Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2008

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 User:Crzycheetah 05:10, 30 May 2008 [1].

---

2006 Winter Olympics medal count

Oh boy, another Olympics medal count (don't worry, I'll try to wait until this one is at least half done before nominating another... No promises though) Anyway, its modelled after the 1928 Summer count and 1976 Summer count and fully sourced. Like always, all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the sentences that describe the most medals or most gold medals of individual athletes is out of place, since these are lists of medal count by nation? Seems like they'd be better placed in a list of athletes who won medals at the games. - Marrio (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Depressing lack of comments. But anyway:

• Non-breaking space, perhaps?
  • Where?
• "in blank"?
  • Fixed
• What is an Olympiad?
  • A fancy word for Olympics. I switched it out with something else.
• "The ranking in this table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee,[7] although that organization does not officially recognize global ranking per country." "Global ranking per country"?
  • Fixed

Oppose for now. Noble Story (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

More Comments

• From the MOS: "In compound measurements in which numerical and non-numerical elements, namely values and units, are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line." So, I think things like "84 events", "80 countries", and so on could have a non-breaking space.
• Instead of "leaving 54 countries blank in the medal table," try "leaving 54 countries without a medal."

Noble Story (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Noble Story. GreenJoe 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you please specify? I think Noble Story's concerns have been addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, with a comment Perhaps move, or copy reference 6 to the sentence ending in "but tested positive for carphedon and lost her medal." Otherwise it looks like Noble has addressed everything, and it meets all the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The sixth ref confirms that only one person lost a medal (and doesn't give any specifics). The seventh is a specific for that case. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Look good now, Scorpion. It has my approval. Noble Story (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [2].

---

List of NBA champions

This list seems ready to become FL. It is well referenced, and has a nicely written lead. It seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 15:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No free images available of the teams? Qst (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently looking for the NBA Finals trophy, but can't seem to find one at the moment. I'll keep looking. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I found one within two minutes, on Spurs page. I've put it up. Noble Story (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant free pictures of the teams to go down the side of the list if you could fit them in. Qst (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Seems to fulfill all criteria. It is well structured, adequately sourced, very easy and clear to read, also good lead paragraph.—Chris! _ct 16:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Date ranges should be separated with ndash, not hyphens, per WP:DASH
• Check out the FLC talk page regarding straight repetition of the article's title in the lead (this is a list of...)
• Wikilink Central division if it exists
• "prior to 1978 they get to keep the Brown Trophy for a year" wrong tense
• put a comma after the MVP award link up in the lead section
• Note 1 is in present tense, but from the looks of the the table, it should be in past tense

-- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The nominator and I have fixed everything. —Chris! _ct 02:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed the ndashes, but I put them in. Noble Story (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Although I'd want the NBA champ from the Western Conference colored with a reddish tint. --Howard the Duck 05:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you say that again? I think the champions from the Western Conference are already shaded blue. Noble Story (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See NBA Conference Finals. The Western Conference Finals logo is colored red. See also List of Super Bowl champions where the AFC is colored red. --Howard the Duck 11:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but doing that would mean a complete overhaul of the table. It's pretty clear who is from the West and who is from the East, unlike the Super Bowl champs list. I think it can stay the same. Noble Story (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Then use light green or any other color except a bluish hue. --Howard the Duck 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you decide to change the table, you might want to implement something like this. Hello32020 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll change the light blue to light green. Blue is the color associated to the Eastern Conference so for NBA enthusiasts it'll be quite awkward. --Howard the Duck 14:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I object! :) Please see WP:COLOUR, and choose one that is a little less trippy Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, that green is yuck. How about one of those nice pastel shade of colours mentioned at WP:COLOURS? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd change the color into light yellow. --Howard the Duck 07:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Last suggestion: the cross is better then the asterisk, but it's awfully big. Howabout ^† ? Drewcifer (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I made it smaller.—Chris! _ct 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment Overall it looks pretty good, but I do have a few questions/suggestions:

• The year column should be center-aligned.
• Also concerning the legend, I'd recommend adding the blue background legend to the same table as the other legend.
• "All NBA Finals are in..." weird present tense, when compared to the rest of the sentence which is past tense.
• "The home-and-away format was in a 2-2-1-1-1 format (that is, the team with the better regular season record plays on their home court in Games 1, 2, 5 and 7) until 1985 (except 1953–55, 1975 and 1978, the latter two in a 1-2-2-1-1 format) when it was changed into a 2-3-2 format (the team with the better regular season record plays on their home court in Games 1-2 and 6-7), although all other playoff series are still in a 2-2-1-1-1 format.[1]" I realize that this is a complicated issue to explain, but this is a huge sentence with alot of parenthesis and numbers and other stuff going on, which makes it even more confusing.
• "1984 win the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy, from 1978 to 1983 the Walter A. Brown Trophy, and prior to 1978 they got to keep the Brown Trophy for a year until the next champion is determined." Again, a weird mish-mash of tenses.
• Why is the MVP stuff mentioned in the lead? What does that have to do with anything? Drewcifer (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely sure what "Tied the best regular season standing for that season." means. Also, I think a better symbol then an asterisk should be used, since the asterisk is easy to miss.
  • OK, I've covered all your points. Noble Story (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, looks good. GreenJoe 00:05, 28 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [3].

---

Seinfeld (season 3)

Self-nomination. Looked at Lost (season 1) and copied the format from there. The only image has a fair use rationale. I believe the list has finally reached a point that it's well formatted, and easily accessable for changes. Information that needs to be cited is. --Gman124 ^talk 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Redl@nds597198

• Oppose Poor prose writing and a very messed up Production section.
  • Cover image in the infobox seems to have the UK classification "12" symbol - Seinfeld's American, so any chance we can get a cover pic without the UK classification?
    •  Done added the us version of the DVD image. Gman124 ^talk 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Spaces after colons separating regions/dates in infobox.  Done
  • Can we have some mention of the cast and characters? You've referenced Lost (season 1), take a look. You've gone and listed all the writers and directors but no cast members. Done
    • Entertainment Tonight declined to lend its theme song to Seinfeld to use for the story involving Kramer's Mary Hart-induced seizures in "The Good Samaritan" episode - anyone who's never seen Seinfeld is left wondering, who the bleep is Kramer? While mentioning the cast, mention the characters. Done
    • Harris Shore played the role of Mr. Lippman in "The Library" episode. Richard Fancy took over the role for the remainder of the series - this information is completely trivial to mention if you haven't even stated the main characters and actors. Done
    • The Elaine story, in "The Letter" was inspired by Larry David's - with no prior mention of characters, one is led to assume this "Elaine" refers to the Pope variety. Plus, comma after "story" unnecessary in this sentence. Done
    • George tells his girlfriend (played by Valerie Mahaffey) the truth - why mention the actor of a nameless character when you still haven't told us who plays Jerry? Done
      • added cast --Gman124 ^talk 21:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Changes" heading is completely... misleading? I'm not sure what it is. Changes to what? Are these changes within the season, or changes from the previous season; changes to the actors or changes to characters? Seems to be a combination of all of these, which don't belong together.
    •  Done chaged the heading. --Gman124 ^talk 21:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sentence about Julia Louis-Dreyfus's pregnancy implies no change at all. It can hardly be considered a change of "where the character stands on the set".
      •  Done put it after I mentioned the cast. --Gman124 ^talk 21:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Italicise and wikilink Entertainment Tonight.
  • And with New England Journal of Medicine.
  • "Beginning sentences with "The Truth" episode and "The Good Samaritan" episode is grammatically incorrect. Go for something like "The episode 'The Truth'..." or something like that. Done
    • for "The Fix-Up" episode - likewise. Done
    • "The Tape" episode - yada yada yada. Done
    • Writers Guild of America Award for their work on The Boyfriend, Part 1 episode - that too. Done
    • "The Library" episode - you know the drill. Done
  • "The Pen" was partly inspired by a sofa bed owned by Jerry's mom Betty. During stays, Jerry would put the couch cushions on the floor - since when do we know "Jerry" personally? To us, he's "Seinfeld".
  • Plot from Real Life experiences - you capitalise "Real Life" as if it's its own universe. Done
  • Jerry's mom Betty > "mother". Done
  • Season three received eight Emmy nominations, of these two were won > "of which two".
  • Emmy should link to Primetime Emmy Award. Done
  • Link the award categories that can be linked.
    • linked the award categories for emmys but couldn't find categories for wga and dga awards. Gman124 ^talk 21:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Writers' Guild Award for their work on The Parking Space - episode name in quotation marks. Done
  • Writers Guild of America Award for their work on The Boyfriend, Part 1 episode - as above. Done
  • Probably the biggest issue - the whole Production section is based around individual episodes. Forgetting the illogical subheadings for a moment, there is not a single sentence about the actual production of the season (that is, not about the crew members or some random bits about the "changing" cast) that applies to the season as a whole. IMO, there's no reason why we shouldn't just chop out all those episode details and paste them into their respective episode articles under a Production section.
    •  Done removed the individual episode details and put em in the episode articles. --Gman124 ^talk 01:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • by getting a note from Jerry's dentist (Roy) - why not just "Jerry's dentist Roy"? Done
  • Jerry's therapist becomes paranoid and thinks he is insane when he makes some casual remarks - who replace the two "he"s with names; I have no idea whether they're referring to Jerry or the therapist. Done
  • Why the need to relink all the character names in each plot summary? Unnecessary.
    •  Done removed the relinks to the character names in plot summaries. --Gman124 ^talk 23:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • but she's afraid that he will try to kidnap her son > "she is". Done
  • The episode ends with the four eating in Monk's, and viewing Joe DiMaggio dunking his donuts (though DiMaggio is never seen). George then says "You see, now that is a handsome man!" and Jerry and Elaine raise their eyebrows - completely trivial that Joe is never seen, and absolutely unnecessary to quote what some guy says. Chop out everything after word "donuts". Done
• Will make more comments tomorrow. It's 12.30am here and I'm exhausted;) —97198 talk 14:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • added the cast and fixed some other stuff and put  Done next to things that I think i have addressed. and removed episode stuffGman124 ^talk 21:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I have addressed all comments, do you have any more? please post them. --Gman124 ^talk 01:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry I didn't get back earlier - nice work fixing all the issues above... anyhoo, on with the job:
        • The Babu Bhatt character was originally scripted as Vong Sim, but was later changed - needs full stop (period?) at end. Maybe say "originally scripted under the name of Vong Sim..." just to avoid any potential confusion. Done
        • "The Truth" episode was written by Elaine Pope - same 'episode' issue as before. Done
        • their work on "The Boyfriend, Part 1" episode - and that. Done
        • for "The Tape" episode - that too. Done
        • Why link "The Parking Space" and "The Boyfriend, Part 1" at end of Awards but not link any episode names in preceding prose? i.e. The Truth, The Library, all the eps mentioned in the real life bit, all the other eps nominated for awards. Either link them all or link none. Done
        • Still not too keen on Plot from real life experiences section... maybe add a sentence at beginning like "A number of the season's episodes were inspired by the writers' own experiences" just to generalise the section a bit. Done
        • The Elaine story, in "The Letter" - no comma needed. Done
        • George's girlfriend, who is an accountant, was supposed to help him out > "George's girlfriend, an accountant, was..." Done
        • Why list some guest stars and not others? Delete all, IMO. Done
        • Jerry can't go out anywhere > "cannot". Done
        • the movie 'Prognosis Negative' - it's a fictional movie but italicise nonetheless. Done
        • realize they don't have > "do not". Done
        • Jerry Seinfeld finds out - why the surname all of a sudden? Done
        • unreturned library book from 1971 - unlink 1971 as individual years shouldn't be. Done
        • her orange dress is 'burned into his memory' - use double quote marks "like these". Done
        • he actually loaned Cancer to George - we're still talking about the book, so italicise Cancer. Done
        • As for Jerry, he is eager to urinate > "Jerry is eager to urinate" Done
        • the restaurant, and its owner Babu Bhatt - no comma needed. Done
        • This plan backfires, as when Elaine enters the Dream Café, and is distracted, and performs poorly - doesn't make sense. Do you mean "he is distracted"? Done
        • Monica (George's girlfriend) > "George's girlfriend, Monica" Done
        • Entire synopsis for "The Tape": Elaine is the only female mentioned, so change some of the "Elaine"s to "she"s and "her"s. Done
        • Jerry is conflicted about his relationship with an actress - he's conflicted? Maybe use a different word; doesn't make much sense. Done
        • once it's fixed she's beautiful > "it is"; "she is". Done
        • just as Jerry's heading out the door > "Jerry is". Done
        • they hire a prostitute over - maybe "they hire a prostitute to come over". Done
        • Jerry tries to pay the girl so she'll leave > "she will". Done
        • cops arrive and he's "busted" > "police"; "he is". Done
        • expensive, cashmere sweater - no comma needed as "cashmere sweater" is one phrase. Done
        • and thus George gets fired, as she reports their affair - perhaps "and George is fired after she reports their affair". Done
        • Jerry's friend developed a drug problem because Kramer told him to pour Gatorade on Marty Benson's head after winning a softball game. The coach developed pneumonia and died - why the past tense? If it happened prior to the episode's events, it shouldn't be stuck in the middle of the plot summary. Done
        • Jerry becomes worried when Newman (a friend of Martin) > "Martin's friend, Newman". Done
        • Everything hinges on a Drake's coffee cake - I don't get it...? Done
        • He finds a space, and decides to back into it - clarify that it's a "parking space". Done
        • he would never sink to fix-ups, saying that a fix up is one step - either use fix-up or fix up; here you've used both. I'd go with fix-up as that's in the episode title. Done
        • Why are The Boyfriend - Part 1 and Part 2 written in the table with dashes, but with piped links with commas in the title? What's official? Done
        • see a former neighbors' new baby > "neighbor's" (singular). Done
        • O'Brian or O'Brien? You use both in The Limo summary. Done
      • That's it; enjoy :) —97198 talk 13:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think I have fixed everything, you asked. Thanks for your comments, got any more? --Gman124 ^talk 15:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've got a few more minor concerns after a re-read but I'm happy to support as there's no doubt they'll be addressed rapidly :)
  • was aired of NBC in the US - "was aired on"? Done
    • US > "U.S." per MoS Done
  • Is there a better title for Plot from real life experiences? I'm thinking maybe "Storyline inspirations" or "Inspirations for storylines"; thoughts? Done
  • The Elaine story in "The Letter" was inspired - how about "Elaine's story in..."? Done
  • Wikilink Angels & Yankees. Done
  • Season three received eight Emmy nominations, of these two were won - either use a semicolon replacing the comma or reword latter half to "two of which were won" or something similar. Done
  • David Steinberg was nominated for Directors Guild of America Award for "Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Comedy Series" for "The Tape" episode - still need to correct episode phrase to "episode 'The Tape'". Done
  • Any reason why Exclusive Stand-Up Material is capitalised? Done
• Thanks in advance for the changes :) —97198 talk 07:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Addressed all comments and thanks for the support. --Gman124 ^talk 12:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• The lead looks like a rush job. It doesn't introduce the rest of the article with regards to production crew, locations, awards, etc. Done
• What is NBC Network? Perhaps say "A U.S. network television station" or something to provide context to non-Americans Done
• Wikilink to CBS Studio Center in Studio City, California Done
• "...and a host of Jerry's friends and acquaintances,.." Jerry the character, or Jerry the actor?
  •  Done rewrote the line. --Gman124 ^talk 15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Wikilink to Anaheim, California Done
• Set Details, Special Features and Release Dates in the DVD section should follow WP:HEAD and not be over-capitalised. References for the release dates are needed, too. Done

That's all I've got for this one. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't see that 2, 3 and 5 have been done. Perhaps you were thinking of season 1, which consisted of a a lot of the same comments?

• •  Done this time finished. --Gman124 ^talk 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Harris Shore played the role of Mr. Lippman in "The Library" episode;" remove "episode" Done
• "The episode "The Pen"..." can be simply ""The Pen"..." Done
• "The Chinese baldness cure that George tries in the episode "The Tape"" again, remove "the episode" Done
• Wikilink to Los Angeles Times, and italicise per MOS:TITLE Done
• is "Angels-Yankees" using the hyphen correctly in place of a dash? I'm not sure so check it out Done
• Wikilink to Gene Autry Done
• explain what a box is for non-sports fans Done
• Per WP:PLOT episode plots are self referenceable and so the references should be removed Done
• I thought that the episode table used {{episode list}}, but it doesn't. Please re-work the table so that it does, and then at some point in the future it can be transcluded onto the main episode list page Done
• Don't use colour just for the sake of using colours. A lot of the season pages go with a colour close to the season's DVD casing, but that's not necessary here as all the DVDs are mostly blue. Think about what it adds to the page. I'd be happy to see a plainer coloured table. Done

:**I just added the colors because I felt that it's a bit easier to view the table info in my opinion with the color, it makes it easier to separate the summaries from the episode titles and other stuff. --Gman124 ^talk 20:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• "restaurant called "The Dream Café,"" companies shouldn't be in quotes Done
• There's a lot of arbitrary wikilinking in the summaries.  Done
• "does a very shoddy job" unencyclopedic Done

-- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC) -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I answered all your comments this time. --Gman124 ^talk 15:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More

• In the lead, can a citation be found for ""The Tape", "The Pen", and "The Letter" are some of the season's episodes that were inspired by the writers' own experiences."? Done
• "in terms of how they made the shows; it’s where they started doing non linear storylines" Who is the "they"? Probably change to "the producers" or "writers" or whatever fits best.
  •  Done changed around the wording a bit. --Gman124 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Does reference 3 verify the characteristics of the characters, or should it be placed at the end of the previous sentence?
  •  Done put ref 3 at previous line as well. Gman124 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• "in November 23" should be "on November 23" Also, there is no need to say "Region 1 in the United States and Canada" because only the US and Canada are in Region 1. Simply "Region 1 on November 23, 2004". No need for "format" following "Region 2" and "Region 4" either. Done
• If possible change references 5 and 6 (for Region 2 and 4 release dates) to ones that are not sales sites
  • Could not find sites that have release dates other than sale sites. found some sites that had reviews but not the release date. --Gman124 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• I checked out the Angels-Yankees thing, and per WP:DASH it's space, ndash, space,(Angels – Yankees), not an mdash that is needed. Done

I think that will do it from me! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good now. Meets all the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [4].

---

List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein

Self-nomination. The list provides full bibliographic citations for Einstein's scientific publications, as categorized and cross-referenced in the 1951 bibliography published in the commemorative volume Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume II edited by Paul A. Schilpp. Where possible, translations of the German titles are taken from Einstein's collected papers put out by the Einstein Papers Project. Citations of individual publications in Abraham Pais' biography Subtle is the Lord are given as well. The works are grouped into journal articles, book chapters, books, and authorized translations. For each type, the entries are listed in chronological order in a sortable table; the ordering may be changed by the reader to group articles by subject or journal or title. Einstein's collaborative works with others are highlighted in lavender. The WikiProjects for Physics, Mathematics and the History of Science have been alerted. Willow (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Wow. Just wow. Quite a list. Some quick things:

• There are a number of unreferenced statements in the 'Chronology and Major Themes' sections and in the small intro paragraph to the 'journal articles' section.

What would you like to see referenced? I didn't put a reference over every sentence because, oftentimes, the given reference pertained to the whole bullet point. I see that I overlooked referencing general relativity and the Einstein-Brillouin-Keller method; I'll try to get to those today. Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• You mentioned the lavender highlighting in your nomination, but the only place you explain that in the text is at the end of the 'Chronology and themes' section. Problem is, if a reader skips that section (because it's not obvious that this is introductory to the formatting of the tables themselves), they might be confused. One solution might be to break off that paragraph and make it the intro to a new section (List of scientific publications) with the current publication sections becoming sub-sections.
• For the lead:

• First, per ongoing discussions, I don't think you need the, 'This article lists...' line, since it's redundant to the title.

I incorporated that and the lavender-highlighting stuff into a revised second paragraph of the lead. Those are both good insights; the article seems much better now, thank you! :) Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• You need to expand the lead to talk about some of the important bibliographical information covered in the lists, e.g. When did he stop publishing in German and why?, What were his first and last publications?, Was he more productive in some periods than others? Were some journals more prestigious/significant than others?, etc. Right now, the lead is more of a lead for Einstein's scientific contributions than his scientific publications.

I can list his first and last publications, although they're obvious from the Index numbers. I can also discuss how many articles he published each year (or make a graph); but scientific productivity is not necessarily well-measured by number of articles, so I don't really see how that would contribute. I haven't encountered any scholarship on the other points, such as why he wrote in German vs. English, and I wouldn't want to fall afoul of WP:NOR by speculating, so it's best if I keep silent. But if you have references for those questions, and feel that other readers would want to know about them, please feel free to add them! Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work on this, though. It's a huge task. Marrio (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Marrio! :) I'm glad you like it. Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added citation needed tags in three places where there isn't a reference for the paragraph, all in the chronology and major themes section. As to the lead, I was just thinking that there might be some way to have the lead address over-arching questions about Einstein's publication history that readers might be interested in. The specific ideas I mentioned were just spur of the moment thoughts, some of which are a little trivial. But not necessary. Marrio (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these citations OK? Willow (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - they look fine to me. Marrio (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment should the title be either List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein or List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein's Work?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realized that most of the articles at Category:Bibliographies by author use the "by" preposition. I've moved the page now to List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Willow (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I love lists like this! They are so helpful! The sortable option is wonderful. I just reviewed the FL criteria since I don't comment here very often and I think that this list more than meets them. I've been following the list's development and am in awe of the work Willow has put into it - this is an excellent model for all of us who make these kinds of lists. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support I just corrected one minor error and it was really the only one I could find. I do have a few comments though. The article Works by Albert Einstein looks like a mess, seems to give no information which is not exhibited on your list, and should therefore be merged/deleted before this can go featured. Also note that the latter list is placed in categories [[Category:Physics books]] and [[Category:German books]], unlike this one. By the way, is there a reason the "Index" field is coloured? And another thing, which is merely an observation: of all the 106 bibliographies [5], this list is the only one using the adjective "scientific". One might also ask "Did he also publish non-scientific material?", and since I'm pretty sure he did, where can I find it? Are you going to make a "List of non-scientific publications of Albert Einstein"? I think you can't get away with not mentioning his non-scientific work. Anyhow, this is an excellent list. κύδος! Baldrick90 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Baldrick! :) I will broach the subject of the "Works" article being deleted as delicately as I can. I don't think anyone has devoted too much time to it; it was moved from the Albert Einstein article to the elephant's graveyard. I myself discovered it only months after I'd started with this article, although that's more my fault for not being diligent enough in searching. :(

I don't understand the "books" categories, since the list isn't a book itself and consists mainly of journal articles, not books. I wouldn't want to include those categories here, I think.

The reason that the Index cell was colored but the others weren't, was that I'd been trying to highlight the whole set of column headings in that orange-ish-yellow, which I thought complemented the blue-ish hue of the page. Unfortunately, I was thwarted by the table markup, which seems to require that I assign a colour to each column heading separately. That seemed silly, so I've left all the column headings blue and un-highlighted. Anyway, I daresay readers aren't coming to the article to be charmed by my quilting aesthetics. ;)

Einstein did publish many non-scientific works, and I've added a short paragraph to the lead explaining that. I do intend to write a list of Einstein's non-scientific works (part of a long-term program to restore AE to FA), but it may be awhile.

Thank you yet again for your insightful review! :) Willow (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The only list of publications I would ever support, but for good reason too! JFW | T@lk 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Quibble: "the order of events" -> "that the order of events" is probably better

No, you're right; keeping the parallel construction going is better writing. Thanks! :) Willow (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• The description of E=mc² seems a bit off. The connection to the atomic bomb is not that direct, and in the passage from Pais that is cited it becomes clear that much more than that formula was involved before the binding energies could be predicted correctly. I think a more cautious formulation would be in order.

I included that to engage the reader more strongly, but I agree more-or-less. The cited Pais passage discusses the experimental verification of E=mc² by the mass defect, IIRC, but admittedly it's a long way from there to constructing an atomic bomb. Perhaps the present wording is OK? Willow (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good now. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• general relativity "is based on the surprising idea that empty space" – such a characterization should always mention space and time on an approximately equal footing. To suggest that the properties of space are part of the basic idea, and the variability of time a consequence, is misleading.

I was motivated by the idea that readers might visualize warped space more readily than warped space-time. But you're right, we should be as accurate as possible. I added time in parallel with space, changed "act on" to "interact" and a few other minor changes. Does it seem better now? Willow (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• List of articles itself: clearly, an enormous amount of work has gone into this; my compliments. I have not checked this list thoroughly, but I was surprised that the "Collected papers" are mentioned only in passing. Surely, nowadays they are the main reference for Einstein's works. They should at least be cited, and for the article to be perfect, their indexing system should be used for those volumes already published. That indexing system can probably be found in the Einstein archive's online data base, as well. Clearly, this would mean a great amount of additional work, and I think it should not stand in the way of the list's Featured status, but I would think that it would enormously improved the helpfulness of this list to students of the subject.

I'm willing to do this, although I'm not clear on what you mean by the "indexing system" in the Collected Papers. I don't really have access to them, although I did find the Table of Contents online. However, from what I can gather, they only number the articles within each volume; there is no "global" indexing system to Einstein's works. Moreover, the Collected Papers haven't published the final 30-some years of Einstein's work, so I wouldn't want to make a separate column for it. Perhaps you mean that we should note the number and volume in which the article appears, e.g., "Article 2 in Volume 4", in the present "Index" box? Willow (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean the article numbering of the Collected Papers. I think including those (doesn't need to be an extra column) would make the list that much more valuable for those with a serious interest in this part of the history of science. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I've done this now. Please let me know if you catch anything I missed. :) Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Some haven't gotten a CP number yet. You've done impressive work in getting all the CP numbers up, so I won't quibble, except that Schilpp 9 and 10, seminal as they are, should definitely get a CP number.Markus Poessel (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Na, wenn alles so einfach wär'. ;) Willow (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with these two in the CP? Markus Poessel (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I meant only that I wished everything were so easy to fix as the oversight you pointed out! :) Somehow I'd missed those two titles on my first pass, despite the fact that I was actively looking for them; when I looked again, there they were! :) Willow (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Entry no. 10 should probably mention that this is what is nowadays known as E=mc².
• I think that, for the works that were part of Einstein's journey towards general relativity, it should be made clear that the journey was still not over. E.g. for #37 - that's not a paper on general relativity, it contains some first steps on the path towards that theory. Similarly for #42, #46, #47, and basically everything designated as "general relativity" until #84, which Pais p. 256 comments with "The work is done". This fact should probably also be noted.
• Entry #107 is the birth of modern physical cosmology. That should definitely be noted.
• Entry #119 and related: please wikilink to gravitational waves. And again, it should be noted that this is the birth of another whole subject (even if it took a while to realize that these waves were indeed real, and not just coordinate artefacts).

These four points all relate to the Classification and Commentary column of the tables, which I've intended to fill in more, if others did not. You definitely point out some important lacunae that I'll try to fill. The "steps to GR" vs. "GR" point is, I think, semantic; I'd recommend that we still categorize the article as pertaining to General relativity, but indicate in the commentary that the theory was being developed until the end of November 1915. Willow (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Classifying them as gr is fine (I assume you refer to the initial, bold-faced, wikilinked keyword for each article), but yes, I definitely think the information I indicated should be in the comments. And conspicuously so. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• General wikilinking question. Shouldn't all concepts and names (Jordan, Kaluza) which have their own entries be wikilinked? If they aren't, you're missing some significant cross-connections. In an article, that would be unacceptable, I have no idea whether there are special rules for lists.

You're completely right; I'll try to catch up with those wikilinks. Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Motiv des Forschens and similar articles - are those really "history of physics"? I'd have thought they are more like "philosophy of physics".

I could add that as a category, if you think it's more appropriate. I was trying to keep the categories to a minimum, so that no one accused me of OR. Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but in this case, an extra category might indeed be in order. History doesn't seem to be the right category here. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right; I added "Philosophy of physics" where it seemed more appropriate. Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• There's at least one theory of "Telativity" flying around there.

I only found one, and I fixed it. Thanks for catching that! :) Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unhappy with the translation "Understanding the Special and General Theories of Relativity". The literal translation is "On the special and the general theory of relativity, so that everyone can understand it." The translation I have here has the title "Relativity. The Special and the General Theory. A Popular Exposition" which also captures the essential property: this is written for a general audience.

Yes, I weighed how to translate that title for some time. I knew the phrase "popular exposition" but disliked it, because it seemed not very gemeinverständlich; the reader needs to disambiguate "popular", and to know what an "exposition" is. However, it's admittedly accurate, and I'll use that if you like. The literal translation you give is good, and I toyed with something like that, but we both probably agree that it's too long. The titles "Relativity for Dummies", "Relativity for Beginners" and "Relativity for the Compleat Mathophobe" are already taken (I think). ;) What do you think is best? Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would go for the less elegant, but also least misleading "Special and General Relativity explained for a general audience". Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I used the translation found in the Collected Papers (vol. 6): "On the Special and General Theory of Relativity (A Popular Account)". Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Äther under Relativitätstheorie" - is that half-dutch? If it's German, it should be "Äther und Relativitätstheorie".

How embarrassing! :P My mind must've wandered off while transscribing. But maybe Einstein was making a Plattdüütsch compromise—Ensten kunde en begen schnacken, ge? ;) Alles liebe und viel Erfolg, Willow (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. But given Einstein's southern-German roots, it's not very likely that he snackt platt. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Schilpp reference, and the word was indeed "und". Thanks for catching that! :) Willow (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• One more thing: Schilpp 37 has nothing to do with general relativity. Quick browsing would suggest it's about the molecular basis of a law of fluid dynamics. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're totally right again. :) Fixed, methinks. :) Willow (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All in all, a remarkable list, though. Kudos! Markus Poessel (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Support This list is very impressive and nicely organized. Two small comments, though:

• In the list of Journal articles in item 188 there is an unbalanced left square bracket in the title column. I don't know where it should end, otherwise I'd have fixed it myself.

• I am wondering if there is a better place in the list where you could position the footnotes/references. With the numbered references being in the first column right next to the index number of the entry, it is optically slightly confusing and has a cluttered look. I am simply wondering, if it wouldn't be better to have the footnote/reference marker appear at the end of the title, rather than next to the index number. This is, however, merely a suggestion, and not a condition for my support.

Again a very nice piece of work! Alexander Falk (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Alexander! I added the square backet, and I put the references into the "Classification and notes" column, which seemed more apt, anyway. Thanks for your support and help! :) Willow (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• "best known for his two theories of special relativity and general relativity." Kinda sounds like he has two special relativity theories, and one general relativity theory

That's understandable and easy to fix...done! Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• "However, he also made seminal contributions" Sentences shouldn't start with conjunctions.

"However" is an exception, but I'm willing to dispense with it altogether...it's gone. Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's a very long sentence, too.

I shorted it considerably; is it OK now? It was redundant with the next section, anyway. Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Paragraphs begin with "Likewise in 1905" and "Again in 1905". See above re conjunctions

I don't agree, since here we are placing the information in context. These are adverbs, not conjunctions. Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:HEAD, it should be "Journal, volume, pages" and "Classification and notes"

Sure, that's easy to change...all done! :) Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• With some of those classification and notes being so long and causing a lot of empty space in the other cells, I'd like to see a table layout similar to {{Episode list}}.

That's a possibility, but I'd have to write a computer program to re-format the whole table. I'd prefer to get consensus from other Wikipedians before taking such a large step. Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The WP:MOS says the journal and book titles should have "quote marks" around them
  • Forget that one. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• The pink doesn't help people who are reading a printed version of this article, or those who have black-white monitors, have turned the colour off, etc. MOS:COLOR and WP:ACCESSIBILITY say you should have some kind of text marker (such as an asterisk, obelisk or caret) for those readers.

The article does better than a special symbol. It names in the "Classification and notes" column any scientist who worked with Einstein on a paper, e.g., "Co-authored with L. Hopf." Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The links should be in their own column.

I disagree, since there are relatively few; there'd be too many empty cells, no? Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all for now, so I have to oppose. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• The book chapters table goes off the edge of the page, and now I have a scroll bar at the bottom of every Wiki article I look at :( Again, its another reason why I would prefer to see the tables formatted differently.

Sorry about that; perhaps once I and others have thought about it, it will make sense to change the table format. Willow (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Replies

• Not sure if I like the bold text in the second paragraph. I'd prefer it in the first.

• I originally had something like "This article lists..." with the boldface in the first paragraph. However, another reviewer above asked it to be stricken as redundant. What would you suggest? Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:LS, if it doesn't lend itself to a bold title, don't do it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I don't find the bolding in the first sentence of the second paragraph to be that bad? The words chosen to be bolded are appropriate for the list. I don't think the bolding should be stricken; it's probably better to be consistent with Wikipedia's practice on other lists and articles, no? Finally, I note that the criteria/guidelines do not require the bolded text appear in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• What do the bold numbers represent in "Journal, Volume, Pages"?

• The volume number is highlighted in boldface type. That is a standard practice when citing scientific references. That format is also adopted by Wikipedia's {{cite journal}} template. I've explained it now in a footnote; do you think that will be clear enough for most readers? Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• What does "ser." mean in "ser. 4"?

• Series is a level of organization above the volume number in journals. The same journal can have multiple volume 39's, for instance, in different series. For example, the volumes published from 1829–1879 might make up one series, and the volumes published from 1889–1969 might make up a second series. I've explained it now in a footnote. Willow (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Check out MOS:TITLE for italicising/quotation mark use of volumes, chapters, journals etc.

• Sorry, I'm not sure what I should take from MOS:TITLE? I seem to have followed its suggestions by italicizing the titles of books and periodicals. The boldface font for the volume number is built into Wikipedia's {{cite journal}} template and is a common practice in scientific citations. Did you mean to say that the "ser. 4" information shouldn't be italicized? I've seen it italicized as part of the journal title, including the Schilpp reference that is my main source here. Willow (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• MOS:TITLE#Quotation marks should be used for the titles of journal works
• Quotes should also be used for chapter titles of longer works

Again, speaking for myself, I feel strongly that the list would not be improved by the addition of quotation marks. I recognize the letter of the law, but I appeal to the spirit of the law: "except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article" (quoted from MOS:TITLE). The purpose of quotation marks in a standard bibliographic entry is to distinguish the title from the journal/publication information. That has already been accomplished by giving the titles their own column. Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Few more things:
  • All the "blah blahs of publication #142 above" are going to be wrong when the lists are sorted according to the reader's preference. In it's natural state, #142 may well be above, but sorted by location, it may not be. Can Self links be used instead? This way, instead of trawling though the long tables, if the reader needs to find the orginal, it's only one click away. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That excellent idea also occurred to me, but I'd not wanted to do it because of the onerous amount of work associated with it. However, I suppose since I'm gratifying everyone else's wish list, I might as well gratify my own. ;) Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Internal linking done. Willow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Also, do these numbers refer to the Schlipp Index? It's not clear Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Perhaps you missed the second sentence of the second paragraph of the article, which states: "Each publication has an index number in the first column of its table; these index numbers are taken from the second volume of Schilpp's Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (pp. 694–730) and are used for cross-referencing in the Notes (the final column of each table)." Perhaps I should say that again in a footnote to the Notes column of each table? Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Footnote added. Willow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "État actuel du problème des chaleurs spécifiques" note, "The German text is publication #63 below." is wrong. It's in the journal table above. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course that problem will be fixed once the self-links are installed. Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Internal linking done; all "above" and "below" references were deleted. Willow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Please provide context with regards to location by wikilinking, and using states/counties. So where is Evanston? Is it in the US? Which state? For the UK ones such as Cambridge and London, I would think that Cambridge, UK and London, UK is fine, but Bath could be either Bath, UK or Bath, Somerset, UK Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right that many readers might not know that Evanston, Illinois is the home of Northwestern University, which published the work in question. Accordingly, I have wikilinked every location — correctly, I believe — to disambiguate the city of the publisher. However, consistent with the standard practice for bibliographies at Wikipedia (cf. {{cite book}}), I have not included any information beyond the city name; I feel that the wikilink suffices. Willow (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The [a] and [b] ref links don't link to the notes, although the notes link to the ref links in the journal articles table only. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a technical glitch stemming from the inferior and obsolete templates I was using. I've coded up a new version of the <ref> and <references> tags for footnotes that will soon replace these. In the meantime, I'll try to find some work-around. Willow (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the original footnote system that I used. You should find that it satisfies your requirements. Willow (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a few minor things left, so still oppose for now. By the way, has anything been decided regarding a new layout so the notes sections don't make each row really tall? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on the Talk page to garner new ideas and perspectives. It's very important to the value of the list, I think, that the columns be sortable. Is that possible with {{Episode list}}? Thanks for all your input and suggestions, by the way! :) Willow (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, no. :( Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Well done :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Matthew! :) Willow (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very impressive.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Filll, as always. :) Willow (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This list looks really great, overall. I suggest that the names that come up in titles be linked, either in the title itself, or better yet, in the "Classification and notes" section. Otherwise, for example, it takes a bit of effort to figure out that the Friedrich Adler in one title is Friedrich Adler (assassin).--ragesoss (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm willing, but this will involve a fair amount of work. I agree that the "Classification and notes" is the best column, since the German title isn't commonly understood and we shouldn't interfere with the color coding of the English translations. That suggests having to write a commentary sentence or two for every publication, to have something to wikilink. Also, I'm concerned about overlinking; how often should topics be linked — once per screen? every time? once per article? Willow (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The classification sections have a bolded topic, e.g. "History of physics." You could just make it "History of physics; Karl Schwarzschild." Most of the history of physics entries seem to be at least as much about individuals as a about the history of physics. I don't see any big problem with just wikilinking names in the English title section, either; the violet for unofficial translations will still remain in part of the title, and the link color could be changed as well if need be. By the way, why is the "highlighted in lavender" explanation mentioned again at the start of the table but not the violet text explanation?--ragesoss (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support. Fine article. However: In 1905 Einstein published 21 (!) reviews on thermodynamic topics in "Beiblätter zu den Annalen der Physik". For a list of those articles, see The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 2. I think those scientific publications should at least be mentioned in the article. --D.H (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that when I was addressing Markus' comments. For some reason, those reviews are not included in the Schilpp bibliography, which was prepared under Einstein's own supervision and which many other reviews by Einstein. Why would he discount them? It seems strange. Nevertheless, I'll add them next week, once I get back from visiting my sister. Willow (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Einstein's "Beiblätter"-articles were discovered in 1977. See:

Klein, M.J.; Nedell, A. (1977), "Some unnoticed publications by Einstein", Isis, 68: 601–604, doi:10.1086/351878 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

So Schilpp was unaware of those publications, because his book was published long before in 1951. --D.H (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised only that Einstein had forgotten about his own reviews. But I guess it was ~35 years in the past. I'll try to add those today. Willow (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added all the reviews from volume 2 of the Collected Papers. I may yet "prettify" them; stay tuned. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot. --D.H (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, too, D.H! The list wouldn't have been complete without those reviews. :) Willow (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Outstanding. Colin°^Talk 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Support
  • Why is there a "pages" column in the Book chapters section? I think it's unnecessary and can be combined with the "chapter title" column.
  • What are the "location" columns for? Is it really that useful to sort the locations where books were published? I suggest merging this column into the "publisher" column.

My interpretation of your first two objections are that I shouldn't have included an extra sortable column for the page numbers, and publication locations, respectively. I understand your point of view, and I'll be glad to comply. However, I feel that both pieces of information are standard bibliographic data that should not be stricken. I also hope that you'll agree that having extra sorting abilities should not disqualify the list from being Featured. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated the columns, as recommended and it does do wonders for making the tables slimmer. The information is denser, but anyone who needs the information will be able to find it readily. I placed the page numbers under the Book title (rather than the Chapter title), since the pages pertain to the book; I wouldn't want people to think that Einstein had written only part of a chapter! Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Why are most of the links in the "notes" column in boldface?

I put the classification in boldface to allow readers to scan it easily, i.e., for ease of navigation of the FL criteria. The classification comes first in that table cell so that Einstein's articles can be sorted (and hence, grouped) by field. However, some readers might wish to sort by another column, and then scan the final column for articles belonging to a particular field. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Per WP:COLOR, color should not be the only indicator.

I'm not sure which color you're referring to. The lavender highlighting of an entire row is used to indicate collaborative papers; the collaboration is likewise indicated in the "Classification and notes" column, immediately following the classification, e.g., "Co-authored with..." Therefore, WP:COLOR has been satisfied for that coloring. The purple titles indicating unofficial translations could be indicated by an asterisk instead; that would likewise allow me to satisfy the requests that I wikilink into the English titles. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now replaced the purple font used to indicate unofficial translations, replacing them with a ^§ superscript. Do you agree that WP:COLOR is now satisfied? Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

After your latest edits, I now support this list. Yeah, I thought 10 columns in a table was too much and I did mean the purple font was one of the problems. If you just printed this page in a black and white mode, the purple would become black. Great job overall!--Crzycheetah 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeay, thank you, Crzy! :) Willow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrative interruption

The nominating user appears to be taking a break, does anyone want to address the opposition? I'd hate to have to fail it simply because there is nobody to address concerns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the message on her userpage, that has been there for a while and she has been addressing comments while that message has been there. I'm sure she will respond to the comments above. Please note that her last post says "I'll add them next week, once I get back from visiting my sister". It is Memorial Day weekend in the US, a time when many people take a vacation and visit their families. Awadewit (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was informed she was going to be away for a bit, but if she'll be back this week then I'll leave it open. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Resuming commentary and votes

Support: Excellent, useful, and functional! I just have a few comments in order to possibly make it even better.

• How are the scientific publications separated from the others? I noticed that History of Physics articles are included in the list, but would that be under Science or Humanities? You may want to note the criteria used to create the list.

Hi! :) I will try to make that point clearer. The division between scientific and non-scientific was made for me in the Schilpp bibliography, so it's not WP:NOR. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Would "moving objects" be better than "moving rods"?

Yes, of course. :) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• You gave three counterintuitive predictions for special relativity. Is there room for one more, i.e., mass is also not absolute. Sorry, I had to ask for that being a former particle physicist. :)

That depends on how one defines mass, no? I confess, my physics is rather limited, but my understanding is that the mass m of a particle is usually defined as its invariant mass, i.e., m² = p^μp_μ, which is the same in all reference frames. As part of my research for photon, I learned that alternative definitions of mass such as "relativistic mass", "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" are actively deprecated by physicists, even for pedagogy.

I did mean relativistic mass; my mind was still on accelerators. Concerning the deprecation of those terms, perhaps that gives away my age? Well, better stick to the present! --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you could be an aged sage, given your spritely sense of humour. ;) Thank you again for your help! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The choice of colours (lavender and violet) are close so for some reason I get mixed up about the significance of one or the other. Would it not be better to use a different colour for one of them? Also if there is a co-authored article that has an unofficial translation (violet text on lavender background), it would be difficult to see. I don't think you have such an example so it is not a problem at the moment, but if another Einstein list, say on non-scientific publications, did have such an example, it would have to use another set of colours.

Very true! I've all but decided to eliminate the violet font for unofficial translations. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done; I've replaced them with a ^§ superscript. Thanks for the suggestion, Buff! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Related to the last point, the unofficial translation colour does not appear in a black-and-white printout, so some other kind of printable marker (an asterisk?) would be helpful.

You read my mind! :D Exactly what I was thinking of doing. :) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, done, done. Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• You may want to add in the instructions on the sortable list in the lead that a printout will only produce the default sorting and not the chosen sorting.

Excellent point! :) But I think there's a way to defeat that, using the "printable version" button at the right. At least I got it to work early in the writing of this list, and I don't think I used any magic for that. ;) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact I used the "printable version" button in the toolbox and that produced output using the default sort. I just tried it now (printing the chosen sorting page directly). That one produced the right sorting. So it does work, so perhaps you only need to mention that the "printable version" button will only produce the default sort. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, these are just suggestions. They have no impact on my vote. A list of works by Feynman next? :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support: I see my index-related concerns were address, and a bunch of other stuff I would never even had thought of.

• I still maintain that English translation should be merged with original title (seperated with a "break") and given different fonts to maximize horizontal space usage, but that is nitpicking and does not cause opposition from me.

I sympathize with the wish for more lateral space, believe me! :) It's just that I want to allow readers to sort articles by their English translation; I'm assuming that most readers won't know German and French. The division into two columns has the advantage for long titles (e.g., this one) in that the length of the translation grows equally with the length of the original title. We may have to agree to disagree here. But if the consensus here is to merge the translations, then I'll bend like a willow. ;) Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that the put-translation-in-italics idea simply won't work, if we hope to get this list passed through FLC. Please consider that this list was about to be failed yesterday for not placing quotation marks around the titles (among other things), and that mis-use of italics was cited above as another reason for possibly failing the list. I propose that we consider another route. I've done as you suggested for the first element of the first table ("Journal articles"), placing the translation below the original title, but in a nested table and in a different color. The bordered box around the translation makes it distinguishable even in black-and-white. if you and the other people here agree to this solution, then I'll be glad to re-do all the others in the same way. Willow (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The equations in the notes should all be in html not in .png format. .png does not merge well with text.

I wrote out everything in HTML quite nicely, but but was recently reverted. I didn't want to undo that edit on my say-so alone, but thanks to your comment, I feel emboldened to revert those changes. Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Math-mode re-formatting reverted. Willow (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Aren't all the (translation:) unnecessary in the book chapters? Just give the translation, it's already mentionned at the top of the table that translations are in parenthesis. Cells are already cluttered enough.

OK, I agree. I was just trying to forestall any possibility of confusion. Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation tags removed. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that French translations were sometimes misspelled, sometimes used the graphie rectifiée rules of the 90's for diacritics (although that is probably just a typo on the author's part rather than an actual style decision), and sometimes not properly capitalized (according to French rules). I fixed that, but it is possible that Einstein made typos and used improper capitalization. You should check if things are properly spelled and capitalized. Remarks probably also apply to German articles.

I'll do that checking; thank you! :) Some of it might be due to typographical errors introduced when the Schilpp bibliography was compiled, but it's probably just me. :P Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overall, this is a list of outstanding value. It should definitively be on the main page as a featured list of the day thing.

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly, Headbomb! Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also authorized translations do not give the title of the original work. I believe this should be included. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So you believe the wikilink(s) to be insufficient? Please consider that, in some cases, one translation will cover several original works. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ah. Well perhaps of column explicit for cross-reference instead of placing it in the notes? Instead of "Title of original work" it could be "Original work(s)" with "Schilpp 15, Schilpp 237" in it or something. Just throwing ideas.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please look at that solution to the double-column problem in Table 1 (Journal articles). Thanks! Willow (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure how this makes it possible to sort according to English translation. A bluebox is too visually striking IMO. A cell split is perhaps best. I'll head on the talk page to not clutter this.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All my concerns were address, therefore full support. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is the best list on wikipedia! A small thing that is missing i.m.o., is a discussion (just a sentence or two) about the entry:

"Schilpp 278 1937 On gravitational waves Journal of the Franklin Institute, 223, 43–54 General relativity.[227] Co-authored with N. Rosen."

That article has a well known history that is worth mentioning

Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Count! :D I've added the link and a comment or two about the gravitational waves. Willow (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I've already supported, and I'm not yet inclined to strike it, but I've just noticed in the classifications column that all the bold text also has a bold full stop, which needs to be unbolded. Also, for the cells with no other text, the full stop can actually be removed because they are in essence fragmented sentences. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, Matthew! :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and un-bolded the full-stops. I didn't want to remove any, since I wasn't sure which should go and which should stay. Let me also say that this looks like an amazing piece of work; I wish I knew enough about the topics to officially support. – Scartol • Tok 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Scartol; your help is always as timely and welcome to me as "the golden apple to the swift girl"; you know how much I appreciate it. :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Wow. I don't know anything about Wikipedia lists, but I'm sure I'd "support" if I did. The amazing WillowW whomps again.... Gnixon (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gnixon; it's nice to hear from you again, it's been tooooo long! :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment A pic of the great man himself maybe? In the Chronology and major themes section maybe? indopug (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, indopug; I'll add one right away. :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [6].

---

List of Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo

Self-nom. This is a list of the Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo. The list is as comprehensive as current research allows, and I have noted the instances where there are disagreements among historians as to whether an individual deserves inclusion. This is my first attempt to create a FL, and I welcome all feedback to help me improve it. Karanacs (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Certainly an area outside my expertise but I found it an interesting list nonetheless. Some comments...

• Debate is on-going on WT:FLC regarding the simple emboldening and repetition of list name in the opening sentence of the lead. While this one is slightly better than most, you could consider a more descriptive opening sentence to capture the imagination and forgo the emboldening altogether. Just a thought.
• You link Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna twice in quick succession.
• You link Mexican Texas twice in the lead as well and pipe it to Texas. To a non-expert (e.g. me) this is confusing.
• "had huddled together " a little bit POV.
• " two ultimately survived" I think ultimately is a little redundant?
• San Antonio de Bexar is linked twice in the lead.
• I'd prefer to see births and deaths in separate columns.
• I'd prefer names in normal order, you can use the {{sortname}} template to ensure the sort still works.
• Remove Alsbury's period in his status column.
• You use black and Negro interchangeably - is there a preference or is this ok? Just a question...
• Order references numerically, you have [22][20] for example.
• I never find sorting notes is very helpful since it's free text.
• I'd pipe the {{reflist}} with 2 since the footnotes are all very short.

That's a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful comments. I've implemented changes to address almost all of these issues. I would prefer not to separate out the birth and death years; I had it that way originally and it made the notes column too compressed to be very useful. I'm also not that familiar with sortable table script, and I'm not sure how to make it sort everything except the notes. I'd appreciate any advice on that matter. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I've never actually commented on an FLC before; hopefully my comments aren't too out of whack.
  • I'm concerned that the lead may not be establishing enough context for our non-American readers. For example, I'd suggest including the location of the battle in the first sentence. "after an insurgent army" to "after an insurgent army of Texans" perhaps? "freedman" - link?
  • "fewer than 50 of the Texans" Context needed here. "fewer than 50 of the ___# Texans"
  • "Negro cook"??? It's not in quotes. BuddingJournalist 08:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't know what I'm doing either, but I think you brought up good points. I've added some detail to the lead to insert the name of the city in the first sentence as well as the number of Texans thought to be at the Alamo (although that is an estimate at best - historians are still arguing about it). I've also added detail about the makeup of the army, added a wikilink to freedman, and rewritten the description of Ben so that it makes more sense. I've been living and breathing the Texas Revolution for a few weeks now, and I definitely appreciate any other pointers about knowledge I may be assuming people already have. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very good. Though I can't check your facts and know nothing about the subject, it appears thoroughly referenced. I had to read the lead a few times before I got it. The first time, I thought "brought to Santa Anna" meant a place and then couldn't figure out how a place could be "impressed with Susanna Dickinson". Jim Bowie is mentioned without explaining who he is. The last sentence confused me. Why would Santa Anna try to impress Joe, a slave? It is a bit ambiguous which "his" is "his army". I'm guessing (from what follows) you mean Santa Anna's army, but the "surviving members" bit causes confusion with the topic of this list. And why is it worth noting that this parade gave "Joe an opportunity to judge the strength"? A quick look at the main article indicates Joe might have been important in relaying his account to others. Did that information prove useful? Colin°^Talk 22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've revamped the lead a bit more. It's now organized in a more logical manner, and it has a new paragraph that explains why Santa Anna wanted to impress Joe and what the result was. I've also further clarified some of the details that were confusing. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That helped. Colin°^Talk 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well-organized and interesting list, with a solid lead. One question: Ben is referred to as a "Negro cook"; I'd change that, as it's certainly not a term in modern usage—and it's not a quote. MeegsC | Talk 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I had fixed that everywhere. It should all be changed to more modern terminology now. Karanacs (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, list looks really good. GreenJoe 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see the timezone (wikilinked) included with 6:30 a.m. in the lead
• "fewer than 50 of the less than 250 Texans" I know what it means, but "fewer than... the less than" in the same sentence is clumsy. Perhaps "fewer than 50 of nearly 250 Texans"?
• Do you have a reference for the final sentence of the lead?
• Not a deal-breaker, but can you separate the birth/death column into two separate ones? That way the death dates can be sortable, too
• Are three references needed for Joe, Guerrero and Alsbury? Are these people particularly controversial or disputed in some way that extra verification is needed?

That's all I got. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• The concept of a timezone was only invented in 1847, and only came to the US around 1870. So 6:30 am should be interpreted as local time, whatever that may be. That time, expressed as Central Time might well be quite different. Colin°^Talk 08:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments. The three references are necessary because no one source included all of the information for each person. I've also experimented with separating the birth and death dates, but it made the notes column too short and the table looked very bad. I've reworded the "fewer than ...less than" sentence as you suggested, and added a citation for the last sentence. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I can't see any problems, although the image layout in the lead is odd. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Everything checks out. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [7].

---

List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks

First FLC (00:57, 28 December 2007)
Second FLC (17:54, 16 January 2008)
previous FLC (19:39, 5 February 2008)

I am nominating this list after making necessary changes. Most of the credit goes to Buc. I made the table sortable and I believe this has become a useful page. Any comments/concerns are going to be addressed.--Crzycheetah 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

1)Why is there no bolding in the lead (to justify the name of the article)?

2)Is a key really necessary? I don't think it would hurt to write out all the positions.

3)There are many picks that need to be sourced. Until those are sourced, will this list have a chance.

Regards, --~SRS~ 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • 1) Per WP:LEAD, If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface. 2) I think a key is necessary, but if more people agree with you, I'll change; right now this is just a personal preference. 3) There is a general reference [8] that is used as a source for all picks. Thanks for the comments!--Crzycheetah 23:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also forgot to mention, there's a discussion at WT:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence about repeating the title in the first sentence.--Crzycheetah 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply

1)I forgot about that, Im sorry.

2)Okay.

3)In the Notes section you put individual references for many picks, but you left many unsourced.--~SRS~ 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Oh, the "Notes" column is for the picks that were either received from or traded to other teams. The picks that don't have any notes are the Saints' own picks.--Crzycheetah 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to just write out the note, IMO. However, you need to put under the table, that your main source is that NFL page you showed me.~SRS~ 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think writing out the notes in the table would mess up the table; instead I am going to separate the notes from the refs, as Gonzo fan2007 suggested below. This way it will be more obvious that these are the notes and not the sources. The site I showed you here is listed under general in the references section. --Crzycheetah 05:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support Nice work, I can finally say I support this list as a FL. Thank you Crzycheetah. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Your comments were really helpful and made this list much better than it was.--Crzycheetah 04:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Link "expansion team " for non-experts.
• "and first participated in the 1967 NFL Draft" perhaps "first participated in the NFL Draft that year."
• "In the "NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting," which is more commonly known ..." remove "which is"...
• "second worst " should that be hyphenated?
• Why is always in italics?
• "The Saints had been given two first-round picks" how?
• Image caption is a sentence fragment so doesn't need a period.
• "The Saints have selected first overall once, drafting George Rogers in 1981,[5] second overall twice, Archie Manning in 1971 and Reggie Bush in 2006,[6] and third overall once, Wes Chandler in 1978.[3]" drafting needs to be reused here for Archie and Wes...
• Table sorting is all over the place.
  • Clicking on Pick four times gives me four different sort orders. Surely it should either be only ascending or descending order?
  • Names don't sort correctly (i.e. by surname) - use the {{sortname}} template for this.
  • Notes don't need to be sortable.

So for me it's oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I think I addressed your concerns. Could you take a second look?--Crzycheetah 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please read [[WT::FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence]] regarding the first sentence being an exact copy of the title
• A reference is needed for the second sentence of the Lead
• Does the first reference verify everything stated in the remainder of the paragraph?
• Use an mdash (—) rather than a hyphen for "empty" entries in the table, per WP:DASH/WP:HYPHEN
• Why is "no pick" in bold and itallic?
• For some reason the references in the table don't take me anywhere when clicked, although the notes themselves do.

A few concerns to be addressed before I support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments!

• With all due respect, the first sentence is not an exact copy of the title.

• Not an exact copy, but it says the same thing in a different word order. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's there to tell readers what this page is about, so that they know that they are reading the correct page. --Crzycheetah 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reference is added to the second sentence.
• Yes, the first reference does verify.
• "—" are used now.
• To catch attention of the reader.

• Does this give it undue weight, then? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, bolded parts are removed. I left the italics part because "no picks" is not a player's name, so it should be presented differently.--Crzycheetah 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are no references in the table, only notes.

• I'm referring to the alphabetised ref notes, but I've realised it's a problem with Firefox. IE works okay. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I hate those "browser" problems, even though I just checked this page on Firefox and it works fine.

Hope to read your comments soon! --Crzycheetah 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Good work. Noble Story (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [9].

---

List of Edmonton Oilers players

I have rewritten this page, following the style and format of several other NHL player lists which have passed featured list criteria. Actually, I've added some improvements, such as a table in the "Key" section to name the nationality of each of the flag icons, per WP:Manual of style (flags). Also, it has bothered me that many of the other lists in this series only include the current franchise incarnation, so I also created List of Edmonton Oilers (WHA) players linked from this article as a companion list. The latter is not part of this nomination, but might help explain the context of this list criteria. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • All the redlinks need to be fixed.
  • The lead seems rather short and doesn't read very well. A brief explanation detailing that the Oilers weren't exactly an expansion team in the NHL, but rather a former WHA team is necessary for readers unfamiliar with hockey.
  • The Notes section is inconsistent with it's numbering for years (ex. SC 84 as opposed to Conn Smythe 1990).
  • For a list this size more photos would probably be appropriate. There are more Oilers available, notably Gretzky and Messier. While they may not be in Oilers colours, they are specifically two of the most noteworthy Oilers ever, and deserve to be shown here. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   Done, for the most part. With respect to the redlinks, I note that WP:Featured list criteria says that the list should have a "minimal proportion of red links", not a complete absence of them. As of 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC) there are only 10 missing articles out of 396 players, so I would not think this would stop FL promotion. Nonetheless, I shall create those 10 new articles in the next day or so. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  A good looking list. The redlink issue is something I came across in some of my FL noms, and just looks better having all that blue. Also helps finish up the task of giving all NHLers an article. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  I created Ron Carter (ice hockey)‎, Dan Currie (ice hockey), Jim Ennis‎, and Peter Eriksson (ice hockey) today, so there are only six redlinks left. Thanks for your support! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support This list is definately worthy. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The pictures are hiding the section edit links. Can that be fixed? Maxim_(talk) 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  What browser are you using, and what screen size? I see the section edit links just fine with IE7, even on a smaller 1024x768 screen. Do you see a difference between this list and any of the other NHL player lists? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  I fixed it. The problem is that you put them all right at the top...the edits links were there but they are pushed to the bottom of the article when you do that. Atleast in Firefox. The Calgary list does not have this problem and I think its cause they are put on the article in this fashion. -Djsasso (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I don't know about "fixed". Firefox is broken, IMO. The list now looks terrible on XGA displays, since the main player table is too wide and every row takes multiple lines. I originally put the images at the top for a reason, so that on XGA raster sizes only the goalie table would have that problem and the main player table would still look neat. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Nevermind then...you can figure it out. I reverted my edit. I have a bunch of whitespace between pictures and table so I didn't think there would be an issue at any resolution. Personally I think XGA has the issue if the table is too wide as the table is hardly wide at all. Do you have the same issue on the Calgary list of it being two lines? Though looking at that list the notes column is a bit smaller so you might not have that issue. -Djsasso (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I'd still like to fix this, but perhaps a post to WP:Village pump (technical) with respect to Firefox might be in order. As for the Calgary list, no, it doesn't have this problem, as the "Notes" column in that table isn't very wide. They only won one Cup... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

   Done I think.... I followed the instructions at WP:How to fix bunched-up edit links, and it looks the same for me with IE7, so I don't think I made it worse! But did I make it better? Does it look correct for you Firefox users now? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very good list. Maxim_(talk) 21:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Hi. Per the MOS's WP:COLOUR, use a text marker as well as coloured shaded cells. Something such as *, †, ‡, or ^ because if the page was printed out, or a user has B&W monitor, the colour isn't going to be printed. . Also, if you could, try to use different markers for Stanley cup winners, NHL award winners, and Hall of Fame electees which would help with the single colour use
• Read WT:FLC#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence, regarding the opening sentence of "This is a <repeat name of article title>".
• Also think that the second two sentences of the first paragraph ("It includes all ice hockey players that have played at least one regular season or playoff game for the Edmonton Oilers in the NHL since the 1979–80 season. It does not include any players who only played for the team as a franchise in the World Hockey Association (WHA) from 1972 to 1979.") should be at the end of the Lead section, so that the rest of the prose describes the team and players, and then it moves on to discuss the list which follows.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. On the first point, I certainly understand WP:COLOUR, and I thought I had that covered. All of the "blue" rows are also labelled with tags in the Notes column (SC, HHOF, etc.) so I didn't think any additional special characters were required, and for the "green" rows, I bolded the names. Do you not think bold text is sufficient? As an aside, I note that several of the other lists in this series that have already been promoted do not conform to this guideline, as the 2007–08 players are only shown in green. (e.g. List of Buffalo Sabres players, List of Calgary Flames players, List of New Jersey Devils players, etc.) so I would presume they need updating with respect to this guideline. (None of them follow the WP:MOSFLAG suggestions for flag icon usage either, by not providing a legend that identifies each flag by country name at least once on the page.)

I understand your point, all we can do as reviewers is push the point that the MOS has to be followed. If you feel any FLs don't meet that, you could always nominate them at WP:FLRC or simply change them yourself which is often what I do with minor things like that when I spot them. Anyway, I initially missed the SC HHOFs, so don't worry about it now. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

On the second and third points, I can certainly improve the lead. I had always thought that lists like these needed to identify the criteria for inclusion very close to the start. Also, as this list is clearly "secondary" to the main Edmonton Oilers article, I will need to make sure that this lead is not written too generally about the team and still focuses on the list itself. Anyway, I will work on this later, but I will address it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Rewrote the lead section. Also added "Details are provided in the Notes column." to the legend key for the blue colour to help emphasize the additional non-colour markers. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A British flag is included in the key, but no player in the list is marked as British. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

   Done Thanks for picking that up—it was left over from an older draft that also included WHA players (which I decided to split into a separate article). Chris Worthy was born in England but moved to Canada as an infant. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [10].

---

List of Philadelphia Eagles head coaches

Well written, it seems to meet all FL criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 14:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Gary King (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Unlink text in the bold title, or remove the bold, per WP:BOLDTITLE.
• Remove italics from the publishers in the references that aren't actually periodicals.

Gary King (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Noble Story (talk · contribs)

• Do you need to add "Greasy" to Neale's name?
• Saying "Andy Reid is the all-time leader in games coached, wins, and in winning percentage with .611" isn't really complete. You should clarify exactly what .611 refers to. The same goes for the next sentence.
• Maybe you could have an image in the lead? It looks better, just in my opinion.
• "Of the 20 Eagles coaches, three have been elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, including Bert Bell, Greasy Neale, and Wayne Millner." As per WP:MOS#Numbers, you should be consistent in having either figures or words together. Also, if you've already referred to a coach before, no need to put his full name again.
• "Several former players have been head coach for the Eagles..." Do you mean former NFL players, or former Eagles players? Not really clear.
• If the MOS says you have to indicate something with colors and another indicator (asterisk, whatever), then you should do so (for the two color keys you use).

Noble Story (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

More Comments

• OK, I think there should be a bold title of some kind in the first sentence.
• The "established in 1933" part is mentioned twice.
• Why do you have to say "...three have been elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, including..."? You list three coaches, so you don't need "including"
• Most of all, the prose in the lead is somewhat choppy. None of the sentences have any connecting words, and it makes ready very unsmooth.

Noble Story (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done with the above comments. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 16:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Few More Comments

• Current refs 11 and 13 have statements but no citations to back them up.
• I think the "Statistics are correct as..." should be made into a small note at the end of the table (as here). Noble Story (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The first sentence, This is a complete list of Philadelphia Eagles head coaches., is basically redundant to the title of the article. Is it possible to make the first sentence more informative, something that would draw a reader in?
• Needs non-breaking spaces.
• I'd like to see the lead expanded some.
• Statistics correct as of December 30, 2007, after the end of the 2007 NFL season. could be worded better.
• Optional, but I like to see a reference for every coach in the chart. Good work overall, but there's just a few minor issues. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Issues addressed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support All concerns addressed, looks good to me. Noble Story (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [11].

---

List of New England Patriots head coaches

previous FLC (20:12, 11 May 2008) Self-nomination Well written lead, and well referenced table. Seems readt for FL. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Why the re-nomaination so soon after the first failed? And what is with the arrogant nomination statement of the well written lead when you yourself wrote it? Qst (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm renominating it because the first nomination simply failed because of "lack of comments" « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Qst, he's just trying to highlight why he thinks it meets the FL criteria. There's no penalty against stroking your ego once in a while. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Further: I actually didn't write the lead; Jayron32 rewrote it. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, no probs - I was just curious. Qst (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think if you refer to a person once, you only need to refer to them by their last name after that (i.e when you mention Holovak, Berry, Parcells, etc. again).
• John Mazur should be wikilinked at first mention.
• Mazur's incident should be referenced.
• "When the team qualified for the playoffs, Fairbanks was reinstated. He lost the first playoff game, his last for the Patriots." Perhaps these two sentences could be combined?
• Instead of saying "statistics cover through...", try "statistics are through".
• Why do you need both a color and an asterisk to indicate a Hall of Fame coach?

Noble Story (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • ( Done with everything except there should be both an asterisk (*) and the color per WP:COLORS. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

More comments from Noble Story

• The reference you provide for Mazur being fired does not name Mazur at all in the article.
• Perhaps the last sentence in the lead about the stats could be made into a note? Or, do you really need a note saying it's a current total? It would be presumed the list is up-to-date.

Noble Story (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Fixed Mazur reference, and updated his and Bengston's numbers. Databasefootball's numbers must be wrong, since BOTH of the references mention that Mazur had resigned with 5 games left to go in the season, and not 1.
  • The last sentance seems germaine since the reader should know when the stats apply for. Especially once the season starts, such a reference is likely to be important. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Gary King (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remove italics from publishers in references that are not periodicals.
• Can something be done with paragraphs in the lead that consist of a single sentence?

Gary King (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There is only one one-sentence paragraphs, and it is fine the way it is. It is a completely different idea from the last, which warrents a new para. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me now. However, one quibble: Perhaps the last sentence of the lead could go down as a note at the end of the table (like so). Noble Story (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good work, no major issues. As always, a copyedit wouldn't hurt, but the prose is generally good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:58, 26 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [12].

---

List of encyclicals of Pope John XXIII

The List of encyclicals of Pope John Paul II is already featured, so I had a go at bringing this to the same standard (hopefully!). The introduction is much expanded providing some background to each encyclical. Overall, I believe, it meets the criteria. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The introduction says two of his encyclicals are "classic". What in the world does that mean? These aren't records we are talking about :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

exhibiting timeless quality! But I agree it doesn't sound very encyclopaedic and have reworded the sentence. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You have? I don't see any difference or changes for today... wierd! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I was almost 100% sure I pressed save, oh well, the change is definitely there now! Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support — I went through and copyedited the prose. Some areas were in past tense, while others were in present—I changed everything to past tense, where appropriate. There were also a few comma problems, but nothing major. Overall, this is a well-written, well-cited, clear, and concise list of a very notable subject. Good work to all involved, and I look forward to seeing it become featured! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy edit and the kind words. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I actually changed the bit about the encyclical measuring 25,000 words as that seemed an odd idea/use of the word. Hope you don't mind. Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support There are several quibbles, though.
  • The numbers in the table should be centered.
    • Done
  • The "Time" references should have retrieval dates in case the site goes down and people use the wayback machine.
    • Done
  • I wish the "jstor" reference got substituted, but if it stays, it should have a note saying "subscription required" because I can't access it.

--Crzycheetah 04:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the "jstor" reference, it is relevant to the bit about applying natural law to the international community. I would like to keep it as I have not found this analysis anywhere else. I understand the problem of accessibility and so have quoted the sentence of the paper in full in the references. This obviously makes it easier to check what the reference said but does make the ref list a bit more bulky. Hope this helps. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that quotation is very helpful, thanks.--Crzycheetah 22:16, 21 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [13].

---

Smoking Popes discography

Self-nomination. One of my favorite local bands that just recently got back together. This list is similar to other band which didn't have material chart on any significant charts. Teemu08 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support but with a few questions (cleanup):

• What's a "minor punk rock hit"? How's it different from a minor hit?
• Isn't The Party's Over a compilation?
• No pics? Even of individual band members? Even on Flickr?
• An external link to the band's official website or a one to a discography on a fansite would be nice. indopug (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I've clarified the punk rock statement. I searched Flickr, and there aren't CC pictures that we can use that have a non-commercial license. I should have brought my camera last time I saw them in concert :). The Popes don't have a website, but I'll list an external discography and a fansite. I originally listed The Party's Over as a compilation, but changed my mind. Although it was released after the breakup of the band and released on a different label than the one that recorded it, its still the same studio album that the Popes submitted to Capitol. It's a thin line, but there's nothing I can see wrong about listing it as a studio album. Teemu08 (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Until the B-Side issue is resolved for good, I'll support the nomination despite their inclusion. Otherwise, good work! Drewcifer (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks pretty good. Only a few suggestions:

• Why doesn't the list include work with Duvall? Though I don't know anything about the band, it makes the list sound incomplete to me.
• Put a # in the catalog numbers to make it clearer.
• We're only concerned with the original, not re-releases, so I'd recommend taking out the stuff about re-releases.
• There's an errant period in the release date of Destination Failure. It's also missing a colon.
• Format should be plural wherever more then one format applies.
• "First overall release by the band" sounds a little awkward. Howabout just "Debut release."?
• I think "7-inch vinyl" is preferable to "7" vinyl".
• Naming a section "Contributions" is a little weird. Surely there could be a better title?
• Why the See also section?
• An External links section is needed. Drewcifer (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. Fixed the colon/period, pluralized "Formats", changed 7" to 7-inch, and added pound signs to catalog numbers. Changed "Contributions" to "Other appearances". Duvall was a band that the lead singer formed after the Popes broke up, so its a completely different entity and should not be listed on a discography for the Smoking Popes. Other discographies contain re-release info [14] [15], and most contain B-sides (either in the singles section or in a separate section, depending on the popularity of the band). Teemu08 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest including some more (general) references to kind of act as overall sources for everything not cited specifically. Take a look at The Prodigy discography for an example of what I mean. Drewcifer (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like doing that would only be repeating the information available in the external links section. Teemu08 (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having a clear recognition of sources takes precedence of any repetition between sections. Perhaps you could also change the External links to reduce repition? An External link to Discogs might be good, or to their official site (rather then a fansite). Drewcifer (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked out their Discogs site and it was so inaccurate that I couldn't bear myself to list it. The Popes don't have an official website, but I'll list their MySpace page (they actually list the fansite as their "official website" there). Teemu08 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alot of the notes could use some citations.
• There's too many periods in the end of the General references.
• The notes are inconsistent with their periods. Some have one, some don't. Be consistent. Drewcifer (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• All of the stuff about re-issues should go. We're only concerned with the initial release, not any subsequent version, re-releases, etc, unless super-notable, like Thriller 25.
• It's not necessary to mention the B-sides, labels, or catalog numbers of the singles.
  • Period issues fixed. All notes cited (except non-debatable ones such as "debut release"). I removed the catalog numbers and labels of the singles, but maintained the B-sides. I also kept the Born to Lose re-issue info since I still see no reason to remove it. Having an album picked up from an indie label and released on a major is a pretty important detail for a band. Teemu08 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would argue that B-sides are unnecessary here since it basically amounts to a track-listing of the singles. We don't put a tracklisting of albums, so why include them for singles? Furthermore, they are also unnecessary since none of the B-sides are notable in and of themselves. If any of the B-sides had an article of their own, then I might see a reason to keep them, but right now their mention is pretty trivial to our understanding of their discography. Drewcifer (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I can see where you're coming from, but I would like at least one more opinion on the matter before deleting the B-sides (as they are prominent in other FLs and are part of the discography template). Teemu08 (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [16].

---

Foo Fighters discography

previous FLC (16:14, 8 May 2008)

Self-nom. Left it a bit late to fix some errors in intro, but I believe all issues have been addressed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice list! Great work. Drewcifer (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment I supported last time, and I'd be happy to again, but there's a few things I noticed this time around. First, some of the chart columns have multiple citations in the header, so they're really big. I presume that's because no single source mentions the various. For the US Net and CAN column, this link should work for everything. As for the UWC column, it might be better to put the citations in the individual cells rather than the column header. Same thing goes for UWC column in the Singles table. I would also say that in the certifications columns, use abbreviations rather then spell out country names like Australia and Ireland. The Other appearances table is also a little problematic. Per MOS:DISCOG (which, granted is still a proposal at this time, so it's not set in stone by any means), a table like this should only include previousaly unreleased material, and should exclude inclusions in compilations and soundtracks and stuff that previously appear on other official releases. Version of pre-existing material (like the live versions in the table) are cool, but "My Hero" (for instance) was original released on the The Colour and the Shape, not the Varsity Blues soundtrack. That make sense? Also, Allmusic should be wikilinked in citation #3. In the lead, UK and US should be spelled out the first time mentioned. Hope this helped. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking good so far. In the certifications column, if you're going to define each certificatio by certifying body (as opposed to country), wikilink the acronyms the first time they are used.

All done. I've done it by country name. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

One last thing I noticed: the UWC columns are uncited. Drewcifer (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You suggested citing each UWC chart result in the cell. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Duh. You're right. Sorry, it's been a whlie since I suggested that! Drewcifer (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are so many charts needed? They really make the screen look clustered, and many charts aren't that important nor has the band charted much on them. I'd say get rid of a few. Albums: Mexico, Italy, Portugal. Singles: US adult, US dig, Can dig, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Austria. For music directors, combine adjacent entries with same director using rowspan. Make Singles, Music videos, Other apps column width the same. Roswell isn't linked in the tables. indopug (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this meant to be a comprehensive discography? Surely its a bit NPOV to remove certain charts? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Think of it this way, if you had easy online access to each and every country this band charted, you would then have about one hundred to include into this article. Would you then still consider not including some of the countries where the band did not chart significantly POV? By "comprehensive" we mean that each and every release is included, not necessarily each and every chart. indopug (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I take your point. My last comment was a bit naive. Which charts should I remove? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already listed them above. Also, I think UK should be next to US because for English rock bands, US and UK are the two most important territories in terms of sales, marketing, promotion etc. Lastly, in the certifications change RIAA to US and so on (but link it to RIAA) because many people wont know the different certifiers (I myself have no clue what IRMA is). indopug (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay will do. I'm not sure about shifting the countries around. Again, I actually agree, it would be knuckleheaded of me to say that US/UK aren't the most important. But then surely all the charts should be listed in this kind of order, and not only English ones. This is something that needs to be discussed more centrally. If a precedent is reached through consensus and reasoned debate, I will implement the edits, but right now it has not been. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Top internet albums can go too, I haven't seen it used in any other discography. And your method of citing the BPI certifications is wrong; click on the links I provided for each BPI certification reference at The Libertines discography. Like this, so the reader doesn't have to search. indopug (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good find re: the BPI stuff. I'll get that done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorted BPI stuff. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• "As of 2008, the band consists of Grohl on (vocals and guitar), Taylor Hawkins (drums), Nate Mendel (bass) and Chris Shiflett (guitar)." Either remove the "on", or remove the parentheses.
• The large number of charts has pushed the albums and singles table off the edge of my screen (and it's no itty-bitty one either). As with indopug, I'd remove those with less than three charted releases.
• Is there any chart info for the EPs? If they didn't chart, say so otherwise it looks like missing information
• Most other singles on FL discogs give the album from which it is taken from. I think this should do the same
• Where has the information about music video directors come from?

That's all I got -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Now I have some consensus on the singles charts, I'll start to remove the more redundant ones. Albums are shown in the singles table! Music videos are a self-referential thing, this was discussed - and I think a consensus reached - in the last FL nom. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, that's because the table went off the right side of my screen and I didn't bother to scroll! I'd still like to see them referenced.
• MTV in the US credits directors, but MTV UK doesn't. It's not like WP:PLOT, which allows plots to be self-referencable. The credits are put there by the network, not the producers/band, and if you're not watching that network, the info is not given. I'm sure at least some can be referenced from the internet. Do any of the directors have their own websites? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Done everything apart from music video directors. Will do. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cited, Everything done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: There are an obscene number of US charts in the Singles section. I think component charts like the US Airplay cannot be included along with the Hot 100 anyway, and I think the Adult and Digital charts can go too. For one, I haven't seen them anywhere else. The Pop 100 doesn't have any really notable hits either so I wouldn't cringe to see it go either. It looks silly having seven charts just dedicated to the US. The Hot 100, Main and Mod Rock charts are what are used to mainly to track rock bands anyway. Reducing the number of American charts would leave about 12-13 charts, giving a more pleasant appearance to the whole table and also reduces the overwhelming feel it has. indopug (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I feel this is a bit of a contradiction to what you said at the Supergrass FLC. Perhaps this needs discussing more at Wikipedia talk:CHART and MOS:DISCOG's talk pages. I'd definitely insist on the removal of US Airplay, Pop, Adult and Digital. Modern Rock and Mainstream could also go for me. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed charts, kept two per Indopug and RHCP and Nirvana discog Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great. Wonderful work. indopug (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [17].

---

Maroon 5 discography

Previous FLC

This is a self-nomination. All comments from previous FLC have been addressed, and that's why I'm re-submitting the list for FL. After working for the past few days, I feel that it now meets the FL criteria. I would appreciate some suggestions for improvement. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The third paragraph of the lead does not have a reference.
• It seems the reviewers in the previous nom had problems with the different colors. I see there's only a rainbow in the infobox, so I'm OK with that.
• You link to RIAA certification, but you don't say what it means. Also, what does "Platinum" mean? I would like to see that explanation, in the lead.
• Instead of saying "Label: J Records, Octone Records" and so on, maybe you could change to Record Company? Label doesn't seem very clear.
• Your little note at the bottom of the table "—" indicates albums that did not chart." "Chart" is definitely not a verb. Change it.

That's all, I think. Noble Story (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've addressed all your comments. I've linked RIAA certification in the album and single tables, where the link takes you to an explanation of platinum and gold records. Hope this helps. However, I think you're mistaken that "chart" is only a noun, because "chart" is a verb. RaNdOm26 (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Quick little note. This discog is built based on other discogs, specifically featured ones. Simply linking to RIAA is standard. "Label" is the standard field, and the dash and note about charting is used in all discographies as well. Chart in this case is a verb. To chart is to appear on the charts. Hope that clears up any confusion. Lara❤Love 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support After a fresh look, I'd say the discography is looking pretty nice. I'm still not a fan of the points column, and would still recommend taking it out, but that won't stop me from supporting. Good work! Drewcifer (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Oppose for now:

• Kara's Flowers should be wikilinked
• In the sentence with all the band member's names, I'd recommend trying to get rid of the stuff in parenthesis by saying "on drums" or "playing drums" or something like that. 4 parenthesis in the same sentence is a little distracting. Same thing with the slash in "lead vocals/guitar". There's also an extra "lead".
• "which failed to sell well commercially" is somewhat POV. Could you reword it to "which failed to chart." or something like that?
• "The band left their record label in order to explore other musical styles." Kind if a sentence fragment.
• "Their debut single "Harder to Breathe", released in 2003, slowly gained airplay, which helped propel the album into the top 20 of the Billboard 200." Somewhat awkward, mainly because of all the commas.
• "a short live album" "short" is unnecessary here, as well as being relative.
• In the lead and Other albums table "Live – Friday the 13th" uses the wrong dash.
• Is it really important to the topic that their live album was of a performance in Santa Barbara? Consider the broader topic at hand (their overall body of work, not necessarily the details of this single release).
• Not really sure why the Notes columns have small font.
• Similar notes should probably be kept together (ie the sale should probably be mentioned one after the other, then certifications.
• If data isn't available, don't bother putting "n/a".
• Multi platinum multipliers should be "×" not an "x".
• What the heck is a "Point"?
• The dashes aren't necessary in the certification column (and maybe the point column?)
• The upcoming single shouldn't have "TBA" for the charts. Since the single hasn't been released yet, just leave it blank.
• Allmusic should be wikilinked in citation #1. Drewcifer (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• B-Sides are generally discorouged in discogs. This is a discography, not a songography.
• MVDBase isn't a reliable source. It's usually ok to leave directors columns unreferenced, since the video itself acts as its own reference.
• Discogs is also not a reliable source.

• I've adressed your comments and fixed them in the list, but I have questions for some.
• The points are directly sourced from the United World Chart. There's an explanation about what it is and how its calculated over here: United World Chart#Track Chart. Should I make a link to it or something? IMO, the points are quite useful.
• Has there been a consensus about B-Sides? I notice a number of FL discos have B-Sides, so I'm not sure if they should be deleted. Is there a guideline? I notice Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style but it's not yet a guideline.
• I don't really agree that the video itself acts as its own source. I'll try to find other news sources to compensate for the MVDbase source. RaNdOm26 (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. To repond to your comments above:

• The B-sides thing is not official yet, but I think there's a growing consensus against them. The FL discogs that do have them are fairly old, and will probably need to be cleaned up when and if the guidline becomes official. So, at the moment I'm just suggesting it based on what seems to be an ongoing trend.
• The points thing still confuses me. A wikilink would be nice, but the UWC page doesn't really help much. Do you think you could redo that section a little bit to make it clearer? I know that's not actually part of this list, but it would be helpful.
• The music videos sourcing themselves is mainly because most music videos have the credits on them. Much like we don't need to source who performed on an album or who acted in a movie. But hey, it never hurts to add sources, so if you can find something reliable go ahead and add it.

Also, I have a few more suggestions:

• U.S. or US. Stay consistent.
• "and attended college to explore many musical styles." seems somewhat irrelevant (at leas the many musical styles part).
• Citatrion #20 has an errant=. Drewcifer (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've addressed your new concerns, although the first seems to have already been taken care of. Lara❤Love 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Alright. I've gone and removed the MVDbase source, and add many reliable sources for the music video directors. Apparently, all the discogs sources and B-sides are now gone. I've made a little adjustment at the UWC page regarding points, hopefully making it a little clearer. So far, everything's done. :) RaNdOm26 (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely looking better. Few more things I've noticed:

• The charts should be in the following order: home country, other countries by alphabetical order, world-wide. see WP:CHARTS.
  • Comment: How do I deal with European Hot 100 Singles Chart and United World Chart, which are not country charts? RaNdOm26 (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not entirely sure, WP:CHARTS doesn't cover that, but I think what you did (put them at the end) is best. But just to make sure, I posted a topic at WP:CHARTS's talk page. Drewcifer (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• There's some pretty random italicizations in the citations. MAgazines should be ital, but not website names.
• I think "Points" should be wikilinked in the column, in the same way certifications is linked.
• Certifications shouldn't have a dash, just leave them blank. ("Sunday Morning")
• Numbers like "8 million" should have an   between 8 and million.
  • Actually, so should things like "5x platinum".
• The date in the infobox should be American style. Drewcifer (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for this. A point though: the website names are italicised is because they are in the "Work" parameter in {{cite web}} as opposed to the "Publisher" parameter, but I'll change them to "Publisher" to remove the italics. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking good. Few more minor things I noticed:

• All Music Guide is now Allmusic. And citation #7 should be fixed to be consistent with the other cases of the same website.
• I have to agree with indopug, the points thing just isn't doing it for me. Like indopug pointed out, it applies to only one chart, and I still find it confusing. I still have no idea what it means, to be honest, and the wikilink was only a little helpful. Drewcifer (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support As much as I hate this band, I must say that this is looking rather excellent, what with the sales figures and all. Any, what is the "Points" in the Singles table? It seems specific to one chart (UWC) and since that chart already has a column, I'd say this Points column is unnecessary and would suggest its removal. Two columns for a single chart seems to give undue importance to the UWC. Combine the two adjacent Sophie Mullers into one row. One word of advice, if you've moved around the chart columns (top alphabetize), error might have crept in. Just check it briefly with the original sources. indopug (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [18].

---

1896 Summer Olympics medal count

Modeled on earlier FL nominations. Sorry about the flood of olympics medal count lists. We're making an (admittedly ambitious) effort to get most or all the medal count lists up to FL status by the 2008 olympics. Thanks to reviewers for their participation and patience with this process. - Marrio (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I can only find one thing, just that "Mixed team" is wikilinked in that section, but not in the lead. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Support
  • Why is "mixed teams" in Italic text?
    • No apparent reason. Fixed.
  • The image captions are fragments, so either remove the periods or make complete sentences.
    • Fixed.
  • The ref#3(PDF file) that you're using is missing the page numbers. That book has 241 pages, so you need to be more specific.
    • Page number added.
  • Ref#6 is a note and should be presented with {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates.
    • Changed.
  • This page states that winners were given a silver medal and an olive branch while that pdf file states that each winner was presented with a bronze medal and a laurel branch. Which one is it?
    • The report says that winners ("first prize") were given silver medals, olive branch and diplomas; bronze medals and laurel branch were presented to the winners of the "second prize", i.e. runner-ups. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 03:52, 26 May 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 08:16, 25 May 2008 [19].

---

Highlander: The Series (season 1)

Self-nomination. I think this list is a worthy candidate : I modelled it after Lost (season 1) and it is comprehensive, accurate and stable. The only image has a fair use rationale. I would like reviewers to pay special attention to the external links section, where I have included a link to a site offering free access to the episodes. To me it seems that this site is no copyright violation, but I would like to have your opinion on that matter. Another problem is that this site is only available in the United States, so I am not sure if it should be included in the article. I will follow your advice on that matter. (As a side note, it would be great to have a place where average editors like me could check with experienced editors whether the links they have in mind can be included in an article, or whether the websites they use are indeed reliable sources.) I will of course address all concerns. Thank you very much, have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
• 18-49 should be 18–49.
• Link DVD region code in the lead.
• " Executive producers were..." - forgot the The...
• "Richie's break-in in MacLeod " - in in a bit odd reading, and clarify which MacLeod in this first synopsis since you've mentioned the original MacLeod in the lead. And since you have the other MacLeod in this synopsis, be clear each time which one you're talking about.
• "MacLeod fights an angered Kiem Sun and spares him. " - presumably MacLeod has defeated Kiem Sun before he spares him, not just fought him?
• Link SWAT.
• "The Scalper" or "the Scalper"?
• Link modus operandi.
• "...knowing Kuyler's taste for absinthe, traces him back, then fights him. " - consequences?
• Relink Hunter in episode 22 - it's a long way from the original link and people need reminding!

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything  Done. Thank you very much for commenting. I used each MacLeod's first names in the first synopsis. I hope using only "MacLeod" in the following ones isn't too confusing, or maybe I should use "Duncan" everywhere ? Have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• The bold lead for season pages usually follows this style: "The first season of Highlander: The Series' blah blah blah
• Use the full link of broadcast syndication. It's a concept unknown to non-US viewers
• "Because the show was a co-production" Change the first word, a sentence shouldn't begin with a conjunction
• What is the reason half the season was filmed in Paris? There are a number of co-produced TV shows that didn't do this, Due South off the top of my head, so what exactly is the reason here?
• "Three roles had star billing" Three actors had star billing
• "only got star billing": Got isn't really an encyclopaedic word
• Why is production date being used, instead of original air date? Hulu.com has the original dates, I'm not sure of anywhere else though.
• "Richie's break-in in MacLeod and Tessa's antique store": Richie's break-in at..., or Richie's burglary of... Also, which MacLeod?
• "Tessa is brutally made aware of the Game" how?
• "After MacLeod saves Tessa from Quince, Connor fights Quince" Surname Quince is used throughout, but MacLeod and Connor is interchangeable, and MacLeod could refer to either character
• "his forehead showing strange marks" Richie's or his friends? Did these appear before or after his death?
• "Slade kills MacLeod", "MacLeod revives" So he wasn't killed?
• "MacLeod is rolled over by a car" Switching of tense, and "rolled over" is an odd term
• Martin Kemp is a disambig
• Reference 8 points to Amazon. Per WP:DIRECTORY, a non-sales site should be used, such as TVShowsOnDVD.com
• Re your Hulu question, up in the lead where it's mentioned that the season is available on DVD, you could also say it's available at Hulu.com, a joint venture between NBC and Fox (or something like that) and use the link in a reference.

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Co-production : I have explained better and added a second source.
• Airdates : I couldn't find the original airdates anywhere, even the reference book doesn't list them, and I didn't know if Hulu was considered a reliable source. Since you told me it is, I gladly changed all production dates to original airdates.

• I would assume it is as it's a venture co-owned by NBC and Fox, and they are considered reliable. --ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Connor MacLeod/Duncan MacLeod : As I told The Rambling Man above, I've used the characters' first names instead. Hope everything is clear now.
• "Slade kills MacLeod", "MacLeod revives" So he wasn't killed? : Yes, he was killed, but as he is immortal, he revived afterwards. I don't know how to describe it otherwise; even the producers use the words "dead" and killed" when talking about this kind of situation. They say things like "He was killed for the first time" and other characters ask immortals what it is like to be dead. So I used "kills" in this sentence and I'm pretty sure it's accurate. It's a fantasy series about immortality, so I think one can consider death a relative matter when related to this show.
• Amazon reference : Sorry if I don't understand where the problem is. I've read the guideline, but I don't quote the price of the DVD set and it is not discussed in the article. The Amazon reference is only there to source the release date and I understand Amazon is routinely used on Featured Lists for sourcing that kind of information. Besides, TVShowsOnDVD.com doesn't specify from which region the DVDs come. If I missed something here, could you please explain it to me ?

• TVShowsOnDVD deals with region 1 DVDs only. It mentions this somewhere in the FAQ section. It's also a reliable source, as it is owned by TV Guide (mentioned in the Terms and Conditions). -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I got it. I have replaced the Amazon reference by the TVShowsOnDVD reference.

Everything else is  Done. Thank you very much for your time, have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking good, but as with all the other FLC I've commented on at the moment, I'm going to be neutral. I'm away for 2 weeks and cannot see the nomination through. Sorry, but I hope my comments helped. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "Tessa witnesses their and brutally realizes that Duncan can be challenged and beheaded anytime." - There appears to be a word missing in there.
  • A lot of the plot summaries are a tad choppy, the flow needs to be improved.
  • In the summary for "Innocent Man", a character is referred to as Crawley and Crowley. Which is it?
  • "Immortal Felicia Martins (Joan Jett), pursued by Immortal Devereux (Eli Gabay), whose wife and baby she had killed a century ago, seduces Richie to get shelter and fencing lessons from MacLeod, pretending she is a newborn Immortal." That sentence is too long and has too many commas.
  • As someone who doesn't watch the show, I'm having trouble understanding this: "Slade kills MacLeod to blackmail the SWAT commando outside into giving them a helicopter to flee. While Tessa does her best to keep the hostages alive and Randi McFarland reports the event live outside, MacLeod revives" If he was killed, how could he revive?
  • "In the present, Reinhardt's former lover Rebecca (Vanity) recognizes Reinhardt's sword in MacLeod's antique shop and starts stalking MacLeod, thinking he has killed Reinhardt but ignoring that Reinhardt manipulates her." The name Reinhardt is used in the same sentence four times.
  • "Immortal Xavier St. Cloud steals a jewelry"
  • This needs to be fixed: "Amanda then offers a very angry Blaine to partner her to steal a priceless manuscript."
• A lot of the summaries need to be cleaned up further, I suggest getting a good copyeditor to take a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I'm working on them right now. Rosenknospe (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:Happy-melon to help with the copy editing. Rosenknospe (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If he was killed, how could he revive? : As I told Matthewedwards, MacLeod is immortal and can be killed and revive afterwards. This is not only me speaking like this, the producers too use the words "dead" and killed" when talking about that kind of situation. It is a temporary, but genuine death. This is a fantasy series; I think "kills" is an accurate description of the plot, and MacLeod's immortality is explained in the second sentence of the lead, so I figured it was enough as this is a list and not the main article about the series. Please let me know if you still find it confusing; I could reword the sentence, but it would be a less accurate description.

I have addressed all other comments. Thank you for your time, have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now rewritten two thirds of the summaries, please give me until tomorrow (CET) to finish the rest. Rosenknospe (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy-melon didn't answer, so I did the copyediting myself. I think I have addressed all your comments, so everything  Done to the best of my abilities. Anything else ? Rosenknospe (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• It reads much better now, but it still wouldn't hurt to have another copyeditor take a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked several copyeditors for help on their talk pages and also made a request to the League of Copyeditors. Rosenknospe (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dcoetzee has very kindly done the copyedit. Rosenknospe (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The first sentence-paragraph of the lead needs to be expanded a little. I'd suggest to bring some facts from the second paragraph to the first one.
  • In the Production section, the first two paragraphs start similarly. They need to be re-written a little bit.
  • The last one-sentence paragraph of the prod section needs to be incorporated somewhere. Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
  • Why isn't this page's link available in the "Highlander" template? It should be added along with other "season" pages...then the see also section can be removed.

--Crzycheetah 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have  Done everything. The link in the template was a good point; I'm so used to it, I don't really see it anymore. Thank you very much for your comments; is there anything else ? Rosenknospe (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what information did you take from the ref #17 that wasn't available in the ref#5?--Crzycheetah 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none, but last time I submitted a FLC the reviewer insisted on providing sources, even for episodes titles, so I gave every source I had. Admittedly it's a bit of overkill (and FLC nerves); should I remove ref #17 ? Rosenknospe (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, remove it along with the ref#1(I assume it's there for the titles too). Just leave refs ##5 and 6. Having two refs only is perfect, IMO.--Crzycheetah 08:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok,  Done. What else ? Rosenknospe (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nothing else.--Crzycheetah 09:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I made a couple of changes, including adding {{infobox tvseason}}, and placing references after punctuation, per WP:CS, and I think it's now ready to be featured. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:46, 23 May 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 08:16, 25 May 2008 [20].

---

List of German World War II jet aces

The list is complete and feel it could meet the featured list criteria. Please have a look at let me know what you think. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Is there a reason that "Jet" is capitalised?  Done
• Portraits are good, but need to use upright rather than have their size forced, per the advice at WP:MOS. Done
• "The jet aircraft entered World War II" - The jet? Why not just "Jet aircraft..."? And unless they were first used and downed the Mosquito on the same day, this needs rephrasing. Done
• Expand RAF, link it, then add (RAF) to it on its first use.  Done
• What does "W.Nr. 130 017." mean?  Done
• Perhaps a rephrase but to some it may appear that the Luftwaffe had three jet aircraft in total. Presumably they had squadrons of these?  Done reworded
• Cite your definition of ace. Done it was cited
• "Jet Victories" in the table probably just needs to read "Jet victories", or, since this is about jet aces, just "Victories".  Done
• "Total Wartime Victories" could just be "Total wartime victories".  Done
• I would force column widths because right now, the notes in Arnold's row are killing the whole of the rest of the table for me.
• 20+ needs explicit explanation. Done
• Many red links... Done

That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Woody (talk · contribs)

• I think it looks good at the moment. Couple of comments before supporting:
• Is there a way of highlighting those who died in action? Done I highlighted those killed in action and killed in flying accidenet MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Could we add a section header before the table, perhaps named German jet aces. Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Currently there are 20% red links for the pilots. Per the WIAFL 1 (a) 1 (brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;) I think it needs to be at least 90% (that is an arbitrary personal preference I know). I just think there should be a few more links.  Done created stubs MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• So, great list, just a couple of issues. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• You are going to have to put fair-use rationales on the image pages that aren't freely licensed. Currently they are not licensed for use on this article. Until that is sorted I have to Oppose. Woody (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not done in my eyes. Not all of the information that is needed is there, you simply have a link to the article. You need to explain why it is fair-use in this list, which will be hard to explain. I think the Template:Non-free use rationale could be helpful here. Woody (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done according to spec. Thanks for the help MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Support now. I centre aligned the numerical columns as it looks better and is the standard thing to do. I tried to fix the column widths, but at lower resolutions it destroys the table with the images overlapping. Anyway, I support now. Good work. Woody (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Everything in the notes column needs a citation. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC) DoneMisterBee1966 (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions Just a couple of question before I can support:

1. Which references actually reference each ace? Can a reference for each ace be included in the notes column? My main source is Morgan, Hugh & Weal, John (1998). German Jet Aces of World War 2. London: Orsprey Publishing Limited. ISBN 1-85532-634-5. You should see this sourced referenced multiple times. I have this source referenced in the lead section but if you deem it necessary I can add it here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Is there a navbox for the bottom of the page?

   No not yet but I like Woody's idea about creating a Nav box for the pilots MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Are there any similar pages you can link to in a See also section?

    Done added List of World War II aces from Germany in a "See also" section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Why is this list any different to List of World War II aces from Germany, and why does that one have way more entries than this? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• If I may, with regards to 3 and 4, see also sections are regarded by some, me included as sections for items that you are yet to include in the article; points for development. I see a lack of a see also section as meaning the article is somewhere near complete. With regards to number 4, this is for aces who used jet aircraft, in World War II, jet aircraft were the exception, not the norm. As the Lead says, these were only introduced in 1944, so the number will be greatly reduced from the number in the main list. Woody (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• With regards to 3, I meant is there a List of American World War II jet aces or List of British World War II jet aces, and include List of World War II aces from Germany. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• There won't be because they didn't develop operational jet aircraft until 1945, and only then used them for defence against the V1 rockets and a few ground attacks. As such, the Germans were pretty unique in having jet aces in WWII. A navbox for all the air aces articles could be useful though. Woody (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• I added a section "See also" with List of World War II aces from Germany. To my knowledge the Germans were the only ones to produce jet aces in WW2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the see also section and added Template:Lists of flying aces. (also indented your earlier comments for readability. Woody (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I think this now meets all the criteria. Well done. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:16, 25 May 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 08:16, 25 May 2008 [21].

---

List of Vancouver Canucks players

I've been working on this article for a while now, and feel that it is up to the FL standards set by its counterparts at List of Tampa Bay Lightning players, List of Atlanta Thrashers players, List of San Jose Sharks players, etc. Comments? – Nurmsook! (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Was hoping that I would be the one to nominate the article, but it seems you beat me to it. Anyways, in the players table, the years played section is split into two, probably from the image sizing. That should be fixed up. As well, more references would probably be a good idea, notably the list kept at Canucks.com. Other than that, a good list with lots of images, including a few I added. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Response: I added a few references, so that should beef it up a bit. For the split in the years played section, it's not happening on my screen, so it perhaps is an issue that has to do with computer screen size? As for your desire to list this one, take all the credit you like. A while back I put it into the current format, and since then have done a few more formatting related things, but I know this article was heavily influenced by you! – Nurmsook! (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the problem I had with it. There was just to much being listed in the "Notes" column. I replaced the trophy names with a shorter title, but it has no real difference. Also led me to find another thing that should be fixed. Marek Malik shared the Plus/Minus Award with Martin St. Louis in 2004, there should be a note explaining that. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. – Nurmsook! (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

•  Done Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
• You may be interested in the current discussion on opening sentences in the lead repeating the article title verbatim for lists, it's at WT:FLC.
•  Doing... Lead is weak. Three really short paragraphs. I'd take the opportunity to discuss leading scorers, leading appearances, etc etc, particularly as these lists are never sortable so it's virtually impossible to find these details easily.
•  Done Defenceman or Defenseman?
•  Doing... "Note: This list does not include data from the Vancouver Canucks of the PCHL or WHL." - explain why not, or else you'll need to change the title of the list to include something like "... who played in the NHL"...And while I'm there, what are the PCHL and the WHL? Expand before abbreviation.
• "2000–01 season would be listed as playing with the team from 2000–2001" - why not "...with the team from 2000–01"? Why two year formats?
  • Comment: This one I'm a bit confused on. This is the standard across the other FL articles of this sort (Atlanta Thrashers, Buffalo Sabres, Calgary Flames, and many others). Basically what the "Seasons" column is saying, if put into sentence form, would be, for example, "the player started his career with the Canucks in 2000 and finished it in 2001", so it wouldn't make much sense to say "finished his career in 01". NHL seasons are listed as, for example, 2000–01 NHL season. So this note is just describing that if a player plays a game in the 2000–01 NHL season, his career service as a Canucks will be listed from 2000 to 2001. For most of these players it would be nearly impossible to pinpoint the exact date they played their game, so we're just trying to make due with the information we are given in an effort to best convey it to the reader.
• WP:COLOR says not to use color only to represent something.
  • Comment: For the blue highlighting which represents either a retired jersey number or induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame, the abbreviation of "Ret" or "HHOF" is placed in the notes section of that particular player, so that colour is being used in addition to the "Ret" and "HHOF" abbreviations. As for the green to represent a player who played in the 2007–08 season, I will add a note to show that players whos "Seasons" column end in 2008 are included in this group.
•  Done GP - Games Played (why not played? Especially since you have GAA - Goals against average. And RW - Right Wing, Right wing?)
•  Done "...in only two season." - 's' missing.
•  Done " Todd Bertuzzi became known as one of the NHL's premier power forwards," POV - citation needed.
• Curt Fraser has dual nationality, you selected US. Why?
  • Comment: This article is using the HHOF standard of listing the players by their birth country, regardless of citizenship. Many of these players have dual, but it is often hard to find the nation that the players themselves call "home". I will add a note for this as is used in List of NHL statistical leaders by country.
•  Done Hodgson has no position.
• Did the Czech Republic exist in 1981? Some of your players were Czechoslovakian I think.
  • Comment: As is the case with the nationality idea, the HHOF lists by current political entity. I will add a not for this as well. The exact note they used at the HHOF is "Note: players are categorized by birthplace based on current geographical regions, not citizenship". I will add something similar to this.
• Same for at least one of the Russian players, Larionov would have been Soviet Union in 1989.
  • See above
•  Done References can be split into Specific and General and use the semi-colon to avoid them being headings if required.

So, oppose for now, too much to do for me to support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I will have it cleaned up later today to hopefully gain your approval. – Nurmsook! (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Forgot to add my support earlier. All issues resolved, very nice looking article, and plenty of images. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Why is there an empty "notes" column for the goaltenders? If there are no notes to put, then get rid of that column. Also as TRM said above, color should not be the only indicator. I don't quite agree with your reply. It's a lot easier to spot "*" or "#" next to the name while scrolling, then "2008" in the "seasons" column or "HHOF" or "ret" in the "notes" column. --Crzycheetah 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

•  Done No need for "complete" in the bold title of lead; if it is featured, it should be complete and doesn't have to state that it is
• See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence, regarding the repeating of the article title as "this is a list of...." in opening sentence

Did it myself Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Write out PCHL and WHL on their first use. If they are used again, place the abbreviations in brackets, if they're not, don't
• Are other Featured list of players' names in surname, firstname order?
  • Comment: Yes, the NHL related ones are and can be seen here.
• Per WP:COLOUR, don't use only colour to identify. Use a text-based marker alongside, such as asterisk, daggers, carets, or bold text highlighting

Did it myself Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Per above, remove the empty notes column from the goaltenders
•  Done The key box for goaltenders has some vertical lines which don't reach the bottom horizontal one.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 02:23, 25 May 2008 [22].

---

List of San Diego Chargers head coaches

previous FLC (19:50, 9 May 2008) Self-Nomination I'm re-nominating this list as there was a lack of comments last time. This list is well referenced, and well written. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "This is a complete list of head coaches of the San Diego Chargers." Why do you need to say "complete"?
  • Removed by nominator. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• "The San Diego Chargers are a professional American football team based in San Diego, California. The San Diego Chargers are members of the Western Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL)." Saying "San Diego Chargers" twice is rather monotonous. Maybe you could combine the sentences?
  • Reworded by nominator. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• "There have been 14 coaches in the San Diego Chargers, including coaches of the Los Angeles Chargers which formed in 1961. Gillman was the only coach for the Los Angeles Chargers and is the only Hall of Fame coach in the Chargers franchise." First off, I don't think coaches are "in" a team. Also, you say that Gillman was the only coach of the LA team, so I don't think you need to say "coaches of the Los Angeles Chargers". And maybe you can move the part about the LA team to the first paragraph, and maybe include something about the move? Finally, refer to Gillman's full name the first time you have it in the article.
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• I see two references for four paragraphs? A little more refs, perhaps?
  • Four refs now. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Why do you need to color and asterik the coach that was admitted to the HoF?
  • Removed color designation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all for now. Noble Story (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC) More Comments

• You don't need to wikilink Sid Gilman twice, and you don't need his full name after the first mention (this also goes for Schottenheimer and Turner).
• I think the third paragraph would be better placed before the second one.
• The last paragraph seems rather orphaned. Maybe combine it with another?

Noble Story (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Other than a minor grammar tweak, I don't see anything wrong with it. Certainly seems good enough for FL to me. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

• Support After doing a few minor corrections myself, this list looks good. Noble Story (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Reword the first sentence better, don't just repeat the title of the list. Plus, unbold the first sentence per WP:LEAD.--Crzycheetah 05:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 16:20, 24 May 2008 (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 17:40, 21 May 2008.

---

Memphis Grizzlies draft history

I present another draft history list for your inspection. I've taken the comments from the other lists I've nominated and applied them here, so I don't know what can be wrong with the list. But fire away. Noble Story (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments

• • I think the three short paragraphs in the lead do not help this list at all. The first paragraph does not even talk about this page.
    • The consensus seems to be not to do the "this is a list of...". See here.
      • The consensus says not to repeat the title, but you can describe what the list is about.--Crzycheetah 05:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think any person clicking on the link "Memphis Grizzlies draft history" would understand that it is about the Memphis Grizzlies draft history. But I've made a little change. Hope it satisfies.
          • OR a person who clicked on the link would doubt whether he clicked on the right link. I am still not satisfied with the lead; there has to be two paragraphs at most. Plus, I see parentheses in the last paragraph that shold be removed.--Crzycheetah 21:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I've added the required sentence, and removed the parentheses. Noble Story (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You're missing a couple of "rights to"'s in the trade notes. Also, there is an inconsistency here, sometimes you use "draft rights to" and sometimes just "rights to". I personally don't care which version you use as long as it's consistent.
    • I've corrected the rights, but I don't see where I'm missing any.
  • Why do you put the "from TEAM" notes under the "picks" column while the "traded to TEAM" notes under the "players" column?
    • I was told to here. Noble Story (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I know, but why you left the "traded to TEAM" under the "players" column? I think all notes should be under one column.--Crzycheetah 05:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Because the pick was traded, so I put it in the pick column. The player (or his rights) were traded, so I put the notes in the player column. Noble Story (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Now I think it will be better to add a new column for notes. The notes were in one column before, so a new column wasn't needed back then. Now that you're putting those notes in two columns, the table gets messy. --Crzycheetah 21:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
            • OK, I've put it in a seperate column. Hope it satisfies. Noble Story (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Even though I am the only other contributor to this list so far, I believe I have the right to support. Most of my edits were minor, anyway.--Crzycheetah 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Nice work on the NBA articles! Geologik (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2008 (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 17:40, 21 May 2008.

---

The Libertines discography

Discography of a short-lived, but glorious, indie rock band. Finally got down to writing the lead after months of procrastination. Anyway its complete, fully referenced, and concerns should be addressed quickly. Thanks, indopug (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Noble Story

Comments

• Instead of saying "Label" and so on, maybe you could change to Record Company? Label doesn't seem very clear. Also, what do the numbers after the company mean?

This is pretty much standard for discography articles. Those in brackets are catalogue numbers.

• Gold and Platinum. What do they mean? A key, maybe?

Click on UK certifications (the column header), there is a key in that article.

• Your little note at the bottom of the table "—" indicates albums that did not chart." "Chart" is definitely not a verb. Change it.

Chart definitely can be used as a verb. For eg: X was Y's highest-charting single. or The navigator charted a course for the north.

• Maybe you could wikilink "Maxi CD"?

Its already linked in the first instance it occurs. indopug (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all for now. Noble Story (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good enough to me now. Noble Story (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks very nice! One last minor suggestion: similar columns should be kept a consistent width among similar tables. For instance the Details columns of Albums, EPs, and maybe Videos should be the same width. Drewcifer (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, they are already of the same size. Thanks for the support! indopug (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you know what it is, it's getting squeezed ever so slightly on my monitory. Never mind then! Good work. Drewcifer (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks pretty good. I only have a few comments:

• Re-release dates aren't necessary here: we're only concerned with the initial release, not any number of reprits or re-releases.
• "Format" should be "Formats" where there's more then one.
• "Peak positions" should be "Peak chart positions".
• Do Boys in the Band and The Libertines really have the same catalog number?

Yeah, BITB was part of The Libs reissue.

• The list should have an External links section. Drewcifer (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Others are done. Thanks, indopug (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• The US Heat column in the Albums table is uncited.

Its the same as for US. If i duplicate the refs, the row becomes unnecessarily bigger (vertically) because US Heat already takes another line.

In a case like this, I'd say we should favor verifiability over aesthetics, so I'd still say the column should be cited. Drewcifer (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• The chart columns should be in the following order: country of origin (UK), then alphabetical by English-language country name.

<whine>Do I have to? Oh all right, but I'm keeping the US's where they are.</whine>

Why? I definitely think the US should be in alphabetical order just like everything else. (PER WP:CHART)Drewcifer (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The UK and US are the mo important release territories for an English language band in terms of marketing, sales, promotion and popularity. indopug (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See also: my comment below. indopug (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a little comment:

• The album titles should not be in bold. It goes against MOS:BOLD (see discussion WT:MUSTARD#Album bolding).

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Added another chart ;) Also reorganized US. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved US back to the second position because it is a very important territory for English language bands, and most people only want to check US and UK chart positions anyway. indopug (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHARTS says home country first, then all other alphabetically. It's not for us to judge which markets are more important, and could be seen as POV. I strongly suggest changing it. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:Chart seems to talk specifically about the way to format tables in song/album articles (notice the style of table)so it doesn't apply to discographies at all, IMO. Also, asserting that for an English language band, the most important territories are the US and UK, in terms of sales, marketing, promotion, popularity and touring is not POV. An important indicator of an album/single's success, esp. for a British band, is success in the US. Brit bands that were mega-selling (Oasis, U2, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones), have all necessarily been quite big in the US too. In other words, success in the US is almost a definitive indicator of how "big" and popular the band is, making its charts a much more important statistic than, say, Finland. indopug (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely understand your points, I guess I just don't agree with them. That said, I do agree with you in that WP:CHART (at least as it's currently formatted) might not apply to discogs. So, for the sake of this and other current FLCs, I'll let the complaint go, and see what I can accomplish at WP:CHART as far as making it compliant and/or applicable to discogs. Drewcifer (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2008 (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 17:40, 21 May 2008.

---

List of East Carolina Pirates in the NFL Draft

I believe this is a FL. There isn't a list like this on wikipedia, so some things will need to become standardized. I am not sure if the naming convention is OK. I took parts from the NFL FL about the first round draft picks to help with the lede. The picture is OK. There is a extra column on the actual table that I do not know how to remove, so help with that will be appreciated. Please critize. Thanks, PGPirate 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - as nom. PGPirate 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I removed the column for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you sir
• Comment — I've gone through and copyedited the article and put citation needed templates where I thought things should be cited. Most of those should just be re-cites of stuff you've got in the list itself. Let me know if I accidentally made something incorrect while trying to make sense of it, and I'll be happy to take another look. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Citations fixed
• Support — Very nice work PG. I can see this becoming the standard for other articles of its type! Geologik (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Extremely well-cited. You made the changes I suggested, and it looks great. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2008 (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 17:40, 21 May 2008.

---

List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches

Self-nomination Nicely done list. Well referenced, and includes a lead, and a history section summarizing some of the "major" coaches in the Atlanta Falcons Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 21:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nom. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 20:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support Looks good, all my concerns have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Weak oppose I'd like to see a template or a category that groups all of these NFL head coaches lists to make it easier to navigate. Also, I'd like you to list division, conference, or Super Bowl titles that those coaches won. These two comments apply to all similar lists.--Crzycheetah 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have not seen any replies to my comments, so I am opposing for now.--Crzycheetah 01:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You could have replied here instead. A template should be added, though, even if there are red links. Red links give other editors an idea on how to contribute to related pages. Plus, you said there are 15 similar lists created already, so where are they? How can I see them?--Crzycheetah 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Crzycheetah, I created {{List of NFL head coaches by team}} and applied it to all the head coaching lists. I hope this addresses your first concern. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Gonzo fan2007! That's exactly what I had in mind.--Crzycheetah 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Your welcome :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Try to avoid repeating the title of the article in the lead opening sentence. Read the discussion at WT:FLC ongoing as we speak to avoid others opposing based on this.
• You use NFC and then the expanded version followed by (NFC). Switch it round.
• Numerical record needs en-dash to separate the numbers.
• "Wade Phillips holds the best coaching record"- perhaps statistically but I would have thought a Superbowl appearance was better than just two wins from three games coached?
• " Jim Hanifan, who won no games" again, statistically the worst but only coached four games!
• "who won no games" - who coached the team to no wins?
• "...last reached the playoffs under in 2004 under..." - one too many under's.
• "for former star quarterback" - POV.
• "The Falcons would later sign current coach Mike Smith at the end of the 2007 season." - weird tense issue here. Make it consistent with the rest of the lead.
• "There have only been four coaches to lead the Falcons into the playoffs including Leeman Bennett, Jerry Glanville, Dan Reeves and Jim L. Mora." - including? You mean something more like Only four coaches have led the Falcons to the playoffs– a, b, c and d.
• "...but did not finish the season, leaving after Week 14." - "...did not end the season as head coach, leaving after Week 14."
• No need for the spaces between W, en dash and L, nor between year, en dash, year in the table.
• Was Mike Smith announced as coach in 2007 or 2008 (as his article states...)? And his appointment needs to be referenced.
• Not 100% relevant here but modify the Falcons template to link to here from Head Coaches...

So, oppose for now, simple MOS failures, POV, and some oddly biased assertions need to be dealt with before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done I think I got everything. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from RC-0722 (talk · contribs)

*"Norb Hecker, however, who coached thirty games just won four." If he doesn't hold the record for the worst record, then why state is name in the lead?

Other than that, I find nothing wrong with the list, so I say Weak Support. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Pretty good overall, but there are a couple issues. First, The worst record by any coach is that of Jim Hanifan, who won no games. sounds POVish. The Falcons are yet to win a Super Bowl. seems like it could be worded better. Also, since the references section has a note in it, wouldn't it be better called "References and notes"? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Moderate support I copyedited it slightly to fix some grammar and MoS mistakes, but for the most part it's good enough to get my support. The lead could be copyedited more, though. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment- "After Mora left the team in 2006, the Falcons hired Bobby Petrino who coached for only one year, during which the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation was under way which ultimately resulted in a prison term for former quarterback Michael Vick, and to Petrino's resignation." First, I do not think information about Michael Vick should be in a list about head coaches. Second, the way its written makes it sound like a direct coorelation between that incident and Petrino's resignation. I don't believe that is true, but what do I know. If it is true, it needs citing. Plus, that sentence is really long. If not, it needs to be removed. -PGPirate 13:10, 20 May 2008 (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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

---

List of United States hurricanes

I wrote this a few months back, and I think it would make for a good featured list. I think it's interesting, since it is a nice representation for every hurricane that affected the United States, and I believe it passes the FL criteria. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• In-text external links are generally disliked, and I believe it's a MoS breach..not sure.
• ...the data from 1921 to 1979..' Needs non-breaking spaces.
• Why are Pennsylvania and the South west's sections in prose and not in a table like the rest?
• I'd like to see more sources, but it should be fine.

That's all from me. Overall, good work. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't see anywhere in the MOS that says the first item was a problem, so I'm leaving it. Since most of the article uses it, I feel it is important to link when it is mentioned. Pennsylvania and Southwest's sections only had one hurricane, so there is no need for a table. The article is comprehensive with those links, so I don't see a need for more sources. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Very well then, I don't see anything else wrong with the article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments

1)The article heavily relies on one source, is there any other sources out there that can verify the information in the article?

2)In some states, there are unnamed hurricanes, yet they still have a link to an article, and they have a name, justification?

3)In response to the comment above about the MOS and internal linking, it is ok to do that, as there is nothing here.

Regards,--~SRS~ 22:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Alright. For the first one, there are other similar links, but that is the best comprehensive link available. HURDAT is the official database for Atlantic hurricanes. The unnamed storms did not have an official name. A select few had a name provided by the U.S. weather bureau, but even those names aren't the most ideal. Some were merely the place it affected (like if a hurricane hit Florida, it would be inappropriate to call it "Florida" if it also affected another state). Since most of the names were unofficial, I opted to consider them all unnamed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see ok im satisfied with the above, but the lead also requires some sourcing, like the total number of hurricanies.--~SRS~ 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That information in the lede is merely from the body of the article, adding up all of the storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "greater than 74 mph (118 km/h)" why? Presumably on some Scale that means hurricane. Worth a note for non-experts, otherwise it appears an arbitrary cut-off point.
• "Continental United States Hurricane Strikes " -> "Continental United States hurricane strikes" in the caption.
• Some issues over linking single years. The links need to go somewhere to enhance the reader's understanding and enrich their experience of this article. Not sure linking plain years (like 1851 in the lead) does this.
• Remove the in-line link to the Hurricane Research Division. If it's necessary, add it as an External link.
• Like the idea of the clickable US map but it seems strange, just sitting there without a frame, a caption or an explanation as to what it's for.
• Hmm, splitting the table has caused me no end of sorting problems.
  • Clicking on the Date of closest approach and the second of the two Storm headings takes me to the top of the page.
  • Clicking on the first Storm heading
  • Clicking on the category (small c here by the way), brings the last line up to the top - this line should always be at the bottom presumably.
  • You can't sort the two sides of the table together so it only means you can sort half the hurricanes at a time.
• What's HURDAT? Used a lot, never explained.
• Unless I missed it, a note explaining why many "Unnamed" hurricanes link out to hurricanes why, to a layman, appear to have names would be useful.
• Why is this a list of hurricanes and then the heading in the table "Storm"? Again, might be plainly obvious to you, but to a non-expert, like me, if I've asked the question, it probably needs to be answered.

Some opening comments from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I clarified the 74 mph cutoff, fixed the capitalization, removed some year links, and rm'd the inline link. I added a caption to the US map, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate. Yea, I notice the problems with the tables, so before I do anything drastic, do you think I should turn the tables into single rows? HURDAT is merely the HURricane DATabase, which I added to the top. For the unnamed storms, see my explanation above. If you think clarification is needed in the article, I'll do it. I changed the "Storm" header to "Name", which also makes mentioning the unnamed storms more sense. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd opt for the tables to either be non-sortable (bit of a shame) or in a single column (so the sorting works but the article becomes longer)... your choice! Either way it's unacceptable at the moment. See what works best for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I had tried both of them while working on the article, and I found the single column to be too long. I personally don't see too much value in sorting by name, and there are only five categories, not to mention that a list of hurricanes by strength (pressure) to hit the US is available elsewhere. Sorting by calendar dates would be nice, but there isn't too much variation. However, think of that, I decided to add a table at the bottom of the article. Still, I'd rather keep the list manageable (such as for the more affected areas). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you tell me how accurate and complete Image:Hurr-uslandfalling-1950-2007.jpg is. When I look at Hurricane Katrina (the only name I looked for) it is depicted as Cat 3.
• Have you ever thought of creating a template of Hurricanes so that I can just go to the bottom of any of your hurricane articles and bounce to the other state I want to see or the ocean or category or whatever other logical grouping of TCs I am interested in.
  • Wow! I did not know I had so many states to look forward to. SC, GA, VA, MD, DC, PA and possibly OR, WA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We'll get there eventually! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Hurricanes seem to be listed by where they made landfall in this article. Some hurricanes cause havoc inland. Have any inland states such as TN, AK, or WV encountered TCs at hurricane strength? Do you have articles for such states?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Umm, Katrina was Cat. 3 at landfall... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I just looked at the first paragraph of Hurricane Katrina at first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I added the template to the bottom of the article. Also, no known hurricanes caused hurricane force winds in TN, AK, or WV. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I forgot AZ is inland. Also, DC, GA and PA have probably had hurricanes. Am I correct on these?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• GA and PA had hurricanes, which is why they are listed in the article. I have found no info on DC, which is why it's not in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• How is it that only two named storms have affected GA? and none DC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Georgia used to get affected by a lot of hurricanes, but for whatever reason, they have been largely spared in recent decades. It's not that no hurricanes ever affected DC. There is just no source that I've found that confirms hurricane force winds in the district. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Why is everything in the table in bold? It isn't necessary. Also the image map should lonk to a hurricane article or nothing. There is no usefullness in linking to state articles, and it violated the principle of least surprise to not known where it goes before you click on it. Rmhermen (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding everything in the article being bolded, before I change it, do you propose that nothing in the article be bolded, excluding the tops of each section? Regarding the map, I suppose I didn't think that through too much. Do you even think it is needed? I thought it would be neat, but I wouldn't mind seeing it removed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think headings should be bold. I don't think every item needs to be bolded though. It can't draw attention to everything. What purpose does the bolding serve? Rmhermen (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I de-bolded everything but the headings. What about the map? Should I axe it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I went over it with a fine-toothed comb, and I'm satisfied with the quality of the prose to satisfy criterion #1. Support, albeit biasedly. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments were addressed, Support.--SRX 16:59, 18 May 2008 (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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

---

Appalachian State Mountaineers football seasons

Self-nomination. I created this page, which follows the previously nominated Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons and East Carolina Pirates football seasons, both of which have reached FL status. I believe this page is comparable with the first two and deserving of FL status. Thank you for your time and consideration. Geologik (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments I think this article looks very good, but a few minor things:

• Don't put links in the first bold sentence, as per WP:LEAD.  Done
• No mention of that Michigan game? Perhaps you should at least mention that they became "the first FCS team to ever receive votes in the final Associated Press (AP) college football poll on January 8, 2008." (as it says in the main football team article.  Done

Noble Story (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. Geologik (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• A little bit anal but I'd prefer to see NCAA expanded before it's used as an abbreviation, just as you do with FCS.  Done
• First image caption is a fragment so needs no period.  Done
• What's I-AA?
• Playoffs aren't usually capitalised.  Done
• Use the en-dash for separators of years, scores etc, per WP:DASH.  Done
• "successful football program" - expand football to the full link so it says college football - helps non-experts (like me!).  Done
• Jim Duncan links to a dab page.  Done
• "Appalachian left the Carolinas Conference after the 1967 season and played as an independent for three years."
  • Cite needed.
  • Explain what "playing as an independent" means.
  • I thought they were in the North State Conference, not the Carolinas Conference? Confusing.  Done
    • Reworded to hopefully be less confusing
• "SoCon" - if you're going to use abbreviations or contractions, put them in parentheses after their original expansion.  Done
• "in modern times" - what is the scope of this?
• (AP) doesn't need to be in the wikilink.  Done
• "The Mountaineers received 5 points, good for a tie for 34th"  Done
  • Five, not 5.  Done
  • What does "good for a tie for 34th" mean? Do you mean "placing them tied in 34th place in the list" or something similar?  Done
    • Hopefully I was able to clarify
• Why "Conference(s)" in the table when there's never more than one?  Done
• What's TSN?
• Why are the two "Poll"s capitalised?
• Get rid of the 2008 row - the lead said "seasons completed..."
• What does "T-1st" mean?  Done
• What does OT mean?  Done
  • Added links to Overtime (sports) - can make a footnote at the bottom of box if deemed necessary.
• (only includes playoff games; 15 appearances) - I count 32...
• Not keen on the playoff results section. It needs, at the very least, a little prose to explain what I'm looking at.
• See also section needs to be moved up.  Done
• "Reference" section probably should be called "References" since there's more than one.  Done

That's it for now. Oppose simply based on the volume of issues I've found. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Extremely well-cited, aesthetically pleasing, coherent, and clear. It's easily equivalent to the List of Iowa Hawkeyes Seasons and the List of East Carolina Pirates Seasons. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I can't find where/if it is against WP:MOS, but I do not like stand- alone years wikilinked. i.e. 1907  Done
    • I couldn't find anything on WP:DATE, but I de-linked them per your suggestion.
  • Wofford has an athletic page  Done
    • Colleges should link to their athletic page, if there
  • has had a successful college football program, according to who?
    • The Charlotte Observer ran an article, front page of the sports section, on Oct. 29, 2005 that called Appalachian the Carolinas' No. 1 Division I football team. A .635 winning percentage, three straight national titles and a win at Michigan (all after the original article) certainly helps the case. The original article is archived but I provided a link from the ASU alumni blog with screenshot of the front page.
  • "I-AA playoffs" in the table only should be wikilinked the first time, like the Southern Conference.  Done
  • Sports in the United States would be a better link than "American sports"  Done
• That is it for now. PGPirate 00:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - much better. congrats, PGPirate 14:06, 7 May 2008 (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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

---

Róisín Murphy discography

Self-nomination: This discography covers all the solo released by Irish singer-songwriter Róisín Murphy. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good! Drewcifer (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks very good. A few comments:

• Why is that the Live albums and EPs tables are completely different style then the other tables? Choose one and stick with it.
• I believe there is a growing consensus against including B-sides, since this is a discography not a songography. I would also argue similarly for the unreleased songs section, but there's not consensus for that one, so do as you will there.
• Any certifications?
• The live albums notes need citations/sources.
• I don't think the Reference column is needed in the misc. table. Why not put them in the song column?
• Maybe a discogs link in the External links section would be good? Drewcifer (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added your suggestions into the article. Murphy has not received any music certifications. There are claims that Overpowered was certified gold in Belgium, but I cannot find a reliable source to back it up. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good start. There's still the issue of the B-sides and the unreleased songs. Also, why is there chart columns in the Live albums table? None of them charted anywhere. Also, it would be good to keep similar columns in similar tables kept a consistent width (ie. "Title" columns, "Album" columns, "Notes" etc). For the sake of consistency, I would say the notes in the EPs section should mimick the style of the live albums. Drewcifer (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PS why'd you get rid of the references in the Misc. table?! They were good! My suggestions was to just get rid of the column and move the references to another column, not get rid of the whole thing. Drewcifer (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I did a bit of tidying. Hopefully I've gotten everything this time. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A few more minor suggestions: it would be good to see similar columns between tables to be the same width (by using

Comment

• Why are repetitions of guest singles in the misc. section? That's redundancy.
• If the # of B-sides is less like here, I'm all for keeping the table there.
• Make the width of the Title columns of the studio albums, live albums, and EPs the same. Similarly for Singles, b-sides and videos. indopug (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This may sound stupid, but I'm a bit confused on what you mean by column width. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Do not wikilink the bold title, per WP:LS#Bold title
• Is ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." necessary for the albums? The — is not actually used in the table
• No album chart position in Ireland? That's surprising
• Any ideas which localised version of iTunes iTunes Live: London Sessions was released to?
• Any information on the markets Live At Ancienne Belgique 19.11.07 was released to?
• Again, that she has no singles chart positions in her home country is surprising. Can this be checked?
• Move "Feel Up" by "Spook" to the Guest singles section, and remove the entire Miscellaneous section

That's all I got

I have checked everywhere and she has not charted in Ireland. As for Live At Ancienne Belgique 19.11.07 album, it was available to order all over the world as anyone from anywhere could purchase it online from Concert Live. iTunes Live: London Sessions was released to iTunes stores in Europe. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should say that, re iTunes, and wikilink or link to Concert Live -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Added your comments into the section. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Since this an article about an Irish singer, the dates should be as [[1 January]] [[2008]]. This is important to do for IP/non-account users who view the date the same way it is typed. The album column in featured singles is unnecessary, remove it and move the refs to beside the singles. The notes in the EPs can be removed and the info (no need of ref) moved to a bullet point below Label --> "Format: limited edition vinyl". Remove the <small> tags for catalogue numbers. Bold the main releases names of albums, EPs, and live albums. Make Studio albums, Live albums and featured singles separate sections. indopug (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added your suggestions into the article. Except for about separate sections for the albums and singles. Other discographies do not split the different types of album releases into different sections (see Depeche Mode discography, Aesop Rock discography and Silverchair discography just to name a few). -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Expand the lead please, at least list every chart position the albums got. Also the wording is every awkward as of now, and could use a rewrite. "Murphy's first solo recordings...Moloko was known with jazz and pop styles." can be significantly simplified, for example. indopug (talk)

I have expanded the lead to include album chart positions and hopefully it doesn't sound awkward anymore. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The date formats are wrong. (see my comment above) indopug (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Support indopug (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

---

Tool discography

I'm nominating on behalf of Wikiproject Tool's article improvement goals. Lara❤Love 13:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note Since it appears Lara has retired, I'll do my best to finish the FLC in her absence. So please excuse any ignorance as far as the band itself goes or arguments made so far in the FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest given the above? Feel free to disregard my support if you think so. Drewcifer (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm here. Lara❤Love 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whew. That was a close one! Drewcifer (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks good! I only have a few nitpicky comments:

• The dates in the DVD table should be spelled out, not numerical.
  • I thought that because of user date preferences it didn't matter what format was used in the edit window.
    • You'd think, but the date-change-per-preferences isn't as robust as one would expect.
• The Demo, EP, box set, and other section confuses me. Demo? Check. EP? Check? Box set? Check. Other? There is no other!
• The labels should be wikilinked the first time they appear in the discography itself.
• The DVD Features should probably have citations.
  • To the DVD? Wouldn't the information be the same in the citation as in the discog?
    • What I meant was a source referring to what is included in the DVD. Obviously that would be redundant if it was just a citation to the DVD itself.
      • Took care of it myself. Drewcifer (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Citation #8 is missing a publisher.
• RIAA and CRIA should be spelled out in the citations. RIAA should also be spelled out in the lead the first time it's mentioned.
• An external links section would be good.
• Numbers under 10 should be written out, numbers over ten should be numerical (fourteen=14).
  • Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs). --Wikipedia:DATE#Numbers
    • Fair enough! I wasn't aware of that.
• "Although typically intended only for record labels" I don't think typically is the right word here. It's their first release, and typically implies previous examples to go by.
  • What I mean here is that demos are typically intended only for record labels, but in this case the band was so pleased with their demo that they sold it to fans. I'll try to reword to make that more clear.
    • Looks better.
• Seems kind of a non-sequitur And even if it did apply, it's POVish.
  • I'm not really sure what you mean. What is that POVish? That they sold their demo because they were pleased with it? If so, how is that POV?
    • Maybe it would've helped if I had included the actual quote I was referring to, huh? Here's the one: "notwithstanding a decline in popularity of alternative rock music during the mid-90s in the United States".
      • Ah, okay. I pulled that from Tool (band). I'll reword it.
• I think U.S. should be spelled without the dots. There's an MOS on that somewhere.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). U.S. is the American English abbreviation. I'm not sure if there's another mention of this somewhere else in the MOS or if it's been altered since last year, but there used to be something that specified that it should always be abbreviated as U.S., unlike United Kingdom, which should always be UK.
    • Out-MOSed again. Damn. Drewcifer (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • FAIL. I did anyway. So, there's a discussion about this below under Matthew's comments.
• Similar columns between tables should ideally be kept a consistent width.
  • I think this is corrected. Let me know if there's a issue I've missed.

Drewcifer (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've gone down the list and addressed all issues, either in the list or with a comment here. Lara❤Love 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Updated comments. Lara❤Love 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments - WTF?! Is it Pretentious Art-Rock Band Discography Week here at FLC? (Sonic Youth, Tool, Pink Floyd...) Anyway,

• "This is a discography for the American progressive rock/metal band Tool."--I'm not too fond of the genres here, its a little too detailed and rather confusing too (by "/" I thought you implied progressive metal, not where it linked to though). Heavy metal should be enough.
  • I fixed it. It should have been as you expected it.
• platinum, gold --> Platinum, Gold (always)
  • All the related articles have lowercase when used in prose, including RIAA certifications and Music recording sales certification.
• split the second para into two.
  • Where do you suggest I split it? Other FLs I looked at seemed to flow with one large paragraph. A split would most likely be between the first and second studio albums, which would be weird.
    • Split up the paragraphs. Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Check for Mos -- Bollboard 200 not Billboard 200
• link alternative rock
• Although typically intended--typically? In fact I'm not sure that entire sentence is very clear anyway.
  • I clarified.
• one EP --> one extended play (EP) (for the noobs)
• "October 1996 saw the release of Ænima."--too short a sentence; club with next one?
• #1 --> number one
• 2x Platinum --> 2× Platinum
• Label: Zoo/BMG/Volcano-- wikilink (only first time)
• Why is zobbel.de reliable?
  • I pulled it from James Blunt. I swapped it for everyHit.com which I didn't originally want to use because they don't allow direct page linking. As it only does top 40, I removed the UK column from the singles table.
• please double-check the Billboard charts with Allmusic
  • Allmusic is reliable and Billboard's navigation is teh suck. If someone knows how to search their site without it yielding a few hundred results, that'd be helpful.
• No need to link the music videos (already done in the singles). Also delink them in the DVD section, which you should rename in the plural. The Videos link in the infobox thing at the top doesn't work. Also no mention of the box sets and live albums in said infobox thing.
• peak positions and peak chart positions; standardise.
• "Demo, EP, box set, and other" --> generalise to something compacter? "Other albums"?
• Are you sure "Opiate" was additionally released as a single along with the EP of same name? I don't think so and there isn't a wikipage for the single.
  • There were two singles released from Opiate, "Hush" and "Opiate".
• Make the music videos' and singles' Title columns equal in width.
• The U.S. Hot 100 should come before the other two US charts in the table, cause its more important. indopug (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Addressed all, either in list or with comment here. Lara❤Love 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Do not wikilink the title in the lead, per WP:LS#Bold title
  • This should be made consistent through all the FLs because all the ones I clicked had links.
• "This list does not include material performed by members of Tool that was recorded with A Perfect Circle..." perhaps include that these bands are their side projects or something
  • Again, this was written based off of other FLs and this isn't consistent with those.
• "the band was so pleased with theirs that they sold copies to their fans." How? At concerts, through local independent music stores?
  • I don't know. The source didn't say. It just said it was sold to fans.
• "bassist D'Amour leaving amicably to pursue other projects." This is questionable and so should be cited
  • It's covered by the ref that follows the next sentence.
• "a decline in popularity of alternative rock music during the mid-90s in the United States," According to who?
• Per WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations, "In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout". So it should be "US" and "UK", not "U.S." and "UK" (or "U.S." and "U.K.")
• I'd prefer to see the peak chart positions in this format:
  • Home country; alphabetical order of English speaking countries; alphabetical order of non-English speaking countries; World chart

I think this is more of a WP:Discog issue at this point. Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are we sure no singles charted outside of the US?

Good catch, they did chart in the Netherlands. I added the data. Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all I got -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Matthewedwards I think UK/US should come before all other English-speaking countries in the charts. These are the two most important markets in terms of marketing, sales, promotion, media coverage etc. indopug (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my argument to the contrary at the Sonic Youth FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, to note, I sort of put them by success because I didn't see any sort of standard with the current FLs. So I'll wait until this gets figured out, as it's apparently going to be setting a precedence, as a few of these suggestions appear to be going for, and that's a lot of work to swap the columns. Lara❤Love 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment According to the lead "This list does not include material performed by members of Tool that was recorded with [insert bands]", why? It also might not hurt to indicate which albums (if any) won Grammy Awards. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's probably because the other bands are side projects, or second bands that they are involved in, though not together. They're nothing to do with Tool, they just have some members, like The White Stripes and The Raconteurs, rather than Green Day and Foxboro Hot Tubs which is all the same members. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Which, in this case, would include APC. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • THis is a very typical thing in discogs: including every side project would make the discography ridiculously large in many cases, this one included. Drewcifer (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice. You should list the official website or a fansite with a very comprehensive discography (if it exists) in the EL. Also, add how Undertow reached only 50 while Aenima fared much better at 2. indopug (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure why AEnima fared so well compared to Undertow. It was probably just a matter of exposure. They toured extensively during all of those years, singles from both suffered similar censorship... Any addition on this would be speculation. Lara❤Love 13:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just meant add the first two albums' chart positions to the lead. indopug (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Recheck all the chart position numbers. I had to redo the singles placings right now because some were simply wrong, or were placed in the wrong columns. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know what happened with that... I went back through the albums and videos, they're all good. Lara❤Love 13:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Would it be possible to mention which albums (if any) won major awards? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discographies (at least on Wikipedia) give a quantitative indicator of a album/single's success; chart positions, certifications, sales figures. On the other hand, qualitative indicators like awards and critical acclaim are not mentioned in tables (although they may be mentioned in the lead, if really important) If a band has won many awards, they can have an article for it, see: List of U2 awards. indopug (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I added them to the lead. Lara❤Love 15:06, 14 May 2008 (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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

---

Delta Goodrem discography

I've been working on this article for quite some time now. I think it meets WP:WIAFL criteria. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great! Drewcifer (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks very nice. A few small suggestions:

• Numbers under ten should be spelled out, above ten should be numerical. (eleven=11)
• It would be good to mention when she joined the cast of Neighbors (what year), so we can have a clearer understanding of the chronology of events.
• "The album portrayed Goodrem as a piano-based singer-songwriter, comprising mostly of light pop ballads, and made her one of Australia's highest selling female recording artists, spending 29 weeks at #1,[1] selling over a million copies in Australia and another 1.5 million internationally.[2]" is a problematic sentence for a few reasons. It's too long, is OR (what the album portrayed her as), and is weird gramatically towards the end.
• Sydney Morning Herald should be italicized in the citations. Drewcifer (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• The lead sentence is not a complete sentence.
• "Australian based" should be hyphenated, I believe.
• I'm not sure it's really relevant in the lead to mention the day Innocent Eyes was released. The year should suffice.
• The chart widths are unnecessarily wide. 30px would suffice, maybe even less. I bring this minor point up for two reasons: 1) the tables are big enough so that on low-resolution monitors it starts to get a little squished, and 2) it would be nice to get the certifications into the singles table, so space is at a premium there.
• To restate the above: it would be nice to get the certifications into the singles table. The chart columns could be smaller, as could the album column and title column. Having a few of the rows forced into a line break isn't the end of the world, and it would make the certifications clearer and easier to read.
• I'm not sure why Music videos is a subsection of singles (same with B-sides and remixes). They're not necessarily the same thing. Also, the notes column is really big. Same thing with the notes column in Other appearances.
• I've gotten the impression lately that the consensus is growing to not include B-sides in discographies, the logic being that this is a discography, not a songography. I would argue the same thing for Remixes (at least the way this article interprets it, as remixes that other people have done).

Um.... the copyedit/grammatical stuff I've addressed in this article. However, there are certain issues that you raised that I want to discuss and the reason why it is there.

Firstly, certifications can be a separate table, it doesn't necessarily have to be in the singles table. As for the tables of music videos, B-sides and remixes, these are part of the singles section as they all relate to the singles in a certain way.

Music videos are videos of the singles. B-sides are the extra songs released along with the single. Remixes, are remixes of singles that are released with the actual single itself and/or in compilation albums, other albums, etc. Technially, isn't a discography meant to highlight all the songs, albums, DVDs and digital singles released by that particular artist, directly or indirectly? So it would be ok to include the B-sides and remixes into this article as well.

Tell me what you think. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 11:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there's no rule that says there can't be a separate certification, but the reason I suggested merging the two tables is pretty simple: first, with a few column width tweaks I think there's room for it, so why not? Second, the Studio albums table already does this, so the article goes against the convention it already set for itself. Third, the information doesn't necessitate a separate table: the two left columns are exactly the same as the main singles table, simply because it's singles that get certified.

As for the B-sides, I would argue that B-sides don't actually represent separate releases (which a discography is intended to list): by definition, they are additional tracks attached to singles. For the same reason we don't include track listings of the albums the same would hold true for B-sides, since they basically are the track listing of the single. The same would hold true for remixes of the artist's songs by other bands. If a band made a remix and it was released on one of her releases already mentioned, then we're in track-listing territory again. If someone else made a remix and put it on their release, that still wouldn't apply since it's not Delta Goodrem's release we're talking about. Drewcifer (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So basically, would you prefer if the B-sides and the remixes be deleted from this page? σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, basically. Drewcifer (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's done and dusted. I think I've addressed the other issues that you raised. Take a look and comment it yourself. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 10:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, so everything looks to be in ship-shape. I've left the last thing to take care of un-hidden. Two more things I've noticed: why does the lead say 14 singles when the infobox and the singles table says 18? Also, it would be nice if the chart columns were the same width between tables. Drewcifer (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It should've said 15 CD singles and three digital download singles, which makes 18 singles altogether. Sorry about that, I've fixed it now. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Caption in infobox is a fragment so remove the full stop.
• Four paragraphs in the lead is excessive for an article of this length, consider merging.
• You have ref's 1 and 2 in the lead but there are other claims which go uncited. Either cite the lot or none and make sure you cite the information in the list accordingly.
• Don't overlink Sony BMG in the lead.
• "and is currently active in the charts." - this will need a context (i.e. as of april 2008...)
• Note A needs citation.
• Avoid spaces between the text/punctuation and the notes (e.g. you have "I Don't Care" [A], it should be "I Don't Care"[A])
• "I Don't Care" has an em-dash in the Album section - this means album did not chart. Was "I Don't Care" on an album? If not then this note is incorrect, or at best misleading.
• I think citations should be provided for "exclusive" releases.

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead is really necessary as it highlights the important aspects of Delta Goodrem's career so far, and to be honest, I don't think we can condense it even further. Also, the citations for ITunes exclusive releases can't really be sourced properly as I can't provide a reference to the Itunes store itself and the web sources consist of forums and lyric pages. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title, boring I know, but WP:MOS rules.
• Caption still a fragment.
• "later this year" just in 2008 will do.
• Remove spaces between notes and text/punctuation.
• A-D have full stops, then E should. Or none of them should have full stops. Be consistent.

End of round 2! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Addressed everything. Don't know about the caption though. What should it say? σмgнgσмg^(talk) 01:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "she joined the cast of Neighbours and this helped launch her international music career." This needs a citations. Perhaps include the fact that this is because she sung on the show; this would need citing, too.
• "Her 2004 second album Mistaken Identity" sounds better as "her second album, Mistaken Identity, released in 2004"
• "inspired by her battle with cancer," requires a citation. Any idea what form of cancer, too?
• The rest of that sentence should be cited also
• "After a break," caused by what?
• I don't like the wording of "It is to be her first album in the United States and released in Europe in 2008." But I can't think right now of how to reword it
• "Peak chart positions" should be placed as:
  • Home country
  • Alphabetical by every other country
  • World chart
• Move the references for Peak chart postition to the column of the country they refer to.
• I note there is only five references for the ten countries? Where did you get the information for Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK?
• ""Predictable" Live performance at Channel V " Is this a music video, or simply a recording of a performance?
• Why are the singles' B-Sides included? This is a discography, not a songography. If these are so notable, I would think that album tracks are even more so, but they aren't listed...
• ""Days Go By"|Glenn Lyse|Single-only" why not "Days Go By", instead of "single-only" -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have, but as it seems five countries's chart positions are not sourced, and the inclusion of a B-sides section, it's an oppose for now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so much to address. I'll tackle one point at a time. The suggestions you have put forward about rewording the lead, I've done that. However, as with your comment on the inclusion of source(s), it will go against what The Rambling Man has suggested. So, now I'm conflicted, what should I do? Should I include sources in the lead or not?

I would say yes. Anything presented as a fact should be referenced. --ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But the information presented in the lead is verified within the article. So, technically, there is no need to add in the same sources if it is going to be repeated again and again in the article. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, there isn't any much of a singificance in reorganising the peak chart positions in an order that you proposed. So, I think I'll leave it as it is for now. The sources are best put above, since the width of the table is 30px due to the logic raised by Drewcifer. His logic was: "1) the tables are big enough so that on low-resolution monitors it starts to get a little squished, and 2) it would be nice to get the certifications into the singles table, so space is at a premium there." Also, there are only 6 references required for 10 countries. Why? Source No. 5, when clicked to a specific page, such as the Innocent Eyes chart positions, gives information on the chart positions for Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. So, the addition of further sources isn't necessary.

Thirdly, in regards to the phrase: "Live performance at Channel V" simply highlights that Delta Goodrem's performance on that channel was simply used as the official music video for Predictable. The B-side table has been moved to another page. And finally, the table on her writing credits has simply reworked to suit the use of "single-only". That's done and dusted. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 12:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I'm not convinced on the need of writing credits to be included. This is her discography. It shouldn't mention her work on other artists' discs.

I hope my comments have helped, but I'm unable to support or oppose because I won't have internet access for the next two weeks. As such, I can only stay neutral. Sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I know her career is not as distinguished nor as lengthy as, say, Metallica, but I feel the lead could do with being beefed up a bit. It currently almost borders on listprose.
• Get rid of the full stop in the caption.
• As for inclusion of sources, Matthew and I don't disagree, not really. You really should not include information in the lead that isn't expanded upon in the main body of the list. Thus, you should, in principle, be able to have a citation free lead, as long as everything you state there is included, expanded upon and cited in the main body.
• Why are you forcing the font size of the certification column?
• And for two of the albums?
• There are a number of directors missing from the video table.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that shouldn't have been like that. Anyway, I've addressed your concerns with the exception of the music video directors. Some of the music video directors' names have not been released, hence it is why they are blank. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 10:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a little comments:

• The album and video titles should not be in bold. It goes against MOS:BOLD (see discussion WT:MUSTARD#Album bolding).

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was no conclusion to that discussion, and an overall change the discography MoS has not been implemented. So you can revert it back because, frankly, it looks much better and clearer with the bolds. indopug (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, what's done is done. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 06:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Did some copyediting, all seems good to me. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:21, 18 May 2008 (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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

---

List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts

This list is based off List of acquisitions by Yahoo! and List of acquisitions by Google, a featured list, both done by User:Gary King. I believe I have written this list well and it is of featured quality. Hello32020 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Place (EA) after the last time you use Electronic Arts in favour of the abbreviation.
• Same comment as on the other acquisition lists, three ways of describing (and linking) to US$ is too many.
• Several red links - they ought to be resolved, even if just stubs.
• I'm sure there must be categories other than Acquisitions which could be used here.
• The list is virtually an orphan - consider linking to it from some of the articles mentioned within.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed most of the problems and will do the rest tomorrow. Hello32020 (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Every comment, but the other categories one, fixed, what would you suggest, since they were all acquisitions. Organize them into video game developer acquisitions, website acquisitions, et al...? Hello32020 (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the list categorisation at the foot of the page. The category for the entire page. But it's no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Added EA category. Hello32020 (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment a couple of the original acquisitions simply link to their derived products. Gary King has done this as well, creating the redirects himself. He's now asking for the redirects to be deleted. I think a consistent approach may be needed across these acquisition lists for such links. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear on what you are proposing. (A few things I think that you could be referring to.) Hello32020 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • For example, DreamWorks Interactive just links back to Electronic Arts. As does Manley & Associates. As does JAMDAT Mobile. Gary King has removed these redirects and written stubs. That's my major concern that this list won't be consistent and have links to the actual companies. For instance, JAMDAT Mobile sold for over half a billion dollars, it must be worth an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Created articles on all of the original companies. Hello32020 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my comments for the next nomination in the list (Yahoo!). TONY (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done, anything else? Hello32020 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, you haven't at all addressed my misgivings below. I have to say that the lead is far too short and is superficial. Even when it has the chance to round-up the numbers in the table below, it doesn't. It says nothing to position this surge of acquisitions in the industry as a whole, in terms of its US competitors and foreign companies. What was the corporate strategy behind it? Was it a particular CEO or board that was behind this? Is it regarded as a successful business plan by the company and by others? Has it led to synergies in terms of product innovation, etc? There are lots of questions. You don't have to answer them all, but the lead pitifully fails to do what Criterion 2a says it should do. And 28 refs at the bottom: can you do the readers a favour and drag out morsels from them to let us into the topic? (A succinct drawing on highly relevant info in the larger article would be good: only what's strictly relevant, but double the current size of lead would be good. Any room for the company logo? Refs: I see not one author listed. What makes them reliable? You know how clubby and lemming-like the finance industry and journalists are. Do the refs provide, as a whole, NPOV sourcing we can trust? TONY (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fairly hard to find good information on this, I hope what I've done is sufficient. Hello32020 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I suggested two sources: the related article (which would need to be reworded if you draw on its information—not hard) and the ?28 references you've provided at the bottom. TONY (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Already provided an example of how EA uses a new acquired company to expand its fields, now added practices in EA in regard to newly acquired companies. Hello32020 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I've copy-edited the additions. The nomination is certainly better than it was. TONY (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Seems like the section of the first paragraph (after the 1st citation) that describes the information provided on the list may fit better either at the end of the elad or as an introduction following the section break before the table. - Marrio (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved to the end of the lead. Hello32020 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - Marrio (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Odd image placement in the lead, and this quote doesn't make sense to me: we intend to build a leading global position in the ... business of providing games on mobile phones." That ... isn't in the quote, so maybe it should be in brackets? Other than that it looks good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Added brackets for quote and I can't find a better placement for the images, other positions I've tried look more strange. Hello32020 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Quickie review
  • EA's logo can be seen pretty clearly in the free image. Could you remove the non-free one and just use the free one?
  • Add an external link to EA's official website.
  • I've made a few tweaks to the lead, feel free to revert.
• That's actually just about all I can find. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, I have implemented your requests and your edit was good so no need to revert. Hello32020 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've looked it over, and I think it looks good to me; I can find nothing wrong with it. Noble Story (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (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 23:20, 16 May 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of tallest buildings in Houston. I have been working with Alaskan assassin, Hydrogen Iodide and Leitmanp to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Alaskan assassin (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • If the tables list buildings over 400 feet, why does the lead mostly state facts about buildings over 500 feet?
    • It is because city skylines are ranked by number of buildings over 500 feet (152 m). This is fairly standard for all tallest building lists FLs. But note that the lead focuses just as much on high-rises in the city general, and notes the completion of 30 of its 32 tallest buildings, which includes all of the buildings in the list and not just the ones over 500 feet in height. Cheers, Rai•me 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even though there is an abundance of as of May 2008 links in the lead, there's still one "currently" remains. There are currently 21 completed buildings that stand at least 500 feet (152 m) ...
    •  Done, removed "currently", but avoided another mention of as of May 2008. -- Rai•me 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support You really perfected creating these "tallest buildings" FLs. I still remember that Providence list and how awful it was compared to this. Great job!--Crzycheetah 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support-I feel this article meets the FL criteria, and is well expanded enough to be considered a featured list, and I found no additional problems.~SRS~ 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Lists looks great and just like other FLs. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support This list is written very well, I like it very much. Gman124 ^talk 19:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Another great list, definitely ready for FL status. VerruckteDan (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (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 23:20, 16 May 2008.

---

Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame

I bring before the community another Green Bay Packers list. Although I feel the list meets our standards, suggestions for improvement are always accepted, and any improvements will be made quickly and effectively. Thank you for your time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Right away, first thing I see: Absolutely no references in the lead section. That has to change. There should be at least one at the end of each paragraph, and probably more in this case.
• In the lead, you say "...plaques representing each of the 137 inductees...As of 2008, the Packers Hall of Fame has inducted 137 people" That seems redundant. Maybe you could take out one or the other?
• Could you provide a key? I know the positions are linked, but I think for easy reference, a key preceding the list would be great.
• I think all the notes should have proper formatted references. Or, even better, have a footnotes sections with references (check this list to see what I mean).
• For compound information involving numbers (26 years, 137 people, etc.), use   in between the number and the word.

Noble Story (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I knocked a few out of the way for now, bur rl is calling. I ill get to the rest tonight, thank you for your comments. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have addressed your concerns. Any more suggestions would be greatly appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Another comment Good work so far, especially on adding the notes. However, instead of using the main page of the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame website over and over again, how about linking to the inductees separate pages? Noble Story (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am conflicted with this. First off, I changed the link in the citation so that is goes to here instead of here. See the thing is, that I could do a direct cite of each page, but that would mean that there would be 26 references under the "References" section that would go to basically the same website. I mean I have no problem doing that, but I don't know if it is worth it. Do you have any ideas on how th best way to do this? Or if it is needed? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is definitely worth it. After all, the information about the person is not really on the main page, it's on their individual pages. I think the rule of thumb would be to cite links that are as specific as possible. Noble Story (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Direct references have been added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

---

• Are we to presume that this is all a US thing? Need that A word somewhere up top.
• Why are simple unpiped years linked? Please do not do that; we want to focus people on the useful links.
• First and third images are colliding with the list, on my browser.
  • This is probably your browser or settings in your preferences. Try going to your preferences, click on the Files tab, and lower the default size of thumbnail pics. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Any reason for using alpha order and not chronological order?
  • Yes, I thought about both, and the reason I chose alpha was that someone can easily find a name on the list, and with the sorting function they can easily find a specific year. If I wouldve done it the other way, people would've still been able to search through the years, but it wouldve been a lot harder to use the sort function for names because it would have sorted through the first name and not the last. Hope that answers your question. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm trying to think of ways to sectionalise the list so the pics can be positioned at the start or finish each segment (of a decade or two?).
  • Again, I think this may be just a problem on your browser or with your settings, personally breaking the list up (imho) would be detremintal because the sort function would be lost « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• That would solve the problem of having to squash the table to make room for the pics; it would be much nicer not to have the year ranges wrap.
  • Can you clarify "year ranges wrap" as Im not 100% what you are talking about. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

TONY (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I hope you dont mind Tony that I moved your comments around. It is easier for me to just see a list of stuff, then I can respond to each point. As I to Noble Story I got as much done as I could for now, and I will address any more comments or suggestions later tonight. Thank you for your comments, cheers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Gonzo: It's good.
  • Year-range wrapping: "1931–32, 1934–35"—the "35" is on a second line, with the en dash hanging. In fact, why not force "1931–32, 1934–35" all down onto the second line, with the break-line code. I see a few more, too. Or you may be able to rob from the "Inductee" column, which is unnecessarily wide, to widen the "Years with the team" column to avoid this hangover, and thus make all rows single. And a wrong hyphen after 1971.
  • "in the teams history"—apostrophe?
  • The images no longer collide with the table; I like my images large, so I'll try to avoid resetting from the thumbnail 300px and the 10 thousand squared. Browser is Safari; IE, heck, I'd never use that, and 7 is supposed to be no better. Have you tried Safari for Windows? Good reviews. Support. TONY (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• PS Ah heck, I see: when I widen my window, the columns all stretch (a narrow window last time was causing the pic/table overlap, too, I see). Even so, you might still play with the column sizes, since you can rob from one to pay the other and make the appearance better for all users whose windows open a little less wide. TONY (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Look at it now, I stole some whitespace from the table, the table shouldn't be as wide now. I used {{nowrap}} on the long years, and added an apostrophe. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Nice! TONY (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Any reason why the image isn't "thumbed" with a caption?
• "Enshrined in " sounds a little over the top - you used "inducted" in the lead so I'd stick with that.
• Just a note, I have no problems with the images at all, until I reduce my horizontal resolution to around 300 pixels, then all three images appear above the table (I'm currently using IE7, bleugh).
  • Is there anything I can do to make this better? I made the table smaller, did that help? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @
    • No, I think it's fine. Not sure why Tony is having problems. Perhaps he's not using IE7? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• [3] is .com, all others are .org.
• Personal but not keen on central justification for names. At all.
  • Question, personally Im no big fan of it either, but would you like the whole table left-aligned, or just the name column. Personally, if I just left-align the name column it looks weird, and Im not a big fan of left-aligning the whole table, any thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @
    • I think just left aligning the name will look fine. But if it helps, you could left align the "Years" as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Are any of those red links going to be blue ever? There are several...
  • Um, currently there are 16 redlinks, with maybe 4 that I would be fairly confident creating an article on, other than that most of the executives or supporters are not really notable enough outside of the team. Right now I am confident that every notable person on the list has an article. I will look into maybe creating some strong stubs for the couple I feel are notable enough. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @
    • Cool - create the stubs you need and delink the red ones which you believe are unlikely to ever get an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Lee Remmel, here's my first creation. All but 4 people are now unlinked. I will work on creating their pages. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Since the table's sortable, you should wikilink positions on every row.
• Not 100% clear what "Years" means.
• "1929–33, 35–36" I'd prefer to see "1929–33, 1935–36"
• Same for other isolated two digit years.
• "G.M." used twice without explanation and, inconsistently, with periods.
  • The first instance is linked to General Manager, and both look like G.M. so I'm not sure what you mean by the second part. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Understand it's linked, but I'd use "General Manager" first then G.M. afterwards. The second bit I was talking about was the use of periods in this abbreviation while not in any other abbreviations in the entire article. Just looked anomalous. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• HoF used without explanation. I know, it's simple, but.... I linked it to Hall of Fame, does that work?

That's my starter for 10... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I think I have gotten everything except for the red-links, which I will work on tomorrow. Im going to sleep though (its 2am here on the West Coast). Thanks for the review, any more comments are welcome! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Make the notes unsortable and consider splitting the multiple year ranges for an individual onto separate rows. Then it's unequivocal support... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Done! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Well-written, well-cited, complete, and understandable. I've got a few questions, however. Why is the key in a separate section? IMHO, as an integral part of the table of inductees, it should be included in that section, rather than set apart. Second, I'm a little hinky on the title of the article — you've focused mainly on the inductees into the Packers' HoF, rather than the Hall itself. With that in mind, wouldn't a better title be "Inductees of the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame"? With that change, you'd be able to create an article entitled "Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame" that could include all sorts of information about the construction, history, and the like, without overwhelming the list of inductees that you've created here. I'm afraid that as more information about the hall's history gets added here, it will overwhelm the list, thus making it kind of odd to be considered a featured list. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(JKBrooks85 I bolded your support so it can be seen a little easier) Thank you, to answer your questions: the key is in a separate section because it seems to be what most American football (and sports-related lists for that matter) do it. Personally I don't care, I could just move the key below the Inductees section and get rid of the Key section, but it does seem to be how most lists do it. To answer your second question, I had actually thought about this a lot. The main reason that I chose to do it this way was how my sources did it, which titles it "GB Packers HoF," has a short section on the HoF, and focuses on the inductees. I don't think it would be a benefit to break this list into a list and an article, just because the article wouldn't be much more than the lead thats in this list. There really isn't a lot of sourcing or info out there explaining about the construction of the Hall, other than trivial facts which really aren't notable enough to be noted. Hope this addresses your concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns. I also see that most of the inductees have articles of their own, so it would be counterintuitive to expand on the individuals as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Comment I know you just changed it to this, but I don't like the putting different year spans (i.e. 1959–66; 1971–2004) on different lines. I just don't like the look of inconsistent row heights, is there any way to solve the problem without putting them on two separate lines? Maybe force the column to be a little wider? -RunningOnBrains 00:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the problem was column width. He just didn't like how the multiple year ranges were not easily discernible. By putting them on separate rows, this made it easier to discern the years. Also, many, many lists have inconsistent row heights, so I don't think it's that big of a deal, and as you said, I just did change this, and now that I see it I agree it looks better to me this way. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Nice article, all criteria fulfilled. -RunningOnBrains 06:21, 16 May 2008 (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 23:20, 16 May 2008.

---

Sonic Youth discography

This is a big one! I've been working on this for a couple weeks now, and I think it's ready at long last. Sonic Youth have had an obscene number of releases throughout the years, so I had to take a few liberties here and there. Namely, the charts-table having top and bottom headings, and the lead prose being very listy. As always, any comments and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Burningclean 02:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I've been waiting for this one!

• The opening sentenece, no need to follow this, but could you possibly make it like the openers for most discographies? "The following" sounds kinda weird to me. Maby you just want the change, I don't know. You can leave it if you want.

Do you have any suggestions? Most of the discographies of worked on so far start like that. But I'm open to suggestions...

Nope, actually on a second thought I probably like this better.

• "Sonic Youth was signed as the first act on Neutral Records label Neutral Records" Woah! My brain went numb with this sentence! Reword, or fix?
• "Sister' and the double LP Daydream Nation, to increasing critical accliam and exposure." This is screwed up, the end is in italics.
• "In 1990 the album resigned once again to Geffen, and released Goo the same year." The band resigned to Geffen?

Yea, the lead definately needed a copyedit. I took care of all of the above.

• No certifications?

Not one.

• Why is there an extra country listing at the end of the studio albums?

Because they have so many releases, it takes up more than one screen. So if you're trying to figure out how Sonic Nurse did in France, for example, you wouldn't be able to tell which column France is since it's off screen. So I added a second one at the bottom. Make sense?

Very much so.

• ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." Can that be added to the chart just like Metallica discography?

I prefer to keep it outside of table. See any of the other discogs I've worked on.

• No charts beyond the studio albums?

Nope.

• All of the notes columns are kinda goofy width-wise. Maby seperate sentences with a <br />.

I'm not sure what you mean. They're all set to 400 px. Any rows in particular look wierd?

Video releases (only a little bit) and Sonic Youth Recordings (SYR) series. Burningclean _[speak] 16:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

IE strikes again. It looks fine in Firefox, but for some reason IE doesn't handle wikitables very well. I keep forgetting that. I fixed all the column widths, but also noticed a few things don't show up correctly on IE. Mainly, the lef to cells in the bottom chart headers in the album table should be invisible, and some of the column headers in the Singles table aren't center aligned. Do you have any experience fixing that for IE?

If it shows up on other browsers without a problem then I think it is fine. It isn't anything major. Burningclean _[speak] 02:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• The directors column in the music videos is messed up. <br />?

Done.

That's all. Burningclean _[speak] 01:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Drewcifer (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Another great list. Good work. Burningclean _[speak] 02:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and support. Drewcifer (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment "Touch Me I'm Sick/Halloween" has its own page. Where did you get chart info for albums/singles that charted worse than #40 in the UK? everyhit lists only top 40 AFAIK. indopug (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good eye! It was a bit of a mental error on my part. Found a second source beyond 40, cited it, and double checked all the entries. Drewcifer (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Don't wikilink the title in the lead, per WP:LS#Bold lead

Fixed.

• Other discogs wikilink studio albums, extended plays, compilations, singles, music videos, bootlegs, and soundtracks in the lead

Ficed.

• Most discogs I've seen put ""—" denotes releases that did not chart" in a row in the table.

Give or take half of them do that. I'm not fond of it, myself.

• I'd also like to see it before the table, otherwise readers might think what the hell does this mean?

I think this is more of a WP:Discog issue, no?

• Is there no notable notes for the EPs that don't currently have them?

Added one to Silvers Sessions, not really sure what to put with Master-Dik though.

• Can Video releases and Music videos be closer together, instead of being separated by how many other sections?

Moved two sections closer.

• Isn't "official bootleg" an oxymoron?

Technically, I guess kind of. But that's what they're called. Check out the Sonic Youth website. I think they mean bootleg in that it is lower-audio fidelity and not original material.

• In the Singles table, what country is "Mod rock" for?

":Fixed.

• No singles chart positions for any other countries?

Nope, that's it.

• There is more music videos than there is singles. Is this right?

That's right. They've made some videos for a bunch of non-single songs.

That's all I got -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in addressing these points. Should be all taken care of, except for the pending chart-order thing below. Drewcifer (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

One more As this is the English Wikipedia, I'd like to see the chart positions for English speaking countries be grouped together before non-English speaking countries (both alphabetised), with the band's home country first, and the World charts if available last. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Comment to Matthewedwards I think UK/US should come before all other English-speaking countries in the charts. These are the two most important markets in terms of marketing, sales, promotion, media coverage etc. indopug (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually guys, the way I've always done it is the following order: home country then descending by chart success. So, take for example David Hasselhoff. I would argue that the two most important countries as far as his chart performance goes are the US (his home country) and Germany (where he's practically worshiped). Perhaps (and I don't know this, but let's just assume for the sake of argument), that Hasselhoff has charted very poorly in the UK. Should the UK came before Germany? I would argue no, since it would be a logical mistake to put Hasselhoff's popularity in the UK before his uber-success in Germany, simply because the UK speaks English and Germany speaks German. Does that make sense? Drewcifer (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was opposed to the idea of chart listings even having a set order as per Matthewedwards; its unnecessary at best and at worst, well, the Hasselhoff case. I mentioned about the US and UK only because I was afraid Matthew's suggestion would become a standard requirement for all discogs. I think the columns are fine in any order after the first 2 or 3 most important ones. Also requiring the nominators to now shift around the columns might cause inadvertent errors. indopug (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely for us to put forward what we think as the most important is verging on WP:NPOV? As pointed out by User:Kollision, WP:CHART say it should be the artist's home country, followed by all others in alphabetical order. My suggestion is that as this is the English language Wikipedia, we put the English langage charts in alphabetical order after the home country, then list the non-English language charts in alphabetical order. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have copied this part of the conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style so the Project folk can participate. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Only because I won't be around for two weeks and will be unable to see this out. Sorry. Hope my comments helped, though. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are rather few citations/references in the lead. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Added citations wherever needed. Drewcifer (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The last paragraph of the lead is unreferenced.
• The information in that paragraph is repeated further down, and I'm not sure that's entirely necessary to repeat that lead information in the SYR section.

• Agreed, took it out.

• There are a lot of albums, songs, etc. in the latter lists that don't have articles. If they're notable, it would be useful to at least create stubs to start the process of creating them, and to make the list more useful.

• I agree, but I'm honestly not that knowledgeable about Sonic Youth, so I'll leave that some that is.

• Great image for the infobox, btw.

Marrio (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I believe I took care of everything. Drewcifer (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - good list. Marrio (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and help. Drewcifer (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The charts should be alphabetical order, although I suggest UK to be second after US.
• Daydream Nation didn't chart? DAYDREAM NATION!!?? But seriously maybe the websites only list info after 1990, so is there any way to double-check? Surely the 20th edition deluxe edition charted?
• The catalogue numbers don't need to be in small, it just makes it harder to read, nothing else. Also, the label's code is unnecessary along with number as it seems to just repeat the name of the record label. Make sure the labels are linked the first time
• I created the "Touch Me I'm Sick/Halloween" page, that's why I could point it out. :D and neat thing you did with the bottom of the albums table.
• Lead: The "In 1990 the band resigned once again to Geffen..." paragraph could be made bigger I think, since they released their most successful albums then, so give it the "this album charted this much" treatment for Goo, Dirty and Jet Set. Also mention their most popular singles, "Kool Thing" and "100%". You should also mention that Daydream Nation is a landmark alternative album.

That's all I have, great work on such an important band. indopug (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Generally well-written. Formatting: I've noticed tons of em dashes in the blank squares of tables in other FLCs. Rather ugly, don't you think? I've changed the top row to en dashes—aren't they a little more attractive? Please change the rest if you don't disagree. Probably a global search and replace in Word is the easiest way. TONY (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  How about if the nominator used a middot (·) instead of a dash? I think that looks better; it's a lot 'softer' because it isn't as blatantly obvious. Gary King (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the em dash is meant to describe a lack of something, at least in tables. This isn't specified in any MOS thing, but I believe this is just a normal (ie not Wikipedia-exlusive) grammar thing. I'll dig up my MLA style book and see what I can find. For now, however, I'm going to revert the dashes back to the em-dashes, and move this discussion over to MOS:DISCOG since this is something way beyond the scope of this one list. Cool? Drewcifer (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It's not a major concern, at least for me. It looks like existing discographies use emdash. Gary King (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 2: author not listed .... Doesn't appear to support the statement to which it's appended in the lead. I hope Ref 1 is good—it's used about a dozen times in a row in the lead. TONY (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow you completely. There's two citations since neither describes fully what's in the rarities release, but together they do. Maybe you were confused since the link was to a redirect? I fixed that, as well as added the author. Drewcifer (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Question How come Canada's album chart isn't included (it is on some other discographies), is it because it didn't chart there? Should the major charts their albums haven't charted on be noted? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a little unneccessary to mention charts an album didn't chart on? Surely the list of charts one doesn't chart on is a much bigger list then those they did? Drewcifer (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another list I can't find a problem with. Noble Story (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Drewcifer (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (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 12:09, 15 May 2008.

---

List of Stanley Cup champions

Here's one I've been thinking of working on for a while but never got around to it. A couple of notes. For the Challenge Cup games (1893-1914) I've decided to just list the cup winners and leave the specifics to the List of Stanley Cup Challenge Games. It is a complex history, and I felt that List of Stanley Cup Challenge Games would have more room to give full explanations. As well, I decided not to model the table after the List of Grey Cup champions ( team | score - score |team ) because in one year there was a tie, and this table also lists the coaches, so having the score format that way would be a bit more confusing.

Anyway, all concerns and comments are welcome and I will do my best to address them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reject The part that was removed also removed the winners per league season. The Challenge Cup article details the challenge games, not the league championships, which counted also. The section removed also listed the winning goal scorers. Alaney2k (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I readded the tables. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Approve Thanks. I noticed that you removed the other table. That is the right decision. It's only importance was the listing of 'other' challenge winners for those years. But the table can go in the List of Challenge Cup article. You see, the 'others' count as Stanley Cup champs too, but the 'Full Chronology' covers it. I think the 'Full Chronology' heading is probably un-necessary now. Alaney2k (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I do think that what you and others have done to improve the list is good work. I don't want to convey any other impression. Just the table I felt was important. Alaney2k (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I think the lead needs more references.
  • The lead mentions the Conn Smythe trophy, but I can't see any reference to it below.
    • It's mentioned in the lead because it ought to be mentioned somewhere, and the lead is the most appropriate place.
      • To be honest, I expected to see a list of winners somewhere, since it was mentioned in the lead. Peanut4 (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'll try moving it to the NHL era section then. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The scores in the Challenge Cup era ought to be unspaced to be consistent with the game scores later on.
    •  Done
  • I think the playoff formats should be changed to "1926–27 to 1927–28" etc, just to make it look clearer.
    •  Done
  • Why are some names in square brackets in the references? Peanut4 (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm actually not sure. I've fixed it now. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Those were my fault. I thought it was proper syntax. I neglected to correct them after learning it was not. Alaney2k (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good explanations of the myriad ways the cup's been awarded. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Prose unclear and faulty in places; formatting queries; ToC query.
• I've straightened out the opening to avoid rep. Is it OK to shift the scope statement "including finalists and challengers" to the end of the lead, as I've done? Being ignorant of the topic, I need to ask whether the list comprises only "finalists and challengers": if so, please use "comprises", not "includes" (which indicates there are other categories—and if there are other categories, can we be told what they are?).
• Structure: Why the second-level title "Champions", when that is all there is. Why not move the current third-level headings up to second level?
• I find it odd that tables are not numbered, as in most genres. (Not actionable, of course – just a comment.)
  • I'm not sure what you mean, do you mean like Stanley Cup finals I, II, III, etc? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry to be a pest, but there are ?five lists; do we really call it singular "List of ..." in that case?
  • It's all one list, it's just split up into five tables for simplicity. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Table 1: Missing comma fifth row
• Tables 2–4: is it possible to re-jig the width of the columns so that the full dates don't break in Column 1? I had to widen my window hugely to make them continuous; since all entries in the rightmost column break (rather than some), you might consider robbing from it to pay for the first width. This is not an issue in Table 5.
• All column titles should be in sentence case, not title case, shouldn't they?
• "There are two seasons that the Stanley Cup has not been awarded: during the 1918–19 season because of a Spanish flu epidemic and 2004–05 because of the NHL lockout."—"seasons during which"? Then remove "during" after the colon. Commas might go after "season", epidemic", and express the 2004–05 season using the same wording as for the other.
• "the trophy was an award for"—but no longer is? Unsure myself whether the subsequent attributions replace this role. Can you clarify?
  • It was originally for the top amateur team, now its for professional teams, and the subsequent sentences do explain it. I have done some minor rewording of that part. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• I haven't looked at the rest of the prose, but it surely needs copy-editing. TONY (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I've addressed all of your concerns and I'll work on some copyediting. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that second-level title Champions is superfluous. See List of Super Bowl Champions. Alaney2k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Table numbering issue: maybe I'm just too new here, and it's not regarded as useful; I was wondering why tables are not headed "Table 1", "Table 2", etc. for ease of identification, possible referral in the main text, etc. It's a general question that I'm asking here, simply because as a reviewer I wanted to refer to the tables here somehow. TONY (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I get you. There aren't any (that I know of) FLs that do that. The tables are all under seperate headings, so you could use that as their title. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's not done in FL List of Super Bowl champions, which is the most comparable. I don't know of any articles on Wikipedia that do number the tables like you suggest. Alaney2k (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am wondering if it is necessary for tables 2, 3 and 4 to be separate. Could they not be fitted into one section for when the Cup was an interleague championship trophy? Resolute 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive, well organized and well sourced. Resolute 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I made some minor edits, hopefully self-explanatory. The list looks great.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive article, very detailed. Explains the rather confusing details of the early Stanely Cup. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well-written, over-all concise but detailed when explanation is needed. Excellent list. -RunningOnBrains 13:50, 13 May 2008 (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 23:21, 14 May 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Seattle

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh. I have been working with Raime to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it has a litte bit of work to do, but the mistakes can be found here. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Alaskan assassin (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Perhaps the first sentence could be better phrased like: "This is a list of the tallest buildings by height."
• "19 of the 20 tallest building in Washington are located in Seattle." Reference? Also, don't start a sentence with a number; write it out.
• The second paragraph has two notes and no references. It needs them.
• "Seattle is currently going throw a small building that began in 2000 and has seen two building over 500ft rise." I don't really understand this sentence. Definitely ungrammatical, though.
• Use   for compound information. For example, "22 buildings", "43 floor", and so on.
• The image directly below the lead seems somewhat misplaced, and it isn't under any heading. Maybe you can incorporate into the article somewhere else?
• "This lists skyscrapers that are under construction in Seattle and planned to rise over 400 ft (122 m)...." "planned to rise" is ungrammatical. This occurs in "Under construction", "Approved", and "Proposed"

I think that's all for now. Noble Story (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed most of the prombles you brought up. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists all skyscraper list are supposed to begin with This list of tallest buildings in CITYNAME ranks skyscrapers in CITYNAME, STATENAME by height. Also about the panoram image, all skyscraper list are like this. What do you mean about compound information? Do you mean 76 floors insr=tead of 76-floors? Alaskan assassin (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For non-breaking spaces, I mean that all compound information should look like this in the edit box: 76 floors. Noble Story (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alaskan assasin, Noble Story is referring to the placement of   between numerical and non-nunerical text. For example, 43 floors. See WP:NBSP.
• And  Done - I have added non-breaking spaces where appropriate. I also copyedited the lead to correct any more grammatical errors, corrected information about the "first skyscraper in the city" in the lead, added references, and made some minor formatting and wikilinking adjustments througout. I now believe that the list is fully "ready" and up to FL standards. Cheers, Rai•me 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I can now find nothing wrong with it. Noble Story (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The third paragraph of the intro starts off talking about the building boom that started in 2000 with 22 buidings over 400 ft being built, proposed, etc. However, the middle of the second paragraph already talks about the current building boom and mentions 20 expected skyscrapers reaching more than 300 feet. This repetitive and somewhat contradictory information needs to be integrated into a single paragraph. Once that is complete, I can put my support being the nomination. VerruckteDan (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done - Thanks for catching that. The information in the 2nd paragraph wasn't even correct, so I removed that sentence. Cheers, Rai•me 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Thanks for fixing it. VerruckteDan (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Very nice, you are getting very good at these tallest buildings lists. Next you should work on a Canadian city like Vancouver or Montreal.
  • However, if the Space Needle is not considered a building, why is it in the "Timeline of tallest buildings"? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Good point. I removed it. About Candian cities, maybe after the Feautured Topic Drive is done. Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lists seem fine. The approved section said it includes the potential building rank, but it didn't. I removed that task and varied the lead structure. Assuming that's OK, support. Gimmetrow 01:41, 14 May 2008 (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 23:18, 14 May 2008.

---

List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army

This is another of the Victoria Cross recipients lists. It follows on from List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality and its "sublists" Australian and Canadian recipients, all FLs. Although not representing nationality, this list shows the recipients who served with the Indian Army, in much the same way as the FL List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy It meets all the criteria as far as I can tell and it has built upon comments in previous FLCs. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

I split the references into specific and general if you don't mind. Other specific comments:

• Indian Army doesn't appear to be linked here.
• 19th Century doesn't need capitalisation.
• The first award and its appearance in the Gazette seem oddly ordered to me.
• I maybe said this before, and of course ignore it if you choose, but any way of illustrating the article beyond just the VC image?

Otherwise I can't see much holding it back. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the Lead a little bit now, condensed some of those sentences. Does it work for you? It is oddly ordered because it was odd. Traditionally it is Gazetted and then you recieve it some time later. This was a rare occasion where it happened the other way around. With regards to the images: the majority of the VC lists are very full with text. If images were placed on them then they would get very cramped. In my opinion they are cramped enough as it is, especially when I go down in resolution, there is simply no room to put them in. The images actually overlap the table and as such I don't feel they are that desirable. Thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem at all. I just wondered. Some of those old cigarette card style images are cool so I wondered if they'd find a suitable home here. Not to worry. And the reword makes it clearer, to me at least! All good. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree about the images. There are some good ones. I particularly like Image:Lord roberts of kandahar.jpg, seems so regal. That and this statue image. Thanks again. Woody (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support great work Woody. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps you should delink some of the redlinks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My only concern is of the high number of ugly redlinks :( -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have been working on the number of redlinks, creating articles and redirects where appropriate. I do think that the number of redlinks has now been reduced, the majority are in the places column. Would it be better to unlink these articles? I don't want to selectively delete redlinks from the list; it would look strange. I don't think a few redlinks should prevent it from becoming and FL. Woody (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. They might turn blue in the future, and if they're not linked that helps the reader even less. There is a chance that a reader of the list is interested enough in the topic that it motivates him to create a missing article. Other than this, I have to stay Neutral. I won't be around for the next two weeks to see out the nomination to feel comfortable to support (or oppose) this early in the game. Sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support — I remember when you were trying to get Victoria Cross to FA. It's been wonderful to see you keep up with this corner of military history, and this article is as good as all the rest. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Woody, in response to your message at my talk, the simple years I think shouldn't be linked, especially those in modern times. The other links seem useful enough (as required by MOS). But I do agree with you that overlinking is a significant problem in FLCs.
• "This is a list of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army, which existed 1857–1947." I'm itching to avoid repeating the exact wording of the title at the start of the lead. And is it the VC or the Indian Army that existed during that period? Perhaps "The Victoria Cross was awarded to ?members of the Indian Army from 1857 until independence in 1947."
• "It may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service and civilians under military command, and is presented to the recipient by the British monarch during an investiture held at Buckingham Palace." Add "to" before "civilians"—it's a little far from the "to" for an ellipsis to work. "Held" is redundant. The last part is rather too different to be separated by just a comma and "and". "It may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service and to civilians under military command; the VC is presented to the recipient by the British monarch during an investiture at Buckingham Palace."
• So did it "exist" from 1856 or 1857? It's clarified later, but perhaps "in Great Britain" should be added after "introduced"?
• "Troops of the Indian Army were not originally eligible for the Victoria Cross as they had been eligible for the Indian Order of Merit since 1837, which was the oldest British gallantry award for general issue." Just "Indian troops" by now?

Comma "because"—"as" is ambiguous; I try to avoid it. "Indian troops were not at first eligible for the VC, because since 1837 they had had access to the Indian Order of Merit—the oldest British gallantry award for general issue." Issue does sound like boots and garters, but maybe that's the term to use. Having abbreviated VC already, please use it always. Trying to avoid "eligible" twice; "access" is all I can think of. Juxtapose the elements that are now either side of the dash.

• Underuse of commas, particularly as a boundary between ideas within a sentence that are only semi-related. Add one, for example, after "Merit" in the middle of para 2. Remove "cover".
• "There have been a total of 150 recipients of the Victoria Cross who were serving with an Indian Army or Honourable East India Company unit."—this could be neater.
• "soldiers who were presented".
• MOS doesn't like numerals that start a sentence, but I don't mind. "18 VCs were awarded for action in the First World War with 29 medals awarded for action in the Second World War." The connector should be "and", and why not use ellipsis? "18 VCs were awarded for action in the First World War, and 29 in the Second World War."
• The table: the colour in the key square isn't obviously different from the background colour. "This along with the *, indicates that the Victoria Cross was awarded posthumously" --> "An asterisk in a purple square indicates a posthumous award." It's a full sentence, so a period is best.
• Why the tiny print for specific refs?
• Pity there are so many red links.
• I'm new to this, but tell me: why not chronological order?

To summarise: redundant wording, underuse of commas, undesirable repetition—these are things you might keep in mind. TONY (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have given the Lead a tinkle per your comments. I think I have got all of it. With regards to the red links; I am working on it but it will take time. All of the recipients, the main point about this list are blue links as are the vast majority of units. For me, the colour stands out very well, for those who it doesn't; that is what the asterisk is for. The tiny print is a result of the highly used {{reflist}} template, it seems neater to me. Lastly, it is in name order as that is the standard way to do it for lists of this type. It is a list of names so it should be alphabetical order as far as I am concerned. Thankyou very much for the comments. Woody (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; looks better. TONY (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC) (Except there are still lots of red links; are they linked because you intend to start stubs on those items?)

Yep, that is on my to-do list. Trouble is, one of the major sources for regiment details has gone down, so books are needed. In terms of the places, they are time consuming, but will be created yes. Woody (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. It's a great list, I'd love to support it, and you deserve some serious credit for all the hard work, but I think there are far too many redlinks for this to be FL. Per criteria 1 (a) 1, which I think applies to this list. - Marrio (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have to disagree with you on that point. 1 (a) 1 states: brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; The main topic under discussion here is the recipients; all blue-links. The second most important topic is the units of the Army; 30 units do not have link. Percentage wise, this is 80% with links, and this is not for the main topic under discussion, still a very good percentage. Woody (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the main group of articles this list is designed around is the recipients. But nonetheless the existing articles brought together by the list include the units the VC recipients were part of and the conflict and place of action they received it for. So what happens if a reader re-sorts the list by location, and finds a significant numbers of red-links? In any case, I think a lot of the location articles probably exist under alternate spellings of place names. For example, William Kerr received his VC for action in Kolapore, India, which is red-linked, but which I suspect is an alternate spelling of Kolhapur. And Yeshwant Ghadge's place of action, the upper Tiber Valley in Italy, could be linked to Tiber. Marrio (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite a lot of work has gone into turning redlinks into bluelinks. The percentage now runs at 95% for all links. Given that the main focus of the list is all bluelinks, could you reconsider/take another look please. Thanks. Woody (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, given progress on the links. I still think many more of these could be cleared up with some stub creation (for the units) and some work with the wikiprojects for the various countries where these actions took place. The difficulty with some of them (including some I took a crack at) is that they are listed in your sources under outdated anglicized names. Having a local who knows the geography of the country would help tremendously. Marrio (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am still working on the unit stubs, finding sources is quite tiresome. I agree about the anglicised names, I have spent a few hours trying spelling variations on google to try and come up with the current names. For others, I have created some stubs. Thanks again for the review. Woody (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2008 (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 23:18, 14 May 2008.

---

List of acquisitions by AOL

Nominating for WP:FLC. Gary King (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could you write a bigger lead? Doesn't seem like enough prose for an article its size. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've expanded on the largest acquisitions that AOL has made. Gary King (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, the lead looks better, but I have a few more comments. There needs to be non-breaking spaces after all numbers. Also, could you create stubs for the redlink company names in the chart? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Which numbers are you referring to? I think I've got   on all the ones that need it, but I might have missed one. Red links should be gone in about 10 minutes. Gary King (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• The numbers in the lead. Just use &nbsp with a semi-colon, right after all numbers. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all numbers need a non-breaking space after them; only the ones that are connected, like $1 billion needs one otherwise the $1 is out of place if the billion is on another line. Gary King (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Computer resolutions are different, however, so even if on your computer it's on a different line, preferably you should still add them. Otherwise, the article is looking good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Please list your Support for the list if you think it should be promoted. Gary King (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find other minor stuff, but for the most part it looks good. Support Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - per my previous concerns, a number of the acquisitions actually redirect to something different. If they're notable enough to be considered part of the list then they should have their own article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question: Are all acquisitions in the list, or only notable companies? Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All. Gary King (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I think there needs to be some consistency in the portion of the acquisition list leads as to where and how we see the information about what is contained in the list, which foms most of the first lead paragraph on this one. In some of the acquisition lists, it's at te end of the lead, in some it's at the beginning, in some it isn't there at all. Also, Ubique shows up on the list as being USA in the country category, but the article says it was founded and is based in Israel. Similar problem with AdTech, which the article says is based in Germany. Marrio (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed. Also, the leads were once all very similar, but in their respective FLCs requests popped up that wanted them changed, so that's where we are at now. Gary King (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's unfortunate. It's a problem of the system, I guess, since we review lists on their individual merits and not by style of list. Not your fault as author.

Support - Marrio (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Question I was going to support, but I noticed that several of the companies value columns were empty. Is this because you couldn't find the amount or because it was never disclosed? If the latter is the case, maybe you should put a key at the top saying that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, in the lead it states "If the value of an acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed." and I have this for other similar FLCs. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Whoops, guess I missed that. Another minor issue, there is some over linking in the references section. Usually only the first use of a source should be linked. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said in another FLC, but I will summarize here, I prefer to link all the publishers so they don't have to always change if references move around. Gary King (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I'm fairly convinced the list is comprehensive, however it would be nice to see the lead expanded a bit more (I realise it already has been). Possibly a bit more about AOL itself or other interesting purchases. It would also be amazing to see a graph of cumulative acquisitions over time or something similar. Things like graph are rare in Wikipedia articles but really put articles among our "best". Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (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 20:12, 11 May 2008.

---

List of Governors of Pennsylvania

Another month, another list. In the tradition of the other featured ones (most recently List of Governors of New York), I offer this list for your consideration. --Golbez (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments

• • Avoid links in the bold title words per WP:LEAD
    • This style, while against LEAD, fits the previous eight featured governor lists, as well as many other featured lists; clicking random links on WP:FL, around 60% of the lists I clicked contained bold links in the lead. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I know that it's very common, but it is against LEAD, so...;) --Crzycheetah 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is there a "Notes" column in the Presidents of the Supreme Executive Council" table?
    • Whoops, a relic from before moving the notes to the relevant cells. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I assume that the Presidents were not members of any party, so I want to see that explained somewhere.
    • Another thing I forgot to do, fixed --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a horizontal scroll bar on IE, is there a way to avoid it?
    • What part of the page is stretching? --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I just previewed each section and noticed that the scroll bar appears in the Other high offices held section, but I don't know why.--Crzycheetah 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I removed the width=100%, that might help. --Golbez (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Publisher info should be added for the constitutions.
    • Done. Also, adding pictures now. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support The scroll bar is gone and the list looks fine.--Crzycheetah 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good, and excellent lead. Marrio (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Bold links in the lead must go. It's a breach of WP:MOS. It doesn't matter if other lists made it through, they're in breach of the MOS too. Six wrongs a right don't make. See Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence for an on-going discussion about this very point, and the lead-in sentence.
  • Done. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note [E] is in the wrong place, place it after the comma.
  • Done. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• "prohibited governors from succeeding themselves" I found this a little perplexing - do you mean they're disallowed from having consecutive terms?
  • Right, if I governor in 1808, I would not have been allowed to run in 1811, but I would be allowed in 1814.
• Also, since you use "suceed themselves" in consecutive sentences, it'd be worth rephrasing one of them to avoid repitition.
  • Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• "totalling 54 terms in both offices" is totalising these terms of any significance?
  • I suppose not, though some sources (like the NGA) record Ed Rendell as the 54th (or 52nd, even) Governor. This was an attempt to head some of the numeric confusion off at the pass. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Check image captions are not fragments - if so, remove the period.
  • Done. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, WP:COLOR is being enforced more strongly these days, particularly the bit where it says "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a colour screen will not receive that information." so simply colour coding is to be avoided.
  • I agree completely, and have been a fierce defender of that notion. However, nowhere in this article is color used as the singular method of conveying information. It is only used to communicate party, and in every single case (the top table, the middle key, and the color in the main table), it is accompanied by a party name. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Line 33, Lt Gov "vacant" shouldn't be small.
  • Aww, why not? See WI, that is mainly my template.
    • That don't matter. WI is wrong, wrong, wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • But why shouldn't it be small? I mean, I have no problem with changing it, but what's the reasoning? (preparing for counterquestion "what's the reasoning for making it small" in 3, 2, 1...) --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, yes, good question, why small...?! In fact you have Office vacant in the same table in normal size font. It doesn't add anything to the table and simply makes it more difficult for people with reading difficulties. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Done. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, it fails to cite enough sources. Not every person listed on the list has a cited source. GreenJoe 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It cites two general sources which handle every entry in the first, second and fourth lists; the third list is cited separately and specifically under the NGA ref, with specific references as needed. I see no logic in adding a notes column with just the same two references in the entire table. Every piece of information is either in the two general references, or specifically cited. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from User:Salmar

• Comments: Looks very good, as usual; I only have a few concerns:
  • Note [P] needs to go after the comma
    • Done. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The second sentence of note [3] is extremely long: it has 2 semicolons, and the second and third clauses both start with the word "however". Could it be reworded?
    • Yikes, that is bad. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The caption for Benjamin Franklin says that he was the postmaster general; didn't this used to be a cabinet-level office? If it was, shouldn't it be in the "other high offices" table?
    • It was; however, he held the office prior to it being cabinet-level (and, in fact, prior to there even being a cabinet) which is why I omitted it. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This last isn't very important, and won't affect my support, but if you were to put the specific references inside <div class="references-small" style="column-count:2; -moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2;"> </div>, they'd be in two columns, like {{reflist|2}}.
    • I'll try that out. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As the person who started it, I'm sorry that "WI did it" isn't a good enough argument; I've already fixed the parts that made the WI list "wrong, wrong, wrong" =P
    • I know, right? That was our gold standard. :P --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• —Salmar ^(talk) 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good; support —Salmar ^(talk) 13:35, 8 May 2008 (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 20:12, 11 May 2008.

---

Sydney International Piano Competition

This list has been subject to extensive work over the last few days by myself, and now, I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Basically, this is a music competition held in Sydney every four years, obviously not as high profile as a programme such as Australian Idol, for example. I've used a number of different pages of the website, and some third party references, all of which are reliable. All of the people included in the section for each year have one some form of prize, with the first winning $25,000 AUD. Anyways, I believe this is ready for FLC, and I'm willing to address any issues as soon as possible. Qst (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton

• Comments Very good work so far, but I can see a couple minor issues.
• Is it possible to expand the lead slightly more?
  • I've spoken with you on IRC over this, it seems resolved. :) Qst (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• The competiton was established in July 1977 by Claire Dan Needs a Non-breaking space and Wikilinking of the date.
  • Done. Qst (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'd really like to see an image.
  • Unfortunately, there appears to be no image associated with the competition, free or fair use, so unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about that. Qst (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Is it possible to use in-line refs for the chart?
  • Its possible, yes, but seeing as the pages on the websites are organised by year, it seemed silly to keep repeating the same citation, so I added them in to a 'general' section at the bottom. Qst (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Alright, no problem. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, I don't see anything else wrong. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Alright, all of my comments were either resolved or explained, and I don't see anything esle wrong. Well-done list, certainly deserving of FL. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Headings per WP:HEAD, so "Prize winners" not Winners.
  • Done. Qst (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• "internationally recognised" I'd switch that round. Personal choice though...
  • Done. Qst (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Is Claire Dan notable? What did she do, who did she represent?
  • I don't think she is notable, no. I can find no information about her (I'll keep looking, though,) so I can't give a brief overview of her position in the list. But, I'm assuming she was a musician high in the ranks of television or something. Qst (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Last sentence, first para of lead, one too many ", and"'s for me. Split it.
  • Done. Qst (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• What about the first three stages? Presumably held locally?
  • I'll look in to this, but I couldn't find anything on the first three, only the last two. Qst (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've managed to locate information on the first stage, but still cannot find any for the second and third. Sorry, Qst (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• "smaller prizes in operation" - prizes awarded would sound less mechanical.
  • Done. Qst (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• "a number of different countries" - why not specify this?
  • Because it is all of the different countries of the world, with the best pianists being selected, so the list would be extremely long. Qst (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Why did the competition only have a three year gap between 1985 and 1988?
  • No idea; I did notice this when building up the table and I intended to mention it in the nomination statement, but evidently, I forgot. I think maybe there was a four year gap, as the 1985 competition may have been in January, for example, and the 1988 one in August, so it may have actually been four years. Qst (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• You could make the general references specific and add the cite web ref to each year in the table. In any case, four of them have full stops, four don't...
  • Full stops added, so done. I thought the general looked better at the bottom and not with inline citations, but if there is consensus for another way, I'll change it. :-) Qst (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Any reason why you're forcing the widths of the column? On my widescreen they're very wide.
  • Done. Qst (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Is the title correct? Firstly the official site seems to refer to it as "Sydney International Piano Competition of Australia" and secondly this is a list of the winners...
  • Well, there is not enough information to have an article about the actual competition, then more info to build up the list, so it makes sense to integrate them in to one. Anyways, I think "of Australia" at the end is just the less common name, and I think just "Sydney International Piano Competition" is just its general, more common name. I'm willing to make a move of this page if there is consensus, but I think its better under its more commonly referred to name, to be honest. :-) Qst (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support okay, a couple of issues of mine still need resolving if possible but nothing major enough to prevent a support, albeit weak, from me. I'd still like more on the odd year gap and on the 2nd/3rd rounds but I can see that it may be difficult to get referenceable material on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rudget

Comments from Rudget

• Anything planned for 2008? A brief summary inluding a date would be great.
• Done. Thanks for your input! Qst (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll add this is shortly. Qst (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Have none of the past participants got articles?
  • Yep, meant to add these - totally slipped my mind. Done. Qst (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That should be it, but I may come back when necessary. Greman Knight. 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'll make this a support when all TRMs comments are completed. Rudget (Help?) 18:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good enough for FL, support. Rudget (Help?) 19:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Seriously sub-professional writing. Not "comprehensive" as required: which sections did these hosts of competitors win? Title is wrong: "List of Sydney International Piano Competition prize-winners".
  • Infobox: "Pianist skills" is wrong, linguistically and conceptually. You can have the skills, but perform poorly on the day. "Exceptional piano performance"?
  • "Sydney University" is informal. Please use the proper title.
  • Puffery: the two sources supporting the claim in the lead that it's "recognised internationally as one of the world's great Piano Competitions" are both in-house web sites. Ahem.
  • "Center" spelt wrongly.
  • "Since its establishment in July 1977 by Claire Dan, the competition has since been admitted as a member of the Federation of International Music Competitions in 1978, and is presented in association with ..."—Wrong tense; since x 2 and one is overtaken by the stated year; last clause awkwardly jammed into the sentence. Following sentence ungrammatical. And more. TONY (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, everything is done. The only thing I have not done is move the page to your proposed title, this being because if this was to be renamed, there would be no other information left for the article. I've tried to pull together everything I could find for the lead of the list, so if a separate article were to be created about the competiton, it would basically just be a duplicate of the lead in the list. I hope you're satisified with my response and now able to offer to your support, or otherwise add your comments in to a [show] box. Thanks for the accurate review. Qst (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, not really. Why are there up to ?13 prize winners each year? Weren't there categories for each? Surely we should be told which category, and who the overall winner was?
  • There are thirteen winners because, well...that is just how many there are - there is no particular reason as to why they've chosen that number. As for categories, the competition doesn't use them. Qst (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Why the "2008 competitors" table? Won't that look odd in the coming years? Presupposes an unusual amount of updating.
  • Well, because the 2008 competition has not yet ended. Once it has, I'll be formatting it to fit in with the others, but otherwise, it seems appropriate as it is. Qst (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• MOS breach: title "Prize winners", not W. Same in column title.
  • Done, I think. Qst (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Every sentence needs fixing—every one. You need a copy-editor. TONY (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done; I've seeked the assistance of Moreschi (talk) and Al tally (talk). Hopefully everything is now to your satisfaction. Qst (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2008 (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 20:12, 11 May 2008.

---

List of Christmas number one singles (UK)

I've been working on this for a while now and I now think it meets all of the criteria for featured lists. It is as detailed as I think it can go without having too much information. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid bold linking in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • Done
• Some POV issues for me:
  • "getting the number one spot has always been an honour for both artists and record labels."
  • "Christmas has become a very commercial time in modern years"
  • "gaining a number one at this time is much more difficult than any other, and can be very competitive"
  • Done
• "also spent four years at the top" - not exactly, four Christmases at number one perhaps...
  • done
• Shouldn't "the Shadows" be "The Shadows"?
  • done
• "The Spice Girls managed to equal the record ..." just "...Girls equalled the record" is fine.
  • done
• "beginning 1996" - I'd say "from 1996 to 1998".
  • done
• "Many of the Christmas number ones were also the best-selling song of the year." - citation needed.
  • done
• Consider making the table sortable, no reason why it shouldn't be.
  • done
• Presumably Al Martino is the guy on the left? State that in the caption.
  • done
• Images should be sized per WP:MOS#Images using either just thumb (for landscape) or thumb and upright (for portrait).
  • Done
• "The song was not number one on Christmas Day but was still crowned the Christmas number one." - needs explanation.
  • done
• "Also reached number one in the United States." - as Christmas number one or just in general?
  • done
• The template suggests Xmas no. 1's started in 1950.
  • The template is wrong according to all sources I've encountered. The chart only began in 1952.

That's enough from me, right now a lot to do before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

More from TRM...

• Is Martino on the right? He's doing well if so...! I'd crop the image, it's PD.
  • Hah! Cropped and the caption was changed.
• "The official UK Singles Chart began in 1952" prove it.
  • Reffed.
• "and the positions of all songs are based on the sales over the week before; thus the Christmas number one is, on occasion, not at number one on Christmas Day." this still seems confusing to me. The Christmas No. 1 will always be the song which sold most units up to and including the Saturday/Sunday (don't know) before Christmas Day. Is that correct?
  • I've tried explaining further, please let me know if it's not enough.
• "one time each " - once each with...
  • Fixed.
• Now you've made the table sortable, relink all instances of The Beatles, Queen etc since they could appear in different orders.
  • done.
• Make Blobby's image upright since it's a portrait image.
  • Done.

That's about enough for round two! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How many more rounds?=P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Please delink individual years (its never correct) and make the number of weeks entries centralised. indopug (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure I agree with that - the years were linked to ... in music, not just the year itself, so I can't see a problem here. It's very common, used in sports lists a lot as well. Not sure it contravenes MOS either. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeh, I undid my revision. I didn't link it was necessary; I have done the other suggestion however. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - major concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Gotta like any list with a picture of Mr Blobby!
  • Fixed.=P
• "The positions of all songs are based on week end sale totals, from Sunday to Saturday; thus the Christmas number one is, on occasion, not at number one on Christmas Day." Doesn't explain well enough. What day of the week would Xmas day fall on for a song not to number one on that day, but considered Xmas number 1? Give examples of songs that have done this
  • I don't understand this either; one source said that it has happened, although I can't see how, so I'll remove that for now.
• I'm sure that the charts were not always from Sunday to Saturday. I know that Radio 1 used to broadcast them on Wednesdays way back when, although that may not be related. So just check on that statement
  • I think the ref covers that.
• The Blobby caption says he's the only non-human to reach number 1, but I'd be very surprised if the cartoon character Bob the Builder suddenly started walking around the streets;)
  • Ok, fixed that. :)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral erring on the side of support. I can't give my support because I won't have internet access for the next 14 days to see out this nomination. Sorry. Hope my comments helped though. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That they did. Thanks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - in the browser I'm using right now (Explorer), the images of Queen, Bob Geldof, and Cliff Richard overhang the table. - Marrio (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because your image size default is too high (go to preferences to change it). I was advised to avoid forcing the image sizes, but thanks for bringing this up, Marrio. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - I see. Out of curiosity, why not force the image sizes? Marrio (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could, it wouldn't do any harm. Thanks for the suggestion! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why is your list not included in Template:UK Christmas No. 1s ?
• Of all artists and songs in the table, there is only one without an article. Could you create one?

The list looks fine to me. Good work. Support Baldrick90 (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks, done both of them. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:10, 11 May 2008 (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 19:49, 9 May 2008.

---

List of Atlantic Coast Conference football champions

Self-nomination. I've improved this list over the last few days, adding sources, background, and other information, and I'd like to take the next step and get it certified as a featured list. There's currently no precedent for a featured list of American football championship teams, so any suggestions on the style and/or format would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, and feel free to contact me either here or on my talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Image in lead needs a fair use rationale for this article.

  Added.

• Headings should be per WP:HEAD so "...by Year" is supposed to be "...by year", "Early Era" - "Early era" etc.

  Fixed.

• Any reason why the table is centrally aligned? And the columns? And why every college is linked each time when the table isn't sortable?

  It's more aesthetically pleasing to me when it's centered. And if you could help me make it sortable, I'd greatly appreciate it. Table formatting is not my forte. ... I stick to text editing most of the time.

  Note I made the tables sortable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  You, sir, are the greatest. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  Your welcome :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• "...conference's founding in 1953" - foundation of the conference in 1953.

  Changed to "its creation in 1953."

• "... did not typically play every possible ACC opponent..." how strange. Can you explain how they chose who they played then?

  No, I can't. As best as I can tell, it was a rotating schedule, but I haven't been able to find a source that backs that information up. Today, teams typically play a set conference schedule, then add in non-conference teams as they please, up to the maximum number of regular-season games per year.

• The lead requires referencing. Claims such as "...round-robin play became impossible due to NCAA limits on the number of games...", "In 2010, the venue will switch to Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina." etc need to be cited.

  Cited in Championship game era. I don't go in for citing lede sections if I can make sure that information reappears later in the text.

• "...from that season on, the conference champion will be..." - odd tense issue.

  Fixed.

• 6 paras in early era section is too many, it could easily be merged down to two.

  I don't know that I can reduce it without losing much of the background and other information. It can't be easily moved, since there's no article that addresses ACC football champions; this is really the best spot for it, as far as I can tell.

• Scoreboard image caption is a fragment so lose the period.

  Unless I'm missing something, that's a complete sentence.

• Did I miss the bit where you explained why there could be multiple champions?

  Second paragraph, second sentence of the lede.

• Tense in the notes changes from past to present - be consistent.

  Fixed.

• Punctuation also in the notes needs to be consistent (i.e. add periods).

  Fixed.

• Ref 7 seems to have a rogue ].

  Fixed.

• Ref 7 and Ref 21 refer to a specific page - be consistent - either Page (or preferably p) or nothing.

  Fixed. Reference 9 also deals with a specific page number, but as far as I can tell, those are the only ones that have multiple pages.

That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let me know what else I can do, and I'd really appreciate some help making the table sortable when you have a chance. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from PGPirate 14:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikilink the Atlantic/Coastal division to their area on the Atlantic Coast Conf page.
    • Done.
  • Only wikilink the first mention of each team on the table, minus year specific team pages.
    • I had thought that if the table was sortable, you needed to link each school repeatedly. Is that the case? JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay; change has been made now that I've got an answer. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - another great list, PGPirate 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support Looks great, all my issues were addressed. One thing, Florida State is linked twice in the first table. Delink the second instance. Good work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ben MacDui

Lead "due to NCAA limits on the number of games a team". Was there more than one limit?

Clarified.

Early era "saw Duke and Maryland crowned conference champions" - co-champions?

Replaced.

"Virginia was the first non-Southern Conference member to join the new conference, as Virginia had participated in football as an independent since 1936." This did not make any obvious sense to me on first reading. Is the implication that Virginia had not been involved in any other conference since 1936? Who did they play? (You did say that you wanted input from "someone who's unfamiliar with American football").

They played whoever they wanted to. They simply had to enter into contracts with individual teams, as is done with non-conference teams today.

"The Atlanta school had withdrawn" You are assuming that everyone knows Atlanta is in Georgia - this may be fine as most readers are likely to be American, but just so you know.

Fixed.

"Though the school joined the conference beginning with the 1979 season, it did not become eligible to win the ACC football championship until the 1983 season" That's interesting. Why?

I'd assume it's because of a probationary period, but I haven't been able to find a link that explicitly states that. If I do, rest assured, I'll put it in there.

"the league was forbidden from hosting a championship game" also in the lead. I don't know what a "championship game" is. Is there something you could link it to? (I now get it as its explained lower down. An earlier link would still be useful if you can find one.)

It's linked in the third paragraph of the lede, and I've relinked it in that section as well.

Championship game era "was awarded a bid to the conference championship game" This is probably standard US English. Does it mean "was offered the opportunity to play in the conference championship game"? A 'bid' sounds like it is contingent. Is it not automatic? Can 'bid' be linked?

Changed to "an invitation."

Champions by year 1983: "Clemson finished undefeated against ACC opponents, but was ineligible for the 1983 conference title etc." It may be my browser but there are long breaks between some lines.

"Florida State defeated Coastal Division champ Virginia Tech." Surely 'champion(s)'?

Fixed.

Refs

It is polite to add (pdf) where appropriate as not everyone's browser shows the acrobat icon.

Good to know. I'd always wondered why folks asked me to put that PDF tag in there. Fixed.

16 and 22 are the same

What do you mean? They go to different pages.

Apologies - its 16 and 23.

Ah, okay. Should've seen that the first time. Thanks! Fixed.

Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

First round of changes made. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for fixing these, but please attend to the final item above as well. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I've fixed that niggling little problem. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2008 (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 19:49, 9 May 2008.

---

List of acquisitions by eBay

This list is similar to List of acquisitions by Google, another list that I got to WP:FL. Gary King (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "an online auction website on September 3, 1995." - launched?
• Acquisition is linked on its second use, not its first.
• "The majority of companies acquired by Skype" - eBay?
• Alando doesn't link to what you think it should.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. GaryKing (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed in double quick time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• "eBay's largest acquisition … is the purchase of Skype" Is this largest in terms of property, or what they spent? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • money money money money :) clarifiedGary King (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'Support Good work :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 16:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I trust you that this list is as complete as possible. You presented these acquisitions really well, well done! Oh, and I made the "Value" column unsortable, since it doesn't sort properly. Hope, that's OK with you.--Crzycheetah 19:41, 8 May 2008 (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 16:14, 8 May 2008.

---

List of Oxford United F.C. managers

I have improved the article since the peer review and am now nominating it for FL. Any comments will be much apreciated. Cheers. Eddie6705 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007

• Comments by Gonzo fan2007
  • The first paragraph should either be expanded or merged into the second paragraph as the first paragraph is too short to stand alone as a paragraph.
    • Done
  • Please explain what a caretaker manager is, as most Americans or people who dont know a heck of a lot about football won't know what it is.
    • Done
  • "The first manager Headington United (the original name of Oxford United) appointed after turning professional was Harry Thompson in July 1949." This sentence is missing a word, maybe "The first manager of Headington United..."
    • Done
  • "He was sacked..." is a little too colloquial for me, maybe "fired," "relieved of his duties," etc. would be better.
    • Done
  • Link the first instance of "silverware" to Silverware (sport).
    • Done
  • Link "English football" to Football in England.
    • Done
  • Link the first instance of "Promoted" and "Relegated" to Promotion and relegation.
    • Done
  • "As of March 29, 2008" As of what? Statistics correct "as of March 29, 2008?" I think it would be better to clarify.
    • Done
  • Why is the "From" column sortable, and the "To" column not?
    • Not Done The "To" column is not sortable because it links directly to the "From" column. If you sort the from column from earliest ot recent for example, then the to column will be sorted in the same way.
  • Can you capitalize "present" in the last row (I know, picky :)
    • Done
  • Could you use {{reflist-2}} instead of {{reflist}}, it looks cleaner.
    • Done
  • I think it would look nice and be beneficial to the list to have a Total row appended to the bottom, such as: Done

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: left" |- !Name!!From!!class="unsortable"|To!!class="unsortable"|Achievements!!Games!!Won!!Lost!!Drawn!!Win %!!class="unsortable"|Notes |- !align=center|Total (32 Managers) !align=center|[[July 1]][[1949]] !align=center|Present !align=center| !align=center|2652 !align=center|967 !align=center|988 !align=center|697 !align=center|36.46% | |- |}

• • I have concerns that Rage Online isn't a reliable source. It seems to have been created and is maintained by independent supporters and isn't an official site (If I'm mistaken please correct me).
    • I don't think it is an official site. I am trying to replace this source with the 'Complete Record of Oxford Untied 1893-1989' book. However, as the title suggests, this only goes up to 1989. All but one have been removed. This is because Horton's reign is not fully covered in the book as it goes up to 1989.
      • Done all now removed. Eddie6705 (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• So for now I am going to have to say weak oppose. Most of my issues are minor and can be easily fixed but 17 of your references are to "Rage Online," and like I said, this site concerns me about WP:RS issues. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, All my comments have been addressed, good work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• A few "5"s in the lead should really be five.
  • Done
• I'd centrally align the notes column.
  • Done
• Don't overwikilink in individual cells of the table (e.g. Southern League is linked twice for both Thompson and Turner...)
  • Done
• "six year " - should be hyphenated - six-year.
  • Done
• You've linked the second silverware, not the first one!
  • Done
• "Apart from Denis Smith gaining promotion from the Second Division in 1996. No other manager has guided United to further promotions or silverware. This period included manager Ramón Díaz, who was the club's first non-British manager. " some work needed here. First sentence is incomplete, third sentence is out of context - which period?
  • Done
• "Despite Jim Smith returning as manager..." - elements of POV here.
  • Done
• You have to make the Total row unsortable, it should always be at the bottom.
  • Done
• Total 32 Managers - managers.
  • Done
• I also have concerns of the reliability of Rage Online.
  • I am in the process of replacing the sources from Rage Online and hopefully this will be done by the end of the day. All but one has been removed, see above.
    • Done
• Bullet the references.
  • Done

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - all my major issues addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved comments from Peanut4

• Oppose for the time being, mostly because of the unknown manager in 1958 - without it the list is incomplete. But some other points that need to be addressed:
  • The first line ought to say Oxford United F.C.
    • Done
  • "twenty three" should be 23 or twenty-three.
    • Done
  • I would explain the significance of 1949 in the first line.
    • Done
  • "The first manager of Headington United (the original name of Oxford United) appointed after turning professional was Harry Thompson in July 1949." This sentence doesn't make much sense to me.
    • Done
  • "thirteen" probably ought to be 13.
    • Done
  • Why is "third division" not capped?
    • Done
  • "the club's only silverware" is not strictly true, since the club has won various non-league cups and other titles.
    • Done
  • "forty four" Again 44 preferably or at least "forty-four".
    • Done
  • "After an unsuccessful first season," I think this needs referencing and further explaining. First season in what? What was unsuccessful? Who says it was unsuccessful?
    • Done
  • The references need sorting out. Some have quote marks, others don't. And those that do are in different places. The page breaks also should be endashes not hyphens. The book should also have an ISBN number.
    • Done
• That's it for now. Peanut4 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead sentence now doesn't make sense "The following is a list of Oxford United F.C. managers from turning professional in 1949, to the present day." I'd suggest something along the lines "... in 1949, when the club turned professional, to the present day."
    • Done
  • This sentence: "The first manager appointed after turning professional" also suffers from a similar problem. Overall the prose needs tightening up.
    • Done
  • You've changed thirteen to 13 but left the other two numbers above 10 to all words rather than numerals. Check out WP:MOSNUM.
    • Done
  • "major silverware" is a bit POV. I agree with you but others might not. Have you a reference to say as much?
    • Done
  • The lead flips between Third Division and Division One. Should either be Division Three or First Division. Make sure they're all the same.
    • Done

Peanut4 (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "Turner, the longest-serving manager in the club's history with more than a decade in charge, led United to back-to-back Southern League titles, of which the second, in 1962, led to their election to the Football League." I would change the second "led" to another verb.
    • Done
  • "Turner left the club nine months after the victory. Over the next 13 years, five managers took charge, including Mick Brown, Bill Asprey and Ian Greaves." Any reason for mentioning just these three of the five? It's seem entirely random to be these three. What would stop someone else coming along and changing it to another combination of the five?
    • Have included all 5
  • "However, he moved to Queens Park Rangers during pre-season so never managed Oxford in the First Division." It says 1985 before this, but I think it might read easier if this said "However, he moved to Queens Park Rangers before the 1984–85 season kicked off so never ..."
    • Done
  • Any reason the stats are only complete to March 29? We're now the end of the season, so there's no reason, they can't be updated again.
    • Updated
  • "committee of board members". Is there a reason for this? Secondly I would capitalise the c to "Committee of board members"
    • Myself and Struway2 have looked in the complete record book, contacted the club, and spoke to the author of the book. The only information they could give us was that there was a commitee of board members managing in the said period. They could not find out why this was the case (see below). Capitalised the 'c'.
  • Ref 22 needs an endash.
    • Done
• Otherwise, this has been a great improvement. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Struway2

• Says in the lead that Thompson was fired on New Years Eve 1958, but in the table he left in the November.
  • Corrected
• As to sacked/fired, as mentioned by Gonzo fan2007 above, remember this is a British-English article. In Brit-Eng "sacked" is the standard informal word for being dismissed; "fired" is at least as colloquial in Brit-Eng but less often used (though The Apprentice catchphrase is giving it currency). I'd have said that "sacked" wasn't too informal to use in an encyclopedia article as an occasional variant, but as there's only one occurrence in the lead section, perhaps "dismissed" would be preferable.
  • Hehe, sorry, I forgot about the whole Brit-Eng, I would agree dismissed would be best. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 16:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed to dismissed
• Date on totals row should be in the same format as that of all the other dates.
  • Done
• What is your source for Lewis being joint caretaker with Evans? If he was, then he needs an article, even a little stubby stub article, to comply with current FL criterion 1.a.1 "brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria".
  • Done
    • If you've removed Evans as joint caretaker, you need to subtract 1 from the number of caretakers and the totals row as well. But please see further comment below.
• While I understand reviewers' concerns about the accuracy of Rage Online as an unofficial source which doesn't state where its figures come from, removing it to replace with Soccerbase is a frying-pan into fire job if you're unaware of Soccerbase's limitations. For instance, Soccerbase didn't start including the Football League Trophy and predecessors until the late 1990s, so your early-2000s managers' stats will be counting this but Brian Horton's won't. In addition, Soccerbase has never included things like the Anglo-Italian or the Simod/ZDS/whatever cup, though I believe Oxford did compete in these.
  • Done following discussions at nominator's talk page.
• Some of your references could do with a bit more detail. For instance, the Abingdon Herald manager profiles have an author who should be credited.
  • Done
    • I've done several more.
• Per your Oxford Mail ref, Malcolm Crosby had 5 games from 24 Dec, which takes him until after 17 Jan but before 24 Jan; per Soccerbase (and RageOnline), Shotton's first game was 24 Jan, yet you have 25 Jan. Soccerbase has Shotton finishing on 25 Oct 1999, RageOnline has his last game as 23 Oct (which is consistent with SB), you have 3 Oct 1999 (perhaps that's a typo for 23 Oct?). Perhaps you should check through your dates to see if there are any more inconsistencies?
  • Done
    • No, it isn't. The table still has Crosby finishing and Shotton starting on 25 Jan, contrary to your cited source. It also has Shotton finishing on 23 Oct where your cited source has 25 Oct.
      • Changed
• Your footnote 26 (soccerbase 1997-98 results) doesn't go anywhere. Should be http://www.soccerbase.com/results2.sd?teamid=1964&seasonid=127
  • Done
    • Except you've added the same link for Soccerbase 1999-2000 results.
      • Corrected
• I'm not really comfortable with the wording of "During this time there have been 23 full time managers and nine caretaker managers. Five managers have had two or more stints at the club." Technically, there have been 20 different full-time managers, of which three have had more than one spell in the full-time job, and six different named caretaker managers, one of which (Ford) had two spells as caretaker but was never full-time manager, one (Patterson) has twice been full-time manager, and one (Evans) has once been full-time manager. That's ignoring the gap between Thompson and Turner. If it were me, I'd say something like "During this time the club has had 20 full-time managers, of whom three – possibly name them? – have had more than one spell in the post, and eight periods of caretaker-management." and ignore the odds and ends. Similarly, I think having the number of managers at the bottom of the column is misleading. What do you think? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well done for finding out there was a committee between Thompson and Turner. Could you add a source for that (the only note on that line is the one that's always been there, presumably referencing the dates, seeing as you told me the only paragraph between Thompson and Turner in the book didn't mention who took over). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The source already there is to show the dates. I don't know if i will be able to get a source mentioning the committee. I contacted the administrator of Rage Online, who was able to tell me from memory it was a committee decision. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply copied from my talk page by Struway2 (talk)
    • I contacted the club who in turn contacted Andy Howland (author of Complete Record book), between them they said that if it wasn't in the book the only thing they could suggest was the club handbook for the season in question, which they didn't have prior to 1960-61. So I think between Eddie6705 and myself we've done as much as humanly possible to source the gap. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Support The list follows an established standard for football club manager lists. It satisfies WP:WIAFL criterion 1.a.1 (existing articles), the lead introduces the list adequately and is referenced, the list itself is well referenced, uses reliable sources and complies with the MoS, and it is illustrated using an appropriate free-use image. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2008 (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 16:14, 8 May 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Jersey City

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of tallest buildings in Charlotte. I have been working with Alaskan assassin to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Support The only thing that I would like to see done to this article would be the panorma cropped. I would do it myself but I always mess up uploadng images. Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done, added newly cropped Image:Jersey City Panorama cropped.JPG to article. Cheers, Rai•me 00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good, another great candidate. VerruckteDan (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Needs Non-breaking spaces. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In the prose, all of the measurements use {{convert}}, so non-breaking spaces are included. Do you mean in the height columns of the five tables, where measurements are presented as "781 / 238" without non-breaking spaces? Thanks, Rai•me 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Mostly the numbers in the lead, such as This second boom has resulted in the construction of many of the city's tallest buildings, including 30 Hudson Street and the Harborside Financial Center development. There are currently 16 completed buildings... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification. And  Done, I added non-breaking spaces to the lead and the "Notes" section where appropriate. Cheers, Rai•me 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Support Mucn better. I can't find anything else wrong with the list. Well done! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead says "The tallest building...", then "The second-tallest skyscraper..." leading the reader to think What about the tallest skyscraper? (Aren't skyscrapers and buildings usually two different things on Wikipedia?)
• I like how the Lead image is clickable for each different building, but only two links? Are other buildings not linked yet, or do they not appear in the picture?
  • I resolved this issue myself
• Is there no notable notes for those buildings without them?
• The notes column doesn't need to be sortable

That's it from me -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the notes and changed skyscraper to building. About the picture, I think the reason there are only 2 links is that those were the only 2 buildings with articls when the image was made. I would fix It but I cant really get the tool to work. Alaskan assassin (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope neither of you mind, but I changed the wording back to "second-tallest skyscraper". The first sentence reads "ranks skyscrapers and high-rises", implying that the tallest buildings in the city are skyscrapers. "Second-tallest skyscraper" was used in place of "second-tallest building" because it offered prose differentition, a must for Wikipedia's best work. And Alaskan assassin is completely correct on the image; there are two buildings that could be labeled that didn't have articles at the time of the image's creation, but I also am unsure about how the use the image map tool. Cheers, Rai•me 01:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the revert is fine by me. I know how to do image mapping, but I don't know which buildings -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if you could "update" the image mapping - this building to the right of 30 Hudson Street is Exchange Place Center, and this complex of buildings in the far right corner is Towers of America. Thanks, Rai•me 02:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The mapping is all done. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the entries with no notes, there are no notable notes directly relevant to the buildings' heights. Cheers, Rai•me 03:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was just wondering. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• The list structure seems ok to me. Do we need to have "list of ..." in bold in the lead section? The other two paragraphs jump around in time. The second paragraph starts talking about history, then talks about the second boom of construction, and then some present-day facts (April 2008). The third paragraph goes back to the second boom of construction and then to future construction. I realize this mimics the structure of the lead in list of tallest buildings in Minneapolis, but the time sequence there is more clear. This is only three paragraphs, but it comes across as disordered to me. Gimmetrow 07:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. The bold "list of ..." in bold is fairly standard for FLs. The order of the information in the two paragraphs was meant to read as 1) early history (first high-rise), 2) later history (construction boom), 3) present-day facts, and 4) future buildings/current construction. The third paragraph only mentions the second construction boom to show that the boom has not ended yet, and the construction of many "future buildings" will be a part of this boom. The mentioning of "10 of the city's 16 tallest buildings being completed after 1997" is simply a continuation of present-day facts, so it really does seem out of place, as it comes before the information on future construction. Cheers, Rai•me 22:47, 7 May 2008 (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 16:14, 8 May 2008.

---

El-P discography

Been working on this bad boy for some time now, and I think it's ready. As always, any suggestions and comments are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title

Nearly every discography does this, and I would argue that discographies would be a good exception to the rule, simply becase it's important to link to the artist as soon as possible, since the discography is secondary to the artist's page.

I don't buy the "nearly every other x does this"... it doesn't sanction a breach of the manual of the style. You could argue that all articles need their subject matter to be linked as soon as possible, discographies aren't unique in that. It's very easy to comply with the MOS, many hundreds of featured articles and lists have done it so I see no reason for this discography not to do the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll tell you what: I'll fix it for now, and I'll bring up the topic at WP:DISCOG and see if it's worth making a project-wide exception for. Drewcifer (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not exceptional. There are three other FLs (Feeder, Tenacious D and Carrie Underwood) all of whom comply with the MOS. Also, across the discog FLs there's a wide range of intros, such as "a comprehensive listing", "a complete discography", "a listing of official releases", so complying with the MOS here is by no means a precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Like I said, I fixed it in this discog, and I'll bring it up at WP:Discog and see if it's even worth bothering making an exception for. Drewcifer (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure if comprehensive is needed, it needs to be complete for it to be "the" discography so the phrase is redundant.
• "To date"... better to put a timeframe on this.
• Link Company Flow the first time rather than the second time of use.
• Some things in the lead seem (to me) to need citation, such as "Following disagreements with the group's label"...
• Space needed before that sentence as well.
• Cage is linked twice in quick succession.
• "September 11, 2002." I guess you mean 2001.

That's about all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Took care of all of your suggestions except the first (see my comment above). Thanks for the help! Drewcifer (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I don't have anything for you! Nice job! Burningclean _[speak] 03:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Drewcifer (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• support Comprehensive and well laid out. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The following is the discography of El-P, also known as El-Producto, a New-York based hip-hop rapper and producer and co-founder, owner, and CEO of Definitive Jux Records." Where should a further comma be placed? Where should a missing hyphen be located?

Uhm, I give up? Did you have something in mind?

• In any case, please don't repeat the title verbatim in the opening sentence. Try "El-P, also known as El-Producto, is a New-York-based ...".

Why not? Is there an MOS on this? I thought this was pretty standard practice? I also assumed it was encouraged to bold (and therefore) repeat the title.

• Remove "also" and it's stronger.

I disagree. That would make sense if I hard started the lead out with his real name, but not his stage name. Try reading it out loud without the "also", it doesn't mean the same thing with out the also.

• Entry criteria: "Releases from El-P's various groups such as Company Flow and The Weatherman are not included in this discography." Unsure what this means. Various? If not "groups", what is in the list?

Reworded, hopefully it's clearer now.

• His real name?

Added.

• I presume the formatting of the titles is MOS-compliant (italics, quotes, etc).

Yes.

• "Double CD mixtape only sold at shows"—Only sold and not bought? Shift "only" to as late as possible in a sentence. Occurs elsewhere too.

Reworded.

• Lower-case letters sometimes start the boxed text. Make consistent? While on that general topic, I'd personally prefer not to use title case in the titles; I think you have the choice, but I'm not completely sure. Title case can look like alphabet soup in this kind of table. TONY (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Could you be more specific? Drewcifer (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - well done. Marrio (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2008 (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 16:14, 8 May 2008.

---

List of acquisitions by Yahoo!

This list is based off of List of acquisitions by Google, a recently promoted WP:FL that I also nominated. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• I think rather than a blank cell for the Value, it would be better with an emdash (—), just so people don't think the information was accidentally not included.
• There's one date, September 2004, which is linked; I always thought it should be full dates only, but I don't see anything in the MOS:DATE to say whether it allows it or not.
• I noticed some of the derived products are the same, but the column isn't listed. Is there a reason for this?
• I would sort the value column too, though I get why it isn't with the missing values, so that goes either way for me.

That's it, I think! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean by the "column isn't listed"? Also, the rest are done. Gary King (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• My apologies. I meant to say, "I noticed some of the derived products are the same, but the column isn't sortable." -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For previous lists, it had been suggested that it not be sortable because some rows had more than one item in that column. I'll make it sortable for this particular list because the items in this case are comparable. But for instance, the list for Apple have more than one item in Derived Products, so sort is not as suitable for that. Gary King (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I was the one who kept asking for them unsorted, too! Ah well. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• No further issues with this list. Meets the criteria. Well written. Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Please see any relevant comments I've made at the Apple Inc. FLC, such as sorting columns, USD representation, Bay area siting and linking.
• "company founded on March 1, 1995. " - prove it. And actually that goes for Apple Inc. FLC too.
• "which made co-founder Mark Cuban" not 100% clear he was co-founder of Yahoo! or the other company...
• Kimo points to a dab page.
• You use em-dashes here for "not known", on the Apple list I seem to recall it was blank cells. Be consistent.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• All above is done. Sorting the Value column was tricky for some reason, and I finally managed to get it to sort properly. If I change the width or make (US$, in millions) smaller, then for some reason it stops sorting correctly. Gary King (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The Value column doesn't sort properly.
  • I've made it unsortable. The problem lies with {{nts}}. Gary King (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't a field about which I know very much. Your sources Search Engine Watch and GigaOM seem to be blogs; are these reliable sources? For instance your ref #34 cites a blog posting which links to an article elsewehere; would it be better to use the blogs to find the original sources and then cite the originals?
  • Those refs should be better now, using more reliable sources. Gary King (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Formatting, language, Criterion 2a.

• Gary, what does "the respective company" mean? I see this here and in at least one other nomination above.
• Please spell out "US$".
• Do we really need to link "American"? And "United States", twice in four lines? Please link strategically to encourage readers to follow the high-value ones.
• Remove "then".
• Remove "US" from subsequent currency items (see MOS).
• Commonwealth? Of Massatusetts? [sorry, it's perversely difficult to spell]
• This seems to be one of a cascade of company-acquisition nominations. They seem to be churned out to a very similar formula in the lead. IMO, there's insufficient information about the company and its acquisitions in the lead. Thus, the list is ... rather boring. TONY (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanded. Should be better now. Gary King (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Following review comments needs to be addressed:

• "Each acquisition is for the respective company in its entirety." - re-word sentence as it is difficult to understand. Possible alternative - All acquisitions is to 100% shares of the acquired company.
• "The majority of the companies acquired by Yahoo! are based in the United States." - please be specific, list the number of non-US acquisitions vis-a-vis US acquisitions
• Where the acquired company doesn't have a wiki page by itself, please avoid wiki-fying the name of the company and linking it to Yahoo. Instead let it be a non-wiki term or add atleast a stub level page for the original company. for eg: either add a wiki page for Net Controls or remove wiki link
• Suggestion: There is no sub $1 million acquisition. Specifying the overall value makes it difficult to read. List amount by "US $ mn" instead of "US $"
  • I'd prefer to leave it as it is. It's just easier to read for each individual row. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please address these comments and leave a note in my talk page. --Kalyan (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All done above Gary King (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Support list for FL --Kalyan (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Marrio (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Although it might be good to add a descriptor like in the Electronic Arts acquisition list: "Each acquisition listed is for the entire company. The acquisition date listed is the date of the agreement between Electronic Arts (EA) and the subject of the acquisition. The value of each acquisition is listed in U.S. dollars, because EA is headquartered in the U.S. If the value of the acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed. If the EA service that is derived from the acquired company is known, then it is also listed." Marrio (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one that started that trend, and removed it in this article and will do so in subsequent articles because it was considered multiple times to be detrimental to the list's quality. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see itt as detrimental - it provides context for the list, and is therefore useful to the reader. Marrio (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2008 (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 13:17, 6 May 2008.

---

List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems

Nominating this because I believe it should be a WP:FL. Gary King (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns from other reviews have been addressed admirably here. Good stuff Gary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comment You are basically using one source. All of your references are from the Cisco's website. Could you use reports from news agencies on some of the info?--Crzycheetah 19:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll look around, but this is based off of the company's own press releases because it's their own acquisitions. It's like, if the Academy Awards gave an award to someone and announced it, then everyone would also just 'copy' that information; the bottom line is that there is only one source for that because they are the only ones who control the recipients. The same goes with this list. Gary King (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You example is out of place here. I am not saying you should remove those sources, all I am asking is to add independent sources, as well. Taking all info from just one website is WP:POV. I'd like to know what the acquired companies' websites say? You know, the other side is also important. --Crzycheetah 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  I've added some refs; will add more to the other items. Gary King (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  Oppose The refs are fine, but the Value column doesn't sort properly.--Crzycheetah 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  This is due to a bug with the {{nts}} template... see Template talk:Sort#nts not sorting values above 10million properly Tompw (talk) (review) 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  It's weird, then that column should have an unsortable class. I just don't see how useful it is to sort a column that can't be sorted properly.--Crzycheetah 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  Done Gary King (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, after thinking about it, wouldn't it be better if you stated in the header that the values are in thousands and remove the last three zeroes? This way, there are no numbers above 10 million and the column will sort properly. Just a suggestion.--Crzycheetah 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  I've thought of that and as I said before, I prefer to keep the full values in there. It just makes more sense for people who just look at a row without looking at the headers. I'm going to leave it as it is. Gary King (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Hopefully that bug is going to be fixed at Template talk:Sort#nts not sorting values above 10million properly, other than that, this list is very much useful.--Crzycheetah 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Could you add a note to the effect that Crescendo was Cisco's first aqusitions (ref #3 mentions this, so you have a source). The reason is that it looks odd that the company seven years not buying anything, and then buying two or three companies per year. Once this is supported, this will have my support. Tompw (talk) (review) 13:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead to add this information. Please take a look at it. Gary King (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Quick work :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (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 19:04, 4 May 2008.

---

List of Houston Rockets first and second-round draft picks

I've modeled this after Orlando Magic draft history, and I think this is now ready. Noble Story (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Use en-dash not hyphen for year ranges.

• Done.

• I think the image caption is a complete sentence so it needs a period.

• Done.

• You need a key for the Pos's, so non-NBA experts understand.
• "there were 8 rounds , and from " 8 should be eight and no space before the comma.

• Done.

• You've got 3 1980 round 2 picks and only 1 1981 pick, also round 2. is this correct? If so I don't understand why...
• And 1983 has two first round drafts at number 3... for the non-expert (ie me) it's confusing.

• Yes, all these are correct. The lead says: "Teams can also trade their picks, which means that in some drafts teams may have more or less than two draft picks."
  • And those picks will have the same number? Surely one player was picked before another, so you'd have 3 and 4? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Notes 4 thru 7 need citation.

That's about it for a quick first run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed some of your comments, and I'll work on the rest tomorrow. Noble Story (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

• Oppose for now
  1. In the lead, in one sentence, you're stating that there were 8 rounds in the 1974 draft, then after a comma, you're stating that there actually were 10 rounds in the same 1974 draft. Hmm, which one is it?
     • Fixed.
  2. In the Nationality column, "USA" should be "United States" in order to be consistent, since you spelled out other countries. OR it could be the other way, use the 3-lettered abbreviations for other countries.
     • Fixed.
  3. I disagree with The Rambling Man, I don't think a key for the positions is needed, since all of the abbreviations are already linked in the table.
  4. [Most important]There are some picks that Houston either traded for or traded away after drafting, so there should be notes next to them. Some examples: 15th and 37th picks in 2002 draft, 18th and 23rd picks in 2001 draft, etc.
     • Fixed.
  5. All notes should be cited.
     • Fixed.
  6. In the "College/High School/Club" column, foreign clubs should have their countries in parenthesis next to them.
     • Fixed.

--Crzycheetah 21:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all your comments. Noble Story (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job, that was quick! Some more comments:

1. Footnotes ##17, 19 and 20 need detailed trade notes.

• Done

1. I don't trust TheDraftReview.com as a reference and I think it should be changed. NBA.com and ESPN.com may have the latest trade news and are more reliable. I may help you out on this.

• Replaced all with reliable sources.

1. I strongly recommend to doublecheck the trade notes in a couple of days. I know I will.;)

--Crzycheetah 09:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've corrected everything you said to. Noble Story (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I striked my oppose, but still not comfortable to support. Here are some minor concerns:
  • I think it would be better if you used this link as a reference instead.
    • Done.
  • All those page numbers need a "p." in front of them to clarify that those are actual page numbers.
    • Done.
  • I would also like to see <br /> between the notes and references. It's just too congested now.
    • I've added footnotes as suggested below.
  • All of those university links should be linked to more specific pages. For example the University of Kentucky should be linked to Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball. After all, people listed here are basketball players, not noble prize winners.;)
    • Done. Noble Story (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I am impressed that you actually separated notes and citations. This list deserves a star!--Crzycheetah 07:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment regardless of whether they're linked, a key makes the information accessible to non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Added key. Noble Story (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Peanut4

• Comments
  • Do you need to wl to 1968, 1990s and 2003 in the lead?
    • No, I guess not. Removed.
  • The last par of the lead needs several references.
    • Added two refs.
      • You got the very two I thought needed it most. But I've spotted one more. "Teams can also trade their picks, which means that in some drafts teams may have more or less than two draft picks." Can you find a ref for this, I got confused by the draft picks in the table, until I read this sentence in the lead which explains it perfectly. Peanut4 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Added.
  • "For two drafts in 1972–73." Does this refer to the drafts in 1972 and 1973? If so, re-word it to "For two drafts in 1972 and 1973." per WP:DASH. Peanut4 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Reworded.
• My only possible suggestion for improvement would be to split the footnotes and references, as you can see at Manchester City F.C. seasons. Each footnote can then have a reference in the references section too. Otherwise it looks great work. Peanut4 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Done. Noble Story (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Everything done. Looks good and meets the criteria. Good work. Peanut4 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not very familiar with the NBA, so I apologize if this is a stupid question, but there aren't many rounds in the NBA draft, are there? So why not rename this Houston Rockets draft history, or if it's incomplete, why not expand it so it is? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason the article is titled as it is, is because it is incomplete. However, the reason for that is that, as is mentioned in the lead, there were many, many rounds back when the Rockets first stared. Even as much as 21 or 19 rounds. Almost none of those players made it to the NBA, and expanding it would just make an exteremly long list with a lot of redlinks. Just so you know, there are other FLs similar to this list, such as List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks, List of Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks, and so on. Noble Story (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Scorpion made a good point, I think a separate page needs to be created something like Houston Rockets draft history and list all picks there. Take a look at Indianapolis Colts draft history and List of Indianapolis Colts first-round draft picks for examples.--Crzycheetah 08:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Good point, I'll probably attempt it at some point. However, I don't think it should affect this' article. Noble Story (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support While I agree there is a need for a seperate article with all draft picks, the fact that this article limits itself to 1st/2nd-round picks doesn't prevent it from being useful. It certainly meets all other requirements. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:21, 3 May 2008 (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 19:04, 4 May 2008.

---

Philadelphia Phillies seasons

I am self-nominating this list for featured status because I believe that it meets all of the criteria necessary to named as such. It has been peer reviewed once and the concerns that were raised have been addressed. I have had some help with the citations and have learned a lot from putting this list together as well. I am willing to address any concerns that are raised. Thanks for your consideration. Killervogel5 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hi Killervogel5, some comments...

• No need for the see also template, you link to the team in the lead.

YRemoved the see-also link. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid links in the bold part of the introduction per WP:LEAD#Bold title.

Removed links added by Mitico. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• You say "completed seasons" but the current season is in the table. Remove the current season.

YAltered the lead to include season being played currently (I did not add completed seasons originally; it was copied from another article by Mitico). Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Use en-dash, per WP:DASH, to separate number ranges such as 22–38 (instead of the hyphen which looks like 22-38).

YHyphens replaced with en-dashes. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Move citations to immediately follow punctuation per WP:CITE.

YCitations moved. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Regular Season in the table can just be Regular season.

YI changed this, but I believe it to be more aesthetically pleasing the other way (see St. Louis Cardinals seasons). Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's a real shame the colspans are in there because without them you could make the table sortable. Not a dealbreaker but something to consider.

I thought long and hard about removing them, because I really wanted this table to be sortable, but in the end, I stuck with the convention of the above St. Louis featured list. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Need a key for GB.

I don't know what you mean by this. Could you clarify? Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to explain to non-expert readers what GB means. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, understood. It's keyed in the reference against "regular season," which explains each statistic. YKillervogel5 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• "4-1" -again use the en-dash.

YEn-dashes added. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• MVP needs explanation. As does CYA, and MOY. And NLCS and NLDS.

What would you suggest? I could put it in footnotes, but the list gets very unstreamlined if I write it out in the table itself. Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Add a key to explain what these mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

YKeyed in references. Killervogel5 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• No need for full stops in the table.

I don't know what exactly a full stop is; could you explain? Killervogel5 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant no need for the periods. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

YRemoved. Killervogel5 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. A lot of these changes were added by someone else and I just didn't remove them yet. It's something I can address later this afternoon. Killervogel5 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments Just a couple of points

• The colours in the key (for World Series Champions, National League Champions, Division Champions and Wild Card Berth) are a bit clashy, and aren't standardised to other "Team name seasons" pages.

I know the colors aren't standardized, but I thought it might be better to represent the team with the colors instead of colors that don't really mean anything. I could really go either way. Killervogel5 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

YColors now standardized. Killervogel5 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Should it be "postseason" or "post-season"? I don't know which is correct, but I've seen more of the latter.

Both spellings are correct. Killervogel5 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Usually, the spelling "postseason" is used when the noun stands alone. The "post-season" spelling is more common in terms of "post-season (i.e., after-season) play." Since the latter usage occurs in the lead, I have changed that spelling to reflect this. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Second addendum: After further consideration, my brain wants it to be the same in the lead and the table, so who am I to argue with my own mind? I'll utilize the hyphenated spelling because it is the one featured in the article that the link goes to. Killervogel5 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reference ten should be turned into a Key table, like other seasons pages.

YThe keys that I see on other pages always have looked out of place. Obviously as an encyclopedia, the point is to get across the proper information, but I still think the aesthetics of it are important. Killervogel5 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have moved the keys into footnotes instead of references so that they are done properly. I am going to separate them out into individual footnotes later today. KV5 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Now individual footnotes for each award and necessary column. KV5 (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it from me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of "MOY stands for Manager of the Year", I would just do "MOY = Manager of the Year"
• Footnotes J, K and L could do with being cited.
  • Y Done. KV5 (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, unfortunately I'm only able to give a neutral vote. I'm moving tomorrow and won't have internet access until around May 14, so I can't come back to see if these have been resolved or how other people's comments are resolved. Sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Peanut4

• Comments
  • I'd move the last line of the first paragraph of the lead to later on in the lead. It just comes completely out of the blue in that position and isn't relevant to anything else in the first paragraph.
    • YDone. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't MLB-record by a hyphen not a dash?
    • YFixed. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's a modern Major League record? What era does it refer to?
    • All it means is current record. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It needs explaining and amending in the text. I still don't understand what you mean? Peanut4 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I misunderstood the question. The 120 losses by New York is the record after the dead-ball era. I will clarify it. Killervogel5 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
          • YDone! Killervogel5 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Possibly use two columns for the references.
    • I inserted the code to change the reference list to two columns; however, it did not change to two columns. I am at a loss how to fix it. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It works already. Peanut4 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • YOK, then it's done. Killervogel5 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there any reference for the data in the table? Peanut4 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Each individual season comes from the website Baseball Reference. I have added a link at the bottom of the reference section to the main page of Phillies history. YKillervogel5 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Nice one. Much better. Peanut4 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd change this sentence: "At times, the Phillies' search for a championship has been seen as an exercise in futility, due to their long stretches of losing seasons," It seems very POV to me. Who says it's been futile? I'd stick to the facts. Peanut4 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • [23] [24] [25] There are three sources that say it; I did not think a statement like that needed to be attributed to any particular source, because being the first franchise in American history to 10,000 losses would stand to prove in itself that their struggle is futile.
      • I'd put all three of those sources staight after your claim. To me, futile suggests it has been entirely pointless them turning up, yet they have won a World Series. But those references back up that sentence. Peanut4 (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • YDone! KV5 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Looks pretty good now. My only possible suggestion would be to add a references column to the table to put all the refs in. But it's not a clincher. Peanut4 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I'd love to do that if I had the time right now. That doesn't really conform to the other featured lists on sports seasons, though. KV5 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Update: I've made an updated table with individual season reference links in the table; however, I'm not sure if it's really aesthetically pleasing. You're welcome to check it out here in my sandbox. Let me know your opinion. KV5 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Why don't the figures on the table match those to the external link? Peanut4 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you be more specific? KV5 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't go through the full list but these for a start off. 1890 says 78-54 (The ref says 78-53. 1893 says 72-58 (The ref says 72-57. Maybe more. That's as far as I got. Peanut4 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • My fault... it's because I linked the wrong site at the bottom of the page! I don't know why the two sources (Baseball-Almanac and Baseball-Reference) don't match. WikiProject Baseball tends to favor Baseball Reference, but I find their statistics and choice of wording biased at time. Baseball Almanac shows different statistics at times and a different type of list, but the two sources don't always have matching numbers. I've maintained the numbers in the article because two of three sources support the information in the table. I have included the additional sources at the bottom of the table. KV5 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Of those four links, which one(s) has (have) the correct info then? To be honest, I'd ditch those with the incorrect stats. Peanut4 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • One link is for the current standings; it's a different source than the others (the fourth link). It has to stay. The problem that I see is that I may encounter some opposition from people at WP:BASEBALL if I do not include Baseball-Reference as a source, though it is the one that does not match with the official team history. I have spoken with some people at the Baseball-Reference website regarding inaccuracy in their statistics before, but they maintain that their statistics are correct and that the official team history is wrong. I suppose that leaves them in violation of WP:NPOV or gives them a conflict of interest, something like that, so I don't know exactly what the best course of action is. I'll remove the link for now. KV5 (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Okay. So does that mean this link should match the data in the table? Because 1893 data is different for a start off. Peanut4 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
              • • Yeah, that was my bad. Y Fixed. KV5 (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• 1919, 1951, 1974 %age, 1981 GB need fixing. Peanut4 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The first three, Y fixed. The two season halves are combined in the record on the official page for 1981; however, they need to be separated in the table because otherwise there is no justification to talk about the division series. This is explained in the reference. KV5 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Support All my comments have been addressed and the list now looks in ship-shape condition. The only improvement I could suggest now is to split the notes into footnotes and citations/references as can be seen at another current FLC, List of Houston Rockets first and second-round draft picks. Good work. Peanut4 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll get on that tonight or later tomorrow... I have to learn some new syntax to do it. KV5 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Knocked it out. Done! KV5 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from MeegsC

• According to WP:MOS, the use of color coding without some additional symbol is not advised. ("Using color alone to convey information (color coding) should not be done. This is not accessible to people with color blindness (especially monochromacy), on black-and-white printouts, on older computer displays with fewer colors, on monochrome displays (PDAs, cell phones), and so on.")
  • This color coding is done to mimic the style of other featured lists (i.e., St. Louis Cardinals seasons); I can't really see another way to mark them, since all of the information is already written out. The color is just to draw an eye; it's not the sole means of information conveyance. I also added some extra highlighting by bolding the playoff years and the "Won/Lost" in the postseason field. Killervogel5 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Is there a reason you use the bright red and white headers in the table rather than the more subdued maroon and white colors that are on the Phillies template box? The latter are a lot less glaring! MeegsC | Talk 09:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason is because the maroon color no longer reflects the Phillies. Their colors have nothing to do with maroon; they are red and blue. I felt it was more appropriate to stick with that color. In addition, the red used in the table is much closer to the red in the Phillies players template. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Struway2

• In the lead, several of your links are redirects (East Division links to National League East Division which redirects to National League East, post-season > playoffs > playoff, professional sports team > professional sports). Next time you edit the article, you may want to pipe those links to bypass the redirects.
  • Links fixed. KV5 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Some of your citations are missing author or date information (currently ##2, 9, 11, 26, 28)
  • Sources 9 and 11 do indeed have authors; I will look for dates. I added one for 2 and 26. I'm looking for 28. KV5 (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Citation #10 should use a relevant citation template for consistency.
  • Y Fixed. KV5 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• You're inconsistent with date formats in your citations. With the accessdate parameter, most use ISO format as per the template documentation but ##26-28 use US format. With the publication date, ##2-4 use international (day first) format but #6 has US format; if you don't want to use ISO format for those, then US format would be more appropriate, and consistent with usage in the rest of the article.
  • Y Changed date formats. KV5 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Citation #26 goes to a collaborative wiki. Can you find a more obviously reliable source than that?
  • I would assume you mean citation 27, since 26 is an obviously reputable source (ESPN). I've replaced it. Y KV5 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I did indeed mean 27, sorry.

think that's all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I've had a proper look at the references now, and will try harder to get the numbers right.

Ref. 2 has an incorrect date (should be the date you have on #3), and the publication date is in international (day first) format.

Ref. 6 is absolutely fine and has the publication date in US (month first) format, which I'd say is more appropriate for an article about a US subject. (If you can't see any difference between the two, turn off your date preferences at the "my preferences" tab at the top.)

Ref. 9 is missing the publication date.

Ref. 11 likewise (it's in the URL).

Ref. 26 is missing author and publication date (the year is 2002, it's very unhelpful of ESPN putting day/month but no year at the top of the article, but if you click on Joe Morgan Archive on the right of the page and go through there, you come to it...). Also, this citation has the accessdate in US date format, unlike ##1-25 which use ISO as per template documentation.

Ref. 27 I don't think actually references the Division Series thing, perhaps this or this might do?

Ref. 28 is missing author and publication date (it's in the URL), and has US-format accessdate.

If you'd like me to go through and edit them myself, I'm quite happy to do so; it would have been quicker than typing out all this stuff :-) but I didn't want to risk edit conflicts or getting in your way. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. You're welcome to join in the editing, or not; either way is fine. I'm actually at work right now, so my time at the computer is sporadic. I appreciate your comments. KV5 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you really need the small font in your colour key? That size is difficult enough to read even at high-contrast, but the National League (particularly) and the Wild Card boxes are problematic. I've tried it at the same font size as you use in the table and it doesn't make the colour key excessively wide.
  • The code for these colored boxes was pulled directly from another featured list (literally a direct copy). See St. Louis Cardinals seasons and Chicago Bears seasons. KV5 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If those lists were up for FLC now then I'd say the same thing, that there isn't any good reason to make the font so small it's difficult to read, particularly against a low-contrast background.
      • How about now? KV5 (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That's a definite improvement. I'm still generally anti-small fonts, but that's an acceptable compromise (translates as "I can read it now";-)
          • Y OK, sounds good. I didn't like the font at full size because I thought it looked cramped in my browser. KV5 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Ref. 28 thanks for correcting my failed attempt at adding a properly-formatted publication date.
  • No problem. KV5 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• One more thing (hopefully just the one). In the lead, it says The franchise was also the first professional sports team in American history to reach 10,000 losses during the 2007 season. Although no-one in their right mind would believe they'd lost 10,000 times during the 2007 season, perhaps it might read better turned round to something like During the 2007 season, the franchise became the first ... to reach 10,000 losses. Struway2 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done. KV5 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

only one remaining is:

• Ref. 3 (unless I'm missing something) is a blog, doesn't appear to be written by the cited author, and I can't really tell what it's sourcing that ##2 and 4 don't cover. Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That reference can easily be removed; I was asked to put all three up there by a previous reviewer. KV5 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Y Extraneous link removed. KV5 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Left this bit visible in case the previous reviewer wonders why that ref disappeared.

Support The list simultaneously satisfies both FL criteria 1.a.1 (bringing together existing 'yyyy Philadelphia Phillies season' articles) and 1.a.2 (timeline of Phillies history). The lead provides a decent introduction, both it and the table are well referenced, and there is a free-use image. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, your kind words, and your support; a tip of the cap to you. KV5 (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Excellent work :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 13:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks from myself and WP:PHILLIES. KV5 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2008 (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 21:49, 2 May 2008.

---

Bloc Party discography

previous FLC (15:50, 14 April 2008)

Resubmitted as all of the previous concerns have been addressed. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • Done. You might want to see Indoplug's argument in the previous FLC though.

• Sigh. indopug (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Listed are songs that were never released by Bloc Party commercially as singles." vs "This is a listing of official releases by Bloc Party"...
  • Reworded.
• One reference uses www.bbc.co.uk as its publisher - why not just BBC?
  • I assume you mean blocparty.net, and fixed.

That's about it for now, I'll take a closer look later. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Support: I took care of all my minor concerns myself. One question though; you might want check those music videos again, because mvdbase (from where I presume you got them from) lists even live recordings of songs as videos, not just official music videos. Further, the different versions listed are often minor edits/cuts to a video, hence do not really merit listing. If you can cross-check with the official website or something for the definitive list. Also, BlocParty.net is a fansite and is not reliable; remove all their references. For misc. releases, try to source to allmusic or Amazon.com. indopug (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get chart info for singles that charted worse than #40 in the UK? everyhit lists only top 40 AFAIK. indopug (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing the misc. section, but I'll have to get back to it tomorrow as it's getting late. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Done now.

Support looks good! Drewcifer (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Rateyourmusic and discogs are not reliable sources. Also, "Chart positions" should be "Chart peak positions" or "Peak chart positions". Also what indopug said above. Drewcifer (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed those sources. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. A few more: numbers under 10 should be written out, numbers over ten should be numerical (fourteen=14). The first four sentences of the second paragraph all have the word EP in them. Try and mix up the prose a little bit. I'm not so hot on the note in the EPs section. Seems unnecessary. The Gaurdian should be italicized in citation #1. Drewcifer (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:You haven't cited the album peak chart positions properly. The all refer to the Australian charts. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the compilation has charted in other countries. eg France You should mention these. I will be happy to support if you can clear these points. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. All concerns addressed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• As this is the English Wikipedia, I'd like to see the charts for English speaking countries grouped before those for non-English speaking countries, in this order:
  • Home country (UK)
  • All English speaking countries (alphabetised)
  • All non-English speaking countries (alphabetised)
  • World chart (if available)
    • I'm not going to do anything with this, due to consensus as stated by kollision.
• Did none of the singles chart in Europe, despite the albums doing okay?
  • Wow, did I really miss that? Fixed.
• The references for the Miscellaneous section should be in the Comments column
  • Done.
• What's with the extra thick line in the table for the Miscellaneous section between "The Marshalls Are Dead" and "Like Eating Glass"?
  • What line? Renders fine on my PC, anyone else have this problem?
• Any references for the music video directors?
  • Yep, added.

That's all I got -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Comment to Matthewedwards I think UK/US should come before all other English-speaking countries in the charts. These are the two most important markets in terms of marketing, sales, promotion, media coverage etc. indopug (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my argument to the contrary at the Sonic Youth FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The general consensus at WP:CHART (a MoS guideline) is that the home country comes first followed by all other charts in alphabetical order. I think this is the way it should be as it is not only clearer to follow but also more NPOV. - kollision (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with that theory, although I think it should be refined to alphabetise all English language charts before listing foreign language charts (alphabetically again) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't that be slightly biased toward English speaking countries? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral as I will be unable to see the nomination out to the end. Sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment mvdbase is unreliable, linking to them is not allowed. Directors' names are normally displayed at tstart and end of the video, so its not controversial/disputable information. Mvdbase sometimes includes minor edits as separate videos, could you check with the official website? Eg: the "Banquet" article says there are two, not three, videos. indopug (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, addressed. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:23, 27 April 2008 (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 21:49, 2 May 2008.

---

Timeline of prehistoric Scotland

A comprehensive overview of the major sites from the Mesolithic, Iron and Bronze Ages, with brief scene setting introductions to each section. Self-nom. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Italic text

Comments

• Don't think there's a need to mention the English Channel as being dry land, not because it's called the English Channel, but because it's so far away from Scotland
  • I've amended the wording in a way that hopefully makes the issue's relevance more obvious i.e. that it was possible to walk from the Northern European plain to Orkney at the time.
• Link to broch in the image caption
  •  Done
• "although the acidic conditions tend to dissolve organic materials" What acidic conditions? Is a ref possible, too?
  •  Done "Wickham-Jones (2007) page 25" at the end of the next sentence was the ref, but I've changed the wording slightly and added a longer explanatory footnote with refs.
• "However, there are also..." Don't start a sentence with a conjunction
  • • "However" not a conjunction and is best at the start of a sentence, to orient the reader to the upcoming angle in relation to the previous statement(s). Tony (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Link to arable land so the townies understand
  •  Done
• "A number of the sites span very long periods of time and the distinctions between the Neolithic and later periods are not clear cut." As a general rule I don't like the last sentences of paragraphs to go without a reference, but this definitely should have one if it's saying there could be some ambiguity.
  •  Done There is considerable ambiguity, especially as the presumed dates are different for different parts of Europe. Moffat says: "The Neolithic is generally followed by two more categories, The Bronze Age and the Iron Age.... They are not very helpful tags and require so much qualification and explanation that it is better to use dates where they are available."
• Consider putting the key into a small wikitable
  •  Done
• Link to Mesolithic period
  •  Done
• Link "glaciated" to glacier
  •  Done
• "Nonetheless" shouldn't be used to start a sentence
  •  Done
• There's alot of jargon and complicated/confusing stuff in the tables
  • I've gone through it and provided a little more explanation and added more links. I may be too close to it to see what else might be done and suggestions are welcome.
• I don't understand the burn hazelnut shells thing. Is this an archaeological find, or a synonym to something else? Why is this important to prehistoric Scotland? I can stick hazelnuts in the oven for 2 hours an burn them.
  • It is just as it says - a large pit containing the charred remains of a huge volume of hazel nuts. Its existence is something of a mystery. The gatherers must have removed just about every last nut from the island, and almost certainly had encouraged the growth of the trees in the first place, yet there is no evidence of any repeat performances. The collectors may have cut down most of the trees for the harvest! The main midden is surrounded by smaller roasting pits. It is certainly an archaeological find, and although not every last Mesolithic site is listed this is one of the larger and most significant ones - even it its significance is not clear. I'd be happy to amend the wording but I am not sure how else to put it.
• "shell midden" jargony
  • It is the correct technical description and is also Scottish English. "Shell kitchen rubbish dump" would be the English English. Sorry, I was forgetting this is Wikipedia. I've linked to the Midden article.
• "burned", then "charred". Again with the hazelnut shell thing.. Is it a find, how is it known to be prehistoric, etc?
  • The dates are known via carbon dating. These are finds clearly indicating human activity. A few burnt shells may not seem much but until quite recently the 7700 Rùm find was the oldest in Scotland.
• Why is "An Corran" in itallics?
  • Its Gaelic. I'll check if there is a common English usage: there does not seem to be an English language equivalent so it commonly appears in this form in English publications. I've removed the italics.
• "(S,O)" and the others should have a space after the comma
  •  Done
• Does the picture of Oronsay beach depict anything mentioned in the list?
  • Only Oronsay and Jura that are mentioned in the list. Both sites are close to the sea and its the closest I could find to an image relevant to the Scottish Mesolithic. I've added something to the caption.
• Link to hunter-gatherer
  •  Done
• "Development is not however linear." is stubby
  •  Done

That's all from me -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll follow up on the rest asap. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now attempted all of the above. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support well-written and referenced, good use of images. I have some suggestions (but already support the list for FL):
• Any reason why these are not sortable lists?
  • Two reasons - the text is designed to be read in chronological order, and the lists are neither long nor contain much information that someone might want to sort. Having said that, there is no reason not to have them sorted and there may be some benefit if (for example) someone wanted to put the Mesolithic Types together or by alphabetised location. I'll put this in if you think it might be valuable.
    • I would not sort the "Details" column, but the dates could be sorted in reverse order if desired, or one could sort by location as noted, or by type and see all the S(tone) finds or whatever. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I've made the tables sortable, but the width parameters (necessary to enclose the Details) seem to prevent the adding of an unsortable column - or at least I haven't found a way to do it. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I knew how to do this and took the liberty of doing so just now - revert if it is somehow not what you wanted. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks - its easy when you know how! 08:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Would it help to give the rough dates for the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze and Iron Ages?
  • The problem is that the periods are differentiated by indeterminate events. The Paleolithic lasts until the retreat of the ice, the Mesolithic until the adoption of farming, the Neolithic until metalworking. They might begin at different times in different parts of the country. See also above quote from Moffat. I've put in some extra text in the lead along above lines.
    • That makes it clearer - my numerical brain just noted that the Mesolithic was all before about 4300 BC, the Neolithic was all between 3900 and 2400 BC, and the Bronze and Iron were between 2000 and about 100 BC. The text addition makes it clearer, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• I see Last glacial period is already linked in the lead (as "ice retreated"), but I wonder if it would also be a better link for "glaciated" than glacier in Mesolithic. I know the glacier link is from User:Matthewedwards, so only change if you both think it better.
  • Not sure - I'll sleep on it.
    • I am liking glacier more, the more I think about it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• In Key to predominant "Type": why are some terms linked, but others are not?
  • Sheer idleness! Actually I wasn't quite sure what the links should be yesterday. They are fixed now. Stone is a dab page but the finds refer to more than one meaning of the word.

Excellent list and hope my suggestions are useful, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied above - as noted my ideas are only that, not commands, so do as you see fit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on the first sentence (I haven't gotten any farther into the article), which currently says "This Timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important sites":
  • "Timeline" should not begin with a capital letter. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done
  • I'd like this sentence, or possibly a new sentence immediately following it, to include some words about what these sites are important for. (Don't assume that the reader knows what makes a "prehistoric site" an "important" site.) Presumably this could use terms such as archaeological sites and megaliths, and could mention evidence of human habitation and material culture. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added an additional sentence that I hope covers the first point. At first glance I think much of the second sentence is covered lower down - I'll have a longer look this evening Insha'Allah. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I am open to suggestions but I am not sure what else to add. The last para of the lead section indicates the three main periods with reference to the main cultural and material changes that they incorporate and both the lead and first section make it clear that we are talking about the earliest known examples of human habitation. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Oppose for now. My concern is that the article does not adequately explain the scope of the list. Item 1B in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria requires that "the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject"; implicit in that criterion is a need for a clearly defined scope. This is a list of "important sites" from the period defined as "prehistory," but it does not explain what "important" means, nor what a "site" is in this context. Archaeological site contains some good thoughts on this topic, but because I think it likely that some of Britain's "important sites" have not been and are no longer capable of being "investigated using the discipline of archaeology", it may not be a complete definition of "site" for this article.
        • I have linked to 'Archaeological site' in the lead. The next sentence identifies the criteria i.e. earliest/most notable. It is not possible for a list of this nature to identify every archeological site in Scotland - there are about 570 brochs alone. Narnian timeline only lists the events considered significant, Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori does not list every experiment and still less Timeline of chemistry. In other words this is a dynamic list which ( I believe) does not omit any major component of the subject. If there are key examples omitted I'd be happy to include them. 'Site' does not cover the environmental events and I hope the wording explains that clearly. Done?
  • Ideally, the first sentence (or perhaps one following it) would include a link to the Scotland article and a definition of "prehistoric" (as the term applies to Scotland). --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done There was a link to Scotland a little lower down. I've added as sentence at the close of the lead indicating when prehistory ended. --Ben MacDui
      • I still have a concern that the beginning of the lead section does not effectively define the article's scope. A person completely unfamiliar with the subject should be able to discern the subject matter from the beginning of the article. For example, since this is a focused article on one aspect of Prehistoric Scotland, that article should be linked early in the initial paragraph. Currently, however, the only link seems to be in "See also" -- that would be OK if this were a vestigial sort of list, but it is not sufficient for featured content. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done I'm afraid I don't have a very high opinion of 'Prehistoric Scotland' half of which seems to be about geology and little of which is properly referenced. I've linked to it in the lead nonetheless.
          • Poor referencing notwithstanding, there is a good reason for Prehistoric Scotland to include geology. Geologists and paleontologists happen to believe that the time before history also includes a time before human occupancy of the earth. The word "prehistoric" is often used to comprise all of time before the advent of written history. See, for example, Category:Prehistoric life. Ideally, this "timeline" article would indicate not only when "prehistory" ends in Scotland, but also when it begins (i.e., with the first archaeological evidence of human habitation). --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
            •  Done I believe - further comments follow below.
• I think both Prehistoric Scotland and this list article should contain a brief explanation of the Dark Age. This is desirable because there are few written records from that period and sites from the Dark Age can be confused with prehistoric sites (particularly by ignorant readers like myself, but also occasionally by experts). In this article, a logical place for this information might be Timeline of prehistoric Scotland#Sites of uncertain date, since that part of the list includes a site that is "probably of Dark Age origin, although it may be older." --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done at least for this list. The Prehistoric Scotland is another issue for another day.

I have attempted to answer these further questions above. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the changes you have made. I continue to be bothered by the lead paragraph. As written, it still assumes far too much knowledge on the part of the reader. I don't want to write your lead section because I don't have enough knowledge of your topic, but I've been wanting to see more information packed into the lead paragraph. To illustrate the kind of thing I want to see, I tried to rewrite the first paragraph to add information and reduce extra wording, and ended up with the following:

This timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important archaeological sites in Scotland before the beginning of written records and of major events affecting Scotland's human inhabitants and culture during prehistory. The archaeological sites listed are the earliest examples or among the most notable of their type.

 Done I have amended this para along the lines suggested with a couple of minor changes including a link to List of time periods#Prehistorical periods,which I hope further clarifies ('prehistory' is also linked lower down). Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the last paragraph of the introduction, consider linking "various periods of human history" to List of archaeological periods. --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• Support A well written and thoroughly referenced work. Easy to support. Dincher (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Great pics too, especially the chambered well. Dincher (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you indeed! Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Still oppose. I very much want to support this list, because it is an important and interesting topic, the article is attractive (for example, it makes me want to book a trip to Orkney to visit some of these sites), and I know it was a challenging list to create. I admire the ambition of users who work to bring complex lists to FL status. :-) I appreciate the improvements made in response to my comments, but I still have a vague concern that the scope is not as clearly defined as it should be (I am not arguing for a compendious list, but rather for a definition of scope that is unambiguous and supported by sources) and as I delve into the tables I find that some information within the tables may not be as solidly sourced as first meets the eye. While some of the entries are supported by citations to works by recognised authorities, those citations seem to be intermingled with less reliable sources such as this website for a tourist attraction and this newspaper article, archived on an amateur archaeology website. If the topic of the article were not inherently scientific, those sources might not bother me so much, but I am bothered when scientific information is referenced to that kind of source.

Fair enough. I have run out of time today and will add further refs soon. Orkney is well worth a visit of course.

 Done Re references. I did add a bit to the lead too - and thanks for correcting the capitalisations.

Other specific concerns:

• • Why are the Allerød and Loch Lomond Stadial discussed only in an offhand fashion as part of a discussion of a find of a projectile point? Shouldn't they have separate entries in the table as environmental events?

I have added a note explaining that this is the only archeaological find for this period found to date in Scotland and an addition to the Moffat footnote adding a little more context. Given this (which I agree was not clear in the earlier version) I don't think three separate rows for a single find is necessary.

I agree that the arrowhead is insignificant except for its being the only archaeological find of its antiquity. However, this article is identified as a timeline of events and sites, not merely a chronological list of archaeological finds. It seems to me that a timeline of prehistoric Scotland ought to list the Allerød and Loch Lomond Stadial as significant events. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have given the Stadial a box of its own. The presumed date of the Islay find is very inconvenient in this regard as it looks like it may relate to this later colder period rather than the Allerod. I have put an explanatory note to the Stadial. If I give the Allerod a box too I think it may just get confusing.Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

By analogy, I wonder if the Holocene climatic optimum should be added to this timeline. Is there evidence of how this period affected Scotland? Also, on the subject of events, I would expect to see major movements of peoples in the table, if any are recorded. --Orlady (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) I have added a link to the Holocene climatic optimum. I fear its impact is largely guessing games rather than hard science. The slightly cooler weather towards the end of the Neolithic may have played a part in the decline of the megalith builders, although it did not seem to affect the northward spread of the Beaker folk. Similarly:

We know next to nothing about the provenance of the people of Balbirnie. They were there for nearly a millennium, then vanished. It is tempting to draw modern analogies about an advanced culture fleeing rising sea levels, but it's currently speculation.

The megalith builders of Orkney were a highly advanced culture for their time, but the reasons for their decline and repalcement by a genetically different (and arguably technologically inferior) people are unknown.

Similarly, there is controversy even in the historic period. Almost all the pre-Viking placenames in Orkney have been lost. Is that because everyone stopped speaking P-Celtic (the assumed language of the Picts) and took up Old Norse, or did those naughty Vikings simply put the aborigines to the sword? It is not known.

I'll add a short note about the Beaker folk to the Iron Age introduction. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Timeline of environmental events ought to be linked in this article somewhere.

 Done

• • The internal links in the legend are misleading. When the heading says "Type" I expect the links to "bone" and "pottery" (for example) to take me to pages that tell about bone material and pottery in an archaeological context, not pages that tell me what bones and pottery are. Similarly, I would expect the link to "environmental" to explain what "environmental" means in the context of this table; the link to Natural environment is uninformative. If there are no articles to explain what these terms mean in the context of this list, the legend should provide that information. (Links to pages such as bone and pottery could be included in those explanations, but the stand-alone links are not sufficient.)
    • Further to the above comment, I note that Stone is a disambiguation page that does not seem to link to any articles about stone in an archaeologic context. There are several articles about stone in archaeology, however, including Stone tool and numerous more specific articles listed in Category:Lithics. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that several different meaning of 'stone' are involved e.g. stone tools, stone used as a building material, standing stones, natural stone features. The 'Stone' page does at least hint at this as it links to standing stone, Rock (geology) and refers to the 'the building of structures from stone' albeit in the context of masonry. I agree it is not a perfect solution, (although I'd like to think that readers would know what 'stone' is).

 Done I have created an expanded table with explanations. There may be other articles that could be linked to. I notice that Archaeology (a former FA) does not even mention the word 'pottery'!

• • In the tables, there is no explicit indication that the notes in the "Type" column support not just "Type," but all of the information in the given row. The heading should communicate the contents of the column more completely. (My preference would be to insert each notes next to the dates or other detail(s) that it supports, but I know that FLC participants express a strong preference for grouping notes in a separate column.) I don't have a clear idea about the best way to resolve this...

 Done Note placed under 'Type' box.

• • Could the details for each site include some information on the notability/importance/significance of the site? This information is provided now for some sites, such as Knap of Howar and Scourd of Brouster, but its inclusion is not consistent.

This is tricky as the criteria need to fit the context. There are very few Mesolithic sites of any significance, so even the scant evidence on Rum is worth noting, but Orkney alone has such a rich Neolithic history that superlatives are easier to apply. I'll take a look at this again soon.

 Done Attempted - accepting there is always more that can be done I have a minor concern that the article is on its way to becoming a narrative with boxes rather than a list.

• • The breezy tone of the introductory text in the Bronze and Iron Ages section does not seem encyclopedia-like, and it leaves me wondering if I am already supposed to know all about topics such as the priests of Traprain Law and the mummifiers of Cladh Hallan. I think it needs a thoroughgoing revision to conform with WP:MOS.

I have provided a revision that attempts to deal with this.

• • The "Details" for the first table entry for the Bronze and Iron Ages start out "Further developments at Cairnpapple Hill...". One might reasonably ask "Further to what?" Write this as a stand-alone; do not assume that the reader will instantly remember the earlier entry.

 Done

That's all I have for now. --Orlady (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe all the above have now been addressed. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note on the capitalisation of fauna issue:

I often write articles that incorporate references to both flora and different animal taxa. MOS is total mess on this issue with different projects using different systems. There are various possible solutions and the one I use is to capitalise species and use lower case for entries that are not species such as eagle or bilberry. I can't say you are wrong to use lower case, but then I don't think you can say upper case is wrong either. (It has certainly been used in various FA's and GA's.) I should probably try and get WikiProject Scotland to agree to a coherent system, although I fear the Celts may be no readier to form a consensus than the biologists. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not supporting at the moment, but it looks excellent. I do have a few thoughts.
  • Is there a reason the footnotes are in the Type column? It looks like they support the type and not, presumably the whole entry's info. It would be better in the Details column, I think.

In principle, the reference also identifies the 'Type' and there is a brief note after the Type box about this, but they could be moved if you think it's important.

It seemed more important last night, but I'm not too worried about it.

• • Why is the Maeshowe pic used twice? It's the most boring picture there, I think, and it isn't apparently more relevant than any of the others.

 Done This was just a slip of the copy button in an edit last nite. Duplicate removed.

• • Aberdeenshire should be linked each time it is used, since it is in different areas of the list and if I wanted a link to it, it wouldn't be obvious where to look.

 Done

• • The lead would be better off with a single picture, a bit larger than either of the two that are there. I think the Jarlshof pic is the most visually interesting, but YMMV.

 Done (Dun Carloway remains at the top, but its not a major matter as far as I'm concerned.)

• • The see also should be trimmed or eliminated, with the links added elsewhere. Prehistoric Scotland, at the very least, should be linked in the lead if it is not already. Heart of Neolithic Orkney is so much more specific than the article's scope, it would be better off linked elsewhere if possible. Timeline of environmental events should be just plain removed, I think - why include it all? Lots of other articles, even other timeline articles, include info relevant to this page. World Heritage Sites in Scotland I could live with in the see also, but would be better off in the lead, I think.

 Done 'Prehistoric Scotland' is linked in the lead, but its via a pipe so I have left it there. 'Heart of Neolithic Orkney' is now a pipe for Orcadian monuments and has gone from See also. I was asked to include 'Timeline of environmental events' above. I have put it in as a pipe to 'Environmental' in the Type box. I have left 'World Heritage Sites in Scotland' as it it covers a wider scope than prehistory and I couldn't think of an obvious way it could be linked elsewhere.

• • I'm not sure any of the external links are necessary. Do they meet the guidelines at WP:EL?

 Done Sand has since become a reference and has gone. The Broch list was a recent addition and would be better off at Broch. So I have removed it too. The Wikipedia article on Jarlshof is weak so I left that and Archaeolink is (I think) a useful educational link, but I am by no means attached.

• • Standardize the Details column so it uses either full sentences or not - probably better to use full sentences in this case. If you decide not to use complete sentences, don't put a period at the end. (Or a full stop, as I have been led to believe the period is called by the barbarians on that side of the pond:)

Started. (I am proud to be a barbarian, and regularly hunt haggis by the light of the full moon).

My brother went to Scotland once and was attacked by a whole pack of rampaging, be-kilted, bagpiping haggis. You must be so brave! Tuf-Kat (talk)

I think these are now fixed. The article began as, well a list with fairly terse entries. As time has gone on here these entries have been expanded and what you were seeing were the remnants of the earlier style. I am not at all brave and never go out alone in the dark. I trust your brother's mental scars have healed.

Still a few (both mental scars and incomplete sentences) - South Ronaldsay, Stones of Stenness, Maeshowe (which also appears to be missing a word), Rùm, Islay

• • On that same note, is "co-incide" standard Scottish/British English? It looks weird to me, and Google doesn't seem to familiar with it either. I'd use "coincide"

 Done Fixed, thanks.

• • Also, the Details column ought to include the most important data first - for example, A marine core taken from the sea bed between Norway and Shetland included a flint scraper would be better off A flint scraper, found in a marine core taken... because the finding itself, which is what's relevant here, is the flint scraper, not the marine core.

 Done

• • Knap of Howar Neolithic farmstead, probably the oldest preserved house - make it clear what each linked term is. I thought the Knap of Howar was the name of the farmstead found, then that it was the name of the place where it was found, and after reading the article, it is apparently a place (the article's not really clear either - is it just a piece of an island, or does it have some significance?)

The Knap of Howar article is misleading you. 'Knap of Howar' is the name of the archaeological site on which the house/farmstead sits. There is nothing else there, as this Ordnance Survey map shows. I tweaked the image wording to make this more clear here.

• • Similarly Cairnpapple Hill. Pottery bowls and stone axe heads indicate rituals in the early period - is Cairnpapple Hill the place where these things were found; if so, make it Pottery bowls and stone axe heads, unearthed at Cairnpapple Hill

 Done

• • The remains of a temporary camp that produced more than 3,000 artefacts, including about 300 stone tools and fragments - the archeological dig produced these things; we have no way of knowing how many items were produced by the camp itself, presumably some number well above what was found.

 Done

• • The Jura entry gives a date include "c.", presumably indicating it's approximate. But all the dates must be approximate. Is there something unique about the Jura find? If not, better to make the column head say "App. date" or something similar.

 Done The original reference was somewhat vague, but just '6000' will do now.

• • Scotland was still glaciated when the cave paintings of Lascaux in France were created, circa 14,000 BC. - so?

The "brief scene setting introductions to each section" attempt to provide a snapshot of Scottish finds in a wider context. Thus, Orkney could make a claim to be the home of the most advanced society in the world in the Neolithic, but in the Bronze Age, Scotland becomes more peripheral. In the Mesolithic, the climatic challenges mean that Scotland makes a slow start and on the face of existing evidence is a rather backward society. It is this idea that I am rather clumsily attempting to explain. I have attempted some additional explanatory wording.

• • portray a radical departure from hunter-gatherer societies and the emergence of complex societies capable of creating substantial structures - awkward, as it sounds like they're departing from both the hunter-gatherer societies and the emergence of complex societies.

 Done

• • Although some large stone structures continued to be built, from 2500 BC there was a decline in both the creation of large new buildings and in the total area under cultivation. - this is really awkward for at least five reasons

 Done I have amended this and added and additional reference.

• • chambered well at Burghead was discovered in 1809. It is a structure that is unique in a Scottish context - pronouns should agree with the previous noun they agree with in number or gender, which would be Burghead, which is not a structure (or maybe 1809, but either way, it's not right).

 Done

• Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

First pass of replies above. Will return to the rest asap. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A few more done. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I think that is all the above attempted. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Though I note there's still a few incomplete sentences that I'd like to see fixed, I can now support. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for you assistance and support. I have tidied up the 'incomplete's mentioned above. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Not well-written, on my initial sampling. Opening: "This timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important archaeological sites in Scotland before the beginning of written records and of major events affecting Scotland's human inhabitants and culture during the prehistoric period." of ... of ... of. There's grammatical confusion. Sentence is long and complex; I have indigestion. "chronologically ordered"—is that "chronological"? Inhabitants and culture? "during the prehistoric period (I'd want a rough idea of when if you're talking "period" here)—why not "prehistoric" human inh ...

Fix attempted. No excuse - reason was re-wordings requested above led to confusion rather than resolution. Part of the problem is (I now suspect) a clash of GB and US English. In the former, 'prehistoric' generally seems to pertain to the human condition only, but I am not sure about this yet.

 Done hopefully.

• At random, I picked: "Scotland was still glaciated when the cave paintings of Lascaux in France were created, circa 14,000 BC. Human settlement thus began later in Scotland than in southern Europe,..."—"thus" is a little presumptuous: will our readers already know when human settlement began in southern Europe?

TufKat queried this too, and I must be missing something. Is it wrong of me to assume that readers will understand that: a glaciated country has no inhabitants; that France is a fair way south of Scotland; that Lascaux is world-famous for prehistoric paintings? I will spell it all out if need be. Will also look for other sentence structure problems.

I have amended this a little, which hopefully makes it clearer.

• En dashes for page ranges in the bib. Not mandatory, but minimum two-digit closing range is better. Ref 17: really no apostrophe in their title? Refs need an audit.

Have attempted but will go over again asap. One day I will discover why '&ndash' is so popular. I have looked at Dash, but I may have nodded off. I didn't grok the comment about two digits, but I think it means 33-34 is better than 33-4. Will fix.

There is no apostrophe in the title in this reference, although one is used in some other references to the project.

'Two-digits' issue also looked into. I'll look at it all again tomorrow as well.

 Done hopefully.

Fasctinating topic, but this needs work, Ben. Tony (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC) PS refs full of inconsistent formatting.

It is an interesting topic and I have resisted the temptation to enlarge on mysteries such as 'what happened to the Balbirnie people, for whom we don't even have a name. Were they the escapees of rising sea levels whose advanced culture is unknown to us? How and why did the megalith builders eventually succumb? Not to mention the amusing Tollmann's hypothetical bolide idea.' Back to the work, however. Barkis is, as ever, ..... Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

More comments by Orlady

• Why does the section on Bronze and Iron Ages say "The Neolithic monumental culture spread south from northern Scotland into England"? Was your intention to present a contrast between the direction of movement in the Neolithic and the direction of cultural movement in the Bronze and Iron Ages? If so, the passage needs rewording.

 Done It was my intention and I have re-ordered the sentences in an attempt to make it read more smoothly. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the Bronze and Iron Ages section, I find no information on the timing of the Iron Age. (Are there archaeological sites that are identified as "the first evidence of bronze manufacture in Scotland" or "the first evidence of ironworking in Scotland"?)

--Orlady (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tricky this. In theory the 'Iron Age' was still trundling on in north and west Scotland centuries after the arrival of the Romans in the south, and as it says in the intro the later periods are very unsatisfactory. I'll look into this again asap.

First of all, thanks for adding the additional links.

(Unindent) The problem with these transitions is that the nomenclature itself is misleading. The idea of the 'Bronze Age' is one that prehistorians use "as a handy tag rather than a description of any general reality" (Moffat p153). Copper artefacts were being used in the late Neolithic. The earliest evidence of the assumed existence of a 'Bronze Age' is the change over to cist graves and the Beaker type pottery c. 2000. According to this Jarlshof, which spans the Neolithic to the late Iron Age, is the earliest site, but there are several others such as Cairnappaple that were probably inhabited continuously. The earliest dated cist burial I know is at Kilmartin circa 2200BC, but again the site was used for centuries and the transition is gradual, not abrupt. The Inverness find may well be the earliest metal work. There was 10 inch long bronze blade found in Fife in the nineteenth century of a similar age, although as no-one is now sure exactly where it was found, it has not been dated. Another very early find is a wooden yoke dated to 1950 BC - again not exactly a dramatic step-change. Note also this Scottish government press release about an important Bronze age find. It is a flint arrowhead and to the lay person much the same as the Islay one from 8 millennia earlier.

 Done Having said all that I have found a decent date for Migdale which hopefully does the trick for the early Bronze Age.

For the Iron Age Understanding the British Iron Age:An agenda for action notes that "there is no part of Britain where the Iron Age chronological framework is understood in more than outline terms. For many regions even this would be an overstatement, and for some there is no Iron Age chronology at all. Without some chronological backbone, interpretations of the Iron Age beyond the more intensively studied areas cannot progress. Even in regions which have seen much modern work, such as Atlantic Scotland, interpretations are riddled with chronological uncertainties." The brochs are definitely Iron Age, but there is a great deal of controversy as to their origins and there is no defining event or date that marks them out from their Bronze age precursors. I'd like to be more definitive but I hope that the above gives you a hint of the difficulties involved. I will have a further look. I'm going to put in an addition about the first use of a wheel, then I'm off for some Iron Brew. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had another look through D. W. Harding's 2004 "The Iron Age in Northern Britain: Celts and Romans, Natives and invaders". On several occasions he repeats statements along the lines of 'continual occupation since the second millennium BC' about Iron Age sites in e.g. Kildonan, or in respect of crannogs generally. I can't see anything that appears to be a definitive 'this was where the Iron Age began in Scotland' type of comment. My guess is that if archaeologists could start again we might see something like a Mesolithic - Neolithic - early Metal Age - Celtic - progression for Scotland rather the the current well understood, but rather misleading nomenclature. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support — Fantastic work by all involved. The present-tense "scene setting" isn't something I would've thought of, but it's consistent throughout the article and works well. The pictures are well-chosen, the descriptions are clear, accurate, and grammatically correct. A spot check of references turned up nothing wrong, and the prose is a fine example of how even an encyclopedia article can be made interesting. The only fault I can find is that two of the pictures: Crannog on Loch Tay and Eildon Hill, overlapped onto the table. Easily one of the finest lists I've ever seen on Wikipedia. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most kind - it is much improved thanks to the gracious diligence of all above. I have attempted to create the overlap you mention without success, so I am not sure what I can do to fix it. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:09, 27 April 2008 (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 21:49, 2 May 2008.

---

Blue Heelers (season 13)

I am self-nominating this list because it has had a lot of work go into it of late and I believe it now meets all featured list criteria. The episode summaries are concise and are not too long and not too short. I believe it satisfies all applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have modeled it on and compared it with other featured lists of a similar nature such as Lost (season 3), The Simpsons (season 1), The Simpsons (season 7), etc. and believe it has reached FL level. I will address any problems or comments anybody has and would be more than happy to answer any questions. I support.

Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

• The first sentence says it's the third season. I'm guessing this is an error. I think the article would benefit from a little more time 'in the wild', being less than a week old. --Golbez (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As the result of a recent discussion, many Blue Heelers articles were split into individual season articles and much information was merged into their respective season lists. Much of the content on the page has been simply moved. Daniel99091 (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk)

• Comments
  • Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title
    • Link removed, link in infobox will suffice
  • "third" - "thirteenth"?
    • changed, quite a stupid mistake. Probably what you'd call "making a bad impression"
  • "concerns about the decline of Blue Heelers" in what sense?
    • changed to "decline in ratings"
  • "and, when it came time for its contract to be renewed in late 2005, the Seven Network allowed it to continue filming to the end of the year (2005), although its future proceeding this was still unknown." - bit clumsy reading this.
    • changed to "When it came time for Blue Heelers' contract to be renewed in late 2005, the Seven Network allowed it to continue filming to the end of the year (2005), but its future after this was still undecided."
  • "John Wood, who portrays Tom Croydon" - "..who portrays Croydon..." will suffice.
    • changed to "..who portrays Croydon..."
  • "and is, undisputed," undisputedly?
    • changed to indisputably
  • Worth emphasising that The Bill is a British cop show.
    • emphasised
  • "did not, in fact, " in fact is redundant.
    • changed to "...failed to..."
  • "Awards-wise, this season proved a winner for ..." reads like a newspaper report...
    • changed to "This season was very successful in regards of awards, particularly for John Wood..."
  • "the Gold Logie, Wood had been nominated for, but not won, for ten straight years" not sure I can read this correctly...
    • terrible sentence; changed to "Wood had been nominated for the Gold Logie, but not won it, for ten straight years;"
  • "It is currently unknown when, or if, the thirteenth season of Blue Heelers will be releases on DVD." so remove the sentence.
    • removed
  • Guest actors aren't cited.
    • now cited
  • First para of Production is uncited.
    • now cited
  • "show's storylines; The second ending was used" uncap the "The" after the semi-colon, and use "the latter ending..."
    • changed to "the latter ending..."
  • " start producing Heelers again" Blue Heelers.
    • changed to full programme title
  • Check your times meet WP:DATE.
    • changed "PM" to "pm", removed commas from dates (eg. 14 January, 2006 becomes 14 January 2006)
  • "record, which was, and still is," reads oddly and may go out of date so provide an As of...
    • re-written the sentence and removed the reference to current time
  • "These type of figures which Blue Heelers had not achieved for years." is this a sentence? Why is half of it in italics?
    • forgot to end the italics after Blue Heelers
  • "In this, Blue Heelers' final year" I think this has been emphasises enough.
    • removed a few references to the final season
  • Half of the awards section is uncited.
    • now cited
  • Synopsis should be prose, not a load of bullet points.
    • done
  • " police for the deat "? death?
    • typo, changed to "death'
  • "what could happen to him in the hands of him?" don't get that at all.
    • clarified and changed to "what could happen to Rory in the hands of this fearsome criminal?"
  • "Inspector Falcon-Price " no need repeat Inspector twic in a single synopsis.
    • changed to "Inspector Falcon-Price gleefully takes over the operation of the station and also becomes suspicious about Tom's whereabouts, questioning Kelly. Amy begins to get frustrated when the Inspector does his utmost best to hinder her case of a brutal home invasion and assault; only to be taken off the case when their opinions begin to differ.".
  • "she tries to find dirt of Joss's new girlfriend." what does this mean?
    • sorry, idiom, changed to "she tries to find some negative information about Joss's new girlfriend.".
  • " DVD Release" heading should be DVD release. And is it worth a section if it's unknown both when or even if it'll be released?
    • I thought I would try to have as much consistency over each season article as possible but I see your point, I have removed the section.
• So a lot of work to do, I must oppose at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Try and find a free image to use in the list. Might be difficult as it is a television series, and not necessary, but it would boost the "appeal" of the list, if you like. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Matthewedwards (talk)

Comments

•  Done"due to its cancellation by the Seven Network. The cancellation was a result of Seven Network concerns about the sharp decline in ratings of Blue Heelers." could be "due to its cancellation by the Seven Network as a result of concerns about the sharp decline in ratings." Same information, less repetitive and clunky
•  DoneAfter the first use of "the Seven Network", couldn't simply "Seven" be used instead?
•  Done"When it came time for Blue Heelers' contract to be renewed in late 2005, the Seven Network allowed it to continue filming to the end of the year (2005), but its future after this was still undecided.[1] In January of 2006, the Seven Network announced that they had henceforth canceled Blue Heelers" could become "When the time came to renew Blue Heelers in late 2005, Seven commissioned ten further episodes to be produced, but its future after this was still undecided.[1] In January of 2006, the Seven Network announced that they had canceled Blue Heelers".
•  DoneFurther to this, Ref [1] suggests that these episodes are from season 14, as season 13 had just wrapped: "Producer Gus Howard told the cast and crew on Monday - a day before series 13 wrapped for the year - that Seven had commissioned 10 more episodes. That takes Heelers to 510 episodes"
  • the show had "wrapped for the year"; Blue Heelers episodes are not live and need to be filmed some time before they go to air, as Blue Heelers usually started airing immediately after the Christmas hiatus. I will try to integrate this in.
    • I'm still confused then. To me it sounds like they were a day before finishing the thirteenth season. Then they're told they can have 10 more episodes. Those ten more episodes it seems are the ones listed here. So either they're a part of season 13, in which case where are the rest, or they're actually season 14. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean. I think that this writer has just made a mistake; a few mistakes actually. I'm guessing "a day before series 13 wrapped for the year" should read "a day before series 12 wrapped for the year". Furthermore, where the writer states "That takes Heelers to 510 episodes, beating the 509-episode record held by Homicide for 30 years.", is also wrong. Blue Heelers equalled Homicide's record which was also 510 episodes. I think I'll remove this source, definitely not reliable. Thanks, and sorry it took me so long to work it out, Daniel99091 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
•  Done"partially due to the series's move its lower-rating timeslot" is missing a "to", I think
•  Done}I can see lots of changes in tense, such as in Cast section: "There were no changes made to the main cast", then "The main cast is the same as in the twelfth season", and then "Main cast for this season consisted of"
•  DoneThose redlinks need turning blue by creating articles
•  DoneI would say that pilot refers to the series' first episode, not the season's, which would be a season premiere
•  Done"This season also marked the time when Blue Heelers matched the record for most episodes produced..." didn't Prisoner Cell Block H have 600+ episodes?
  • corrected to "the record for most episodes produced in an Australian weekly primetime drama"
•  Done"These type of figures which Blue Heelers had not achieved for years." is a fragmented sentence
•  Done"achieved 1,512,000 viewers in the 5 cities (metro only)." There are only five cities in the entire country?
  • "5 cities" refers to the five largest state capitals in Australia, probably should have explained that.
•  Done"as previously mentioned," isn't necessary
•  DoneInstead of explaining what each #'ed column represents, why not just title them "season #" and "series #"?

That's all for now, but I think it should also have a thorough copyedit. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I will try to give it a good proof and copyedit today. Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Resolved stuff from Redl@nds597198 (talk)

• Comments Firstly, an inconstructive comment I feel compelled to make, I hadn't even realised the show had ended - which is a little sad considering I'm living in Sydney and I watch an awful lot of TV, almost entirely on Channel 7 :)
  •  DoneThis season focused - just like we say "Blue Heelers is" in the main article, because the shows still exists, this should probably be "focuses".
  •  Done Some links in the lead would be nice, like John Wood.
  •  Done 1.2 million viewers, which was more than half what the show had been attracting - a) Do you mean "less than half" (of 2.5 mill)? b) Do you mean "less than half of what..."?
  •  Done Maybe sweep through the article to make sure you're either consistently using "13th" or "thirteenth" - I've spotted some of each.
  •  Done Newspaper names in Reception should be italicised.
  •  Done indicating the sure decline - IMO, either a decline was indicated or there was a sure decline; a sure decline can't have been indicated.
  •  Done Ratings for this season was generally low - not sure if that should be "were generally low".
  •  Done "Stoked" isn't a very encyclopedic word.
  •  Done Names of rival TV shows in Awards should be in italics.
  •  Done Episode plot summaries - reword whatever is posing a question to the reader. The plot summaries shouldn't sound promotional, and see WP:SPOILER - you should give away what happens!
  •  Done Ref #3 is cited to IMDb Trivia - not a reliable source. Not sure if you could find another source on that point but it's better just to remove it.

Hope that's useful, and I'll be happy to support if it's done. :) —97198 talk 12:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice stuff. —97198 talk 07:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, and support. Daniel99091 (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

Comment There are some references without retrieval dates that should be added. Plus, all full dates should be linked.--Crzycheetah 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the work put into this - it's really nice to see some good quality content emerging on Australian TV series. However, I have a few issues that I'd like to see addressed before this is featured.

• The text in general could do with a copyedit. There's a bit of awkwardness in the "casting" section, and the "production" section could do with a fair bit of a tune up. "Awards" is also a little bit clunky.
• The "season synopsis" section is a bit on the rambly side, and is strangely low down in the article. It could do with being integrated with the lead plot around Croydon and being rewritten to be a bit clearer. I wonder if this wouldn't be better placed between "casting" and "production" too - what actually happened is kind of fundamental to the article topic.
• I also think that many of the episode summaries could do with being rewritten to be a bit clearer.

I know I've picked out quite a few issues with the article, but I do want to congratulate those who've worked on this - it's a great effort so far. I'd even chip in to help fix the article, but I kinda stopped watching when Geoff Morrell left the series... Rebecca (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm also very glad to see some articles about Aussie TV. I have begun copyediting the article, although I am yet to even touch the episode summaries. Let me say that the copyedit was an "attempt"; I have to say, I am not very good at copyediting. I would very much appreciate it if you could perhaps have a read and maybe note some of the most clumsy sentences; or maybe even change them, if you could. I would also appreciate any feedback and further suggestions. Thanks! Daniel99091 (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
    • The changes made were terrific. While the episode summaries could do with a bit of a copyedit, I'm happy to change my position to support. Rebecca (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Bec. You Legend. Daniel99091 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

• Don't say "January of 2006" (WP:SEASON). I puzzled how 10 episodes became an 11-episode season; please clarify if the compilation was one of the 10. One sentence calls John Wood the pillar of the show, and the next says "Blue Heelers veteran, John Wood. It's repetitive and suggests some sentences were rearranged. "Hovered" is informal and doesn't indicate the degree of variation; it would be more precise to provide a range for viewer stats. "in regards of"? And the semicolon before "a record of sorts in itself" doesn't look right. Gimmetrow 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed article in accordance with your suggestions. How are you puzzled as to the episode number? If you are puzzled because of the episode table, the final two episodes were aired together as a 2 hour finale. They were, however, 2 episodes. In regards to ratings, there is not much available for particular episodes etc. and I have included all reliable ratings data I have been able to find. Thankyou for your comments, Daniel99091 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

• US spelling unacceptable. Please change. (UK spellchecker is the one to use, since the Austr. one has a bad glitch.) TONY (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have changed canceled -> cancelled and equaling -> equalling. I am unable to see any others, but if I have missed any, please let me know. Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

• Support: I made several small changes. I removed "this indicating the decline of the show in the eyes of the public" as it could be worded better and needs a citation. I also removed the "see also" section as it seems unnecessary. "This may well be because of all the support thrown behind Wood" needs to be rewritten as it appears to be original research. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and I've fixed the sentence you brought up. Daniel99091 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

• Oppose—Doesn't meet the requirement for a "professional" standard of writing. Daniel, such a nice note on my talk page, so I feel bad opposing, but I must. Here are random samples from the lead that show the entire text needs scrutiny.

Resolved stuff from Tony (talk)

• •  DoneRemove first hyphen as unnecessary.
  •  DonePM? See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Times.
  •  Done"the Seven Network" twice in two sentences, and why both linked as well? Just "the network" second time.
  •  DonePlain years are hardly ever linked (see MOS); piped maybe, but 2005 et al aren't.
  •  DoneWhat did they mean by "abbreviated". Sounds as though 11 episodes was not abbreviated, but all they shot. I'm confused.
  •  Done"In January 2006, Seven officially announced that they had cancelled Blue Heelers, although they would air a final abbreviated 11-episode season in mid-2006,[2] these being the 11 episodes which had been filmed in late 2005, before Blue Heelers had been cancelled." "although they would" is ambiguous—conditional or part of "announced that ...". Make it ", but would air ...". "these being" is kinda clumsy. Replace with a big dash (see MOS).
  •  DoneThe season, or might mean one that's showing right now.
  •  Done"character that"? Not a robot. Why not "to appear"?
  •  DoneInfobox: two flags, one above the other? One if you have to.
  •  DoneTop image is non-free content. A fair-use justification that says: "Entire image used, although it is not unfair use and does not harm the copyright owners in any way whatsoever" isn't goint to cut much ice. Are you familiar with the requirements at WP:NFC? Maybe it's OK—I'd ask one of the experts there for a quick opinion, including the use of two of these in the article (User:Black Kite is very good). At the least, I think the justification text could be rationalised.
    • User:Black Kite has recommended moving the cast image to the infobox. Daniel99091 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
  •  DoneBig problem: overlinking of common dictionary words. Please read MOS on this.

And down further: "Apart from the main focus on Snr. Sgt. Tom Croydon and his prostate cancer, the season also had many other storylines." Um ... that will put many readers off; we need to engage them, and starting explicitly with "also" many other storylines ... well, just launch into them without that fluff.

And lots more. Please find fresh eyes to go through it. Consider withdrawing, fixing and resubmitting; when fixed, it will be a worthy FL. TONY (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Tony. I have made all changes you suggested and hope to copy-edit the article soon. Daniel99091 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

• Oppose Support Apparently my comment above was ignored, since I still see references that are not cited properly. They are missing retrieval dates; refs ## 1-5,7,8, 17-21, 23.--Crzycheetah 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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