second–tallest", etc., if I understand WP:DASH correctly. GregorB (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think they're all regular dashes already. I didn't see any ndash html coding. TheAustinMan (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • While they are not coded as &ndash;, they actually are ndashes, which is apparent from their size (see the "56-story" example above). GregorB (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • All improperly used en dashes have been converted to hyphens. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support All my issues were resolved, seems everyone else's have been, too. Article looks good. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:46, 22 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 18:49, 18 June 2011 [9].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (K)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 14:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating the next list in this series because my current open nomination has no outstanding unaddressed comments and multiple supports. Comments expediently addressed. Cheers to all. — KV5 • Talk • 14:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

As usual, a pretty top-notch list. Just the one thing, and it might not come as a surprise:

• I'm not too happy with the wording regarding Klein's "retired number". I can't come up with anything better myself, but it reads awkwardly, and I had to flick between a couple of different pages to work out the entire meaning. It is a slightly complicated situation, which I understand makes it similarly complicated to explain, but I feel it must be possible to have something a easier to follow. Hopefully someone else here will have a bright idea, but I'll think about it for a while! Harrias ^talk 10:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Otherwise, no issues from me at all. Harrias ^talk 10:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree it's tough. Would you be able to make a suggestion after reading Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A), which has a similar situation for Grover Cleveland Alexander? I tried to do the best I could with a rough situation but I'm always willing to listen to comments. — KV5 • Talk • 21:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • See changes; will this work for you? — KV5 • Talk • 17:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support – That wording works for me, thanks. Harrias ^talk 17:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Didn't find any complaints to add to the one above. For that one, maybe something like "number retired from further use by the team" would suffice. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - no issues from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 13 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 18:49, 18 June 2011 [10].

---

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is the fifth and last of a series of lists of churches vested in the Churches Conservation Trust. The other four lists are all FLs. In this list the first two paragraphs of the lead are identical to the others, and the format of the list is similar to the other lists. All the churches in the list are linked to articles. The text has been copyedited.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Rod talk 19:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Another excellent list in the series (I am biased as I was involved in one of them). A couple of minor things I spotted: Within the references on some occasions Churches Conservation Trust is wikilinked (eg 6,8,11...) but on others it is not (eg 1,4..). In the description of St Lawrence Broughton Eligius points to a dab page - I assume Saint Eligius is intended? Apart from these it appears to be will written, illustrated and laid out. Columns sort as expected and it is well referenced.— Rod talk 15:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for spotting those. Both fixed (completely, I hope). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Support Thanks I can't see any other problems so I'm happy to support.— Rod ^talk 20:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments – One too many words in "which was built in in 1876–78." St John the Baptist Mongewell: "near the The Ridgeway long-distance path." Remove first "the"? St Mary Capel-le-Ferne: Minor, but a comma would be nice after Staveley's name. St Peter Preston Park: Again minor, but I've always thought "among" was a little less overly formal than "amongst". St Thomas a Becket Capel: Add "the" before 13th century? That seems to be consistent with how the rest of the descriptions are handled. St Mary Pitstone: "a 12-century font" → "a 12th-century font"? St Clement Knowlton: Another comma would be good after Narborough's name; this is similar to one of my earlier comments. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks also to you. All fixed. I'm repeatedly intrigued by the "missing" of such details, both by myself and others (should I be?). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - I can't see any problems with this (hopefully Giants2008 got all of them!). I know other issues have been ironed out with previous nominations. It's well-written, attractive and useful, with good sources. Spot checking a few citations, I can see no problems with verifiability or too-close paraphrasing. I like how so many of them have very interesting little anecdotes & are not "just another church"! Some of the images (eg. St Andrew, Hove; St Peter, Preston Park) looked like they are floating in a little too much white space, but having experimented a bit in preview, I'm not sure there's any better way of sizing them. It's not a problem anyway. The only other tiny thing I thought was that you have one instance of "there are Perpendicular windows" (for St Michael, East Peckham). This could perhaps be "there are Perpendicular-style windows" purely to avoid confusing people who are not familiar with the term and might think it means perpendicular. It's already linked though, so, up to you.--BelovedFreak 10:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment; "-style" added. It's difficult to find a way of sizing the images to suit all, as different browsers and different screen sizes display them differently. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments I like. I've reviewed a couple of these before and find them interesting and informative, more power to you. " built in 1876–78" not keen on built "in" a range of years, perhaps, "between 1876 and 1878". Table caption "year of construction" probably better to say "date" or "era" of construction here. Our article on Purbeck marble has Marble capitalised. Similar for Bath stone. (I've probably said this before....!) Elsewhere I've seen the Nativity referred to as The Nativity. Not sure you need all the See also's when you have a template specific for this purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I've fixed the first four points. But I'm not sure about the See also section and the template/navbox. I agree that they duplicate each other, so for the purist one "should" go. (Here I must say as an aside, that I am not a fan of such templates. I did not create this one, although I am grateful for the effort put into it by its creator.) But IMO we should be here to serve the general reader, the person who looks maybe quickly at the article, and then wants to see something similar and related. The See also section is ideal for this; obvious, quick and easy. The general viewer will not have a clue what that blue thing at the bottom of the page is "for". Even if you open it, its function is not necessarily clear (it took me some time in my early days to make much use of them, but I readily took to the See also links — perhaps I am thick). So if the presence of both causes a problem of duplication, I would go for deleting the template rather than the See also section. I am of course interested in what others think about this. Another idea might be to condense it in the following way: See also For lists of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in other regions see: East of England English Midlands Northern England Southwest England --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Yeah, well like I said, I'm not sure you need them, but it's not a massive issue for me if they both stay. I prefer your idea of being as helpful as possible to the reader, so I think your suggestion above is the best solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - good job. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 14 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 18:49, 18 June 2011 [11].

---

List of 2002 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Strange Passerby and Courcelles 10:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Skipping forward 50 years, here's the next entry in our series of Winter Olympics medalist lists. A judging scandal, doping scandals, bribery scandals (though not relevant to this list), and, amidst all that scandal, some fine moments of sport; Michelle Kwan faltering in the Free Skate while Sarah Hughes came from nowhere to take gold; the first time women ever did an Olympic bobsleigh run, and more Yang Yang's than you can keep track of. Enjoy, and comment, please. Courcelles 10:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – Comments from KV5

Not much to complain about here at all. Just a few minor things:

• When you have "2 x 5 kilometre" and the like, the "x" needs to be the times symbol (HTML &times; entity or the symbol in the toolbox)
  • Done. Courcelles 15:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• A MOS:NUM question, really: what about "10000 metres"? MOS:NUM prescribes the comma for all numbers 9999 and above, but I don't think it would be right to have one different from the rest. Your thoughts welcome.
  • Hmm, interesting. The counterpoint is, that despite the MOS saying that, the article about the race (and all other 10000 metre races) lives at Speed skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics – Men's 10000 metres. Courcelles 15:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Right. This I noticed. This is probably an issue to raise at an appropriate WikiProject talk page for discussion. FLC's probably not the appropriate place for an overarching debate. It's not a huge thing at all, so it won't hinder my support when that time comes, but it's something that should probably be talked through. — KV5 • Talk • 15:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• One redirect in the toolbox "external links" tool; possibly to be looked into
  • Done... The month changed, so the IOC moved everything around. (I exaggerate. Slightly.) Courcelles 15:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• No links to events in the lead? If I didn't watch the Winter Olympics, I wouldn't know what the skeleton is...
• "Ski jumping World Cup" - uncap "Ski"
  • I've done the opposite and capitalised the J in Jumping as I should've originally; it's a proper noun. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Other than that... great job! Great images too. — KV5 • Talk • 14:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

As KV5 said, a pretty good list overall. Just a couple of points from me:

• "The Games were affected by doping problems, with four medal winners losing their medals following doping disqualifications." – Noun plus -ing should generally be avoided, try to rework rework the sentence to remove it.
  • Sentence rephrased. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• A note on the discussion about large numbers above: in the lead you place a comma in "2,399 athletes". To be consistent, you should either take this out, or place commas in any four digit numbers in the tables.
  • MOS suggests we can use (or choose to not use) the comma when dealing with four-digit numbers. It's worth noting, as Courcelles mentioned, that the official event names do not include a comma (at least in the official report). I wouldn't mind removing the comma from 2,399, but will wait to see if Courcelles agrees. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that the MOS suggests that you can use either: but I would suggest you use one or the other, not both. Harrias ^talk 15:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Removed two commas from the lede. Courcelles 06:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I echo KV5 once more; some lovely images! Harrias ^talk 09:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns have been addressed. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 19:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Provisional Support – Everything looks good to me, aside from what has already been said above me (and even I can't get too worked up about the comma issues). Have to agree that the photos really enhance the list; that lead image would look great on the Main Page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments "the Winter Olympics were in Vancouver" -> "were held in Vancouver". Done. Courcelles 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC) "New events were contested in Salt Lake City; ... The 78 events in Salt Lake City..." Salt Lake City repeated quickly. Done. Courcelles 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC) "Both men and women competed at these Games, with 886 female and 1,513 male athletes attending the Games" Games overdose. Fixed. Courcelles 06:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC) "Athletes from 24 of ... medal; athletes from 18 won at least one gold medal.[7] Athletes from Australia and China won... 55 athletes" I know, perhaps I have a compulsion to bring this up, but how many times in a few sentences do you need to repeat athlete....? Toned it down some. Courcelles 06:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC) "The United States teams in the four-man bobsleigh event won" think a comma after teams and event. Done. Courcelles 06:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC) What does FIS stand for? Fédération Internationale de Ski, though, much better recognised as FIS. Courcelles Col widths aren't the same from section to section (in Safari). They're all set at 200/175, so I'm not sure what's going on. They should be the same width, unless you're on a very small monitor. Courcelles 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC) In captions, I often see "pictured left" etc in italics. What do you reckon? Done. Courcelles 06:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 16 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 18:49, 18 June 2011 [12].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Although there are few World Heritage Sites in Madagascar, this list was modeled on the format of another similar list that was awarded Featured List status (List of World Heritage Sites in Spain) and provides a much-needed basic reference point on Wikipedia for sites in Madagascar of internationally recognized value. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Is there snow on Madagascar's mountains? Occasionally on about two of them. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Interesting to know. Hopefully the map-making-people will one day make a new map with better color scheme. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC) In the map label, "Atsinanana" partially covers "of the" for me. I'm not sure how to change the coding so this issue is resolved. Would you kindly point me in the right direction? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) I have no clue either. You could ask at one of wikipedia's help desks or at Template talk:Location map. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Not sure what you changed, but it looks good now. bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Not the most intriguing starting sentence, and not sure what the current guidelines as for boldfacing in featured lists are. I will have a look at this. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Revising the lead is the next point on my to-do list for this article. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I revised the lead - see what you think. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Looks good to me now. bamse (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Just a technicality: "Increased illegal logging ... placed...". I believe UNESCO "placed" and think that this should be mentioned. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Why do you mention the French names of sites on the tentative list? While on the tentative list, the names are not translated but rather retain the name given in the original language by the designating country. I have just added an explanation in the text. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Did not see any explanation. Can you tell me what you added? If sites on the official tentative list are in French, shouldn't they also be in French in this article's table? bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Can you tell me what you added? bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC) "The names and descriptions of all tentative sites are recorded by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in the language selected by the nominating country. Tentative sites in Madagascar are named and described in French and have been unofficially translated below, along with the year each site was added to the tentative list." The tentative list on the Featured List for Spain has the entries listed in English only although they were originally entered in Spanish. Since the original-language entries are provided in the lead, I think it might add unnecessary bulk to provide them in French a second time. One option that might work better is to just provide the English translations in the lead, and then provide the French and English versions in the table. Which do you think would look better? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Sorry, missed those sentences. In my opinion, the French names should appear in the table, since those are official. As for how to organize the rest (whether to translate it to English in the table or in the lead, etc), I don't really care. bamse (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC) What has the Intangible Cultural Heritage to do with the World Heritage Sites? That paragraph should be removed unless there is some connection. UNESCO created this categorization so that world heritage beyond physical sites could be recognized and preserved. It's related (i.e. UNESCO world heritage) but not exactly the same (i.e. not physical), yet since Madagascar only has one such type of world heritage, it will most likely be overlooked by visitors to the site if it is not incorporated into the article somehow. If a similar explanation were provided here, would you find it adequate to justify the inclusion of the intangible heritage entry in the article? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) I still don't see how it belongs into a "List of World Heritage Sites" (i.e. physical sites) article. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC) All right. I put it in See Also instead. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Should "Anjanaharibe-Sud" be marked separately as it is not a new site but an extension? I believe it should be kept separate, since it has its separate entry on Madagascar's tentative list. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) OK, if UNESCO treats it in the same way as completely new sites, that's fine with me. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Coordinates of "South-western Madagascar, Mahafaly country" seem incorrect. Please check others as well. I will look into this. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Change section name: "List of sites" to "Sites" or "Inscribed sites" or something like it. Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Not too fond of the "period" column in the first table, since only one of the three sites has a non-trivial entry there. Removed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC) You could have put the years into the description column, not too lose that information. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Will do when I rewrite the descriptions. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Meaning of UNESCO criteria (i...x) should be wikilinked or explained in the article somewhere. There is a brief mention of what those mean in the article: "criteria i through vi are cultural, while vii through x are natural". I lifted that from the Featured List on WHS in Spain. Do you have something specific in mind when you suggest using a wikilink for those? Lemurbaby (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Possibly you could link to this or better (if it has not been done yet/ask the people at the WH Sites Wikiproject) create a redirect to this section at Selection criteria of World Heritage Sites (or a similarly named article). Without telling what these criteria mean (more than "natural/cultural"), it is pretty pointless to list them in this table, IMHO. Replacing the numbers with "natural/cultural" would convey the same information. bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Oh this is very good - Great thinking. I've now added the wikilink. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Actually I thought about wikilinking the first occurence of the word "criteria", i.e. in the "Inscribed sites" section under "UNESCO data" and not all of the "i", "ii",... bamse (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Reference titles in French should be translated with "trans_title" parameter. Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Publisher should be wikilinked in references when possible. Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC) More categories should be added. I included the categories that I've seen on other World Heritage Sites articles. It might be best not to deviate from the norm, unless there is some Madagascar-specific information that needs to be included and doesn't fit in any of the existing categories. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC) In my opinion this list should be at least in a sub-category of Category:Madagascar. All country specific WH lists that I have seen are. For instance List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba is in Category:World Heritage Sites in Cuba which is a sub-category of Category:Cuba. If there is no Category:World Heritage Sites in Madagascar you could create this category (a good idea in my opinion) or alternatively you could put this list in Category:Madagascar or better a more specific sub-category of it (Category:Malagasy culture?). bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Added it to Category:World Heritage Sites in Madagascar. bamse (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Oh! Sorry, I thought you meant categories in the tables. Thanks for this addition. I will add another. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I am a bit confused by the procedures for tentative sites. On the one hand you write, that "[tentative sites]...are under consideration by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for elevation to official status." and on the other hand "...member states can maintain a list of tentative sites that they may consider for nomination" which sounds as if the sites on the tentative list are not yet nominated. Which is correct? Nominated... to become an official world heritage site. So they are both correct. I will try to make this clearer. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC) It is a bit clearer now. As for the sentence: Nominations to the World Heritage list are only accepted... By whom? Possibly need some rephrasing, if what you mean is: Sites are only nominated to the WH list, if they've been listed on a tentative list. bamse (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Reworded again - how does it sound now? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Sounds good. bamse (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I realize that UNESCO often uses superlatives to justify inscription of World Heritage Sites. However I am not sure whether such emotional language is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Generally it is discouraged in wikipedia articles as far as I know. Examples from this list: "spectacular", "impressive", "stunning views", "extraordinary beauty",... Revised. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Much better. Possibly something could/should be done about "thrive" and "flourish" in view of NPOV. bamse (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Not essential, but I would prefer more variety in the way the "Descriptions" are started, i.e. not always: "[Name of WH site] comprises..." Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC) bamse (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I believe that the sentence: "The construction of the palace on a rocky outcropping 1675 meters above sea level provides views of rainforests extending east to the Indian Ocean and a series of waterfalls fed by the Onive river." could be removed as it is likely not essential for the designation of the cultural site "Royal compound of Tsinjoarivo". bamse (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Removed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. bamse (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments – The abbreviation UNESCO needs to be fully spelled out somewhere (preferably at the start), with the abbreviated version in parentheses after it. Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC) "renowned for their remarkable biodiversity" comes off as quite POV for the lead of a featured piece of work. I feel that should be toned down a bit. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Key: I see UNESCO Description here and Description in the table. The key should match what's in the table. If UNESCO isn't part of the heading in the table, don't put it in the key. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Rainforests of the Atsinanana: "This site was inscribed on the list of World Heritage in Danger in 2010...". "Sites" is missing from this sentence. I don't think so. It is really called World Heritage in Danger (without "Sites"). bamse (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC) It would be nice to spell out UNESCO in the references as well. I'm afraid between this and the translation of the article names in French, this may create redundant bulk in the references. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC) If you're concerned about bulk, try spelling out UNESCO only in the first reference, and then provide the abbreviation in parentheses in that ref just like in the first sentence of the article. I've seen that in several FLs with numerous cites to one abbreviated publisher. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC) As a general comment, I'm noticing the same language that Bamse mentioned earlier, and agree that it is unencyclopedic. Again, this is a POV issue that should be addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Now that I've revised the descriptions, let me know if this works better for you. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

A very well composed list, and the images are stunning. I would encourage you to submit this to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions if it passes, as I'd love to see it on the main page one day! Thank you! I'll try listing it and see what happens! Lemurbaby (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC) After doing some WP:ACCESS work myself, and having checked through the English references to ensure that there is no paraphrasing in the table, I'm close to supporting. We could do with additional citations for the following two things though: The claim that Andrianampoinimerina lived on the Royal Hill, and indeed something backing up the "most notably" part. Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC) A link between the coup d'etat and an increase in logging. Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry to be a pest, but the link doesn't work. —WFC— 12:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for catching that. It should work now. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Regards, —WFC— 18:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Support —WFC— 16:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments Image caption doesn't require a full stop as it's not a complete sentence. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Perhaps this is a matter of taste but I would link Madagascar in the lead, especially if you link Canada. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Ouch, so this is a list of three sites with some others being considered? Presumably if they are turned down we'll enter into a 3b debate here? The sites on the tentative list don't get "turned down" per se - they are either selected by the committee for nomination to the World Heritage List or they aren't (but the committee doesn't "remove" anything from the tentative list unless it's to nominate it to the WHL). The tentative list is like a holding pen for sites until the committee decides to award WHS status to them. I'm not aware of instances where the nominating country decided to withdraw sites from the list - there's no harm in keeping them there indefinitely and that's what countries seem to prefer to do in the chance that one day, the committee members will look favorably on the site and nominate it to the WHL. So there shouldn't be any big changes for a while, and certainly not until after Madagascar gets its political situation sorted out, since it's being entirely shunned by the international community for the moment due to the 2009 coup. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) "As of 2008, Madagascar..." it's now 2011... Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I would prefer col widths to be the same from the actual sites to the proposed sites section (in Safari they're different). I don't know how to do this type of coding. Could anyone provide some suggestions/help? Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Ref 4 needs an en-dash. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Ref 17 looks like it's missing a closing parenthesis. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 17 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 18:49, 18 June 2011 [13].

---

Grammy Award for Best Short Form Music Video

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 20:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and closely resemble other Grammy lists with FL status. Thanks, as always, to reviewers. Another Believer _(Talk) 20:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Notes II and IV seem to be the wrong way round
• "Video producer(s) are only indicated if they were presented a Grammy Award" - shouldn't that say "director(s)" to match the column heading........?
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So embarrassing. (This list once had a Producer(s) column as well.) Corrected. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments Where do I see MJ being part of USA for Africa being referenced? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I think Lightning Seeds should be The Lightning Seeds. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Outkast->OutKast. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support no issues beyond the cornucopia of wisdom I have already imparted.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - all seems OK to me. There can't be more than, what, another 957 Grammy categories left to bring to FLC? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Grammy Awards task force is working on that... :p --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Awards recipients include the performers, directors, and producers associated with the winning videos." Not convinced that "Awards" should be plural here. It could be better starting with "Award", or failing that, "Recipients of awards".

Right. Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the 1984 and 1985 nominees don't have a song listed. What's up with that?

I am not sure, and I cannot find an answer. What is presented, though, is what the source indicates... Honestly, I wish I could find more information about the nominees for those years. Will keep digging for more details... --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• All caps in the title of reference 24 should be removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – If you can't find the nominees' songs for those two years in reliable sources, then they shouldn't be included. It's unfortunate, but having content like that unsupported is a no-no for an FL. Everything else looks like it meets the standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, I did not include the song titles because I cannot find them in reliable sources. Thanks for the support vote! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:16, 16 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 18:49, 18 June 2011 [14].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Andrew Strauss

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 16:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Another international cricket centuries list: this one for England's current captain Andrew Strauss. A few impressive achievements, not least his three high scores in ODI cricket. Don't understand why people want him to retire from it! Based on those that have come before. Harrias ^talk 16:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not sure if a non-expert will understand "opening batsman". Linked to Batting order (cricket)#Opening batsmen. "on 19 occasions in Test cricket, and 6 times " I know you're following MOSNUM here, I'd prefer it the other way round, "nineteen occasions... six times.." but it's my own personal pref so no major trauma. Changed as suggested: I prefer that too. I like the quote but what's a "tyro"?! Linked to the wikitionary article on tyro. Link Wisden as the other Wisden link goes straight to the COTY article. Done. "he was run out on 83 by Nasser Hussain" interesting nuance of cricket. Most would expect the run out to be by an opposition player. Can we rephrase this to reflect that it was (I assume) a poor decision to run (by someone!) which ended up in Strauss being run out? Expanded to "he was run out on 83 by his batting partner Nasser Hussain" – how's that? "who he went on to replace in " can we be clear here, i.e. "who Strauss went on to replace"? Done. "match of the series against the West Indies" is there a link to that series? Same for the following Eng series vs SA. Done and done. I think we have an article for England captains somewhere you could link to? (for "as England captain in 2009") Linked to List of England cricket captains. "during an Ashes series" could link the generic "The Ashes" here. Done. "He scored his second century the following season, scoring 152..." don't repeat "scor..." here, perhaps just "... season, with 152.."? Replaced "scoring" with "reaching". "third highest total " would have thought that should be third-highest. Done. " his batting temperament suited itself to" - "his batting temperament was suited to..." Done. "he was named Man of the match." -> "named man of..." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, sorry in the delay getting back to you! Harrias talk 20:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC) You mention Lord's being his home ground, but on the second time of mentioning it, any reason for that? It fits in better on the second use! I could probably reword the first instance if you think that'd work better (which it probably would I guess) – I think to be honest I didn't think about it the first time! I think it would fit in fine the first time and would be less strange (to me!). Just do what you've already done, a semi-coloned statement that Lord's is his home ground. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Moved to the first time. Harrias talk 16:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - nice job. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "and was also scored at Lord's; his county home ground for Middlesex." The semi-colon should probably be a regular comma.

• Done.

• The Notes and references section has no notes, just references. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out, fixed now. Harrias ^talk 16:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments I am not a cricket expert, so I am not sure why the S/R column is missing from the first table. I assume there is a reason why it's missing, but I can't understand based on info from this article. Strike-rate is not a particularly relevant statistic in Test cricket. In ODIs, there are only 50 overs for each team to score their runs, so it is important to score at a reasonably quick pace: however in Test cricket, there are five days (between the two teams) which is the equivalent of roughly 450 overs. ESPNcricinfo shows S/R for Test matches, but I'll take your explanation. Now, I noticed you have "S/R" and ESPN has "SR" as an abbreviation for strike rate...why the difference? Which one is more familiar to cricket fans?--Cheetah (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Being honest, strike rate is actually quite a rarely used statistic within cricket. It is mentioned most in relation to Twenty20 cricket (the shortest form of the game), but other than that most commentators will say little more than "quicker than a run a ball" or "slower than a run a ball". I have no overall objection to changing it to SR rather than S/R, but I don't think the general fan would be particularly familiar or confused by either: CricketArchive uses SRate for example.Harrias talk 09:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Also, I don't quite understand what the test column denotes. You added in the key section what "test" denotes, but you didn't mention why there are two numbers in the test column. What does "1/3" mean in the "test" column? I've expanded the section on this in the key: does that help? A little color can be more appealing. Something like "light green" for the "won" cells and "light red" for the "lost" cells. I agree that colour can make tables more appealing, but in this case I think it would be inappropriate to colour those particular cells. The result is really just a footnote to the century itself, and by colouring that column, I think it would attract too much attention to a reasonably unimportant cells in terms of the century. --Cheetah (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, it is always useful to hear from those less knowledgeable about cricket! Harrias talk 08:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Nice list!--Cheetah (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 12:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

*Comments "He was appointed as a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2006 as part of England's 2005 Ashes winning squad.[4]" SSurely his MBE was for more than one series... find another way to say this, unless causality is really what is being meant here. (And if this is meant to imply causality, say it explicitly.) He, and the whole of the rest of the England team that played in that Ashes series, were appointed MBE purely for winning the 2005 Ashes. Paul Collingwood, who played only one match of the series, and to that point, not a lot of international cricket at all was awarded one! He has also just been given an OBE, so I need to tack that onto the article too. I don't really understand what you mean by causality, that's a word above my pay grade! Harrias talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC) "who Strauss went on to replace in the team." Again, rephrase. If he was run out by the fellow, how'd he replace him on the team? Yup, removed the part about Hussain altogether, it obviously isn't very clear. Harrias talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Why on Earth does English cricket team in South Africa in 2004-05 redirect to History of cricket in South Africa from 2000–01? Given there's more content in History of cricket in South Africa from 2000–01 than 2000 and 2001, perhaps that article needs a rename? Because southern hemisphere cricket seasons are denoted "YYYY–YY", like English football seasons; so that article refers to cricket in South Africa from the 2000–01 season onwards. Harrias talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC) column and row scopes in the tables Would you make the score the row scope? Harrias talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC) I was thinking the date, but the score works, as well. Courcelles 23:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, the date makes more sense. Done. Harrias talk 12:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC) "Inn. denotes the number of innings in the match." This may have been missed before, but this isn't what the column is indicating. The column is indicating which innings in the match Strauss hit his century, not how many innings were in the match. Done. Harrias talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Courcelles 05:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I've replied to each of them, and left a question to one. Harrias talk 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 12:07, 17 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 21:32, 9 June 2011 [15].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (I–J)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Next Phillies roster list nomination. The open "H" nomination has four supports and all comments appear to have been addressed satisfactorily. All comments expediently addressed. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

On my browser, the Ferguson Jenkins, Geoff Jenkins, Hughie Jennings, Todd Jones, and Buck Jordan photos overlap the ref column in the J table. Photos should be resized. Albacore (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The image widths are not forced, and should not be per MOS. This may mean that your image preferences are too large for your browser. The tables are only 65% width, more than sufficient. — KV5 • Talk • 22:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Images seem to be different sizes, I guess you're using thumb and thumb/upright but the upright ones are differing widths. Is this because of reduced resolution available on some of the images? Just looks a little odd/untidy to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC) All of the above are correct. Some images are upright, and some are poor resolution. What do you suggest - removing the upright params and the small images? (I happen to think the Davey Johnson image adds a lot because it's hard to find pictures of players from the era, but of course I'm open to suggestions.) — KV5 • Talk • 00:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Ouch. A shame that we have images that are weaker in resolution that the upright parameter "argue" with. I guess you're complying with MOS, so there's no "technical" grounds for complaint! No worries then... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I highly agree with you. I'm always on the lookout for more images, though, so hopefully eventually we will have enough good-quality pics to remove the LQ ones. — KV5 • Talk • 02:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support no traumas here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – Just a brief note that I didn't find anything to complain about in the list. Since my fellow director supported directly above me, I'll refrain from doing so this time to avoid any inconvenience when it comes time to close this FLC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nothing to complain about. Courcelles 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support You seem to be getting good at this! No issues from me. Harrias ^talk 10:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support This will be a fantastic project when all is said and done. The ultimate style guide. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:31, 8 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 21:32, 9 June 2011 [16].

---

List of defunct and relocated National Hockey League teams

Nominator(s): --K.Annoyomous (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, glad to be back on FLC. During April, I noticed how I haven't had an FLC nomination since October, which made me want to make an FL. I believe this list meets WP:FL?, and was why I nominated this. There may be some grammar mistakes, so just point them out or DIY if you like. Thanks! --K.Annoyomous (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Couple of quick drive-by comments: you have at least two uses of the verb "to defunct", which, in British English at least, does not exist, it should be "to become defunct" - I haven't changed this myself in case it is a legitimate usage in American English. Oh, and the key shows yellow colour and an asterisk for the active teams, but the asterisk is not used in the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've searched the word defunct online, and looking at most of the websites, they do say "to become defunct", so I fixed the usage, plus I added asterisks in the table. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

;Comments: Statements like "The Barons are the only NHL franchise to merge operations with another franchise." and the entire last paragraph of the lead lack references. Also the current number of teams needs a reference (the statement that NHL is a professional hockey league is about the only fact that can be left unreferenced). Generally, the entire lead is underreferenced. The Barons sentence is referenced from NHL history via the book references on the References section. The last paragraph is partly referenced from the "Team" link from the NHL. The locations of former franchises is purely referenced from the whole history of the NHL, also via the books. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) If parts of the lead are referenced from a particular page, it would be nice if this was noted with a inline reference. Arsenikk (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Ref 3 says "Is the oldest trophy competed for by professional athletes" while the article says "the oldest professional sports trophy in North America". The rest of the sentence also needs a ref. Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) The third paragraph has two refs, but these pages of the book talk about completely different issues than that paragraph, similarly ref 8 Funny how they were all referenced by the wrong book. Haha. My apologies. Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) The table needs an introduction and a key (preferably in prose form). While tooltips are nice add-ons, they cannot replace a written explanation. Articles are used in many different ways, including on paper and instances where moving a mouse over an area is not possible or tedious. It is also a lot more time-consuming to move a mouse over multiple points than to read straight prose. Most featured lists have their lead also as their prose. I prefer it to stay like that just because it gives a better flow to the lead, plus lists have small proses, so having everything altogether IMO is better. This list is my first list where I used Template:abbr, so I thought I'd give it a try. Changed it to key form. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you slightly misunderstood me, but the key is fine now. Arsenikk (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Center-alignment, particularly of text, makes a table significantly harder to read. The reader's eye is forced to re-align for every line, and it is much more difficult to get an overview of multiple rows. I actually think center-aligning makes the table easier to read, because there are spaces to the left and the right of the word/phrase. I'd prefer to keep it the same. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I completely disagree on this issue; after searching far and wide in professionally set books and publications, I still haven't seen any tables set with center-aligned text. Center-alignment can work for text where all cells have the same length, for instance it looks fine in the Win% column or for years, but causes problems in text and varied-length digit cells. As stated above, the center-aligning causes unnecessary "reading power" to be used aligning the eyes rather than reading, which slows down the process and moves efforts away from comprehending the contents. I will leave the issue for now, because a large number, particularly of sports-related FLs follow this mishap, but it is still detrimental for readability. Arsenikk (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I made the list to align left, and after looking at it, I truly think centre-aligning the text is more visually appealing, and in no way makes me use my eyes more. I think some people like the text to align left, while others like it centred. Personal preference I believe. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Despite the huge space occupied by the map, it is nearly impossible to read the names of the teams. If a larger font was used, it would make it much more user-friendly. Made the font bigger to 11px. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Much easier to read. Arsenikk (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Tables are not subject to the ban on repeated links, particularly in sortable tables. Linked terms, such as 'Great Depression' should therefore be re-linked for every row. Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)" The Americans are referred to both as 'Brooklyn' and 'New York'. Stated renaming's with notes. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Not directly related to the article, but the main navbox of the NHL breaches Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Encyclopaedic purpose, as the Canada and US flags serve no purpose. Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) The layout within the references section is confusing. Of the top five unnumbered refs, the bottom three are fine, but what do the top two links actually reference in the article, or are they simply external links? The first one references all the statistics on the table, while the second one, which I just realized, only references the location of current franchises. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Arsenikk (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments Don't think the Calder lead image has enough resolution to meet the size you're forcing it to. Looks blocky and JPEGy to me. This is because it was edited. The image resolution is 260px, while the thumbnail is 220px. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC) So make the lead image smaller so I can't see the blockiness. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Changed the lead image. I like the lead images to be thumbnail length, so changing the lead image was a better choice for me. Hopefully, the Bleacher Report is a reliable source. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC) "The NHL was .." Could probably just say "It was founded..." Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC) "There have been 18 defunct ..." you mean "There are 18 ..."? And is it worth quantifying "relocated"? For instance, in English football, clubs relocate from stadium to stadium, usually only a mile or two, of course there are exceptions (e.g. MK Dons) but the concept to Brits is very odd. The relocations were included before I revamped the article, so I decided to keep it. I think readers would like to see relocated teams also. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Just keen for you to explain the extent of the relocations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC) I don't get what you are trying to say... --K.Annoyomous (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC) How far did they relocate? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I added a note above the table to tell readers what a considered a relocation. Telling readers how far the relocation was feels like a random thing to do, and isn't really important, so I decided not to include those statistics. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Two dab pages (Quakers, Barons, in the lead). Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Would be better if the map was clickable, it's not particular accessible in my opinion. I don't have the time to do that, so it would be nice if you would request it for me. :) --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I don't have time at all and it isn't really my problem. I'm not even sure I know what you mean by "request it for me". The point is, a map of that size really should be clickable. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC) User:Maxim was very kind enough to make the image clickable, so I truly thank him for that. Hopefully he can see this. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

hidden comments

{{{2}}}

• Object. I'm checking from mostly a hockey perspective, and I don't feel the article is complete. I think that possible to write a section about the history of franchise troubles in the NHL. There's more stuff on this in the History of the National Hockey League articles. For example, the Wanderers didn't fold just because there weren't enough players... it was triggered by their arena burning down (and their owner had a history of his arenas burning down, too). The Hamilton Tigers part implies the league responded to a strike by removing the franchise (which wasn't exactly like that). You should look through the series of the articles on NHL history... the 67-92 mentions how St Louis was almost moved to Saskatoon. These are just examples of what could be added: other, broader, ideas would be the money troubles that teams had, commentary on the Original Six era... Finally, there's nothing about recent events (troubles for Phoenix and Atlanta). I think that mentioning them would make the article more comprehensive. Maxim_(talk) 21:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

For the Reasons column on the table, I only listed the main reason because it is a table, and I don't think having a prose in a table is good for the table. I believe that the history of franchise troubles should be on the History of organizational changes in the NHL article, since having a huge prose for the history would make the list into a true article. I renamed the column into "Main reason for disbandment/relocation" so that readers can interpret that as there are more reasons for the relocation. Readers can read more about the potential NHL expansions at the Potential NHL expansion article. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Just make sure to keep a close eye on the article given this Winnipeg Thrashers speculation. Maxim_(talk) 23:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "During their time in the NHL, the Senators and Maroon have both won the Stanley Cup championship multiple times". First, Maroon should be including an s at the end. Second, this implies that they're both still in the league; to fix this, remove "have". Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Remove hyphen in "current-Ottawa Senators" toward the end of the lead? Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Photo caption in the lead needs a period at the end. Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Key: In the PA explanation, make the spacing after the slash consistent (regarding whether there is a space or not). Don't really know what you mean. That's the only slash in the article... --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC) What I mean is that the slash there is unspaced on one side and spaced on the other. It should either be fully spaced or fully unspaced, shouldn't it? Not sure what MoS dictates for slashes, to be honest. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC) I've always done no space before and a space after. Added a space before. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Table: Some notes have periods and some don't, even for notes similar in nature. Again, there should be some consistency. Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC) California Golden Seals: "Cleveland is the hometown of minority owners George Gund". And? There's only one owner given. Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) Note e: Remove "the" before MLB. I think it flows better when it's "the MLB". I'm pretty sure it's correct grammar. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC) I've never personally seen any sportswriters refer to it as "the MLB". Also, note a doesn't make any sense if it's correct grammar. That says "the Pittsburgh Pirates of Major League Baseball", which I think is correct. It wouldn't be called "the Major League Baseball", and MLB is just an abbreviation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC) I know for sure that they say the NHL and the NBA, which is why I thought it was the MLB. Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Numerous references from newspapers and magazines need publishers italicized. I really don't know what's the difference between work and publisher, but I changed publisher to work on all newspapers and magazines. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC) If page numbers are available for refs 14 and 26, they would be nice. They aren't available. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC) What makes http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nhl/atlflames/aflames.html (ref 32) a reliable source? I got the source from the FA Calgary Flames. Changed reference. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

Comments from WFCforLife A few small things: The use of yellow (excellent choice, by the way) is confusing. The colour dominates the bottom half of the table, and the asterisks are not where they should be. As an example, the Minnesota North Stars have the asterisk, even though Dallas are the current franchise. Perhaps a better solution would be to only use colour and asterisks in the specific cells of the current franchises? I like that idea. Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC) In the third paragraph "franchise relocations" should be singular. Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC) In the key, OT should be explained. Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC) The information between refs 16 and 17 isn't all covered by ref 17. If the first bit is covered by 16, the ref should be moved to make this clearer. The specified information is referenced by the main reference "Team Index". --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC) The map is an excellent touch. Would like to thank User:Maxim again for making the map clickable! --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC) That'll do for now. Regards, —WFC— 22:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Although if the relocation of the Thrashers isn't going to be added to the table until a decision is taken, note h can presumably be removed. —WFC— 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 16:26, 7 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 21:32, 9 June 2011 [17].

---

Rosenborg BK in Europe

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Rosenborg is the most successful football team in Europe from Norway, particularly during the late 1990s and 2000s. The following list presents Rosenborg's achievements and matches in UEFA tournaments and hopefully also meets the criteria for a featured list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments some openers... Should the lead say "Rosenborg BK" rather than "Ballklub"? Or should the title of the article be changed? 'Ballklubb' is the full official name, which for convenience is provided this once for the readers; I have no problem instead just using 'Rosenborg BK' at that point. Note that 'Rosenborg Ballklubb' is a redirect to 'Rosenborg BK'. The abbreviated use of title seems to have been used by all articles currently at FL and the use of abbreviated team names seems to be universally for European football teams. Arsenikk (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC) "The team has participated 29 seasons in " -> participated in 29 seasons of... "UEFA Cup and Europa Leageu," typo. Opening para has "Rosenborg has..." twice in a row, makes for tedious reading. "The clubs first appearance was..." -> "The club's first European appearance was.." "entered tournaments seven seasons until 1974–75" -> "tournaments in seven seasons.." "Rosenborg has since entered UEFA tournaments every seasons, with the exception of the 2006–07 season..." -> "Since then, Rosenborg has be involved in UEFA tournament every season except the ...." "The club plays their home matches" - you stuck with singular all the way through the first para so this should be "plays its home matches" "it has a capacity for 21,116 spectators" odd English, maybe "it has a capacity of 21,116." or "it can host 21,116 spectators"? "while with 27 goals, Harald Martin Brattbakk has scored the most goals" maybe "while Harald Martin Brattbakk has scored the most goals with 27." "Rosenborg's most frequent opposing teams..." -> Rosenborg have played x, y, z six time, more than any other team... "Total" row should be fixed at the bottom of the table so it doesn't sort. I seem to recall List of Ipswich Town F.C. records and statistics has the code for this in the European stats section.... Image captions - I don't particularly like "vs." in prose. Perhaps "playing against"? Matches table has incomplete rows (refs missing) for 93/94 Austria Wien {and that must be wrong too, should be 93 and 93!} and the 94/94 Deportivo de La Coruna match. No need for ref columns to be sortable. Ref col has more than one ref so could be Ref(s) The "By club" doesn't include two or more match ups because, for example, Bayer Leverkeusen should be there, having been played twice last year. It must be three or more games... May have been a misunderstand from my side, as the intension is that the table lists teams Rosenborg has met at two different double-match setups or more. I've tweaked the formulation slightly. Arsenikk (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC) "Statistics are as of the end of the 2010–11 and include" missing a word after the year range. I'll need another complete run-through but this is a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback and improvements. All the issues have been seen to except the first which I have commented on. Arsenikk (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Comments – "The team has participated 29 seasons of...". Missing "in" after "participated". Add "the" in the middle of "qualifying via Champions League"? "Since then, Rosenborg has be involved in UEFA tournament every season except the 2006–07 season." Really in rough shape here prose-wise. Typo ("be" → "been") and a missing "a" before UEFA. "Rosenborg's record attendance in an European match of 22,492...". "an" → "a". I see "Rosenborg has" and "Rosenborg have" in the lead. Please be consistent with whether the club is plural or singular. Typo in the photo of the Valencia match: "aginst". By club: "The following list is shows statistics against opposing teams...". Remove "is". UEFA should be spelled out as the publisher in numerous references. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to comment on the article; all has been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• SupportComment The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was not a UEFA tournament; therefore, its results should not have been included in this list.--Cheetah (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment: I have removed the season. It was included in Svardal (2007), but I now notice that it is not included in the aggregate statistics from UEFA, and I agree that official UEFA statistics should take precedence. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

*Leaning support I have made a few minor edits, and overall this is a well composed list (my general reservation about "... in Europe" notwithstanding). A couple of small things: Just to clarify, was the 2002 work an expansion, or was it work to convert a standing area into a seated one? The one stand was definitively expanded, the short sides were rebuilt from a grass standing area to a proper stand. Overall capacity for UEFA matches increased, for domestic league matches probably formally decreased, so I changed to "rebuilt" just to be on the safe side. Arsenikk (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I appreciate that the changes happened during this FLC, but I do have to take issue with what appears to be an FL purge on "UEFA". Spell it out on first occurance in the lead by all means, and by all means repeat this practise for the first appearance in the references. But from then on, I don't see why UEFA—the common term—shouldn't be used. —WFC— 22:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Either way is fine for me, but I originally though the same was as you. Honestly I don't think this is worth more energy, unless consensus is clear either way. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I guess you're right. I'm just getting annoyed at the over-zealous way in which acronyms/initialisms are being hounded at FLC. There is a balance to be had between using the common name and ensuring that non-experts understand, and in my opinion FLC is getting that balance badly wrong. At this rate we'll soon be spelling out British Broadcasting Corporation. —WFC— 15:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work. —WFC— 15:03, 7 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 21:32, 9 June 2011 [18].

---

List of Phoenix Suns seasons

Nominator(s): Cheetah (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. I recently worked on the Clippers' list, so I used it as a template to improve the Suns' list. Comments/Questions/Criticism are welcome! Cheetah (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments ", center from the University of Oklahoma" two links needed here. done "The franchise owns the NBA's..." maybe common USEng but would be more universal wit "The Suns franchise has the NBA's..." done "56 percent of its games" why not 56%? Since it was in the body of the article, I thought percent was correct. I guess you're thinking that the second bullet of WP:% applies here. Anyway, I changed it, but I want you to think about it.--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC) "2010–2011 season." link and get rid of the second "20" done "playoffs 29 times, posted nineteen seasons of 50 or more wins, appeared nine times at" MOSNUM - all words or all digits but avoid mixing... done "winningest" this is the ugliest word ever invented by America. Can we be more international and say "franchise with most wins"? done GB sorts incorrectly in Safari. It should sort as zero. done 1954->1,954 done ref 2 - en-dash please, twice. done Phoenix Suns cat is not needed as it's a supercat of Phoenix Suns seasons cat. done The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your helpful comments, especially the one about sorting. I've done most of it, though on some of them I'd like an explanation. Thanks once more.--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC) " In 2004, Nash signed with the Suns and led..." he re-signed then? No, maybe not, perhaps put the MVP thing after Nash's sentence... I first mentioned that he got the MVP award, then explained why he got it. Do you still want me to mention the MVP award later in the paragraph?--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I think it reads okay on a re-visit, no action required. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC) No action is done.--Cheetah (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC) "Amare Stoudamire" -> Amar'e (per our article). done...he won that award in 2003 while he was known as Amare. I changed it to Amar'e, but shouldn't it be Amare?--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I guess we go with whatever you're using in the list to reliably source his name if there's a conflict... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Since there's not much conflict, I'll leave it as is. If a conflict arises, I'll follow your advice.--Cheetah (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC) No need for bold text in the all-time records table. done...are you sure about that? It's a total of the first two rows. I suppose that's fair enough being bold, it's just the sheer volume of text being bold looks pretty naff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC) OK, the totals are now bolded.--Cheetah (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

;Comments "win-loss" should be "win–loss" (endash rather than hyphen, as it is a disjunction). First you use the term "began", but then change to "have made". Stick to one form. I find the first sentence of the second paragraph too long. I may be that this is really important somehow (I do not follow basketball or North American sports in general), but it seems as very trivial to mention from where Adams was drafted. Perhaps mention 1976 when the first final is first discussed in the prose. Also consider linking the finals the first time they are mentioned in the prose. Parts of the lead are lacking references. Win% = winning percentage should be in the key. I was under the impression that acronyms should not be small, but I cannot find it in the MOS today. Perhaps someone else can confirm this? Images check out fine. Perhaps link 'Steve Nash' in the image caption. Overall looks good. Arsenikk (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I've done all but one. Can you tag the parts that you feel are lacking references? Thanks!--Cheetah (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC) While general references are okay for the table itself, Wikipedia:Citing sources does not appreciate general references for prose. The information in the lead I am particularly concerned about is: Content in the first paragraph after "The Suns began playing..." The two last sentences in the second paragraph. Only parts of paragraph three is reference. Arsenikk (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC) OK, I've cited all of them.--Cheetah (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "Since signing with the Suns in 2004, Nash led the team to three straight division titles." Would it make more sense if the sentence began with "After"? I think it might. done "appeared nine times at the NBA Western Conference Finals". Should "at" be "in"? That's the usage that's usually seen with something like this. Also, I'm not sure NBA needs repeating here. Just saying it was the conference finals should be sufficient. done "the Suns are the franchise with most wins never to have won an NBA Championship." Needs "the" before "most", and "Championship" should be decapitalized. done Bolding should be removed from the one row in All-time records per WP:BOLD. done...are you sure about that? It's a total of the first two rows.--Cheetah (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC) It says at MOS:BOLD (correct link) that italics is the preferred method for highlighting things. It says that table headings are an exception, so I'm not sure if the bold in the last row is covered by that. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I am not sure either. I removed all bolding to avoid any possible conflicts.--Cheetah (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC) What makes databasebasketball.com a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC) it's owned by Roto Sports, Inc. Also, many "scholars" use it as a source – link.--Cheetah (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC) One more that I missed while reviewing: the page range in reference 4 should be presented as pp. and not p. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC) done

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Any reason why playoff series Won and Lost are listed in the same way, "winning team's score–losing team's score". I believe that because this list is about the Phoenix Suns, it should be listed "Phoenix Suns' score–opponent's score". It's less confusing and easier to read. — MT (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the words "won" and "lost" are used, the scores are listed as you say "winning team's score–losing team's score". If those words were missing, then the scores would have been listed as "Phoenix Suns' score–opponent's score". By reading the word "lost", how could anyone be confused(and think that the Suns won)?--Cheetah (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, recently there are some series of reverts in List of Los Angeles Lakers seasons whether to write 4–0 or 0–4. It's probably because there are so many different style in NBA team's season articles. For example, the List of Boston Celtics seasons have different style. List of Miami Heat seasons have even a weirder way to write the playoff series. Anyway I still think that writing "Lost to Lakers, 2–4" make more sense than "Lost to Lakers, 4–2". But this isn't a big deal and shouldn't hinder your FLC. – MT (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There are currently 5 season lists at WP:FL and all 5 have the same format as this one. "lost to Lakers, 2-4" is similar to double negative for me. So when I read it, I analyze it like this: "lost to Lakers, lost" → lost+lost=won → Won vs. Lakers
Which is very confusing to me, but I'll wait to see what other reviewers say.--Cheetah (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a valid reason. Now that I think about it, announcers often says, "lost to Lakers, four games to two". I also notice that all the different formats occur in non-FL lists, which should not be the standard. I'm retracting my suggestion to revert the scores format. But maybe someone would like to have other opinion on this. Anyway, great job on the list. Cheers! — MT (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I like "Lost to Lakers, 2–4" because it is easier to add up the playoffs win-loss record. But I guess you guys find it confusing. So, whatever format decided is fine with me.—Chris!_c/t 18:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk "In the 1975–76 season, a rookie Alvan Adams led the team to its first NBA Finals," – By led, do you mean that he was the team's captain (is there even a captain in basketball??) or was the team's top scorer? This could probably use further explanation. I reworded that sentence. There is a captain on a basketball team, but it's hard to verify who was the captain.--Cheetah (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Overall, the lead seems a little short given the amount of information that is presented in the table: it could be worth noting in how many (or what percentage) of the seasons the Suns made it into the playoffs, and expanding upon the fact that the 16–66 record in their first year was their worst ever. Similarly, a sentence about the 1992–93 and 2004–05 being the teams' most successful regular seasons might be worth inclusion. Could also be worth mentioning the 13 straight playoffs appearances from 1988–89 to 2000–01? Harrias talk 10:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC) To be honest I even thought the lead was too long. All the info you're offering to include are pretty trivial and the last paragraph has a couple of trivial info. At the same time, I'll try to add a couple more.--Cheetah (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I'm happy enough with the article now, thanks for your work. Harrias ^talk 07:01, 9 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 21:32, 9 June 2011 [19].

---

List of Seattle Mariners team records

Nominator(s): WikiProject Seattle Mariners, Albacore (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Should be a nice addition to WikiProject Seattle Mariners. Albacore (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments I would introduce the team before saying how many times they've played in a league. i.e. "The Seattle Mariners are a Major League Baseball (MLB) team who have participated in 35 MLB seasons since.." That's done. Presumably they tied two matches? I would say that in the lead... What do you mean? The wins and losses don't add up to the total so it would be useful to clarify that two matches were tied. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC) That's odd, but fixed. Albacore (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC) "This list documents the superlative..." while we generally discourage this kind of prose in the lead, I find it okay, but only if it's the last thing you say before introducing the list. Perhaps consider making it the final sentence of the lead. Moved to last sentence. "of team members during their tenure as members " members, members... dull prose I'm afraid. Reworded. "season, with ten. Among the ten are records" why two sentences? Now one sentence. Caption: " playing for the Mariners in June of 2009" remove "of". That's done. Ref -> Ref(s). I think leaving it as singular would be better. But sometimes more than one ref is used, hence plural. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC) That's done. –Present -> –present That's done. Mildly confused as to the usefulness of sortable tables when it seems we're sorting apples versus pears... Can't hurt, especially if someone ever wanted to. Fix the spaced hyphens to meet WP:DASH so they're en-dashes in the references. So, for instance, reference five. You want me to put the ndash between history and baseball, right. I'd object to putting the ndash between Baseball - Reference.com because it doesn't look right. Albacore (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC) That's done. What does [last update] mean in the references? It comes up automatically in the cite for wiki Firefox thing. Would you like my to remove them? What's their purpose? I've only starting seeing these in the last few days... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Not sure. Possibly to see if the reference is up-to-date in its facts. Albacore (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Albacore (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Remove year links to baseball seasons in prose; per template documentation for {{by}} and {{mlby}}, they are to be used only in lists and tables where it is clear their context is not simply a link to a year. De-linked. Cameron has four home runs in a game - no link to this FL in the lede? Linked. "Gene Walter, a Mariner for 1988 season" - missing the - for the 1988 season Fixed. "which he achieved on July 18, 1988" - redundant to say 1988 here when you already said it earlier in the same sentence Removed 1988. Link American League on first appearance in the lede Linked. "during their tenure" - should be tenures since you are referring to multiple players Pluralized. The tables don't currently meet WP:ACCESS requirements. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for instructions and more information. How do my tables differ any from List of Philadelphia Phillies team records, an FL, which I based the article from? Albacore (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC) They don't differ, but that's an older FL (which I know because I wrote it). The new criteria have more stringent requirements to meet WP:ACCESS. Don't worry, that one will be updated too; updating all of the FLs that I've nominated and had promoted to ACCESS-worthy status is a long-term goal of mine. — KV5 • Talk • 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC) I added scope tags to the columns and captions to the tables. Does this now pass WP:ACCESS? Albacore (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC) It's a good start. You still need row headers, and now the captions make the table subheaders extraneous, so those can be removed at this time. — KV5 • Talk • 12:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Added row headers and removed sub-headers, and replaced colors. Anything else? Albacore (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I don't know why the colors were changed; background colors are much better than text coloring. Right now, the row headers are coded wrong. Since this is a list of records, the "record" column is probably the header, rather than the statistic or the player who holds the record, although there are good arguments for all three. But when using row headers, you can't have everything on one row of code; the header has to be on its own row or the last element in its row. I'll mark up one of the tables as an example. — KV5 • Talk • 16:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC) OK, the first table and the key are done as examples. You are probably going to want to adjust your colors because they are too dark for backgrounds. I just used the same ones that were there. — KV5 • Talk • 16:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Good now? Albacore (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Yep. — KV5 • Talk • 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Replace daggers with {{dagger}} and appropriate alt text. Done. Why use a picture of Ichiro in a Japan uniform when there are five-plus pictures of his in his article in a Mariner uniform, most notably this one by the excellent Keith Allison? Replaced. Missing an en-dash in the "Career pitching" table Actually there are no en-dashes in the career pitching table. Putting them in makes the years malfit the table. I don't know why that is, they are the only years like that, but I can't find a solution. Albacore (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Um... they are all en-dashes except for 2005–present. — KV5 • Talk • 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Look at the code. Albacore (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC) What about the code? Hyphens and en-dashes look identical in monospace font; that doesn't change the fact that they all need to be en-dashes. Hardcode the HTML entity if you've got to. — KV5 • Talk • 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Done. Albacore (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC) "Mariner's franchise holder" - needs to be record holder and Mariners' Done. "Tied with John Dopson, Rick Honeycutt, Vic Raschi, and Bobby Witt." is a sentence fragment; remove period/full stop at the end Removed period. "Win-loss percentage" should be en-dash, not hyphen Done. Unspace this en-dash. — KV5 • Talk • 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC) It is unspaced. Looks wrong; probably leaving it as a hyphen would be better. Albacore (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Ugh, no, it is not unspaced. You're using the en-dash template, which forces non-breaking spaces. Use the en-dash that's provided in the toolbox. And leaving it as a hyphen wouldn't be better because it's contrary to MOS:DASH. — KV5 • Talk • 00:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Done. Albacore (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 19:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support — KV5 • Talk • 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments – No need to repeat Ichiro's name in the lead. Anything wrong with repeating his name? Albacore (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC) I meant repeating his full first and last names. Normally it would be better to use the last name only for repeat mentions, but I'm not worrying about it because Ichiro's first name is used fairly often. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC) The last sentence of the lead would make more sense at the end of the first paragraph. That provides a nice segway into talking about the individual players. Moved, does sound better there. What makes baseball-almanac.com (refs 26 and 27) a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC) I'd think that being used by Baseball Digest as a reference source would help to establish reliability (see [20]), and has been praised by multiple baseball authors who have used it as a source. SABR also lists it as a web resource. — KV5 • Talk • 22:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Reliable per above. Albacore (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Support quick revisit confirms that I have no further issues with the list, good work Albacore. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Oppose per Criteria 3(a), 4 and 5(a) It looks odd to see the table key in the lead. It should have its own section. Own section added. The order of the sections should be reasonable. Single-season, Career, and Single-game is out of any reasonable order. You should either choose biger-to-smaller order (Career, Single-season, and Single-game) or smaller-to-bigger order (Single-game, Single-season and Career) Ordered. Shouldn't the pitching statistics ref be right above the pitching statistics table? Don't really see a problem, as long as the ref is under the same header that the stats are. Albacore (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC) The player names and statistics should be left-aligned for tidiness and readability. Aligned. What is the initial order of records in the table? It looks random, but I'm not sure. Na, they're random. Wouldn't it be better to hae some order, so that after using sortability, a reader could go back to initial order?--Cheetah (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Well, not completely random. Career + single-season batting stats are in some order (i.e singles, doubles, triples, home runs) and so are the single season + career pitching stats (wins, losses, win loss percentage) etc. Albacore (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC) The width of columns should be aligned with other table in the main section. Done. Why is there no section for team all-time records? What do you mean? Well, for example, you have how many home runs all Mariners had in one season. I want to know how many home runs all Mariners had all-time, i.e. in their history.--Cheetah (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Batting and pitching should have their own sections in the table of contents. No, not with table headers, which make the sub-headers extraneous. Albacore (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC) You're right, but at the same time navigational issues arise. I'll think of some compromise.--Cheetah (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Suggestions? Albacore (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC) No suggestions, I withdraw my comment.--Cheetah (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Why is there no section for team all-time records? What do you mean? Well, for example, you have how many home runs all Mariners had in one season. I want to know how many home runs all Mariners had all-time, i.e. in their history.--Cheetah (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC) If I may butt in, it looks like this page on Baseball-Reference has home runs and some other all-time stats. Unfortunately it only has basic stats, and the page on the Mariners doesn't seem to be of any help. Still, it's something. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Section added. Albacore (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Tthanks for adding that section. Just to make sure, all statistics are through the last season, right? No stat is from the ongoing season, right? Just making sure.--Cheetah (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Correct, stats are current through the 2010 season. Albacore (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

*Comments: "Through April 11, 2011, they have played 5,394 games, winning 2,524, losing 2,868, and tying 2, for a winning percentage of .468" I would modify this as follows: 'Through the x season', since otherwise the lead is far too dynamic and would always feel out of date. Changed. Shouldn't the Season and ref columns be center-aligned? I could be wrong but I think numbers are supposed to be. Personally I'd prefer them all center'd but that's a cosmetic preference. The "team season batting records" section is actually the entire history, so change the title. Changed. The stuff in the lead should probably be sourced. It's repetitive yes, but for lists that seems the norm. Referenced. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 8 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 16:23, 6 June 2011 [21].

---

1968 Summer Paralympics medal table

Nominator(s): Basement12 (T.C) 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is based on similar Olympic and Paralympic articles that already have FL status (e.g. 1, 2) and I believe meets (or very nearly meets) the criteria - Basement12 (T.C) 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The general reference and reference 1 and 6 need an ndash

• External link should be in citeweb format

• The lead doesn't give a background on what the Paralympics are; a sentence or two about the Paralympics should be added. Albacore (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: The lead is a bit thin and could do with a bit of an expansion per Albacore. If the list wasn't 22 nations I'd almost suggest it'd be merge-able back to its parent article, but I think 22 items is long enough for a stand alone list. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for addressing. Support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

;Comments: The paragraphs in the lead are very short, particularly the first two. I agree with the above that the lead would be better if longer. In such a short article, 'National Paralympic Committee' only needs to be linked once. 'Track and field' and 'athletics' are not the same (the former is part of the latter). Any reason 'athletics' links to 'track and field' rather than 'athletics (sport)'? The general ref and refs 1 and 6 need endashes. File:Paralympic certificate.jpg is not a free image, as the copyright is held by the organizers of the event. It has been uploaded to the Commons under what seems to be a fake license. I have nominated it for speedy deletion there, and it should also be removed from this article unless it can be proven that it has either been released by a free license, or that it can be used under appropriate fair use (either of which I doubt is possible). Article is categorized in Category:1968 Summer Paralympics, and does not need to be in Category:Sports festivals in Israel, as it is indirectly categorized there. Why is the article in Category:1968 in Canada? Otherwise looks good. Arsenikk (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've made most of the changes suggested by the three of you and expanded the lead to include basic information on the Paralympics. The link goes to track and field as there were no athletics events that would not be considered track and field (no road race/walking/cross-country etc) - Basement12 (T.C) 19:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 14:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
*Oppose All but one of the items in the actual list is a redlink, which means this fails 5a. I'm usually fairly lax on this criteria, but one blue link out of 22 is just too few. Will be happy to revisit if someone goes on a stub-creation spree. Courcelles 19:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but a lead image would be great. "are an international multi-sport event " .. "are ... an event" reads odd to me. "compete and ..." compete against one another? "the most gold medals, with 33, and most total medals, with 99" -> perhaps "most golds, with 33, and most in total, with 99" to avoid three-peating "medals". "won a total of 62 medals" don't think you need "a total of" here (repeats total from previous line). You link various sports in the table section but not in the lead, why? "represented by a National Paralympic Committee" already abbreviated this, so just "NPC" would be fine. When sorting by gold in descending order, why would Netherlands (12 g, 4 s) rank ahead of West Germany (12 g, 4s)? Similar for Canada/Rhodesia. Ref 4 could use a page number (p 93 I think, not 94 as Google suggests). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestions. An image would be great—the one we had previously was deleted from commons as it was unloaded on an incorrect license— but I can't find a freely available one and don't know if File:Tel Aviv 1968 Paralympics.jpg could be used under fair-use? Personally I think "are an international multi-sport event" is ok, similar wording is used at Olympic Games which got through FA criteria (it would be different if refering to a single Paralympic Games). All the "sports" (athletics etc) are linked, it's the individual events (discus etc) that aren't. I've made the other changes; you're right on the sorting issue but I can't yet work out how to fix it, similar problems seem to exist in a lot of the Olympic medal tables article. I'll try and work it out - Basement12 (T.C) 22:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I've struck out my reply on the sorting as I don't think it really matters - when doing that you are intentionally sorting by gold only, all nations on the same amount are equal regardless of silver/bronze medals so the order in which they appear bears no significance. Thoughts? - Basement12 (T.C) 22:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I think the sorting needs to be sorted. May need some clever use of the {{sort}} template though. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Think I've found a way around it using {{Hs}} and a hidden alphabetical sort key for every item in the table. It's a bit fiddly and might not have been the easiest way but it seems to do the job - Basement12 (T.C) 11:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – The opening is similar to the "This is a list of" beginnings that have been discouraged at FLC for a while now. Some of the recently promoted medal table FLs have openings like what you'd find in the main articles on their respective events, and I think these work well and are an improvement. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the "is a list of..." to the end of the first paragraph, I believe it still needs to be included somewhere in the lead as it explains the ranking by gold medal total. Basement12 (T.C) 21:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support – everything looks great. Just a note would look better before table for sorting the rows. I've done it for you already [22]. — Bill william compton^Talk 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Support solid list. Albacore (talk) 00:02, 2 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 16:23, 6 June 2011 [23].

---

List of accolades received by Winter's Bone

Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 06:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I am nominating this list for FL because I believe it meets the criteria. If there are any problems with this list I am more than willing to immediately fix them. Thanks! Crystal Clear x3 06:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose some basic issues, but here's a list on a quick run-through. Don't bold Winter's Bone in the intro per WP:MOSBOLD.  Done "$84 thousand" why not "84,000" and which dollar, US or Canadian?  Done "ranking 35th place at the box office." what's the context for this, is this in the top 1%, top 10% or what? I have instead removed that part. "Since then it has grossed over $6,500,000 domestically and $12,466,317 ..." last figure far too precise!!  Done "two dozen movie reviewers Top Ten " surely a missing apostrophe here?  Done "Her role in this movie..." would be better to re-confirm "Lawrence's..." here.  Done "in A Motion Picture - Drama" en-dash needed.  Done " It received four nominations from the 83rd Academy Awards ceremony" surely "at the ceremony" rather than "from the ceremony" - the nominations take place way before the ceremony. In fact, maybe this needs completely rewording. I have reworded the sentence to "It received four nominations from the 83rd Academy Awards, but did not win any accolades at the ceremony." Is that better? "Lawrence and Hawkes' acting" why not "Lawrence's" here as well?  Done Why are some award bodies linked in the infobox and others not, when they're linked in the main table? e.g. Berlin International Film Festival?  Fixed "Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film" is omitted from the infobox, any reason why? Especially when you totalise the awards and nominations but this body's awards will be omitted...  Fixed Los Angeles FCA was a nom, not a win (infobox is incorrect it would seem).  Fixed San Fran FCCA has 2/2 in infobox but only one entry in the list.  Fixed Also check Toronto.  Done Avoid all those CAPITAL LETTERS IN THE REF TITLES.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your input! Much appreciated. Is there anything else wrong with the list that would stop you from supporting it becoming an FL? Crystal Clear x3 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 06:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

;Comments by Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Infobox Requesting ALT  Done "John Hawkes has received numerous nominations for his work in Winter's Bone" -> Which was his work?  Fixed & -> Change to "and" per WP:& (in all the article)  Done 91 nominees -> I counted 92  Fixed Lead 94% -> WP:%  Done of the movie itself (Best Film), to its direction, cinematography and writing (Best Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Adapted Screenplay), -> Why do not keep it short?  Fixed mainly John Hawkes's and Jennifer Lawrence's for Best Supporting Actor and Best Actress. -> Suggesting: mainly John Hawkes for Best Actor and Jennifer Lawrence for Best Supporting Actress.  Done Awards and nominations Chicago Film Critics Association: Black Swan -> Oops!  Fixed References 2.- IGN Entertainment. -> Flixster  Done I have fixed everything you suggested. Is there anything else? Crystal Clear x3 05:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I'm not American as you know, but "grey" should not be "gray"? Or both are used. Also, I mean this, sorry for not being explicit. On the other hand, you should avoid to use {{done}} and {{fixed}} per WP:FLC rules "Graphics are discouraged", just use a bolded done. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC) done Crystal Clear x3 06:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Why not, a very good work which deserves a star. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!! Crystal Clear x3 06:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. First, let me declare my interest. I did copyedit the article earlier following a request from Crystal Clear x3. I fixed up some of the sentence structures and removed a redundant description of Rotten Tomatoes. I think the prose is OK now and the links all check out. I can see no issues with the criteria. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Crystal Clear x3 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Noticed some misplaced apostrophes in a couple places. There's "appeared in more than two dozen movie reviewer's", where the apostrophe should be at the end, and "included in the Top Ten Best Film's of 2010", which doesn't need one at all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected those two sentences. Are there anymore? Thanks Crystal Clear x3 06:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have some basic prose issues.

• 2010 independent American dramatic production directed by Debra Granik --> Why not just drama film? Dramatic production seems a bit too archaic.

done

• Winter's Bone appeared in more than two dozen movie reviewers --> Substitute the name of the movie here with "The film", since you just mentioned the film's name in the preceding sentence. It looks like repetition.

done

• The film has received various honors in nomination categories ranging from --> The list is mainly about the accolades right? So to make it more straight forward, "The film has received honors in different categories, ranging from..."

done

• Lawrence and Hawkes' acting earned them each a nomination from the 17th Screen Actors Guild Awards. --> Repetition of Lawrence, better would be "Both the principal actors earned a nomination at the 17th Screen Actors Guild Awards..."

done

• It needs a last summarizing sentence indicating how many awards were won frm how many nominations.

done

These are all I found from the lead. The references and the table formatting looks splendid, although it would be better if you start archiving the references. Some of them are bound to be dead links soon, especially PDF references. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, much appreciated! Crystal Clear x3 22:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Support I am supporting this nomination for promoting it as a FL, but in future I would really like you to archive the links for maintaining its FL status. So many articles deteriorate because of not archiving links. Alas, if only I personally had started it early. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:18, 3 June 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 promoted by Dabomb87 16:23, 6 June 2011 [24].

---

Grammy Award for Best Urban/Alternative Performance

Nominator(s): Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I currently believe it make featured list criteria. I have recently promoted a grammy list to FL and by the looks of things (if it gets more reviews) I will soon have a second FL grammy list under my belt as well.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I made several edits to the list--feel free to state if you disagree with any of the changes made. Overall, I think the list is good. No disambig links or problematic external links. I would just make sure that (especially now that the award has been disestablished) its entire history is present. I think this part could be expanded: "The award will be discontinued from 2012 in a major overhaul of Grammy categories. In 2012, the category will be shifted to the Best R&B Performance category." I will take another look at the list soon. (Note: I am busy constructing the Grammy Awards task force, to the point where I am forgetting about my own FLC nominations, mostly due to lack of activity.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'll look for more information on the history =), thanks for commenting!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Think that four paras in the lead for such a short list is pushing it. Think about merging them to, say, two... "was first honored to India.Arie at" - while this may be superb USEng, it reads really weirdly to me. Can we not say "was presented to" or "was awarded to" or something? Don't overlink Indie.Arie. "is the only performer that was nominated twice" - performer to be nominated twice. " from 2012 in a major overhaul of Grammy categories. In 2012, the category will be shifted to the Best" -> "from 2012 in a major overhaul of the Grammys when the category will be shifted..." Performing artists column -> (a) probably should be "artist(s)" and (b) what is going on with the sorting here? Not sure what to say about the fact that the multiple recipient names don't line up with their flags... Indie Arie caption needs a period. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Did all except I don't understand what you meant about the sorting?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC) The sorting looks correct to me. I did, however, remove the sort command for Gnarls Barkley, as this is the name of the duo as opposed to a real name. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I was confused by the fact you sort India.Arie by I and not by A... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I assumed India.Arie was a stage name. She is referenced as both Simpson and Arie throughout her WP article. I wouldn't have thought to sort by her last name, but I am not opposed to it if others agree. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC) No problem. It's an odd one because it's her real name but stylised. Either way, now I understand how it was logically ordered, no serious issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• The size of the list is only nine items. This is very thin for a piece of featured content, and in the old days would have been heavily opposed for not meeting the unofficial 10-item rule of the time. Criteria 3b is a little friendlier to such a list (a merge somewhere is unlikely), but I think it's worthy of note in case anyone else wants to comment on it.
• "the award was presented to artists that have made 'newly recorded urban/alternative performances with vocals". Since this is now past tense (the award won't be presented any more), why is "have" here?
• Space needed before the last sentence of the lead.
• "in a major overhaul of Grammys". Missing "the" before Grammys. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! All Done!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

*Comments The general ref should link directly to the category Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Ref 2 does not need publisher linked Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The main issue I have with this list is the definition of the category. Urban contemporary is a radio format, not a music genre, so it may imply that artists receive the award for heavy urban airplay. The linking of "alternative" to alternative hip hop is both WP:OR and WP:EASTEREGG. So shall I just link urban/alternative to the r&b genre (since that's that category it's under at the grammys) or just no link?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) No link is probably best. Sorry about the late follow-up, I missed it on my watchlist... Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Okay all done now!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments This list looks pretty nice, but I just have a few suggestions for improvement.

• The first paragraph discusses the history and purpose of Grammy Awards in general, while information on this specific award (Best Urban/Alternative Performance) does not come until the second paragraph. Since the main focus of this article is the specific award, I would shift your general description of Grammy Awards further down the page.
• You don't make it clear what "urban/alternative performance" actually means. Perhaps a wikilink would be helpful?

I look forward to your response! Edge3 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments! First off I described the Grammy awards in the first paragraph to stay consistent with the other FL Grammy Lists. In my opinion it also lets anyone understand the article. Somebody who goes on this page should be informed what this ceremony is about before further detail is pursued into a specific category. That way when the information is represented to the reader they're able to use that background knowledge to get a better understanding towards the category. And to answer you second question, if you look at the comments from Adabow a similar question arose. I had linked alternative music and urban music yet he felt that since their is no link from the Grammy Awards that purely represents what the definition of urban and alternative music is in this case is, that my assumption would be independent information and thus not reliable.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It still remains unclear what exactly urban or alternative music is. The reader cannot possibly know the reasons for which these talented artists won this specific award, unless you clearly define exactly what it means to "have been influenced by a cross section of urban music". If you cannot provide a wikilink to another article, then you'll have to incorporate an explanation into the article. Edge3 (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing though. I cannot add information on what defines urban music in the Grammy's sense without them clearly specifically stating what it is. I could on the other hand link R&B to urban since this category fell under the R&B branch.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you're coming from. I'll do a bit of research to see if the information I'm looking for actually exists. Edge3 (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you...but everything else is okay?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no other issues with this article. I was unable to find a detailed account of what the Recording Academy understands "urban music" or "alternative music" to mean, unfortunately. I won't let that issue hold up this FLC, though, so I support. Edge3 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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