Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2009

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009 [1].

---

List of PWG World Champions

Nominator(s): WillC 08:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I'm working on title histories that are long enough to become FLs. Taken from the PWG World Championship that will be expanded in the future, once a free-use image is gotten of the title. Passes all the criteria in my mind. I followed my other recent FLs. Mainly the most recent two: List of ROH World Champions and List of ROH World Tag Team Champions (mostly the first one). Also, yes the event titles are correct. Bad Ass Mother 3000 - Stage 2, Free Admission (Just Kidding), Zombies (Shouldn't Run), etc are the real event titles. Now "N/A" is not an event title, though is very likely. The owners of PWG have interesting senses of humors. For future reference, I will also be nominating the PWG World Tag Team Championship list in the future once I've completed work on it and if this one passes.WillC 08:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – "The championship was created and debuted on August 30, 2003 at PWG's Bad Ass Mother 3000 - Stage 2 event." En dash here and for the other event names? Fixed.--WillC 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Don't need to repeat Kazarian's first name. Fixed.--WillC 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) "Low Ki, the wrestler who had to vacate the championship due to an injury". I'd drop "the wrestler" because nothing is said before this about an injury that forced a title change. Fixed.--WillC 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Any non-primary sources possible besides the Solie one? Giants2008 (17-14) 22:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Probably, I haven't checked. PWG gave me everything I needed so I never went out looking for anything.--WillC 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) It would be good for you to check. Even if you can only find one or two good replacements, it would be worth the effort. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Exactly what are you wanting me to look for? Event reports, title history refs, or both?--WillC 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Okay, I found sources at 411mania.com and Slam Sports regrading PWG events. Oddly I found none but at PWG's site and solie for the official title history, but then again PWG is still underground wrestling, mainly located just in Southern Cali. I'll keep looking though.--WillC 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC) I found a title history ref at title histories.com. Now out of the three I've found so far, only one is sure fire reliable: Slam Sports. 411Mania and Title histories are uncertain, though both have been used in multiple GAs, a few FAs, and a few FLs, including one that was recently featured. I'll keep looking from time to time on sites though.--WillC 02:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Don't try to force it if the sites aren't reliable. I'd consider Slam Sports to be the only reliable one of the three. Just wanted to see if something besides a bunch of primary sources could be used. Apparently there isn't much. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah, there isn't really much. PWG is still pretty small so it isn't covered by alot of sites.--WillC 17:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Support – I'm convinced that the primary sources are the best avaliable in this situation, and the Solie ref is probably good enough as a secondary source anyway. Everything else looks up to scratch. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "that month, then-champion, Joey Ryan, defeated Jonny Storm in Orpington, England " Remove commas after "champion" and "Ryan". Fixed.--WillC 03:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "which are later released on DVD." Fixed.--WillC 03:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "sixteen man tournament"-->16-man tournament Fixed.--WillC 03:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "PWG's Bad Ass Mother 3000 - Stage 2 event" Why does this one use a hyphen? It just does. That is the way PWG wrote it down on their website. It was also the way it was in the title history when it was apart of the PWG World Championship. "to vacant the championship due to an injury" I think you mean "vacate".Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Fixed. My bad, must have not noticed my error.--WillC 03:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Using "Pro Wrestling Guerrilla" and "Pro Wrestling Guerrilla.com." is redundant, delete the italicized work. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--WillC 03:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) -- Great work Will. Lead I recommend linking tournament to an appropriate description. Done.--WillC 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC) You use last names and full names on second occurrences, be consistent. Done.--WillC 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC) List I'm not a real fan of center aligning the names, why has this been done? It looks awkward since some of the other columns are left-aligned. Dabomb87 told me in previous FLcs that it should be that way or wanted it that way, been a while since the first time he/she mentioned it. The names aren't that big a deal, I only really care about having columns with figures centered. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC) The Slam sports ref should have Slam Sports as SLAM! Sports - Wrestling--Truco 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Done and thank you. There are more to come. I have about three or four lists done that are ready to be nominated. But I'm waiting patiently before I do.--WillC 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - just a stylistic thing, though, I'd suggest at least centering the locations. It's a little incongruous having those left-aligned while all the data around them are centered. I think the event and notes columns are fine the way they are. Geraldk (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and done.--WillC 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009 [2].

---

2007 World Series of Poker Europe results

Nominator(s): ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I will be travelling from Wednesday through Saturday and will have limited internet access. If there are any open issues at that time, I will try to address them when I return. I ask that this not be closed as a failure if on Saturday if there are open issues.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the latest contribution from WP:Poker. It is the results of the 2007 WSOPE, I believe that it is in shape to pass an FLC. If not, let me know what needs to be done.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – The lead should probably have some more on how the events unfolded. For a WSOP results list, I would expect more than one sentence on said results. At least provide another sentence or two on the tournaments and who won them. Expanded---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC) "In 2007, one of these younger players, at 18 years and 364 days Annette 'Annette_15' Obrestad became the youngest player to win a WSOP bracelet event." This is the one sentence in the lead that I don't like, as I feel the order is off. I'd rather see something like, "In 2007, one of these younger players, Annette 'Annette_15' Obrestad, became the youngest player to win a WSOP bracelet event at 18 years and 364 days old." Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Comma after Obrestadt in her photo caption.\ reqorded---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC) External links should go before References (please note the s :-)). Giants2008 (17-14) 22:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Removed external link as it became the foundation for the references.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Support – Looks like a nice little list. Cleaned up the new additions to the lead to fix a couple grammar things. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "London area—Fifty, Leicester Square, and The Sportsman" I think a colon would be better than an em dash. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Some of the text is too close to the source. Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches about paraphrasing, For example (italics are mine for emphasis): Wikipedia article: The agreement, the largest-ever union of an online and offline gaming company, is intended to build on Betfair's European reputation in advertising the WSOPE. Source text: "The Letter of Intent, which is subject to execution of a definitive agreement, calls for the largest-ever union of its kind between an offline- and an online gaming company. " Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "In 2007, one of these younger players, Annette "Annette_15" Obrestad, became the youngest player to win a WSOP bracelet event at 18 years and 364 days old." Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "The second final table had no previous bracelet winners and Dario Alioto took home the bracelet."-->No previous bracelet winners played at the second final table; Dario Alioto took home the bracelet. took home the bracelet is too loose, can you rephrase? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• No need to put "Official Results" in the WSOPE sources.
  • Changed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Spell out WSOPE in the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I just got back from vacation and will try to resolve this tonight or tomorrow.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead You may as well clarify who the third event in the prose of the lead. Reworked.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Images I'm a bit sketchy on the captions because they sound a bit biased. Can they be neutralized? Can you give an example on why you think they are biased? I think the captions include information people might e interested in.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC) While I am not sure I agree with the comment, I've tried reworking them nonetheless.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Key No need for the first row since no table has that.--Truco 22:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC) While there are no Poker Hall of Famer's on this list, I'd rather not get rid of that piece of the key. I want to keep it for two reasons. First, it becomes part of a standard for the results lists for WSOP/WSOPE tournaments. Second, as it is part of the standard, the fact that there are no poker hall of famers on these tables, does convey meaningful information to people viewing the list.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009 [3].

---

Australian Crawl discography

Nominator(s): Dan arndt (talk), Shaidar cuebiyar (talk)

We are nominating this as a featured list because we believe it fulfils all the FL criteria, it has just undergone a peer review and all suggested changes have been completed and the peer review is now archived. Any critical comments will be addressed promptly and hopefully consensus will see this discography promoted.Dan arndt (talk), Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Looks good! Just a few nit picky things...
• What makes howlspace.com.au a reliable source?

• Consider the publisher, Ed Nimmervoll, his article (and its references) makes it clear that he is a respected authority on Australian rock/pop music (he's been a music journo since 1967) and that his site, HowlSpace, is reliable. Many of the articles on HowlSpace are expanded from his Allmusic contributions. See his autobio.

• Maybe add the catalog numbers for The Crawl Video File and More Wharf: Their Greatest Hits

• Catalogue number for The Crawl Video File has not been found in a reliable source, it was issued in 1985 and not re-issued. Its existence can be verified by Salisbury Library catalogue sponsored by South Australian government. Catalogue number for More Wharf (EMI release) has been supplied.

• In the "Extended Plays" section "album details" should be "EP details"

• Done — Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than a catalogue number for the 1985 video release, The Crawl Video File, I believe I have addressed all your concerns.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'm not happy with the amount of simple errors I'm finding in the lead: "The band had four studio releases, three live albums, five compilations, seventeen singles, one extended play, and one home video. " "had"-->released (stronger verb) "David Reyne soon left and was replaced by Bill " (If there was a date available, that would be nice) "and the band was later joined by his younger brother" "which was produced by Little River " "with EMI Records,[1] he also produced their " Comma should be a semicolon. "remained in the charts for an unbroken 101 weeks." "in"-->on "Sirocco, their second album" I'd prefer "the band's second album". "1981 Australian End of Year Album Charts has Sirocco at number two behind" Very weak. Try "On the 1981 Australian End of Year Album Charts, Sirocco is number two, behind... "best charting album"-->best-charting album" "number one single"-->number-one single "stop-gap measure between studio albums, nevertheless it reached number four during December 1983." Change the comma to a semicolon and insert a comma after "nevertheless". "Prior to"-->Before "27 January 1986,[1] it was released in " Comma should be a semicolon. "Reckless: 1979-1995 Should be an en dash (–) Date ranges use - not — refer WP:Dash Actually they use – (en dash) not - (hyphen) nor — (em dash). They're tricky to tell apart.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC) I've learnt something new today - thanks Dan arndt (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC) A lot of people have trouble with dashes—most aren't aware of the differences, so they just use hyphens for everything. User:Tony1/Know your Manual of Style is a good guide for learning common nuances of the MOS. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC) "which was released in 2000 and credited to Australian Crawl " "then the compilation Australian Crawl and James Reyne: The Definitive Collection was released in 2002." Make this a separate sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Done — Dan arndt (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://musicbrainz.org/artist/c42c550c-ceab-4739-bf83-7c5d63e27dc5.html reliable?

• Cited by the BBC see Ashley Highfield speech where he describes BBC using MusicBrainz as a resource for their website.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise http://hem.passagen.se/honga/database/a/australiancrawl.html?

• See the Australian Government sponsored site, Australian rock music, which lists Australian Rock Database as a resource for information on its Music industry.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 5, no need to list "msn" as the work.

• Done — Dan arndt (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

General comment

• For my lead review, you will see "which chart" (or something along those lines) because I don't know if that one albums chart you mentioned applies to all those chartings of their albums.

Comment — All but one of the Chart positions described in the Lead are from the Australian Kent Music Report either for albums or singles charts as applicable. The current Kent ref#6 has a Note to the effect that Kent's charts were used in Australia from 1970 until ARIA established their own charts in mid-1988. The exception in the Lead is mention of Sirocco End of Year Chart position which has its own separate ref #7. AusCharts at ref #15 are supplied by ARIA, it has a Note which indicates that it applies to non-charting of some releases in tables (not mentioned in Lead) from mid-1988 onwards. Rather than repeatedly mention the Kent Music Report I felt one mention with a link would be acceptable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC) If preferable, I could add Kent Music Report before each mention of albums charts or singles charts rather than just the first time they're mentioned.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What you can do is add singles chart and albums charts to some of the mentions, because some have it as reached number four but it doesn't say on which chart. Also, make note on the first mention of the Kent Music Report singles chart, because you only mention the albums chart on its first mention.--Truco 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment — You make two points here:

1. Added on the albums charts to the relevant mentions of chart positions in the Lead.
2. Phrase which achieved number one on the Kent Music Report singles chart is already in the article when referring to the Semantics EP charting there. Other than "Reckless", which is dealt with separately, I don't think there are any other singles charting in the Lead.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I will support once my other comments below are resolved.--Truco 02:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• '...which peaked at number four on the Australian Kent Music Report album charts and remained in the charts for an unbroken 101 weeks from 1981 to 1982.' --> ...which peaked at number four on the Australian Kent Music Report album charts and remained on the charts for 101 consecutive weeks from 1981 to 1982.

• Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'The band's second album, Sirocco, was released in 1981 and achieved number one on the albums charts.' -- Which album's chart?
• Done — Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• 'Bill McDonough left before they recorded their extended play, Semantics in 1983,[3][6] which achieved number one on the Kent Music Report singles chart.' -- Comma after the name of the EP.

• Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'Bill McDonough was replaced on drums, temporarily by Graham Bidstrup and more permanently by John Watson.' -- Remove the 'more'

• Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'Semantics contained the track "Reckless (Don't Be So)", which some sources list as a number one-single.' -- What type of sources?

Comment — The sources are the refs. Ref#4 is an allmusic review by Tomas Mureika. Ref#8 is the liner notes for The Final Wave written by Ed St John, then CEO of EMI Australia (their record label). So I've gone with some music industry sources Hopefully this is suitable?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Can you not be more specific in the prose though? Like state what type of sources? ie. charts, internet--Truco 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment — Ah! Sorry, I misunderstood the nature of your query. I've now revised the sentence to end with: which is described as a number one-single in Music Australia's profile on James Reyne

I have added a new reference to handle this statement: the point being made is that numerous reliable sources attribute the status of Number 1 to "Reckless" as a single since it was the most played track from the Semantics EP which charted at Number 1 on the singles charts. Australia had no separate EP chart. Some EPs charted on the albums chart. I've also changed Note 2 text content slightly and included this additional reference. Obviously this will alter the reference order given elsewhere in my comments.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'The live mini-album Phalanx was a stop-gap measure between studio albums; nevertheless, it reached number four during December 1983.' -- Reached four on which chart?
• Done — Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• 'The band signed with Geffen Records for international release of their material.' -- This was when?

Comment — Added In early 1984, the ... to clarify when.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'In 1984, the band released the best of their early material as a compilation titled Crawl File,[4] which peaked at number two.' -- Peaked at # 2 on which chart?
• Done — Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• 'Tracks from these sessions were re-mastered and released on Lost & Found in 1996 as by 'Members of Australian Crawl'.' --> Tracks from these sessions were re-mastered and released on Lost & Found in 1996, credited under the 'Members of Australian Crawl' name.

• Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'Meanwhile, remaining Australian Crawl members had recorded their fourth studio album, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, which was released in 1985 and achieved number 11.' -- Which chart?
• 'The live album, The Final Wave recorded their last performance on 27 January 1986;[1] it was released in October and peaked at number 16.' -- 1)Comma after the name of the album

• Done—Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• 2)Which chart?

added on the albums chart.

• What verifies the existence of "Santa Claus is Back in Town" and "Two Hearts", since they did not chart. If its the general references, then disregard this comment.

Are listed in general references

• "Santa Claus is Back in Town" specific reference provided - Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Video albums

• What verifies the existence of these albums? If its the general references, then disregard this comment.--

• Done —Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Truco 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done — I believe we've covered all of your points.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009 [4].

---

List of Metal Gear media

Nominator(s): ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs}

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Just a few comments on the games section:

• Is it nesseccary to list the country after the system release. Per style of the other featured lists this isnt done
  • Fixed. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• There are duplicate listings for platforms under system release, eg. For Metal Gear PlayStation 2 is listed twice on the system release.
  • Fixed. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Shouldnt the MSX2 and NES entries for metal gear be merged because they are essensially the same game
• The above being said it seems it would be more practical to merge the MSX2 and NES sections together.
• Your missing the year and endash on many of the system release entries for games. Salavat (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

1) I guess not, the original creator of the article based it on List of Castlevania media, which does have some country specifications.

2) This is for showing the different country releases, again based on List of Castlevania media which has a few multiple systems entries.

3/4) I know it seems weird, but the current listing is a compromise between the editors of the list. We couldn't agree to list the games by system/canon/type/etc. until we eventually settled on this. Series creator Hideo Kojima has been vocal about the NES version (which was changed significantly) and doesn't consider it to be a Metal Gear game, so we agreed that having them separated works well. Also, Snakes Revenge was developed after the NES version, while MG2: Solid Snake was developed following the MSX2 version. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Im still not a fan of the countries after the system release. The information like that would be served better in the notes or the main article for the game, Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, gets first released once for the playstation 2 in 2005. I dont think the system release is meant to be overly detailed. Salavat (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I removed the 'adjacent' year releases, but left up some of the further apart years (Metal Gear mobile phone 2004 and 2008), Family Computer/NES release countries, and releases only in one region. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Kool much less excessive, my comments seem to have been ressolved however i wont support until someone else ways in with a review on the rest of the article. Salavat (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Alright after Dambomb's review and sticking to my word i believe i can confidently give my support to this article. Salavat (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

* Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC) OK, but please do not strike others' comments per FLC instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC) My mistake sorry. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "one of Konami's best-selling franchises " Comma after here. Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 20:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Per WP:DASH, spaced en dashes should be used in the lists instead of unspaced em dashes. See List of Metroid media. Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 20:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Note: The em dashes in the left side of the printed media boxes are coded into the template. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC) "numerous different video game consoles" Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 20:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC) "Related novels, comics, and other dramatizations have been released as well."-->Related novels, comics, and other dramatizations have also been released. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 20:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to be expanded more, to at least two paragraphs. Could you explain the difference between the original series, the solid series and the acid series? A little more summarization of the list could be provided; e.g., what is the most recently released game? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Done, though it may need a look over for minor grammar mistakes. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC) "The first game was followed by a heavily modified port for the Family Computer/Nintendo Entertainment System, done without Kojima's involvement" By "done", do you mean "developed"? Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC) "However, this game was popular enough" Remove "However". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Sources What makes http://www.en.game-ost.ru/info.php?id=164 reliable? It seems to be what was used on the individual soundtrack articles. But, Game-OST is used in List of StarCraft media, which is a Featured List. If it's still an issue however, I should be able to replace most, if not all, of the refs with what can be found here: http://www.squareenixmusic.com/series/metalgear/discography.shtml TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC) OK (replace them). Dabomb87 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Ref 27, spell out "SCEE". Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Ref 47, http://spong.com/detail/assetView.asp?viewid=9170&type=3&srcId=11023730&b2=list, needs a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source? Fixed. Replaced with an already used GameSpot source. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Web titles should not be in all caps; convert them to title case (refs 11, 71). Ref 11 fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Question: Refs 70 (formerly 71), 84, 85, and 86 are all from Japanese sites which I believe only use capital English characters. Should these still all be changed to lower case? TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Ref 2, "Computer and Video Games", should be italicized because it is a publication. Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Make all dates in the references the same format (I suggest "Month DD, YYYY"). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Should be fixed now. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 04:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead 'The games take place in a semi-fictional universe and the stories involve a special forces agent (Solid Snake in most games)' --> The games take place in a semi-fictional universe with stories that involve a special forces agent (Solid Snake in most games) Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 'This game was popular enough to garner a sequel, again without Kojima's involvement, released outside of Japan.' --> This game earned enough popularity to garner a sequel, again without Kojima's involvement, released outside of Japan. Fixed. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Music albums I find it unnecessary to use the same source more than once to verify information about the same topic, I think just listing the source under the title will suffice or adding a row called Ref would help. Fixed. Column called "Source" added. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 22:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC) References Per WP:ACCESS and {{reflist}}, it is recommended that only 2 columns be used because most browsers and pc's can't handle 3. It's currently set to "colwidth=30em", should this still be changed to "2"? TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC) No, it's fine as is. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC) All right, I'll leave it be then. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 23:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC) There is an inconsistency with the linking of publishers, either link all of them, link it on just the first occurrence, or don't link them at all.--Truco 22:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Done. The only one's left unlinked are those without Wikipedia articles. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 22:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009 [5].

---

List of NBA game sevens

Nominator(s): —Chris! _ct 19:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My first nom in May. I worked on this for almost a year and I now felt it fulfills the criteria. Note: one of the references used (VegasInsider.com) is not a reliable source. But since the information can also be verified by the list itself. I don't think this is going to be an issue. —Chris! _ct 19:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Also I think more information can be added if necessary (such as dates and venues).—Chris! _ct 19:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I started adding this. Will definitely finished later.—Chris! _ct 00:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 19:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Support The prose needed an overhaul for grammar and clarity, but I went ahead and copy-edited the lead myself.

• I would remove the unreliable source about the 20 game sevens—that's not info that is likely to be challenged; rather, it's a summary of the verified list.

I removed the ref.—Chris! _ct 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• There needs to be a key for the "All-time standings" table.

No need after I spelled them out.

• In the "Playoff round" column, wouldn't it make more sense to link to the name of the playoff round rather than the playoffs article for that year? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. If it links to the name of the playoff round, then where should the link to the playoffs article goes.—Chris! _ct 22:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I understand what's going on now. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.hickoksports.com/history/nba196768.shtml reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • See User:Zagalejo's comment below. He explained why it is a RS. Also the statement that used that ref is supported by others as well, so it shouldn't be a problem.—Chris! _ct 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Weak oppose – Prose still needs some improvements before I support this. "In other words, game seven is the only one in the series that cannot be guaranteed more than one game in advance." "in the series" > "in a series". "The Conference Finals has been...". Change to "have been", since this is plural (there are two series in this round, correct?) Same for Conference Semifinals in the next sentence. Disagree with Dabomb on one thing: "Because of home-court advantage" has a strong whiff of original research without a citation. Fortunately, I did some searching for you and found a good USA Today story to use.[6] "Charlotte Bobcats, which has yet to appear in the playoffs, and Memphis Grizzles, which was swept in all of their playoffs appearances". Needs a re-write badly. Try something like "The Charlotte Bobcats, who have yet to appear in the playoffs, and Memphis Grizzles, who were swept in all of their playoff appearances". Looks better now, but I think "the" should come after the colon. What do you two think? Giants2008 (17-14) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Adding the seems correct.—Chris! ct 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC) "In 1979, 1988, 2005, and 2006 four game sevens were played." Comma after 2006. Note: Bunch of en dashes needed. This is referring to Note A, if I wasn't clear enough. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris! ct 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC) The last reference is using ISO date formatting. Not a big deal, but it would probably be good to make it consistent with the others. All-time standings: Change column from Win–Loss % to Win–loss %. This is the first time I've ever seen sorting work properly with colspan involved. Well done on that. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC) All done. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks—Chris! ct 00:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support – I'm ready now that the referencing issue is taken care of. Hickok Sports.com doesn't strike me as the most reliable website, but I can't see the year a playoff round switched to best-of-seven being too controversial. Looks much better than when I reviewed it originally. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comment What cites the second paragraph on the lead? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 05:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC) It is self-verified by the list.—Chris! ct 01:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Uhh...The list doesn't talk about when the First Round started the best-of-seven format. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 03:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC) If you look at the refs (basketball-reference.com), each page will say which format the round is in.—Chris! ct 05:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC) You could at least find a source that says all of that, since the source isn't on the general reference or after the paragraph. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 05:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Added—Chris! ct 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC) The ref only talks about the first round change in 2003. How about the semifinals and conference finals? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 18:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC) I was unable to find any Internet source. So, I asked User:Zagalejo for help, since he has access to published materials. He told me that the statement might not be correct and he will look into this. Therefore, I hided it for now until he got a reference. I seriously don't think it will hurt the nom IMO, since omitting that info will not diminish reader's understanding on game seven. But if anyone feel that is not ok, then I will have no choice but to withdraw this nom. I don't want that to happen, though, just so you know.—Chris! ct 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Of course you wouldn't want to withdraw this nom, but I'm sure you could find at least one source on NBA.com or any other reliable site that has that information. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 20:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) No, I can't find anything online. I looked through Google, NY Times, NBA.com, ESPN, Sport Illustrated, CNN and BBR. The list with BBR links can self-verify, but you insist me to get a source that explicitly says all that.—Chris! ct 22:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC) This source mentions that the Conference Finals switched to seven games in 1958. The best source I can find that explicitly says the Semifinals switched in 1968 is Hickok Sports. I'm not sure if that site is generally considered a RS, but it probably should be, since the author, Ralph Hickok, has written sports encyclopedias for publishers like Houghton Mifflin, McGraw-Hill, Macmillan, and Facts on File.[7]. Also, this Library Journal article notes of Hickok Sports, "While the whole is still a work in progress, the completed sections are thorough and accurate." Zagalejo^^^ 15:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks to Zagalejo, problem solved.—Chris! ct 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It really does pisses me off when I don't want any notice about the FLCs I have commented on, but ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 21:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) Probably been mentioned a dozen times, but no lead image is a real shame. Absolutely nothing you could use here? Really don't think so. I will try.—Chris! ct 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "current arrangement" - ideally needs a timeframe? Remove "current" since the it has always been like that—Chris! ct 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "Game 7" in the little infobox, "game seven" throughout the list... Done "...who have been swept in all ..." what does this mean? Not clear to a non-expert. Done Any reason why the first table isn't sortable? I see you have rowspans in there, but you could just repeat the season... Well, I didn't make the table sortable because the only info that need to be sort are date, venue and team. But having that doesn't increase the reader's knowledge about the subject.—Chris! ct 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "Indicates the number of game sevens played in that year's postseason Each year is linked to an article about that particular NBA season." in key appears to be missing a full stop after postseason. Done OT is not explained anywhere. Nor 2OT. Done I would put the number of times the team has appeared in a game seven in parentheses, otherwise it is confusing with the scoreline. Done Last two game sevens have no references in the table. Even if they're referenced elsewhere, it'd do no harm to repeat the reference here for completeness. Done As you have combined franchises in the second table, explanation should be provided to the non-expert as to why you can do this. Done Note [a] has capitalised "Game Seven" etc, see my third comment - consistency is needed. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead Looks fine to me. I don't understand the need for that infobox, it looks more like a navigational template than an infobox, is there a real need for it? Not really. I can remove it.—Chris! ct 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC) All-time game sevens Is the table not capable of being sortable? See my response to The Rambling Man.—Chris! ct 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Notes 'The home-and-away format in every round of the playoffs except the finals is the 2–2–1–1–1 format (the team with the better regular season record plays on their home court in games one, two, five and seven). The format of the finals is in the 2–3–2 format (the team with the better regular season record plays on their home court in games one, two, six and seven).' --> The home-and-away format in every round of the playoffs, except the finals, is in a 2–2–1–1–1 format (the team with the better regular season record plays on their home court in games one, two, five and seven). The format of the finals is in a 2–3–2 format (the team with the better regular season record plays on their home court in games one, two, six and seven). References Per WP:ACCESS and {{reflist}}, at most 2 columns is recommended to be used because not all browsers/pc's can handle 3 columns. Everything else fixed --Truco 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL. In response to the infobox, I recommend speaking with the respective project about converting that infobox to a navigational template that goes at the end of each article.--Truco 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Truco about the infobox. As to images, why not just use images of one or two of the arenas? The image doesn't have to be from the event itself, as for example images of some of the athletes in List of winners of the Boston Marathon are not from the Boston Marathon itself. Geraldk (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - the images work well. Well done.

I really think this list suffers from not having any images. First, for the lead, why not use something from the Boston Celtics? I am not a Celtics fan, but they have the the most game sevens of any team, they have the most game sevens in the championship game, they have the third highest win percentage, the second highest win percentage of any team with more than one game seven. Coach Auerbach would also be a great option as he was involved with most of those games sevens in some form or another. As for the rest of the article, you could do something like what I did with the WSOP main event champions perhaps use the team logos? Without images, this page just doesn't strike me as being among the best.

I also disagree with you about making the first table sortable. I think having it sortable would be nice. People sometimes get wierd bugs up their butts and may want to see which stadiums had the most game sevens? What round did the events occur? For example, I just noted above that the Celtics had won the most game sevens during the Championship game... do you know how much easier it would have been for me to make that statement if the list were sortable by playoff round?------I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply: two images added. Infobox converted to navbox—Chris! _ct 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Another comment that was just recently brought to my attention, Table entries are another exception; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own. In other words, everytime Boston Celtics are used in a table, they should be linked.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There are now two NBA Playoffs navboxes...

Template:NBApostseason and Template:National Basketball Association Playoffs

Everything fixed (sortability, links as well as redundant templates)—Chris! _ct 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Support nice quick job.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Could it be possible that the venue column be moved right before the refs? We do that setup elsewhere, and the scores and teams appear last in the rows when they should be either the first or in the middle. –Howard the Duck 06:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so that no one gets confused, what order, from left to right, do you want the columns to be? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The current order is OK except that the venues have to be right before the refs. –Howard the Duck 06:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Martin tamb

Comment Now that the table is sortable, I have changed the date format to correct the date sorting orders, I hope that's fine with everyone. I have some questions about the key in the table, pink background and green border have already indicate that the game seven was won by the road team and is in the NBA Finals respectively. I don't really think there is a need to put ^ and & after the scoreline. Color Blindness.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Could it be possible that the All-time standings default position is sorted by the numbers of game seven played. I think the numbers of game seven played is more notable than the percentage win. I think that the fact that Minnesota won 100% of their game seven and being on top of the default table is irrelevant because they have only played one game seven. I think most readers are more interested to see the numbers of game seven played and see Boston on top of the default table without sorting it. But I still agree that the Win–loss % column is needed as it also gives significant information on the table. I suggest that the current or the latest team names are in the lead in the All-time standings table, so that it would be Los Angeles / Minneapolis Lakers rather than Minneapolis / Los Angeles Lakers. Another thing about the team's former names, in the case of Baltimore/Capital/Washington Bullets / Washington Wizards who have been both relocated and changed franchise name, I see that the relocation is marked by a slash sign without any spaces, and the franchise name change is marked by a slash sign with spaces. I think this should be applied for every other teams who only been either relocated or changed name, so that we would have Philadelphia/San Francisco/Golden State Warriors instead of Philadelphia / San Francisco / Golden State Warriors. This would need to comply with whatever the general standard is for dealing with these teams? I don't know what that standard is, but if it is to put the current city first, then that is how we should be here?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Actually I also do not know if there any standard for team's former names, but I just think it would be better if the current names shown first. Also I think there should be difference between showing relocation and franchise name change in order to make non-expert readers understand it easier. My comments above isn't exactly clear, so I made a summary of my suggestion below: Current team names should be shown at the front, example: Los Angeles / Minneapolis Lakers rather than Minneapolis / Los Angeles Lakers The renamed franchise former names should be separated from the current names with a / and spaces in front and behind, example: St. Louis / Atlanta Hawks and Buffalo Braves / Los Angeles Clippers The relocated franchise former names should be separated from the current names with a / without any spaces, example: Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets If a franchise have been both relocated and renamed, both standard aboves stand, example: Baltimore/Capital/Washington Bullets / Washington Wizards or Buffalo Braves / Los Angeles Clippers - Martin tamb (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I am willing to make changes, but slash needs to have space in between per the MOS.—Chris! ct 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Oh, never mind, it seems like the change is already in place.—Chris! ct 20:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Are there any place to mention of a team playing multiple game seven in a single season, perhaps a table or a sentence on the lead. I think the fact that New York Knicks played three game sevens in 1994 is quite notable. Why does the Winner and Loser columns is unsortable? I think it would be nice to sort the Winner column to see in which years that a particular team won game seven(s). However, if you made them sortable, there is a problem with the sortability of Team (#) as Boston Celtics (19) would be sorted before Boston Celtics (2). I have a solution by inserting hidden zero by using <span style="display:none">0</span>, so that (2) is actually (02) and will be sorted before (19). well, I'm not really good at sortable table, so there are probably a better way to made them properly sorted. I added sortability about an hour ago and don't see any problems with it... perhaps you were looking at the version before I made that edit? If not, I am not having problems sorting on winners/losers.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I did looking at the previous version and did not notice the edit you made. Thanks for making both columns sortable. Sorry if my comments wasn't exactly clear about the problem, the problem isn't actually on sorting, but on the sorting orders. Previously Year Team 1957 Boston Celtics (1) 1959 Boston Celtics (2) 1963 Los Angeles Lakers (6) 1969 Boston Celtics (10) Now (with hidden zeros) Year Team 1957 Boston Celtics (1) 1959 Boston Celtics (2) 1963 Los Angeles Lakers (6) 1969 Boston Celtics (10) Try sorting the Team and see the difference, I think it's better to made them sorted by first, second, third game, and so on. Anyway, I have added the hidden zeros (hidden sortkey) to the tables, I hope that's okay with everyone. - Martin tamb (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC) If you want the column sorted by first, second, third game, then it doesn't work. It is sorted by team name alphabetically.—Chris! ct 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I fixed it, I think.—Chris! ct 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Really sorry, my comments above isn't exactly clear again. What I want to achieve is the Winner / Loser are sorted first by the team name but the version here would sort based on alphabetical order: Atlanta , Baltimore, Boston (1), Boston (10), Boston (11) and so on. While my last edit, which I want to achieve, would sort like this: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston (1), Boston (2), Boston (3), and so on. The reason is simple, it's just weird to see the (#) sorted alphabetically which resulted in (1), (10), (11), ... (19), (2), (20), and so on. I have undo your last edit if you don't mind. And really sorry for the confusion. - Martin tamb (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Well, that's all, anyway well done on the list. Feel free to object any of my suggestions if they aren't suitable for the article. Sorry if any of my comments were already discussed earlier. - Martin tamb (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support The list/article is already in good shape before my comments, my comments above is just to improve it a little bit more. Thanks for the response and really sorry if some of my comments isn't clear and create some confusion. Anyway, great job on the list. Martin tamb (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:28, 23 May 2009 [8].

---

St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all of the criteria. The prose gives relevant information about the hall, and all information in the table is sourced to reliable references. This list mirrors the format of other Featured Lists, such as NWA Hall of Fame. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wrestlinglover

Okay, well I don't see any problems with the list as far as prose. Though there is one thing, and it is just me wondering if this is correct since english was never my finest subject in public school, but in this sentence: For example, Thesz' plaque states that he is "the finest example of a true world champion". You have...(thinking about how to word it)...possibly done an error but I can't be certain. Isn't it supposed to be wrote Thesz's? I only remember that the apostrophe should only be alone if the word ends in a "S". I may be wrong; hopefully you know or someone else does along those lines. I know; it's sibilant consonants, including S, Z, or X, so the current usage is correct. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I would just place the small note in its own section. I don't believe it just being under the table is too clean (lack of a better term at this point in time) though that is just me. A list explaining each section in the table would be helpfully IMO. Ref 7 is dead. I replaced the reference. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Take any of these into consideration, after you reply I'll make my final decision. I don't see anything being a problem. The sources look good to me.--WillC 08:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support--WillC 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The Hall of Fame was created to honor the role St. Louis played in helping establish professional wrestling in North America." Should probably be "helping to establish".
• "along with surprise inductee Larry Matysik." I don't like how his entire name is repeated in the lead. Took me a while to think of a good alternate: "along with Matysik, a surprise inductee." Also, this sentence has three variations of "inducted". To reduce repetition, how about changing one to "enshrined".
• This one is purely optional, but you may want to consider moving full citations for books used multiple times to the general references. Then, the citations could be short-form, with just author and page number. Not something I'd ever withhold support over, though.
• The St. Louis Post-Dispatch general reference is a dead link. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I made all of these changes (I think I did the reference formatting thing properly, although I'm not sure that the General References are in the proper order now...it seemed awkward to split up the books, but it might be necessary to keep it in alphabetical order...I'm just not sure which is considered more important). I replaced the dead link with the St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame's official MySpace page, which I hope is considered reliable. It's main purpose is as a source for the inductees and the years of their inductions, so the Hall of Fame itself seems like a good source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure how reliable an official MySpace page will be considered, because an unofficial one would probably be considered unreliable. Is the same information included in the other official site? If so, I'm not sure a second link is needed at all. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, as is the case with many websites, the creators of the official site appear to have abandoned the page in favor of a MySpace page. It is, however, an official MySpace site operated by the creators of the Hall of Fame. It is used only as a source for the list of wrestlers inducted in 2008; it is not, however, used as a source for any information about their careers. I believe that the official MySpace page of a Hall of Fame should be considered reliable as a source for the list of inductees. After all, who knows the list of inductees better than the owners of the Hall of Fame? I have double-checked the list against lists posted by other websites (credited to Wrestling Observer Newsletter, which, as noted below, is a reliable source but unfortunately charges for the newsletter and does not provide free access to archived stories); the list (as seen here matches the list on the MySpace page). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support – Basically I echo Dabomb below. The core of the list is FL-worthy, but the MySpace reference is a cause for concern. Any chance for a reliable non-MySpace source? An archived story that isn't free to access, or a print source, would be just fine for use in a featured piece of content. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak support, issues resolved, but I'm still a bit wary about the MySpace source. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Good work. "After several years of debating the idea" The idea of what (be obvious about it)? "Six more people were inducted in 2008, bringing the total to 21. " You spell out numbers in the rest of the lead, it makes sense to do so here too. In the notes, use semicolons instead of colons. Can you center the "Year" and "#" columns? Note a needs an en dash instead of a hyphen. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.f4wonline.com/content/view/6935/124/ reliable?
  • Seems to meet WP:SPS. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm also wary about the MySpace page.
• New York Times-->The New York Times Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have addressed everything in your "Comments" section as well as The New York Times concern. Please see above for my comments on the MySpace page. As for Figure Four Wrestling, the Figure Four Wrestling/Wrestling Observer Newsletter site is run by Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez, both of whom are acknowledged as experts in their field. Alvarez is co-author of The Death of WCW, published by ECW Press, and has been quoted in several other wrestling books (including Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of the ECW, published by Sports Publishing LLC, and The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Heels, published by ECW Press). Meltzer has also written books (Tributes: Remembering Some of the World's Greatest Wrestlers, published by Winding Stair Press, and Tributes II: Remembering More of the Worlds Greatest Wrestlers, published by Sports Publishing LLC, Top 100 Pro Wrestlers of All Time, published by Stewart House). He is quoted in many books and documentaries (Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows and Beyond the Mat, as well as Mysteries of Wrestling, published by ECW Press; Ric Flair's autobiography, To Be the Man; Mick Foley's autobiography; and countless others). Alvarez has been running Figure Four since 1995, and in 2008, he merged the magazine with Meltzer's Wrestling Observer, which has been around since 1987. If you need any more information to verify their reliability, just ask (or do a search for their names, which should turn up many hits). I hope this helps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Figure Four should be OK, but I will leave MySpace unstruck for other reviewers to evaluate. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:28, 23 May 2009 [9].

---

List of Grade I listed buildings in Taunton Deane

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 07:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating List of Grade I listed buildings in Taunton Deane as a featured list because I feel it meets all the FL criteria with suitable references and supporting pictures. It follows the format of the recently promoted List of Grade I listed buildings in West Somerset. — Rod ^talk 07:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support on the prose—Rodw writes nicely. Great pics (I didn't check their status, and I presume it's OK). Just a small point: I'd be inclined to make the pop. and area figures less precise. In six months' time, the pop of 100,300 might well be 101,050. And fractions of a square km seem too fiddly for the clutter. I'd just round to thousands of people and whole sq. km or m. But it's no big deal. Comma after "House", end of lead. Comma after "periods" in Note 1. The longer the sentence, the fewer the existing commas, and the more formal the register, the more likely an optional comma is used (that's my opinion only). No. 18 could have a little stub written to remove the onlly red in that neat table, but you don't have to, of course. Tony (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Response Thanks for the comments - all grammar advice acted on. I will do a stub for 18 Fore St, but it's the building with the least available in terms of sources.— Rod ^talk 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) No need to link England. "when William Giffard the Chancellor of King Henry I"-->when William Giffard, the Chancellor of King Henry I "who transformed the manor-house here into a castle" What is "here" referring to? "Taunton is also the site of Gray's Alsmhouses which dates from 1635[6] and two buildings in Fore Street from the 16th century." Needs commas: "Taunton is also the site of Gray's Alsmhouses, which dates from 1635,[6] and two buildings in Fore Street from the 16th century" "The majority of the"-->Most "Deane are Norman or medieval era churches"-->Deane are Norman- or medieval-era churches, (notice the appended comma) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Response - thanks for the helpful comments - I'm always grateful for improvements to my poor grammar. I hope the changes I've made are appropriate?— Rod talk 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Now Support. Another list of exceptional quality by Rodw, it's great to see how carefully you're covering all the county. Before supporting, I'd only like you to clarify me a small detail: English Heritage speaks of 5 Grade I listed buildings in Taunton; instead, No 18, Fore Street, Taunton is qualified as Grade II*[10]. Have you got another source which puts it differently? And if yes, why do you feel it's more reliable than IoE or Listed Buildings Online?--Aldux (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Response Thank you for your comments. In the process of checking the accuracy of this list I contacted Taunton Deane Councils Building Conservation Officer who is involved in any planning applications which affect listed buildings. He kindly gave me an updated list. No 18, Fore Street, Taunton was upgraded to I in 1982 but the Images of England (IoE) site has it wrongly classified. I have added a note explaining and a reference to the entry for the building on the Somerset Historic Environment Record (SHER) which has this correctly. I have kept the IoE reference as this includes a picture which the SHER one does not. In the course of this helpful email discussion we also found that Cutley Farmhouse in Kingston St Mary is listed on IoE as Grade I when in fact it is Grade II. The councils Building Conservation Officer has promised to pass on this error to English Heritage. I hope this answers your query if not I can forward the list sent by the council as an email.— Rod ^talk 14:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, the awnser is more than OK, and I've already had to note for myself that the IoE gradings are occasionally sloppy.--Aldux (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:28, 23 May 2009 [11].

---

List of German submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

Nominator(s): BomBom (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is now up to the standards. The layout is based on that of other Academy-Award FLs, so there shouldn't be much controversy. All objections will of course be promptly addressed. Regards. BomBom (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Unfortunately these may seem like cookie-cutter topics, but this list is clearly well-developed and stand-alone. This is clearly comprable to the other submission FLs, and it is very interesting and well-referenced. I have no concerns. Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mind explaining why you created {{Academy Award nominee/meta/color}}, {{Academy Award submission/meta/color}}, and {{Academy Award winner/meta/color}}? The change in the article added 2kb of text, and {{nom}} seemed to be working just fine. First, the template titles are unnecessarily long. It could just be "Academy Award nomination color" or even "Oscar nom color". Those could have been combined or even added to the Nom template, so you could just write "nom|Won" or so that "Oscar color|Nominated" would automatically be green and "Oscar color|Won" would be gold. Otherwise, I would suggest including "align=center" within the template, as Nom did. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. I removed the color templates. They are still at an early development stage, and weren't designed for this article anyway but for an experiment being carried out on my sandbox. They shouldn't have been used in the first place. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That's fine, sorry if I was being overcritical. WP's coloring everywhere does need to be standardized somehow, though. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Do we really need to link "English language"? "with all of its submissions failing to garner a nomination"-->as all of its submissions failed to garner a nomination "which were held on 25 March 1991" "Reunified Germany has been very successful in the Best Foreign Language Film category, managing to secure two wins and eight nominations in less than two decades."-->Reunified Germany has been successful in the Best Foreign Language Film category, securing two wins and eight nominations in less than two decades. "The two German films which received the award" "which"-->that "who is also the only German director to have more than one film nominated for the award. "-->the only German director to have more than one film nominated for the award. There needs to be a note saying that each year is linked to an article about that year in film—see List of Washington Wizards head coaches as an example. In the notes, film names should not be bolded. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.german-films.de/app/filmarchive/oscar_features.php reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. All of your comments have been taken into account. As for the source, it is pretty clear from the article itself who German Films is. German Films Service + Marketing GmbH, which was known as the Export-Union of German Cinema until 2004, is an umbrella association that organizes each year the committee and procedures that select Germany's submission to the Academy Awards. The article thus couldn't use a more official source. --BomBom (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I have a tendency to be over-critical of sources. I always question them to be on the safe side. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Crzycheetah

*Comment Maybe I am missing something here, but why are you using archived versions on some of the references while the originals are still working?--Crzycheetah 23:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Reply Yes. Although the site is currently working, it happened once before that it suddenly went done. You never know when this might happen again, hence the archived links. Do you think they should be removed? --BomBom (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Hmm, it depends on how often the site goes down. If it was just one time, I think we need to remove the archived links. If it happens more than once, then yeah we need those archived links. I just noticed that in the general reference, Das Boot movie is mentioned, but this list doesn't. Any idea why?--Crzycheetah 04:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Reply This is a mistake in the general reference. Das Boot was indeed a German film that was nominated for six Academy Awards, but it was never submitted in the Foreign Language Film category, hence its non-inclusion in the article. I clarified this in the footnotes section. --BomBom (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks good enough to me. Good job!--Crzycheetah 06:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - You make a specific unreferenced statement in the lead, "West Germany and East Germany were formally reunited on 3 October 1990." Geraldk (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I added a reference. I didn't think it necessary given that the date of reunification is a widely-known, undisputed fact. --BomBom (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - Yes, well, I'm anal retentive. Great work, btw. Really a well done list. Geraldk (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:28, 23 May 2009 [12].

---

List of birds of Maryland

Nominator(s): Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on this list and believe that it meets all of the Featured List Criteria. It is comprehensive, easy to understand, illustrated with revelent and diverse pictures, and based upon the other bird FLs, especially the list for North Carolina, which I used as the base for this article when writing it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this isn't very constructive and I'll try to think of what it is that makes me say this, but I don't like it. The one thing that jumps out is that within each order there is no apparent order to the specific birds---eg it is not alphabetical and I don't see another organizational method. I also think it would help to have tables... especailly with the bigger lists.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The birds are in Taxonomic sequence. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is required/expected, but I personally would like to see some of these lists in sortable tables. EG let the user sort based on Taxonomic sequence, alphabetical by common name, alphabetical by scientific name. I think that might be the problem that I'm having with the list is that as a person not familiar with "taxonomic sequences" the list doesn't look clean.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What would be the value of the list alphabetical? In the ornithological world, all lists are done in taxonomic sequence. As most viewers looking up this page would have some familiarity with taxonomic sequence (be they birdwatcher or scientist), it would be the expected order. As it is in taxonomic sequence, the genera are already grouped together, so an individual looking up a specific species by scientific name should know the family, leading them to the correct subheading. Or, if they are like me and lazy, they could simply search the page with the ctrl f function. Likewise, an individual with a casual interest wondering if Blue Jays were found in Maryland could simply search for the term instead of setting the page in a new mode and then browsing down the alphabetical order (I'm guessing this is how EG would work- I'm not sure what it is and a brief search on Wikipedia didn't turn it up. What is EG?). Basically, I do not see what real advantage having the list in three different formats would be when I am unaware of a cataloging list anywhere that is in any format other than taxonomic.

In terms of it not looking neat and individuals not knowing what taxonomic sequence is, it is neat by the taxonomic standards and the lede to the list mentions that it is in this order, though not as outright clearly as it probably could. I'm about to rewrite the lede to rebuild the fourth wall, so I'll make it a bit clearer and maybe a bit earlier. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the more that I think about it the more *I* think it should be a sortable box format. Take a look at this. Here you can sort the table based upon the champion's name, how much money they won, what year they won it, total winnings, the number of bracelets, etc. By putting it into a sortable box, you would allow people to look up things based upon taxinomic sequence, alphabetical, scientific name, status (extinct, rare, etc.) Wikipedia articles should be accessible to more than just ornothologist, it should be accessible to as wide an audience as possible. That being said, you never know how people are going to want to look up the information. Taxonomic sequence may be good for you, but for 99% of the people who come to WP, they would not know how to use it. As for CTRL-F, yes that is an option, but not (IMO) for a FL. As for EG---Eg is a common acronymn for "That is"/"for example" and is used when giving an example.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Boy, do I feel stupid. I assumed EG was the name of the program. Anyways, from a technical standpoint, how would the sortable boxes work with the family descriptions when the list is in taxonomic order? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• The list of poker players has a different structure to the this list of birds. I do not think that this birds list will benefit from being in one large sortable table, because it is also listed in families. A separate list could have a "flat list" format which could be put in a table, which could be sortable, but I think that sort-ability is not applicable to this list here. There is nothing wrong with a flat-list in a table, but it is a different list to the one in question here. I think that the structure of the list divided into families as in the current list in question is fine. There may be a case for re-organisation of the birds within a family, perhaps alphabetical, or perhaps a sortable table for each family, sortable for common name and binomial name. However, I do not think that the list should fail FA because it does not have any tables. Snowman (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I personally would prefer a different format, but looking at the conventions used in other FL's of this type, I won't insist on it. Weak support---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"This list of Maryland birds is a comprehensive listing of all the bird species recorded from the U.S. state of Maryland." Featured lists don't start like this anymore (i.e. "This list..."). See recently promoted FLs for an example of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

After looking at some recent FLs (and realizing that the title of the list need not appear in the list) I've rewritten the first two paragraphs to rebuild the fourth wall and hopefully make it more engaging. Does the rewrite work? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Is this:
  • a list of all birds from Maryland (ie, species' origins are Maryland, but can be found elsewhere)
  • a list of all birds native to Maryland (ie species' origins are Maryland, and can only be found in Maryland)
  • a list of all birds found in Maryland (ie, species' origins are from anywhere)

This is a list of all birds recorded in Maryland, or have sighted in the state and are believed to be of wild origin. I'll put that in the lede. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a bit unsettled by the generalisation of the title. It should be more specific.
• Title isn't gramatically correct either. It should be List of x of/in/from y, not [[List of y''s x]].

I'm not a big fan of the title layout either, but this is the standard for bird lists of states. However, for lists outside the country it is List of birds of Maryland in layout. Would moving it to this title fix this and the above bullet point? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. As I'm sure you know, WP:OSE isn't an excuse, and if this is renamed it could become the perfect catalyst for renaming all the other poorly named taxonomy lists. I'll leave it in your capable hands to come up with the correct name, but something concrete like "List of (all) birds found in Maryland", perhaps? Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My point with the OSE was that if this list changes, then the rest of the lists should change as well. If you don't mind, I'm going to bring the renaming up at WP:Bird and see what format they think is the most accurate and, though I don't recall it, at somepoint there probably was a discussion with the simplistic, ungrammatical form being decided as the way to go. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is/will be here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the page to List of birds of Maryland as it seems to be getting the most support. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• As Dabomb says, don't start with "this is a list" or "this is a comprehensive list"; we know it's a list from the title, we know it's comprehensive from it's FL-star (should it get one). As a comparison, Dog doesn't begin, "this is a comprehensive article about dogs".

Rewritten. Could you look at the new opening to see how well it flows? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• "U.S. state" = "United States state" -- odd, no? Please don't use abbreviations on their first use. Use the full term and but the abbr. in parentheses

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• "This list is", "This list is" - page is self-referencial, which makes for uncomfortable reading

Rewritten. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• AOU who?

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• "See Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy for an alternative phylogenetic arrangement based on DNA-DNA hybridization." We have links so you don't have to say "See so-and-so for such and such." That may be necessary in a paper encylopedia, but not here

Good point. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:ACCESS, wikilinks should not appear in headings when there is unlinked text also. It messes up screen-readers for the blind. Perhaps write a short paragraph at the beginning of each section using the links instead, explaining what these birds are?

I've started going through it, the rest will come later. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• {{reflist}} should only be used for a minimum of 10-15 references, and a 2-col reflist for approx 25-30. is the way to go here

Check. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• How come the other 3 references are not used in-line?

One was bumped to inline, one was a repeat of the original inline, and one would have been used by the Maryland Records Committee but wasn't used by the article, so removed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• There's 1 EL being used as a reference. One or the other, please

What is wrong with having a specific subpage that is only the list being the reference and having the mother website, which includes a lot of information about Maryland birds and birding, being in the ELs? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just seems superfluous to me Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• There's quite a few redirects and 2 dablinks which need fixing.

I've started going through the redirects, the rest will come later. Is there a tool to find the dablinks? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The toolbox at the top of this FLC nomination has the link you need. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this one is fixed. I went through all the species names and undid the redirects that I thought were superfluous. However, Americans and Brits share several species of birds and delight in calling them different names. Wikipedia tends to side with the Brits in this, but to Americans, the people likely to be using this list, a diver would not be recognizeable as a loon, so the American name is present and redirected to Wikipedia's official article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please find someone to perform an image review. User:Rambo's Revenge might be willing.

I'll ask. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all for now, but it's enough to get started on. Regards Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Image review - Part I

• File:Woodduck95.jpg, needs a source to confirm PD status.

This blog uses it and calls it USFWS PD, but the author could have easily been trusting Commons. Another picture from what looks to be the same photoshoot is here. However, I cannot find the same picture on the fws website. Should I upload and change the picture to the one on the second link? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure how important this is, but File:Northern Shoveller (Male) I IMG 0956.jpg has a tag to remove (possibly crop out?) the watermark.

Not sure what to do here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how important it is. But you could always crop the file below to remove that name stamp. Then just upload the cropped version as a new version of the file. That would solve things. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Podilymbus-podiceps-001.jpg is missing the original upload history. It needs finding or alternatively (and probably much more easily) ask User:Mdf to verify if s/he took the photo.

I'm not the only one that uses s/he! Yay! Anyways, about midway down the page in the file history comment it says "Photograph''': Mdf first upload in en wikipedia on 21:02, 27 May 2005 by Mdf * '''Licence''': {{GFDL}})" Also, MDF has the picture on their userpage. Should I still ask s/he, or is that enough? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good spot, I had overlooked that and the image being on MDF's page. It's good enough for me, I'll just go tidy the information. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Puffinus_griseus.png - original upload log is not recorded very well on Commons. It would be nice to look at the deletion log to determine who the original uploader on en.wiki was.

• Original uploader was C00ch (talk · contribs · count) Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm satisfied C00ch is Thomas Mattern, However (per tip 8) it needs its original (now deleted) file history to be copied across. Any chance you can do that Matt, as I can't see it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've completed this one, as I now can see it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Brown pelican - natures pics.jpg, uploader in good standing so AGF. However, couldn't find image at website linked. Description page mentions correspondance with website owner, OTRS might be helpful here.

I am almost certain that it is the picture here, only it has been flipped and the colors were changed. The photographers release everything here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think you're right, I'll add that info in a bit. Should be fine once that is done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Similarly for File:Turkey vulture profile.jpg, it would be nice to check who was the original uploader.

• Original uploader was Phyzome (talk · contribs · count). Seems he transferred it to Commons and had someone delete the local version. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Same as other case: needs original history copying over. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Have copied over original history. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:RT hawks.jpg. Uploaded to Commons, but the source notes that the image is copyright of Thomas O'Neil (the given author). User:Tgo2002 uploaded a number of images from that site, but hasn't explicitly stated that he is the author. As the website still considers it copyright I think this might be a possible copyvio.

Hmph. And TGo2002 hasn't edited since 2005. Would the next step be to email the site owner and ask him if he uploaded the pictures? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good move. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Peregrine falcon x.jpg - "for personal use", Wikipedia requires commercial use. Also, would "Pennsylvania Game Commission" really be considered as "United States Federal Government"?

I know nothing of copyright laws, so your call. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The PipingPlover file was deleted because the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission wasn't federal government. I think Pennsylvania Game Commission would be the same and would suggest removing this image.

• File:PipingPlover23.jpg, source needs updating to this, but anyway I don't think Nebraska Game and Parks Commission counts as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee. The USFWS states that content is not on their site is not necessarily PD.
  • After further discussion on Commons this has been listed as a deleted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It may take me quite a long time to get through these, so if someone wishes to help/continue please feel free. In general, some images need to have the better information, less generic PD tags etc. I have found, and added info. for some images (e.g. this one). However, it takes time. So if you have time and can fix some of these things it would be a great help. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this. I'll do what I can, but images aren't my speciality (I've always trusted Commons too). Is there a tutorial or something out there so that I can learn how to do an image review? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to put down some of my own thoughts here, but another user has since pointed me to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches, which is a much more complete document about the use of images. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This is a long list, and I want to focus on the details. It may take me a few days to complete my review. I think it's worth mentioning that Maryland is a U.S. state. I don't see references for the birds listed, only the lead. Reference number 1 is the list of the birds and is the reference for all of the birds being listed. Traditionally, to avoid clutter, bird FLs have just reffed it in the lead. However, if you think it would be better to have the ref repeat after every "X species have been recorded in Maryland" sentence, I'll put them in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC) You can use a "general" reference. See List of Washington Wizards head coaches#References as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "These are birds that are modified for an aquatic existence with webbed feet" When I hear "modified", I think of GMOs. Perhaps "adapted" would be a better word? No need to link Northern Hemisphere. "bills which are flattened"-->bills that are flattened "In Maryland, 43 definitive species have been recorded and three of questionable origin have also been reported." Per MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written out the same. So, "43" and "3" or "forty-three" and "three". "Black-bellied Whistling-Duck" redirects to "Black-bellied Whistling Duck". Is there a reason for this discrepancy? Just general bird name confusions. Some people like hyphens, some don't. I've changed it to the WP article name. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "In all of Maryland's species, males are polygamous" This lends to the question as to whether there are monogamous males in other parts of the world. Yep, the Willow Grouse, but it isn't even found in North America, so I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in the paragraph. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "Loons are aquatic birds size of a large duck" Missing words. "are almost hopeless on land" Are you referring to walking? "small to medium-large sized"-->small- to medium-large sized "amongst "-->among 'true petrels' Should be double quotes per MOS. "The flight is fluttering"-->Their flight is fluttering "Pelicans are very large water birds" "with very long necks and long, straight beaks" "medium to large sized wading birds"-->medium- to large-sized wading birds "large sized wading birds"-->large-sized wading birds Couldn't find this one unless it is the same as above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "shorter necked"-->shorter-necked "long necked birds"-->long-necked birds "usually 3-5 feet in height," Needs an en dash, needs a conversion. Also, you make "feet" the primary unit here. Above, you made meters the primary unit. Be consistent. "convergent evolution" Link? "oddly-shaped" Per MOS, -ly adverbs don't need hyphens. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for reviewing. I will be away from my computer for much of the weekend, but please keep these coming. The family summaries are generic enough to be used for all state checklists, and if they are fixed now, they will be good for the next list. I believe I've adressed everything above that does not have a comment with it. Also, I'll be gone for much of the weekend, but will be back around noon Sunday EST. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "in any location which is near a body of water"-->in any location that is near a body of water "have very large powerful hooked beaks" "small to medium-sized birds which includes"-->small- to medium-sized birds that includes "and have long toes which are well adapted to soft, uneven "-->and have long toes that are well adapted to soft, uneven "small to medium-sized birds"-->small- to medium-sized birds (check for the hanging hyphen throughout) "They are found in open country worldwide, mostly in habitats near water, although there are some exceptions." You could trim redundancy by saying "They are ususally found in open country worldwide, mostly in habitats near water." "In Maryland, seven definitive species have been recorded along with one species of questionable origin." I think a comma would be good in this register (after "recorded") "obvious and noisy plover-like birds," Not sure what "obvious" means here. "Recurvirostridae is a family of large wading birds, which includes the avocets and the stilts."-->Recurvirostridae is a family of large wading birds that includes the avocets and the stilts. "The Scolopacidae are a large diverse family of small to medium sized shorebirds " Comma after here. "medium to large birds"-->medium-to-large birds (multiple occurences) Do we need to link "birds" as much as we are? Link "mandible" on its first appearance. "medium to large sized"-->medium- to large-sized "small to large"-->small-to-large "feet which are of little use"-->feet that are of little use "Kingfishers are medium sized birds"-->Kingfishers are medium-sized birds "Most, but not all, are rather plain." Are you referring to their plumage? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "small to medium sized"-->small- to medium-sized (check for this throughout also) "They are typically greenish in color and resemble the wood warblers except for their heavier bills." Comma after "warblers". "Their food is insects and seeds."-->They feed [prey?] on insects and seeds. "mixed diet including seeds and insects."-->mixed diet that includes seeds and insects. "unlike other birds which can only go upwards. " Comma after "birds". "Treecreepers are small woodland birds, brown above and white below. " You're going to have to be more specific than "above" and "below". "The kinglets are a family of birds which are very small insectivorous birds in the genus Regulus." Delete "very", "which"-->that "The thrushes are a group of passerine birds that occur mainly but not exclusively in the Old World." I think you mean "inhabit", not "occur". "Many have attractive songs." What does "attractive" mean here? For mating? "The species tend towards dull grays and browns in their appearance."-->The species' appearance tends towards dull grays and browns [in plumage]? "slender, ground feeding insectivores"-->slender, ground-feeding insectivores "not closely related to the Old World sparrows which are in the family Passeridae." Comma after "sparrows". "They are typically associated with open woodland." And what is this "associat[ion]" extended to? Habitat? "In general, sparrows tend to be small plump brownish" Are you talking about Old World sparrows or all sparrows? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC) I believe I have covered all of the errors, including the hyphens with size throughout. Thank you for doing an outstanding job copyediting this. These family paragraphs as they appeared when the article was nominated are present in half a dozen or so currently featured lists and will form the base for any feature US birding list. Once this review is done, I'll be copying the corrected paragraphs into these earlier lists and therefore bringing these FLs up to speed. One last question- As I am currently using the actual list as a general reference, should I delete it in the in-text citations? Thank you again. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from User:Tony1

• Sparrow, too many corrections to the prose have been required to have nominated this one. It's not fair to other nominations to have reviewing resources sucked in like this. Please fix before nomination next time.
• Opening sentence: "States" "state". What is wrong with "In the US state of Maryland, 435 bird species have been recorded."? These "one-step" links—where an item is linked that is so broad as to be of questionable utility to the reader, and as well is linked in the more specific article adjacent—dilute the links at the very opening and make the sentence half blue. Tony (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many copyediting problems to have brought this up for FL. I copied the family paragraphs from the other US state bird FLs and assumed that they were fine as they had been approved several times before. I should have read through them and checked them myself before nominating this list. On the bright side, once this FLC is concluded, I'll copy the corrected paragraphs into the bird featured lists to fix the errors. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support an impressive amount of work addressing the FL concerns, which themselves were pretty impressive in their scope and detail. One comment, though it doesn't stand in the way of FL for me: in the lead and as a notation after some species you use the term extirpated. While I like my articles to have lots of SAT words, extirpate is a particularly rare word. So, for the benefit of the readership:

1. If it's a technical term used by the birding community, I'd suggest mentioning somewhere exactly what it means.

2. If it isn't, I'd suggest either doing the above or using a more common word such as 'eradicated' or 'exterminated'. Geraldk (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider "extirpate" to be an overly complex word, but I would suggest providing a wiktionary link. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's complex. I'm saying it's not a very common word. And, especially if it is a technical term, Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions applies. Geraldk (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 19:42, 19 May 2009 [13].

---

List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs), G.A.S^talk

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it fully meets the featured list criteria. Modeled after the first anime/manga featured characters list, List of Naruto characters, this list has gone through a multitude of merging, rewriting, sourcing, peer reviews (both through PR and specifically requesting comments from experienced FL writers), and copy editing. It is comprehensive in that it covers all major characters from the manga series, as well as its anime adaptation, while not bloating the list with minor characters. It is well structured and follows all applicable Manuals of Style, including two carefully selected non-free images to illustrate the series protagonists and to illustrate a particular character design. Both images have appropriate FURs. It is also very stable, with only minor issues with vandalism cropping up now and then. I have added G.A.S as a nominator as we worked together to do much of the work on this article (as well as the TMM articles as a whole) and he performed all of the copy editing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty well-written—AnmaFinotera has done well. But I've read only down to the end of the first section, and others may find little refinements to be made.

• "in order to"—one word would do!
• "lighter and more colorful feel", or a comma: "lighter, more colorful feel".
• "cute appearance". "Cute" could mean at least two different things; because the word has become kind of unstable (and is it cross-culturally the same?), you might consider using a synonym (I really don't know which meaning is intended).
• "girl-animal combinations"—I'd use an en dash, but it's no big deal. And I'd use "among", not the old-fashioned "amongst". [these ones: personal prefs only].Tony (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

All fixed except the cute since I'm not sure which other word would be use. From the context, it is used in the same way the characters would be called kawaii in Japan (generally translated to cute) and the word is pulled from the quote (which uses "ultra-cute" and "cuteness") :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from NocturneNoir

I only looked at the Reception section. AnimeFringe's Patrick King Ikumi's character designs for being a perfect first for the feel of the series, Eh? I don't think he did the character designs... Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't that be AnimeFringe's Patrick King Ikumi praised the character designs for being a perfect fit for the feel of the series, However, Janet Crocker of Anime Fringe felt Berry was an overly shallow heroine that was just mirroring the life Mew Ichigo (from the original Tokyo Mew Mew) in a shorter form. should be However, Janet Crocker of Anime Fringe felt Berry was an overly shallow heroine that just mirrored the life Mew Ichigo (from the original Tokyo Mew Mew) albeit in a shorter form. She also dismissed the Saint Rose Crusaders' costumes and plans as being nothing more than concepts borrowed from Sailor Moon. She also criticized the specific designs used for the character Duke, whose white robe she felt was too similar to those used by the white supremacy group, the Ku Klux Klan. Just a minor point–the sentence structure is pretty similar here. Can this be changed up a bit to add variety? Anime News Network's disagree should have the name of the reviewer (as you refer to him later). He also felt that Tasuku was "an excellent complement to [Berry], with his outgoing charm and clinginess that is surprisingly never annoying" The quote is integrated awkwardly; is it possible to split this, as in He also felt that Tasuku was "an excellent complement to [Berry]" and found "[Tasuku's] outgoing charm and clinginess [...] surprisingly never annoying" Some quick random tweaks: In "Notes": In the English language release of the first volume of the Tokyo Mew Mew manga series, Tokyopop combined chapters 1-4, unnamed in the original Japanese release, into a single named chapter called "In the Beginning". should be into a single chapter, named "In the Beginning". Same with notes 3 and 4. Also in "Notes": In the initial English language release of the Tokyo Mew Mew manga, Tokyopop used the spelling "kirema anima" to refer to the monsters, however in Tokyo Mew Mew a la Mode this is changed to chimera anima. is a run-on. Try In the initial English language release of the Tokyo Mew Mew manga, Tokyopop used the spelling "kirema anima" to refer to the monsters. However in Tokyo Mew Mew a la Mode, Tokyopop changes the spelling to "chimera anima". For refs, might you consider splitting into a Bibliography and a References section, a la the recently promoted FA, SS Pennsylvanian? That might make the refs easier to read, since you repeat books several times. Check your dabs. I might add more comments later, but I'll probably rely on others to confirm the cleanliness of the prose in other sections. I'd like the "Merchandise" section to be slightly longer, but I realize this is impossible for a list of this type so don't worry about this too deeply if nothing can be done. In any event, good luck! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC) All corrected. Can't believe I missed that missing "praised" :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC) All dabs corrected. G.A.Stalk 11:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC) In subsequent volumes and in Tokyo Mew Mew a la Mode this is changed to chimera anima needs a comma after "Mode" Ikumi notes that future attack names were decided by which sounded funniest Tense - Shouldn't this be in the past tense, as Ikumi is not continuing to note this? Ikumi created other girl–animal combinations while designing the four other Mew Mews, among them a mouse girl with same green coloring as Lettuce. Replace "among them" with "including" However, the mouse design was one of several designs rejected for the series as the choices were narrowed down. Designs for the series or for the characters? With the main Mew Mew team designs finalized How about "Once the main Mew Mew team's designs"? I don't like the phrase "Mew Mew team's"; can this be shortened to "Mew Mew's"? Ikumi expressed approval of the character designs, and the voice actor selections Ikumi agreed with the designs or commented that they were good choices? "expressed approval" is a bit too vague. giving them the ability to transform into a Mew Mew should be "giving them the ability to transform into Mew Mews" as the plural "The Mew Mews" is the subject of the sentence. Unless the girls transform into a single Mew Mew, of course, which I doubt. Endangered species were chosen because it was felt that they had the strongest desire to preserve their kind. I prefer the active tense over the passive tense here, so try "The design team chose endangered species because they felt that these species would have the strongest desgire to preserve their kind." Also, maybe replace "kind" with species, but that's up to the writer's discretion. They also are called on to fight the aliens that later appear and are the source of the chimera anima invasion. can be better worded as "They are later called on to fight the aliens that were the source of the chimera anima invasion." The creation of the first five Mew Mews occurred accidentally, with Ryou The turn of phrase "with ..." usually sounds awkward, so can this be changed to "The creation of the first five Mew Mews occurred accidentally; Ryou" endangered animal genes directly, to see if they could reverse The comma is unnecessary and should be removed. The Mew Project was started by Dr. Shirogane, Ryou Shirogane's father Seeing as you refer to Ryou in the sentence before, should this introduction be moved in front of the previous sentence? Can you introduce Ryou in the first instance? I got confused by this before I finally realized my mistake a few lines further down. The anime shows that Dr. Shirogane discovered the fossilized remains of an ancient civilization I'd prefer if Dr. Shirogane is the subject of this sentence, i.e. "In the anime, Dr. Shiro discovered the..." The girls have powers related to their animal DNA when transformed, and can boost Mew Ichigo's power by combining their powers. Since these are two unrelated thoughts, they should be separated. a powerful heroic cat girl. should be "a powerful and heroic cat girl" assuming both adjectives are modifying "cat girl". The transformation also causes her to exhibit various feline mannerisms in her human form "while she is in her human form"/"when she is in her human form"? At first her cat ears and tail appears whenever she is excited, but eventually her cat DNA grows strong enough to turn her into a small black cat and her only means to change back is to kiss someone—human or animal needs a comma after "first". "Appears", since it is related to "cat ears and tail", should be "appear". I prefer "only when" over "whenever". And is she constantly a small black cat until kissed? What are the conditions for her transformation into a cat? subsequently revived by the mew aqua in Masaya. I have no clue about this one, so feel free to ignore. Since "Mew Mew" is capitalized, should "Mew" be captialized here, or alternately "Mew Aqua"? against the Saint Rose Crusaders .[21] has an extra space. More later; this list is quite long... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC) All fixed, I think. Mew aqua is left uncapitalized because its a general substance rather than a proper known, like Mew Mew and Mew Project. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC) I just realized that the refs have remained the same in spite of my query above. Would you like me to take a stab at changing this, or do you feel that the refs should be left alone? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 19:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I really hate those split sections and never use them in any article I work on unless its the established style from a previous editor. Since it isn't required to follow that style, I'd prefer this article's refs be left as is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. My issues are resolved and I trust Dabomb enough to know the rest of the list is solid now.Yes, I was too lazy to closely read the rest of the list. I did however, do a quick once-over and it looked very good. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I struggle whenever I read anime, so it will take me a while to get through this. I'll go through a character section at a time. This is well done. General: I see a mixture of spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes. Use one format throughout. I would link middle school, as it is not referred to as such in every English-speaking country. "An intergalactic police officer named Masha gave her the ability to transform into a cat-girl and asked her to aid him in defeating alien invaders called the Baku." You might clarify that this is part of the plot. "with same green coloring as Lettuce." Missing a "the". "accidentally; The head of the project, Ryou Shirogane, originally " "The" shouldn't be capitalized. I suppose you couldn't describe what a "mew mark" looks like? "she is shown to be a very empathetic person who" The intensifier doesn't really add anything here. "Lettuce Midorikawa [omitted parenthetical notes] is the third member of the Mews Mews formally introduced to the readers." "formally", as opposed to what? "portrayed as a very shy character lacking self-confidence and is the subject of frequent bullying" "Mew Mews regular encouragement." Missing apostrophe. "and tells him she does not want it to be goodbye." A bit too informal. Perhaps "and tells him that she does not want to leave him." or something like that. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC) All fixed, I think. Hopefully I fixed the issue with the little dashes, and clarified the Tokyo Black Cat Girl and mew mark issues. For the "formally" introduced, as opposed to just being shown in the initial scenes where they are all injected with the DNA. For the "to be goodbye" I added quotes to indicate its her own wording in the English version (she doesn't say she doesn't want him to leave nor visa versa). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Note: I would actually recommend using spaced en dashes instead of em dashes, and updating Tokyo Mew Mew for consistency: The article currently uses both spaced en dashes (Tōkyō Myū Myū – Tōjō Shin Myū Myū! – Minna Issho ni Gohōshi Suru Nyan and A Little Hero Masha – Friendship at the Risk of His Life) and em dashes (until someone—human or animal—kisses her). While this could be justified, it seems awkward. — G.A.S (talk · contribs) 05:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC) I have no clue what the differences, so I'll defer o you on this one. I know on the episode titles, I just copy/pasted from the list :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC) List has been updated; spaced en dash is used consistently throughout the list. G.A.Stalk 12:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Much thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC) "3 million years "-->three million years (per WP:MOSNUM) "and were forced to live underground by its sandstorms and high temperatures." Are you sure you don't mean "because" instead of "by"? "humans' environmental damage in order to destroy all life" "with some mew aqua to change their " "he's weak" No contractions. "assumed the form of a human boy, Masaya Aoyama, in order to avoid detection." "Deep Blue is one of only a few characters whose name" "they a plot to blow up the school, " Typo, I think. "because they were necessary to the world and important." Redundant; "necesssary to the world" and "important". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) All fixed. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "outside of the Mew Project" "In describing him to readers, Ichigo says Masaya as"-->Ichigo describes Masaya as "as being a very polite and calm person, " "he began acting like a "perfect child" in order to be adopted but in reality, felt sick of humans and disgusted by how they treat the planet"-->he began acting like a "perfect child" to be adopted; in reality, however, she felt sick of humans and disgusted by how they treat the planet Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Also now fixed :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) "After his first appearance, the Blue Knight reappears whenever Ichigo is in danger to protect her, and then disappearing after the situation is resolved." "then disappearing"-->disappears "After he completed the technique for injecting genes " Do you mean finished developing it? "He can be mischievous and flirtatious as well, such as offering to kiss Ichigo to change her out of her cat form."-->He can be mischievous and flirtatious as well; for example, he has offered to kiss Ichigo to change her out of her cat form. "high level speech"-->high-level speech "outgoing charm and clinginess...surprisingly never annoying". Per WP:MOS#Ellipses, there should be a non-breaking space before the ellipsis and a regular space afterwards. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC) All fixed. Thanks for taking so much time to review this! I know these character lists can be rather extensive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC) ´

• Support, as all the grammar issues are fixed. Good work collectian and G.A.S.Tintor2 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [14].

---

29th Golden Raspberry Awards

Nominator(s): Cirt (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've recently done a bit of work on this page, and got some great pointers at a peer review, which also helped to improve it further. I present it here for consideration for WP:FL status. I'll do my best to address comments. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - the heading of the image column should say "image"—Chris! _ct 04:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Look pretty good, I'll support.—Chris! _ct 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 " Nominations were announced on January 21, 2009, and The Love Guru was the most nominated film of 2008 with seven nominations." - nominations repeated a lot, suggested reword: Nominations were announced on January 21, 2009; The Love Guru was the most nominated film of 2008, with seven. Unless there is a specific rationale for doing otherwise, references should be in numerical order (e.g., "The most nominated film of 2008 was box-office bomb The Love Guru, with seven nominations.[7][1] Award results were based on votes from approximately 650 journalists, cinema fans, and professionals from the film industry.[8][1]"). "'An actor" - "an" should not be captialized It may be MSIE, but I'm seeing some issues with the table; however, nothing looks wrong with the syntax as far as I can see. Bold is used improperly throughout the table (see MOS:BOLD). Rather than using boldface text, use a symbol like an asterisk to accompany your colored win rows to satisfy WP:ACCESS. Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Done. Implemented all suggestions by Killervogel5 (talk · contribs), except for the last one. About the bolding: this was suggested by Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) at the peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review/29th Golden Raspberry Awards/archive1. It is also a common formatting usage used in multiple other Featured Lists relating to film awards, see for example BAFTA Award for Best Film, Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score, and List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film. Cirt (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Just because it's common doesn't mean it's right. The current usage is contrary to the MOS, and there's no reason to break the rules here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Can you show me a Featured List that uses the format you are suggesting? Cirt (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC) I can show you several. They are not film-related, but List of Philadelphia Phillies team records, List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons, Silver Slugger Award, and many other lists that I have worked on have been updated to meet these criteria. They use symbols to accompany color per WP:ACCESS, and the boldface text was removed from the seasons list because it doesn't follow MOS. All of the lists you mentioned were promoted before the beginning of 2008; the criteria have changed significantly since that time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Done. Bolding removed from the winners, see [15]. Cirt (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC) A symbol is required to accompany the color, and bolding should be removed from the first column as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Done. [16], and Done. [17]. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers and well done. I support this list's promotion per WP:WIAFL. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

*Weak oppose (and forgive me if I cover something that's been mentioned, dealt with and dismissed beforehand!) Any images available for the award in the infobox? Tried Commons and/or Flickr? "Award results were based on votes from approximately 650 journalists, cinema fans, and film professionals from the United States and 19 other countries." - is this cited anywhere? And for a non-expert, how are these voters selected? "...set by actor Eddie Murphy ..." 'actor' is redundant here. Mamma Mia could be linked in the lead as that's the first occurrence of the title. (aside) Is "Barnsdall Gallery Theatre" worth writing an article about? Is it notable enough? "...and per Razzies tradition..." not keen on "per", maybe "and according to Razzies tradition..."? No biggie... "US$4.97" just link $ to US$, it's fairly implicit, i.e. $. "Worst Picture" was the... - first time you put an award category in quotations... "... set by actor Eddie Murphy the previous year..." - again, no need for "actor" here. Consider reducing the lead a bit, there are many virtually verbatim repetitions of the lead in the subsequent sections. "John Wilson commented..." you omitted "John" before, no real need here to insert it. The key isn't quite right - it should be "winner" with a blue background and the asterisk (my markup isn't good enough to express this!). Also, consider moving the asterisk to the actual winner (i.e. not next to the movie name, next to the actor name for actor categories) -no big deal though. "(sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)" not required in the table, perhaps make it a footnote? "rip-off" - be careful using this term, it has seriously negative connotations. Any way you can say the same thing in less potentially inflammatory terms? Is midquel a real word? Could use an article or linking to something that explains what it means. ("Germany's answer to Ed Wood")* - could use a citation. I would move References to above Notes as you assume in notes 16 and 17 we know what references to "Wilson" mean... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Responses to The Rambling Man Thank you for these above comments. I will work on addressing them and note here when done. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, I am currently getting some help and am in touch with someone to work on getting some free-use images. Done. Please see WP:LEAD - this is cited later in the article. I added info on how one may become eligible to vote, per secondary sources. Done. Removed "actor". Done. Changed linking to the earlier occurrence. Response to aside: "Barnsdall Gallery Theatre" - I did a search on this term for hits in books, news, etc., but did not come up with much, if someone else wants to try to write the article and make a case for notability I can of course help out, but at this point in time I am not sure WP:NOTE would be satisfied for that. Done. Changed to "according to". Done. Changed to simply "$". Done. Removed quotes. Done. Removed "actor". Done. Trimmed down the lede a bit. Done. Removed "John". Response: This is the way it is done as per {{Legend}}, and above Killervogel5 (talk · contribs) said it was satisfactory. Okay, I'll see if I can improve my markup ability to fix this for you, as it currently doesn't reflect what the table says... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Okay I have fixed this, is this now satisfactory? Cirt (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC) In my best New York accent, Poifect. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Done. Done. Removed. Done. Removed. Done. Removed. Done. Added cite. Response: Notes subsection is always before References subsection, as per WP:LAYOUT. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC) And I think your Notes section really is a References section... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC) [18] = Better? Cirt (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Bingo!, or Support! Cirt has produced a great list but, more importantly, acted positively on advice and created an excellent list. Fab. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I think you need to mention that people need to pay for the membership in order to vote. Right now, it says that if you visit the website you can vote as if there's a poll on the website or something.
  • Can you remove "center" from all images in the table. It makes all images overlap with the "recipient" column in the IE browser.

--Crzycheetah 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. and Done. The fact that individuals must pay to become members is already stated - See the beginning of the sentence Paid members of the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation... Cirt (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support I offered my suggestions at the peer review. This list has only improved since then. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [19].

---

Jessica Mauboy discography

Nominator(s): Alex Douglas (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The third and final former Young Divas member discography! The discography has been formatted similarly to other predominantly Australian-charting artists' discographies, Paulini Curuenavuli discography (FL) and Ricki-Lee Coulter discography (FL). When writing the lead section, I self-reviewed it with knowledge received by other featured list reviewers, given in candidacies where I was the nominator. I'm willing to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. Please see below for further notes on objections or comments that may arise.

NOTES:

• Jessica Mauboy's albums have only charted on the Australian Top 100 Albums Chart.
• The music video director's name for "Been Waiting" has not been found in reliable sources. I have searched the internet for hours. According to a friend, it is not on the liner notes of the single, however it may be on one of her subsequent releases. I have also had several telephone conversations with Sony, however they were unable to provide me with their name. Unless, consensus has changed, a previous precedent made in the successful featured list candidacy of Paul Kelly discography and reinforced recently in the successful featured list candidacy of Paulini Curuenavuli discography, found that a list can become featured, if it does not contain the music video director's name(s) for up to two music videos, by using a footnote stating "The director's name for this music video has not been found in reliable sources."
• The "promotional appearances" section is similar to the relevant section on Rihanna discography (FL).
• In regard to objections merely because it is too short or could be "reasonably be included as part of a related article," then please include ALL of you objections so that I can address all of your actionable concerns. Discographies have more justification to be separate lists. Furthermore if the artist's article was up for featured article nomination, the reviewer would require the discography to only include a bullet list of studio albums and the year in which they were released in. By opposing the discography featured list-class because it is able to "be included as part of a related article", you are opposing it because the artist's main article is not Wikipedia's "very best work" and not because this discography is not Wikipedia's "very best work".

I ask you to consider, all of the above, before reviewing this discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from KV5

• I have read and understand your concerns as outlined in the notes above; however, considering the sizes of the main article and of this article, this may very well fall under a 3b oppose, though I won't comment on my status toward this as the extent of my review was a brief overview of the size. Regardless, this isn't the place to expound on your feelings toward the new criteria in regards to this and other lists. Please don't presume to tell reviewers what they can and cannot oppose simply because this piece may toe a very fine line in the criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Very well, I have striked through some of my comments. I'll take that discussion elsewhere, however I'd still like to tell reviewers to include all of their actionable objections. In conclusion, I was trying to say "don't oppose this candidacy because the main article is not a FA." Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "is an Australian, pop singer and songwriter." No comma.
• "after placing second on the fourth season" "on"-->in
• Numbers below ten should be spelled out, e.g. "number 3", "number 4".
• "Mauboy released her first studio album, Been Waiting in 2008" Comma after "Waiting".
• "The album's second single "Burn" was released to coincide with her performance "-->The release of the album's second single "Burn" coincided with her performance Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I believe I have addressed your concerns. diff. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thankyou very much for your support and yours concerns that led to it. I'll be sure to spell out all numbers lower than ten and check over my situation with commas in all the discographies I edit. Thanks again! Alex Douglas (talk)

Resolved comments from Shaidar_cuebiyar

Comments from Shaidar cuebiyar (talk · contribs)

• Consider further wikilinks (these are only suggestions):
  • Australian Top 100 Albums Chart > Australian Top 100 Albums Chart
  • cover album >cover album

Verification needed:

• and received platinum certification.[3][10] Ref #3 verifies chart position alone. Ref #10 is the artist's own website and not reliable for certifications/chart positions. Platinum/Gold certifications should be verified by ARIA. Try 2009 Albums which has the artist's album as Platinum. Also fix tabled ref.

Copyediting:

• "Because (Lead section, last sentence) >"Because"
• Chart positions given in Lead such as, number four > number four should have a non-breaking space, see MoSNUM.
• (feat. Flo Rida) > (featuring Flo Rida) or if too long put in a note.

References:

• General section: Macrovision as publisher for Allmusic?

4. You may want to change <ref name="aria-accred-2007albums">{{cite web|url=http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesARIACharts-Accreditations-2007Albums.htm|title=2007 ARIA albums certification|publisher=[[Australian Recording Industry Association]]|accessdate=19-09-2009}}</ref> into <ref name="aria-accred-2007albums">{{cite web|url=http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesARIACharts-Accreditations-2007Albums.htm|title=2007 ARIA albums certification|publisher=[[Australian Recording Industry Association]] (ARIA)|accessdate=19-09-2009}}</ref> which gives the acronym used in the title. Similar for other ARIA refs.
17. De-link Sony Music Entertainment (already linked in ref#16).

Have fun.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - my issues have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria. Congratulations and best wishes on future efforts.--Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe I have addressed your concerns. diff. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thankyou very much for your support and yours concerns that led to it. I'll be sure to use non-breaking spaces and dates without commas in all the discographies I edit. Thanks again! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [20].

---

List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents)

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's the next in my service academy alumni set and it's ready for review. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC) a

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose for now "...who is considered to best exemplify the creed of "Duty, Honor, Country"." should be cited. working — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, a few more of the claims in the lead should be cited really. working — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC) "The billet carries..." is the billet you link to the one you want? No, and wiki has no appropriate one. Changed to "position". — Rlevse • Talk • # col doesn't sort correctly. Because of the acting dude. USMA considers 1 and 2, though the same person, to be two assignments. Not sure what can be done here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Have a look at the {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Nor does Start or End. Because someone added month and day, removed. Not sure what can be done on the incumbent. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Again, try the {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Still doesn't work for me, under Safari on Mac OS X. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)  Works for me on Firefox. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Interesting. You don't get it sorting four different ways Julian? Doesn't work for me under Firefox for Mac OS X either. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Works for me in FF on WinXP. TRM, must be that strange OS you use, haha. Gadget850 used the template you said to use and I don't know of anything else to try here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC) You guys win. Until Apple take over the world, I can't oppose on their superior browser and OS. IE7 works fine. Thanks for everyone's efforts. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC) ROFL, just give up, Apple and MACs will never take over! — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Mercedes-Benzes haven't taken over the world, but why would you drive a Trabi when you could drive a Benz? Tony (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC) What does a blank Class year mean? They are not a USMA alum. The early Supes had no USMA to graduate from — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Have you made a note to this effect so other readers don't need to ask you the same question? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Hyphens creep in for year ranges, check 'em. Will ask for a bot run. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 1951-02-24 - make English please. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC) "(133-1937)" that's one ancient coach...! Done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Enough to start with... Ready for more when you are. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - good work, but one final question - "Chief of Staff of the Army (1968–1–72)" - what does that date mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs considerable work. Support now—it's much improved. I wanted more fleshing out of the topic in the lead, but the link now to "Academy leadership" does it pretty well. Tony (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the need for citations, and please remember that many readers are not American, and may be unfamiliar with the notion of "president of an American civilian university. (Is it, as I once heard, like President and Congress?) "Historically, the Superintendency was often a stepping stone to higher prominence within the Army." Maybe I haven't read it carefully enough, but is this claim supported in the lead or table? And is there another article section that could be linked to about this? (Only if useful to the readers, though.) Need to cover it somehow, even though I have no reason to disbelieve the claim at the moment.

tweaked this — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've pluralised "officer" to avoid the gender-specificity. Women have more power in the military now, yes?

True, but no woman has been Supe of USMA, so in reality the wording was correct. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a case of correct or incorrect, but of avoiding the implication that the position is either (i) naturally occupied by a male; or (ii) will always be occupied by a male. The gender of the previous incumbents is irrelevant. Besides, there's another reason to use the plural form: it's a list, which is plural by its very nature. Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Goodpaster: is that an example? If so, can you make this exemplification clear to the readers?

An example of what? What are you talking about.? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"What are you talking about?" comes over as snippy. Do you mean to respond in that way to well-meaning comments? Here is the passage:

The billet carries the rank of lieutenant general, and is not counted against the Army's statutory limit on the number of active-duty officers above the rank of major general. General Andrew J. Goodpaster originally retired from active duty as a full general, was recalled to assume the superintendency as a lieutenant general, and reverted to his four-star rank upon his second retirement.

The two sentence do not flow logically: is the second an example of the "non counted" aspect? Unless he was the only example, you could fix this simply by adding "For example, General ...".

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Notability" texts need a copy-edit. "was" elected". Do you need "(did not resign)"? Certainly not twice; vacated is pretty clear, isn't it?

Once again, Tony, you expect people to read your mind. I do not copyedit the way you do. Please be specific. Also not list notabiltiy sections are not written in standard prose format. — Rlevse • Talk •

The prose within the chart itself seems fine to me. In my opinion, the text shouldn't have to be perfect when the goal is to provide a brief description. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, Tony is mixing apples and oranges, lists are essentially bulleted summaries, not prose. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not expecting a brow-beating for well-meant comments. Was I being aggressive?

You are both confusing brevity (technically "short texts") with some kind of release from the need to write well. Whether bulleted or newspaper headine or book title or picture caption, the language needs to be correct and of a professional standard (Criterion 1). In the "Notability" section, the grammar is wrong in several ways, and makes the reading harder. So, the first one is this:

"Colonel; Williams vacated (he did not resign) the post of Superintendent in June 1803; returned to the Superintendency in April 1805; elected to the Fourteenth United States Congress". Try this:

"Colonel; he vacated (rather than resigned) in June 1803, returning to the Superintendency in April 1805; elected to the Fourteenth United States Congress in 1815."

So may I suggest that the incumbent's name not be repeated here (we've just read it half a second before, to the left). We know perfectly well what post he vacated, so it's unnecessary to specify (although perhaps the return to it needs to be explicated, as you've done). Why not give us the year of his Congressional office? You've done this for Wadsworth's later invention, directly below. All of the Notability notes need to be audited for smoothness and brevity; I may be able to do a few more as examples, if you wish. BTW, my example of "was" elected was not good—it's fine as it is. "his administration was noted as being unsatisfactory and negligent to duties"—As soon as there is "was noted as", the readers deserve to know who noted. Is "to duties" not redundant in this tight context? Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Any specific examples to improve the list are appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Notability column a bit speckledy with repeat links. No big deal, but WW I and WW II may not need linking so many times. "General" and "Major general" ... mmmm ... any way they could be referred to and linked to in the lead, once, rather than repeated in the table? Seems important to the big picture, which as an outsider I find just a little hard to grasp.

This is another case where reviewers need to agree on what the standard is. Some agree with you some say "repeat links in a sortable list". I'm doing it the way I've done my other recent FLs and I'm not going to switch the method every article. I'm sticking with one method until the time and if the list reviewers ever come out with a stable rule on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I said: "No big deal", because I recognised that there is no standard rule and didn't want you to think I asserting that. You responded by telling reviewers what they need to do. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my rider. Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• En dash for ranges ... 1931–32.

Will ask for a bot to run through this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good pics, nicely nestled in at the side (unlike the jostle factor in many lists). How many of them are unfindable?

Go look. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I compliment with "good pics" and you tell me brusquely to "go look". It was an innocent question as to whether you had fully researched the Commons or elsewhere, since the pics are good. BTW, it's hard to locate the subject of each pic, since you have to sort the names column into alpha order. Would it be possible to add the years of their terms in parentheses in the captions, for easy location? (1929–32). But I'm expecting a brow-beating for suggesting this; perhaps I'll be told "You do it your way; I'll do it my way". Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I made that remark because "How many of them are unfindable?" is snippy and insinuating in a negative way. That being said, we got off on the wrong foot here so let's let be water under the bridge and restart okay? Later today I will the terms in captions if you still want, but did you notice the pics are in the order they served as supe? — Rlevse • Talk •

• OK—I'll try to do a few; you'll need to check them. Capital S for "superintendent". I'm too distracted to go look at the Naming MOS, but I'd have thought the generic usage would have a lower-case s. Unsure. Tony (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Added caption dates. I asked about the "S" and didn't get a solid answer. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Feeling that the lead needs to be beefed up (something's missing), I clicked on the link to USMA and, hey presto, it's what is much more commonly known as "West Point". I do think this FL should be a little more of a stand-alone article, such that the reader doesn't have to hunt down basic information via links, to understand the topic. There's also a section largely devoted to the superintendent within that article, and I wonder whether a piped section-link to that location might appear somewhere here. I prefer the link to "president of a university" in that location to the link to the much broader "university" here (of questionable value to the reader). In the table, interesting info appears about curriculum development and other such themes, so would it be possible to position the superintendent with just a little detail in relation to the institution? Does the s. have control over curriculum, training, etc? Is the s. the chair of whatever board sits over the institution? And upwards, to whom is the s. answerable to, next in the chain? For all readers but the most familiar with the structures and institution at issue, such info would remove that "something is missing" feeling ... it's kind of hard to jump into the list without this orientation, and get the best out of the table. A few more key sentences might lift it. Tony (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Will work on this later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Check now. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Images need checking

I must confess I only clicked on one image. And you may be incredibly unlucky in the sample result, but it was File:2003-31625.jpg, which actually makes this list fail 5b. Because I'm short of time, and you know what is required of the images, can I request that you check through all of them. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted that one. Did some minor fixes on others, which all appear okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they still need checking. For example the first 2 images of superintendents both have deadlink sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we really have to go down the deadlink hole again? Those two images are also about 150 years old. Are you claiming a copyright is in effect still? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick google search reveals Willams on USMA site and as for Swift, it's listed as US Army, has all the looks of an Army portrait and why can't we have some AGF here? This is precisely what got the whole PD Review thing started. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. I was doing a bad job of rushing an image review, for which I apolgise. I will AGF on the first 7, because they are "old enough". File:Gen Garrison Davidson West Point Superintendent 1956 1960.jpg is fine, but I haven't PD reviewed it as it isn't on Commons (not sure why). Of the newer images that weren't PD reviewed, I have put together relevent info. and reviewed them. The others you'd already done. I have noticed the IfD on the logo, but looking at the comments don't see it being a problem. Declaring these images okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "within " Can simply be "in".
• "However, in the modern era" Ambiguous, what is "The modern era"?
• "they will be retired at the end of their appointment. " I think you mean "they will retire".
• I'd appreciate just a couple inline citations in the lead, maybe at the end of paragraphs. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, and FYI looking for more refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• TIME-->Time.
• Ref 18 needs format=PDF.

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk)

Question - If the first two superintendents were not alumni of West Point, why is the article titled "List of USMA alumni (Superintendents)" rather than "List of USMA Superintendents"? Geraldk (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So it's a complete list of supes. This was discussed and agreed upon back in the beginning. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand why it makes sense to include them, for completeness and all. But it means that the article title is not accurate. It's no longer a list of USMA alumni who were superintentendants, it's now a list of all USMA superintendants, most of whom happen to be alumni. Geraldk (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are also those who argue faculty are alums. We have other alum lists that have faculty that weren't students at the school. See the naval academy alum lists, which are already FLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The other two comparable articles are titled List of Superintendents of the United States Naval Academy and List of Superintendents of the United States Air Force Academy. Geraldk (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And, in addition, the wiktionary definition of alumnus is... 1.a male pupil or student, 2. a male graduate, 3. a student, 4. a graduate Geraldk (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, this all came up when we started working on this series and no one else had a problem with it. I appreciate your opinion but I honestly think this isn't a big deal having notable faculty in them. Dozens have people have reviewed these various lists and think it's okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, per conversation above, specifically concerns related to Wikipedia: Naming conventions. Article titles should take the simplest and most recognizable possible form without being ambiguous, as well as the most descriptive of the actual content of the article, and the current article title does not meet either. Geraldk (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That is against consensus and several articles, not just the service academy lists that are already FLs. For example, your cited defition does not allow for fictional alumni and many of these FLs have fictional alums. There are also others with alum in the title that list faculty. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see on the talk page where there is consensus, and lists having been approved as featured in the past with mistakes is no reason to allow this one to pass with one as well. Why, if I may ask, do you think the current title is better than the original 'List of United States Military Academy superintendents'? Geraldk (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, the faculty discussion was on another list in this series when we started working on them. If you're going to apply your interpretation of the matter, do so equally and not single out one list, ie, get all the others fixed, the logical result of the line of reasoning is not including those with fictional alums. Fictional people are not actual alums, so that shouldn't be in those lists either. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

At some point soon, I think we'll be down to text about one letter wide with all these indents... With the fictional alumni issue, the definition of alumni doesn't forbid their inclusion because an article title of alumni doesn't specify whether the alumni are actual or fictional. And yes, other lists which are titled alumni and include faculty who aren't need to be renamed. But if in addition to raising this issue with this nomination, I had gone around moving every other article that has the same problem, including some you've nominated in the past, you'd be even more annoyed at me than you are now. I'm not trying to be an ass, but it is a fundamental issue with an otherwise excellent list. Geraldk (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say fictional is included either--so they're, so if you're going to be a strict interpreter of the rules, at least be CONSISTENT with it. You can't say "this doesn't cover X so it's out" then say "this doesn't cover Y so it's in". You're being contradictory. So have you moved to clean all them up yet or are you only after this list? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue you raise is not comparable. Again, my point is that this is a list of Superintendents, not a list of Alumni, and it should be named as such. Your argument would only apply if the lists you reference were titled "List of Real Alumni of X" and then included fictional alumni. If you disagree, that's perfectly fine, but you'll need to either convince me there is a strong reason for the title being the way it is or convince enough other FL reviewers that I'm wrong. In either case, I think you have yet to address the fundamental question, which is why you think the current article title is a better and more accurate title than "List of Superintendents of the United States Military Academy", which conforms with other similar lists of superintendents. As I said, it's a great list, it just has a title that doesn't conform to the naming conventions. Geraldk (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

They are totally comparable. And since everyone else is supporting this FLC, even after you brought this up, and given precedent of other FLs, right now it looks like you're in the minority. I think you're being overly pedantic. If someone besides you and I would weigh in, it'd help. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a history teacher, so being overly pedantic kind of comes with the territory. Happy to drop it if the majority of other reviewers here agree with you. Geraldk (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to mediate. (If you feel I have misrepresented either of your views I sincerely apologise, and please say so.) Firstly, Geraldk asks a legitimate question. Forgetting the other lists this basically boils down to whether or not we include faculty as alumni or not. The most strict definition of alumni would not include faculty as alumni (hence, Geraldk's suggestion of re-titling – I don't think removing the non-graduates is sensible) However, in my experience, I have come across its usage to include them. For example, this source defines alumni as including academic staff. I think we need to apply some common sense here. I do think this "topic" of lists should have a logical and consistent naming structure, and I'd be inclined to say that either name was fine. If we always used the most strict definitions then Andrea Lee Hollen (first female graduate) wouldn't appear on any alumni lists, because she is strictly an "alumna". Would we be concerned about the article title if a female were to be included? I think, like language variations, both can be right and somewhere a compromise needs to be reached. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, point taken. Will withdraw my opposition. Though, really, with a name like Rambo's Revenge, shouldn't you be handing us grenades and egging us on instead of trying to resolve things? Rambo himself would be ashamed. Geraldk (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gerald, if you're familiar with Naming Conventions, should it be an upper- or lower-case S for "superintendent" where used generically (most of the time on the page, I think). Tony (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) is that, because this is a specific office, it is capitalized. But, then, I'm not particularly knowledgable about grammar. Geraldk (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What about this bit? I'm being a pernickety nerd, though. Tony (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that too. It's not entirely clear. We need to find a grammar genius to help us through that one. Comparable articles are unclear, the USNA and USAFA lists have it capitalized, but other lists with titles don't. It may be the distinction is between 'Superintendents of the USMA' and 'USMA superintendents'. Bah, I hate English, I'm gonna have to learn another language... Geraldk (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [21].

---

List of New Jersey County Colleges

Nominator(s): MBisanz ^talk

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems like a well documented topic that I have expanded and has gone through Peer Review. I added all the aerial images and created a template to link all the list items together. MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The writing is pretty good, except for one aspect: punctuation (mostly a matter of unnecessary commas; one comma splice):

The New Jersey County Colleges is a system of 19 public community colleges, encompassing over 60 campuses, in the state of New Jersey.[1][2] Most of the colleges were created by the state during the 1960s, to provide access to higher education to New Jersey residents. As of 2009, there are 19 county colleges statewide, this reflects the fact that each college serves one of New Jersey's 21 counties, except for Atlantic Cape Community College and Raritan Valley Community College, each of which serves two counties.

This would be smoother to read:

The New Jersey County Colleges is a system of 19 public community colleges, encompassing more than 60 campuses in the state of New Jersey.[1][2] Most of the colleges were created by the state during the 1960s to provide access to higher education to New Jersey residents. As of 2009, there are 19 county colleges statewide; this reflects the fact that each college serves one of New Jersey's 21 counties, except for Atlantic Cape Community College and Raritan Valley Community College, each of which serves two counties.

Comma after "female" would be good. "more than 350,000". Before "the oldest", you might consider a colon or a period, and then a semicolon before "It". Makes the relationships between the statements more logical, perhaps. MoS says no hyphen after "-ly", with good reason.

Have you thought of not piping "1964" so readers know there's something interesting behind what looks like a plain year link? It might work in such large boxes, just the top one (unless you don't like the idea of sorting via other columns, which would render it in the middle). Tony (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Made the grammar and style corrections (I think). I tried doing the founding column a bunch of different ways, and not piping it make the column huge with lots of extra words in comparison to the other columns. Also, unless I un-pipe all of the rows, it breaks the sorting feature. I think I'd rather just leave it the way it is now with the note Dabomb suggested to keep the balance among all the rows. Thanks for the corrections. MBisanz ^talk 18:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Per Wikipedia:LISTNAME, it should be called "List of New Jersey County Colleges."—Chris! _ct 01:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have renamed the page. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• FLC page moved accordingly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "in the state of New Jersey." I'd prefer "U.S. state".
• "campuses ranging in size"-->campuses that range in size
• "Not all of the county colleges were founded by the State of New Jersey," Comma should be a semicolon. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• All done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Note Nominator is on WikiBreak until June 1. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take over in the meantime. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There are a number of unreferenced sentences throughout the lead section. Geraldk (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide examples, please? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking back it's really only two sentences...

• The latter part of this: 'Most of the colleges were created by the state during the 1960s to provide access to higher education to New Jersey residents.'

• I'm usually pretty strict about citing info, but is that fact likely to be challenged? It seems obvious to me; in fact, I wouldn't mind if it were removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, it's a little nitpicky. It's just that the wording makes it sound like that is the official reason why it was created. Don't know if there's a way to reword to avoid that reading of it, deletion of the clause is fine too - doesn't seem to add much factually to the article. Geraldk (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• And all of this: 'In 2003, the state further established the Community College Consortium for Workforce and Economic Development as a single point of contact for employers looking for skilled workers in New Jersey.' Geraldk (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm fairly certain I have a source for that (or some similar wording of that) in one of the proclamations. I'll try to find it tonight or tomorrow. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I have sources, I just need to find time to add them, probably in 20 hours or so. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• One of the sentences was a holdover from before I started work on the article, so I removed it. The other sentence now has a citation and I added another sentence on history with an interesting legislature link I found. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Support now. Well done. Geraldk (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

I've just been through and reviewed all of these. All great, with two comments:

• File:Raritan Valley CC-NJ.jpg - the source listed is currently incorrect (I have no concerns about this not being PD, as it is exactly like the others, but it would be nice to have the correct URL in the source)
• A very minor thing, but I'm just commenting for consistency. The majority of the images have the top side pointing north, with the exception of File:Salem CC-NJ.jpg and File:Middlesex County CC-NJ.jpg. Is there any reason these are rotated, it just seems slightly odd.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Source fixed. I rotated Salem because it is so oblong that it would make the table look odd, Middlesex is less oblong, but I still felt it looked better rotated. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Images okay. I've verified the corrected source, and added a note on the image pages for the two rotated ones. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [22].

---

List of New York Mets seasons

Nominator(s): Giants2008 (17-14)

Under the new criteria, there haven't been nearly as many nominations, and the number of sports lists nominated in particular has dropped substantially. Even before the changes occured, seasons lists had rarely been seen at FLC in the previous few months. I had always planned to work on a fifth seasons list at some point, and this is the perfect time for it. The list works in ideas I've gleaned from the previous lists I've improved, and from a peer review. As before, I'll be around to address reviewers' concerns. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Procedural: I peer-reviewed this list; I believe it to be of featured quality and support this nomination. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support in terms of the writing. It's good, at least in terms of prose and my knowledge of tables. Haven't yet looked properly at the new criteria, though.
• "forty-five" and "47"? See MOSNUM. And "In 47 seasons" depends on the year this was written. Would it be repetitious to say "As of 2009"? Tony (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Those two aren't comparable quantities. "As of 2009" would also have to be updated just as often as the number of seasons (once per year). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• The sentence in question reads, "after playing two years at the Polo Grounds and forty-five years in Shea Stadium." Are these not comparative quantities? And who said that comparative quantities should be treated differently than regular numbers in the first place? That's always been the most annoying part of the MoS for me. I suppose I should leave it for now, though I would have no problem switching to a numeral if Tony insists, and would actually prefer it that way. As for the sentence, I went with "Since their inception in 1962" to avoid repetition, and tweaked the second paragraph for the same reason. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your previous write-up was actually correct (two and forty-five are comparable, which forty-five and 47 are not in this case). However, it could be rectified by going to 2, 45, 47, which wouldn't be a problem since there are an equal number of >10 and <10 numbers in the sentence using comparables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's no big deal. And MOSNUM just says "We may write [using the "comparable units" thing". I'd use "two" and "45" in the same sentence, because a single digit just seems to stick out unless a value next to a unit. Whichever. Tony (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should take it out of MOSNUM then? That's been one of my pet peeves; i.e., I hate seeing "five cats and 32 dogs". Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Mets compete"-->They compete to avoid "The ... Mets" in consecutive sentences.
• "After six more years in which their best division finish was ninth," I thought there were no divisions until 1969.
• "After winning two pennants in five years, New York struggled for the next decade, not coming within 10 games of the NL East leader until 1984." Please clarify what a "pennant" is for us readers who don't follow baseball. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Made the changes. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] "In 1986, the team posted 108 wins, the most in franchise history, and won its second World Series championship by defeating the Boston Red Sox in seven games." You talk about the 1969 World Series blowout, but not game 6 of the 1986 World Series? NL pennant, NL title, NL championship...suggest you stick with only one of them, most preferably pennant or championship, as it could confuse the readers. Why is there a picture of only Gary Carter on the article? Ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 07:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I added a little bit about Game 6, but I didn't want to go into too much detail in a list of this format. If any baseball game deserves its own article, that's the one (well, except for this one :-)) Thought I took all of the pennants out earlier, but apparently I missed one. I went with NL championship throughout Blame a lack of space in the list format, along with a lack of good free photos for the job. I really wanted a photo of Tom Seaver, but unfortunately we don't have one yet. One option would be to place photos besides the table, but I'm concerned that will end up squeezing the table. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Don't know much about Gary Carter, but ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 01:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nothing wrong with it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 01:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [23].

---

Worcester Ruby Legs all-time roster

Nominator(s): Neonblak ^talk -

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria for promotion, but will quickly make any changes deemed necessary by the reviewers. Neonblak ^talk - 02:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural: I peer-reviewed this list and believe that it is of featured quality. I support this nomination. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments by Truco Lead Remove bolding, they are not the article titles. Use italics or quotation marks for emphasis instead, see MOS:BOLD. 'The team began in 1879 as the Worcester Baseball Association, and joined the minor league National Association.' - 'began' what? 'On June 12, against the Cleveland Blues, Richmond threw the first perfect game in major league history.' - The 'against the Cleveland Blues' would fit better at the end of the sentence. 'Also, center fielder/first baseman Harry Stovey, in his first major league season, led the league in triples and home runs.' - It would be best to replace 'Also' with Additionally, 'However, the Ruby Legs were, in turn, no-hit on August 20, by Pud Galvin of the Buffalo Bisons, becoming the first team to be no-hit at home.' - Remove the comma after 'August 20' 'They played 85 games that first season, and had a win–loss record of 40 wins, 43 losses, and 2 ties, finishing in fifth place.' - 'that first season' -> in their first' (there is only one first season ever, so 'that' is not the best word choice) 'Team play had declined significantly from the year before; the popular Sullivan was sick with tuberculosis, and shortstop Irwin broke his leg on August 19, which presented a problem due to the fact that the team's backup, Buttercup Dickerson, was also injured at the time.' - Change semi-colon to a colon 'For that day's game, local sports equipment dealer, Martin "Flip" Flaherty was used to help field a full team.' - Remove the comma after 'dealer' 'Things did not improve the following month; Lip Pike was accused of conspiring to throw baseball games, and was later expelled by the NL, and Sullivan succumbed to tuberculosis.' - Semicolon should be a colon 'Dorgan departed the team before the season ended, and Stovey took over as the manager, and the team finished with a record of 32 wins, 50 losses, and 1 tie.' - In the other sentence you state their ranking, what rank did they finish here? (5th, 6th, etc.?) Table Under the position column, those who have multiple positions, what constitutes the order? Their most played position is listed first, correct? References The baseball almanac ref should have the publisher as 'Baseball Almanac, Inc' per [24] Be consistent with the capitalization of Retrosheet.--Truco 20:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for thorough review, I've made all the changes you suggested. As far as the players' positions, yes, I put them in order of how much time they spent as a particular position. However, I only used the positions I felt they spent significant time playing. Pitchers then, didn't come out of game when they were replaced with another pitcher, they had to replace someone else in the field and that person would pitch. Most of the time, you can tell if the pitcher played legitimately at another position for a portion of the season.Neonblak talk - 18:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC) That's fine.--Truco 03:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 03:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Oppose - Criterion 1. I'm finding too many little glitches at this point; please consider finding a copy-editor to help improve the prose. These comments are from the first 2½ paragraphs, meaning there are probably more problems to be found. "They played in the National League from 1880 to 1882, and they played their home games at the Worcester Agricultural Fairgrounds." Unneeded word, considering "they" is used to begin the sentence. "The team was profitable, were successful against rival teams, and did well against NL teams in exhibition games." Remove "were"; it's redundant and causes a tense problem. "moved with the team when it joined the NL in 1880; including...". Ax "in 1880" because it repeats part of the last sentence, and change the semi-colon to a regular comma. Move no-hitter link to its first use of the sentence. "They played 85 games their first season". Add "in" before "their". I recommend splitting the second sentence of paragraph three in two, by when the players leave. It's a borderline run-on with that many commas. "due to the fact that" → "because". Giants2008 (17-14) 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the suggestions. I have made the subesequent changes recomended, and did another walk-through myself, and found more sentences that were similar to what you pointed out above, and attempted to make them a smoother read.Neonblak talk - 06:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "Many of the players left as well, who were replaced with the likes of Hick Carpenter and Pete Hotaling." Replace "who" with "and" for a better transition. "Team play..." > "The team's play..."? "which had dropped to a season average of fifty paid spectators a game at one point." Make fifty a numeral per MoS. "who went on to win 328 games in a 12-season career, and the only Hall of Famer to have played for the franchise." Add "was" in the middle of "and the only Hall of Famer". Table: Typo in Charlie Bennett note: "innaugural season." Martin Flaherty note: "came out of stands to play". Add "the" in the middle. Lee Richmond note: "and he threw the major leagues first perfect game." Apostrophe for "leagues". Asa Stratton note: "in the only game major league game in which he appeared." Extra word in there. Not quite comfortable dropping the oppose yet, mostly due to the large number of typos and such in the notes. Of course, I'll be glad to reconsider if these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Suggested corrections made, if you see anything else please let me know.Neonblak talk - 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Struck the oppose above, after copy-editing some of the notes (the IP is me; I edited on the wrong window). Not going to support until I read it all again because I found another typo, along with one that I mentioned above (both fixed now). I promise to look st it again later. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Couple more issues before I support, both involving the references. First, what makes Baseball Almanac a reliable source? Second, Slate should be given as the publisher of reference 12. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I dropped the use of baseball-almanac. Although I consider it a reliable resource, I decided that the information gained from it in, in this instance, is not really necessary. I added Slate magazine under "work" in the reference you pointed out. Let me know if you have any other concerns.Neonblak talk - 19:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - After a lot of work, I finally think it meets the standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "and were replaced with the likes of Hick Carpenter and Pete Hotaling" What does "with the likes of" mean here? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Well, to avoid any amibiguity, I went ahead and re-worded the sentence, hopefully that helps.Neonblak talk - 01:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC) "Additionally" Unnecessary. "center fielder/first baseman"-->center fielder / first baseman (per MOS) "This presented a problem with that day's game"-->This presented a problem for that day's game Some batting averages have spaces after the decimal point, and others don't. Make them all unspaced. "Italian-American" No hyphen. "he had one hit in 18 at bats" Per MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written the same, so "1 hit in 18 at bats" or "one hit in eighteen at bats" "assists with 31."-->assists, with 31. "He played in all three seasons with the Ruby Legs. For most of it, he was their starting shortstop."-->He played in all three seasons, usually as the starting shortstop, with the Ruby Legs. "He pitched in a total of 18 games" "His long and successful career had ended after the 1878 season, when in 1881, he joined the Ruby Legs for five games. He is credited as being the first great Jewish baseball player." Define "long and successful". "three hits in 41 at bats." Same comment about comparable quantities. "He played in 31 games for three different teams in 1881, six of which were for Worcester." "six"-->6 or "31"-->thirty-one. Remove "different". "14 season career"-->14-season career "He played in five games at first base for Worcester in 1881, 33 more for the Troy Trojans. Not a grammatical sentence. "He was the starting third baseman for Worcester in 1880, the first of his 11-season career." You need to say "1880 season". Ditto for the next one (George Wood). Can we have one image in the lead? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I made all the changes you suggested, except a couple. I am working on the lead photo, will get that fixed tonight. I don't know what UPNE stands for yet, and I did not see any batting averages with a space in between the period and the number.Neonblak talk - 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out "UPNE". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is there anything you could add as a lead image? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In asbence of any team photos, or anything else depicting the team in any way, I could slide one of the photos I added along the side up to the lead. I would really like to use a John Richmond photo, but cannot find one that definitively states a published date. I'll try and come up with a solution.Neonblak ^talk - 21:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

added photo to lead, made corrections per suggestions.Neonblak ^talk - 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good picture for the lead, but considering the lead's length, I might upsize the picture. Lead images are good up to 300px; 250 might work here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose and comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) - apologies for any repetitions from previous reviewers...

• "They played in the National League (NL) from 1880 to 1882, and played their home..." 2x played in one sentence doesn't read particularly exciting.
• "...vacated spot left by the departing..." vacated, left, departing, a little tautological for me. Perhaps "pursued the spot vacated by the departing..."?
• "The team was voted in ..." into the league?
• "began play in 1880" bit colloquial for me. First season?
• "moved with the team" did it move geographically to be in the NL then?
• "Center fielder / first baseman " should there be spaces before/after the slash? Not sure what the MOS says.
• "win–loss record of 40 wins, 43 losses, and 2 ties, finishing in fifth place" - "win–loss record of 40–43, with 2 ties, finishing fifth in the league."?
• "a much different experience" not keen on this linguistically. Can you rephrase?
• "Many of the players departed as well,..." quick repetition of "departed", maybe "Many of the players also left the team..."?
• "The team's play had declined significantly..." jargony - are you referring to the fact they were not as successful this season? Spell it out to non-experts.
• "Things did not improve ..." - things. Yuck. Perhaps "Matters did not improve.."?
• "to complain of exhaustion due and accused management of overuse.." - exhaustion due... is something missing here?
• "8th place", "A second consecutive last-place " - need to make it clear that 8th the previous season was last.
• "...hich had dropped to a season average of 50.." from what? We have nothing to compare it with.
• "One of the bright spots for the Ruby Legs ..." seems to be a bright spot for the pitcher, not the Legs, they still finished bottom and dropped out of the NL.
• "local sporting good retailer " - goods?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, I made the changes you suggested. Onthe slashes; the one in the lead section, was correct with spaces in between per MOS, but it was unclear on abbreviations like the ones I used for the player position in the table, so I put a space with a non-breaking space as if they were spelled out, ie, RF = right fielder. But to make it look uniform, I used a space for all of them regardless.Neonblak ^talk - 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [25].

---

List of Detroit Red Wings players

Nominator(s): Rjd0060 (talk)

I've expanded this list to meet the FL guidelines. This is similar to already Featured lists such as List of Columbus Blue Jackets players, List of San Jose Sharks players and others. Thanks in advance. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Look at List of Chicago Blackhawks players as an example. List of Columbus Blue Jackets players and List of San Jose Sharks players were promoted more a year ago, so they may not exceed the current standards. Adding one more paragraph onto the lead would be nice. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was already working on this before your note. I've expanded the lead now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with the future comments, and no need to tell me about replying, as I always (and I mean ALWAYS!) watchlist where I comment on. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 04:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion as a Leafs fan. Is there anything you could add as a lead image, maybe Nicklas Lidstrom since he's the current captain? Also, could you add images of players to the right like what is done in List of Calgary Flames players? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Aw, a leafs fan. ;-) I've moved Lidstrom's image to the lead and replaced it with another. As for moving the images "to the right", I'm not sure what you mean there. Both articles look the same to me, as far as image format goes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he's suggesting that you add MORE images to the right. If not, then I have no idea. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I somehow missed the images during my first look through. However, more would be nice since we do have images of Zetterberg, Cleary, Draper, Franzen, Kronwall, Hossa and probably several others. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few more images. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Rjd, it's not bad. The article on the team is large, yet the lead here is pretty short. I wonder whether you might add a few points about the history of the team, which seems to be full of interest in their article. A featured list needs to be a bit special in terms of the lead-in you give the readers to the list. We want their interest to be peaked in some way. Can you identify, as well, a few of the more striking or interesting facts in the larger article and its siblings?
• Idea: the Seasons column wraps the year ranges, causing the rows to be double the height. Except for 1999–2001 etc, the closing range could be reduced to two digits (as mandated by MOSNUM and as used all over the home article (1946–53). Have you thought of whipping it through Word's find and replace (find –19 and replace with –)? Most people will experience this wrapping unless they manually stretch the window.
• I like that pale green background. Pity there are so many red links, but I guess you're gonna help with stubs ...? Tony (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I've fixed the numbering of the seasons as you suggested. I've also further expanded the lead. As for the red links, yes - I definitely plan to work on creating those. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just an update in case you're interested - I've already corrected over 100 of the red links. A lot of them were just linked to alternate names or nicknames. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Tony (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

• File:Terry Sawchuk.jpg - You cannot use due to it being copyrighted. It wouldn't be fair-use eligible either.
• I'm going to AGF on File:Lidstrom stanleycup2.jpg and File:Gordie Howe.jpg. Neither, seem to be copied of another website and although I am a bit concerned with the amount of image warnings the second's uploader has, the photo's scratches make me think it's an authentic digitization.
• All other images check out fine.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting on correspondence regarding the Sawchuck photo but I'm not sure how long that will be, so I've removed and replaced that image. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 First off, from someone who concentrates a lot of aesthetics, I must say that this list is quite "pretty", for lack of a better word. "hall-of-famers" - Hall of Famers "recipient of several awards" - comma after awards "They are members of the Central Division of the Western Conference of the National Hockey League (NHL)." - of the...of the...of the... gets very repetitive. To remove one, I suggest They are members of the Central Division of the National Hockey League's (NHL) Western Conference. "for the most points, (with 1809)" - move comma after parentheses "Howe was a member of a Stanley Cup winning team 4 times; all with the Detroit Red Wings." - three things: Stanley Cup-winning, it's a compound adjective four per WP:MOSNUM semicolon should be a comma here "of them, 86 are goaltenders, while 773 are skaters." - consider 86 of them instead of "of them, 86" Color needs to be accompanied by a symbol per WP:ACCESS Hockey Hall of Fame should be linked in the key, as should wins, losses, and ties, if an appropriate hockey-related article exists. The "Nationality" column is wide enough that you don't need to abbreviate. Expand. References and Notes sections need to be combined. The current "References" are general refs, while the current "Notes" are specific refs or inline citations, depending on which format you use. Hope these comments are helpful. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, your comments were a big help. I have made all of the corrections that you have suggested. Thank you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Don't separate symbols from their entries (no space between name and asterisks). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I've fixed that as well. Thanks again! - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Caption spelling: Dominik Hašek KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I've corrected the spelling, but I've left the diacritics hidden because I'm under the impression that they are supposed to be. Is this not accurate? - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC) As far as I'm aware, a name should be spelled properly, i.e., the way its article title and lead sentence describe/spell it. Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, that's the way that it ought to be. If we weren't supposed to use diacritics on en.wiki, why are they provided? Anyway, WP:Diacritics says that the sources should determine the use of diacritics. So whatever the sources say, that's the route to go. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. I've made the change. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "the team has had a total of 36 captains." "Hall of Famers" I think a better link would be List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame. "longest serving captain "-->longest-serving captain "35 other players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame." Per MOSNUM, don't start sentences with numerals. "18 straight seasons" Just a matter of preference, but I think "consecutive" is a better word. Feel free to ignore this. "which is the longest post-season" "for the most points (with 1809), and for the most goals (with 786)." No comma needed. "859 different players have played for the franchise as of the 2008–09 season; 86 of them are goaltenders, while 773 are skaters. " 1) "different" is unnecessary; 2) Once again, no starting sentences with numerals. You may have to rephrase, because "Eight hundred and fifty-nine" is a mouthful. Why is a nationality column needed? Note a needs a source. Can you put the actual citations in a "References" section? Needs more categories, see List of Chicago Blackhawks players as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Can you denote those players who won a Stanley Cup with the Red Wings, as in List of Chicago Blackhawks players? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I've just done this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC) You'll need to create a separate background color for those who won the Stanley Cup and are Hall of Famers (sorry for being so picky). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC) To clarify, you mean people who are in both categories? (i.e.: one for "Won a Stanley Cup and a member of the hall of fame"?). I ask because I wasn't planning on shading the HHOF members, but can, of course. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Oops, I meant those who both won the Stanley Cup and appeared in a Red Wings game during the 2008–09 season. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Alright. I did that as well. It's not being picky - I appreciate the input. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I've fixed everything you've pointed out except for the following. The nationality column is needed, in my opinion. Nationality plays a large role in hockey-related articles which is why I've included it here. You'll also note that most (if not all) other similar lists also include a nationality section, thus I'd like to keep this one in uniform with the others. I noticed this in these type of articles months ago, and am kicking myself for not mentioning it earlier. This probably warrants a WikiProject-wide discussion, so disregard this issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Which note needs a source? Are you referring to the "Notes" column which is indicating HHOF status, or the notes at the bottom? Sorry, I meant "Beginning in the 2005–06 season, ties are no longer possible. At the same time, the league began tracking overtime losses for goaltenders." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I've added a citation for that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I believe that the current notes section is within the style guidelines in that having the references section combined within it. Is there any specific reason for your request? No style guide mandate, it just seems to make it clearer to do so. Feel free to ignore. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I've went ahead and separated them. You're right, it does look better. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments - Fix the disambiguation link to Dale Anderson. Fixed. This was caused by a user moving the article and creating a disambiguation page a few days ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC) "Thirty-five other players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame." This doesn't include the players who have had numbers retired, correct? That's correct. I don't think that the wording implies otherwise. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC) "the longest post-season streak for a single team in all of major professional sports." It should be clarified here that this is in North American sports leagues. I've clarified this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC) "Howe was a member of a Stanley Cup-winning team four times, all with the Detroit Red Wings." Don't think Detroit is needed in this sentence; we already know where the Red Wings are from. You're right. Corrected. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Photos are above the tables for both goaltenders and skaters. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC) This is due to your screen resolution - it must be set at a lower level. These are formatted the exact same way as other similar (featured) lists, whose links are above. Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - Looks quite good. The photo position seems like a necessary evil with these large player lists with many columns. Wish we could do something about it, but I won't hold up my support. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [26].

---

List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk

• Last FLC

Most issues at the last FLC were resolved during the course of the FLC; however, it was agreed that it would be better for the list to include all the clergy alumni of the college, not just those who became a bishop or archbishop; so I took it away and added in the names of other members of the clergy from the main list of alumni, and here we are again. As for comprehensiveness, I've trawled the usual sources (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Dictionary of Welsh Biography etc) and written so many articles about minor Welsh clergymen of the last 400 years that my wife thinks I'm slightly nuts. The list follows a similar format to the other Featured Lists in the series, such as the law and government list and the maths and science list. Comments welcome, and appreciated. Bencherlite^Talk 08:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.westminster-abbey.org/press/news/16454 deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 00:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

*Comments from that same old derisible meddling fool.... Think I mentioned once before about a mere clergyman requesting the foundation of an Oxford college from QEI - did you rebuff me or solve it last time round? Just checking, well remembered: "who was Treasurer of St David's Cathedral in Pembrokeshire" was the phrase I came up with last time. "...one of the first five men's colleges..." never noticed this before but you could be more precise really. I'm guessing fifth...?! Cynic! Jesus was one of five that took the plung together. Reworded to "since 1974, the year in which the college and four other men's colleges were the first in the university to become co-educational." Whoa, just counted up, five paragraphs in the lead is pretty hefty. I know it's not necessarily analogous to WP:FAC but mostly four paras is max... consider a trim? Cut one about bishops outside E&W and other bishops in the 20th century; it was padding for a bishops-only list, and didn't add much here. Sorting the Arch- and -bishops table by G gives me odd results (i.e. four different sorts instead of two) - could be Safari but check it out? Try now - still the same? It might be the mdashes. One (or more) of your image captions are complete sentences and should take a full stop, e.g. "John Jones, William Thomas and Norman Matthews were all Chancellors of Llandaff Cathedral"... Fixed; that was the only one I had missed. " BBC show" good grief - have we turned all US here?! Joking. Perhaps you could be more precise, e.g. BBC television series? How about BBC television series? Have a nice day now. "...notably of Rhosymedre ..." if that's notable, why doesn't it have an article, or why not just link it in the hope that an enthusiastic editor will come along and do it justice? Did I mention I was an organist? – see also this stub One of your John Jones' articles is John Jones (Llef o'r Nant) - worth bringing that alternative name into this list? Yep Same with Tegid? Yep "hymn-tune" vs "hymnwriter" - not sure this is consistent but as Manuel says, "I know nothing..." Odd, that. The Dictionary of Welsh Biography (from which both these are taken) clearly needed you as a proofreader and MOS advisor. However, I now spot that we have Category:Hymn writers and Category:Christian hymnwriters, not to mention category:Hymn tunes, so I've gone for the spaced version each time. Just a comment. I very much doubt we will ever see such a well referenced list in our lifetimes. 200 refs is staggering, and the list isn't half bad either. (Fix/disagree with) that lot and I'll happily support this monumental effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your time in reviewing this, and for those kind words. They are greatly appreciated. Incidentally, the main list has 401 references... BencherliteTalk 21:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Niiiice. Please prepare more nomination like this. One point: where space is short, why not do the MoS suggestion and make the closing years in a range two digits (provided the century is the same): "1892–97". Could fix in five mins. Tony (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In the list of Principals and Fellows I sort by years of tenure, and 1890–1904 would (incorrectly) sort before 1890–99 but (correctly) after 1890–1899; so I've used the long form there, and for consistency in the other lists as well. The MOS says that both are permissible, even if the short form is the more usual. Do you mind if I keep it as it is? Thanks for your time. Bencherlite^Talk 06:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Very well done.

• "but later went back to Anglicanism" Maybe "returned" rather than "went back"?
• No links to Methodists and Baptists (in the lead)?
• "his 'Blue' for rugby" Double quotes, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for your review. Bencherlite^Talk 06:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [27].

---

2008 World Series of Poker Europe results

Nominator(s): I'm Spartacus!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!}'

I am nominating this for featured list because... I had nominated this article back in February and it looked like it was going to pass, unfortunately, there were a few open items and I was unable to address them due to real life activities. I have since taken care of those open items, and this list should be good to go or close to it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I will try to resolve all open items before mother's day, but should anything come about between Sunday and Wednesday I may not be able to address it until Thursday. If there are open items that prevent this from being promoted on Wednesday, please do not close it as I will be travelling.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "European casinos typically have a different environment than those in the U.S." - could be POV without a cite There is already a citation at the end of the sentence.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "European casinos typically have a different environment than those in the U.S. Jeffrey Pollack, the WSOP Commissioner, indicated that the WSOPE would have a "style and flair that is both unique and appropriate to the setting. So don't be surprised if we require participants to wear blazers at the tables. If James Bond were hosting a poker tournament it may look like the World Series of Poker Europe."[2]" is one sentence? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Ah, you are right... I read it as one sentence that went into a quote, and the quote was referenced. I added a reference---which is the same one as the quote.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "18 year old" - 18-year-old Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "The second World Series of Poker Europe" - be consistent with the use of acronyms, use them always after first usage or not at all fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "between September 19, 2008 to October 1, 2008" - between...and or from...to. Also, I don't know if the "2008"s are necessary; certainly one or the other is redundant, and they may both be redundant to the title Fixed both, I think one is necessary.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "to win a braceletat" - bracelet at Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "won his fourth bracelet in winning the WSOPE Main Event" - won/winning redundant Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "He, thus, became" - awkward, rephrase to Thus, he became Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "References:[6]" - all should be Reference; there is only ever one at each table Actually, there are 3 for each event---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Ah, I see what you mean. Actually, there are only two, but if you are going to say "References", then these references should be split up into separate ref tags. Otherwise, change to Reference. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC) fixed.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "WSOP record twenty two hours to finish" - 22 per WP:MOSNUM Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "Heads up" could use a wikilink for non-poker people who don't know the meaning. Also, should it be "heads up" or "heads-up"? Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "between John Juanda and Stanislav Alekhin" - unlink Juanda per WP:OVERLINK Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "The final table took a WSOP record twenty two hours to finish. Heads up between John Juanda and Stanislav Alekhin took more than seven hours of play another WSOP record. It took 242 hands to eliminate the first seven players and it took another 242 hands heads up before Juanda secured the win." - needs a ref fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "Ivan Demidov finished 3rd" - third per MOSNUM and a comma after third Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "Ivan Demidov finished 3rd becoming the first player to make the final table at both the WSOP and WSOPE Main Events." - needs a ref, use the one from the lead Are you sure, if it is already referenced/linked above, do we need to rereference it later on? I thought it would be like linking?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Not like linking at all. Actually, per the rules for referencing and citations, it should be linked in the body of the article and not the lead, but because this is a list, I think keeping the citation in the lead as well is important. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Fix the link in the navbox to point directly to this article (I think there's a cap error and redirect at the moment) Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "London area — Fifty, Leicester Square" Em dashes should not be spaced per WP:DASH. Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) "With the purchase of these casinos, " "With" is awkward here. Maybe "After..."? Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) "The WSOP, however, did not rely upon its reputation alone." Did not rely on its reputation alone for what? Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) "On July 5, 2007, Harrah's announced its alliance with Betfair, one of the largest online gaming companies in the world, located in England."-->On July 5, 2007, Harrah's announced its alliance with England-based Betfair, one of the largest online gaming companies in the world. Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) "Due to a change is laws, effective in 2007, U.S. laws prevented the WSOP from accepting money from online gambling companies"-->"Due to changes in U.S. laws, effective in 2007, the WSOP could no longer accept money from online gambling companies" Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) "laws governing"-->laws that govern Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) "Ivan Demidov was one of the November Nine, one of the players scheduled to play in November for the WSOP Main Event, when he made it to the final table of the WSOPE. Thus, he became the first player to make it to the final table at both the WSOP and WSOPE Main Events."-->Ivan Demidov, who was one of the November Nine—players scheduled to play in November for the WSOP Main Event—advanced to the final table of the WSOPE, becoming the first player to make it to the final table at both the WSOP and WSOPE Main Events. Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) "Heads up between John Juanda and Stanislav Alekhin took more than seven hours of play another WSOP record." Comma after "play". Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) "Ivan Demidov finished third" Comma after here. Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Are days of the week really necessary? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Not necessary, but I don't think it hurts the article. People may be interested in it.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 4's access date is formatted in a different format from the other articles.
  • Fixed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 5 needs a last access date. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed-it was a formatting error.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments - How reliable are Poker News, Poker Listings, and Gaming Business? I'm not up on most of the poker sites. Will wait until after Dabomb's review is looked at before commenting on the prose. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

quick response, will deal with Dabomb's stuff tonight, Poker News and Poker Listings are what I would consider B grade in reliability. Eg I'd put them on par with your local newspaper. Gaming Business is one that I wasn't as familiar with. The site looks pretty legit and reliable, eg it isn't a mere blog, and the article that is being referenced is derived directly from the Press Release, so for this purpose I would argue that it is solid.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Prose review:

• Repeat poker tournament link in the second paragraph. If readers want to know more, they'll have already clicked on the first link.

• fixed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "In marketting the WSOPE". Typo.

• fixed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• In a contrast to my first comment, I'd like to see Betfair linked.

• fixed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, as the laws that govern the age of gambling differ in England than the U.S.; the WSOPE admits younger players." I think the semi-colon should be a comma.

• fixed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Citation needed for Obrestad being the youngest player to win a bracelet. Should be easy enough to find a good source for that.

• fixed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's about it. Looks fairly good overall, which I would expect since this is the list's second time at FLC (and probably would have passed before if circumstances were different). Giants2008 (17-14) 02:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [28].

---

2009 WWE Draft

Nominator(s): Truco''

I am nominating this for featured list because... after working on it for about a week, I feel that I have met the criteria for featured lists. This is in a way based on its predecessor FL, but not entirely. Unlike the other FL, this is set up a bit different and I hope it is more comprehensible. It was copyedit by Mattisse and Nikki (thanks alot), so hopefully only few mistakes are found. Happy reviewing. Note: I don't think stability will be an issue since the event is completely over now, and will not be affected heavily by future events.--Truco 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: I, Truco, am taking a semi-leave from Wiki at the time I'm typing this. Any further comments will be addressed by members of WP:PW. Thanks!--Truco 03:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "The Draft took place on two days" - over two days "the first day was televised lived" - televised live "The Draft took place on two days: the first day was televised lived for three hours on April 13 on WWE's program Raw, on the USA Network in the United States[A1]; the second part, the "Supplemental Draft", was held on April 15 on the Internet, at WWE's official website." - this feels like a really long run-on. Though grammatically correct, aside from the comments above, it seems too lengthy with the colon and semicolon connecting. I might split out the broadcast devices into a seperate sentence. Example: The Draft took place over two days: the first day was televised live for three hours on April 13; the second part, the "Supplemental Draft", was held on April 15. The first day was broadcast on WWE's program Raw on the USA Network in the United States[A1], and the supplemental draft was available on the Internet, at WWE's official website. "Twelve were made on television: Raw (five), SmackDown (four), and ECW (one). Twenty-four were made during the Supplemental Draft: SmackDown (10), Raw (nine), ECW (five)." - these sentences aren't grammatically correct. If you remove the parenthetical phrases, the sentences don't mean anything. Suggest Twelve selections were made on television; five were made by Raw, four by SmackDown, and one by ECW. and so forth. "28 males (10 drafted on television) and 8 females (two drafted on television)" - all quantities here are comparable per MOS:NUM, so they should be alike "Also during the Draft" - all of these events are during the draft. Additionally might be a better word here. "resulting in Raw housing both Tag Team Championships." - I think hosting is a better word than housing "night after Backlash (2009) (April 27th)." - Backlash should be piped, and April 27, not 27th. "because they are not top rated programs," - change comma to semicolon. Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Everything has been completed. Some of the grammar stuff resulted from the copyedit. The last statement in the AM section I did not include, I think another IP or user added it, but I sourced it with a blog from WWE Commentator Jim Ross, who is reliable as he works backstage and on WWE programming. Thanks for the review!--Truco 15:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Additional comments (KV5) "in the United States[A1]," - move footnote after punctuation "and one by ECW.." - double punct "All the draftees were wrestlers" - All of the draftees... "Raw obtained the first overall pick in the Draft" - how? Were they otherwise un-entitled to it? "Additionally ," - extra space A good-looking list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks so much for that.--Truco 16:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments - Would you mind linking legitimate to the appropriate page here? That comes off as an element of jargon that could use the further explanation that a link provides. Done.--Truco 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Background: "A Supplemental Draft was announced to be held on April 15." The "was announced to be held" part is a little awkward. Changed to 'announced for'--Truco 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Aftermath: "they carried their title over to their new brand." Should "title" be plural. Done.--Truco 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) "two secondary championships switched brands for the first time in WWE's history." This could use a cite if it isn't in one of the general references. Its verified by the history itself really, as WWE does not have a direct source stating so. Plus, the title has been on Raw since the original draft and its the first time it switches brands as a result, same for the women's titles.--Truco 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) "the draft would not come into an effect until the after...". Remove "an" and "the". Done.--Truco 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Link Madison Square Garden. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Reworded statement.--Truco 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Note that I made a sentence structure improvement myself before coming here. I was ready to support when I saw it, and figured it would be easy enough to fix it myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "and the Supplemental Draft was available on the Internet" So it's not available anymore? No because its over now, the results are still available but thats different from what is stated in the context.--Truco 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC) "and split various tag teams." "who was sidelined with a legitimate injury" I'd love it if you provided a brief explanation of "legitimate"—why depend on the link? I added non-scripted, will that work?--Truco 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Hyphens in the footnotes should be en dashes. "top rated programs"-->top-rated programs Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC) I've gotten concern number 2, 4, and 5. The rest, I'll let someone take care of that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.gerweck.net/ratings.htm reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • They got their information from Nielsen Media Research.--Truco 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Would it be feasible to add embedded images in the tables? After all, a large portion of the wrestlers do have free images. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [29].

---

List of Silver Slugger Award winners at pitcher

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils)

The last of the Silver Slugger series. To all reviewers who have been so helpful in the promotion of the first six lists, I thank you. As with the DH list, it is half the size of the others! As these are completed, I will progress to WP:FTC. I appreciate all help and comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments by Truco Lead 'He is also the leader in runs batted in, with 16 in that same season,[7] and is tied with Robinson (1982).' -- So how is he the leader but tied with Robinson? Robinson and Hampton both have 16, so they are both the leader. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Cannot it not be reworded to state that more straightforward, like 'Guy A and Guy B are tied as the leaders in runs batted in'?--Truco 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 'Tom Glavine is a four-time winner (1991, 1995–1996, 1998) with the Atlanta Braves,[8] and Rick Rhoden (1984–1986) and Don Robinson (1982, 1989–1990) each own three Silver Sluggers.' -- Did Robinson and Rhoden win those awards with the same teams or multiple teams?--Truco 21:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Multiple, which is why I didn't elaborate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Can that not be stated?--Truco 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Could be, but I don't see why it's necessary. Glavine's was mentioned to emphasize his longevity with the Braves. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 00:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Only a few minor things to clear up before I support. Good luck with the topic.

• Move reference 5 to be after the comma.
• "Mike Hampton has won the most Silver Slugger Awards as a pitcher; he won five consecutive awards with four different teams from 1999 to 2003." Redundant use of "won". Perhaps change the punctuation and use "winning"?
• "Hampton has hit the most home runs in a pitcher's Silver Slugger-winning season; he hit seven in 2001." Here, "hit" is repeated. Personally, I like the "with" setup for numbers in the other lists, and later in this one. How about some variant of that. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Done all. I don't know HOW I missed that first one... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Looks fine now. Great work on this series. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Hampton's 1999 on-base percentage is also a record " Besides being unnecessary, "also" is confusing since it sounds as if you've referred to his on-base percentage before.

• Sigh. Reworded. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Orel Hershiser leads pitchers in batting average, with the .356 mark he set in 1993.[14] Micah Owings is the slugging percentage leader (.683 in 2007)." So Orel Hershiser leads pitchers in general, or just Silver Slugger-winning pitchers? Same with Owings. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
*Comments Pretty much all the comments I made on the other Silver Slugger FLC apply here... certainly my confusion over that sentence, the four wins separated by just commas, not an endash, the "bat trophy" comment... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I believe that these have all been addressed or otherwise corrected per the DH FLC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [30].

---

List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils)

OK, we are reaching the end of the Silver Slugger series. To all reviewers who have been so helpful in the promotion of the first six lists, I thank you, and reward your diligence with this (and one more) list to review... and they are half the size of the others! As these are completed, I will progress to WP:FTC. I appreciate all help and comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments by Truco Lead First/most recent winners? Most recent done. First winner not in any other lists, per my comments at a previous FLC. Well its in the pitcher list.--Truco 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC) As per my comments in another FLC, first winners are not noted unless they hold some other record or distinction. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 'Don Baylor won the Silver Slugger three times in four years (1983, 1985–1986) as a designated hitter with the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees,' -- Its not that clear to me, but did Baylor win the '83 one with the Sox, and then from '85 to '86 with the Yankees? No, he actually won with the Yankees in '83 and '85 and the Sox in '86. The teams are listed in alphabetical order, but they could be changed to chronological. Specific years are explicated in the table. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Can it be changed to chronological order? Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 'Martínez set the records for the highest batting average and on-base percentage in a designated hitter's winning season with his .356 and .479 marks, respectively, in 1995.' -- Is it proper to state 'designated hitter's winning season'? Yes, it follows conventions used in other articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Table The '89 entry: in the team column, his first team is listed first right?--Truco 21:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC) In order, as the others are. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 00:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Same high quality as the others in the series. The only thing I saw that I wasn't thrilled with is "that position receives a Silver Slugger Award rather than the pitchers". "the" could be removed. Other than that, the list looks good. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Great job on the topic.

• "David Ortiz won his four consecutively" Unnecessary word.

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Harold Baines won the award while playing for two separate teams in the same season" The logic of the sentence is off; he sounds as if he was playing with two teams in the same time.

• The second half of the sentence doesn't explain it? "Harold Baines won the award while playing for two separate teams in the same season; he was traded by the White Sox to the Texas Rangers in the middle of the 1989 season." KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Image caption: "Edgar Martínez is tied for the Silver Slugger lead among DHs." It's not clear what "lead" is referring to here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have a suggestion that doesn't repeat the Molitor or Ortiz captions? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "a bat trophy" personal perhaps, but this reads oddly to me. "a trophy in the shape of a baseball bat?"
    • I've looked at this myself and been quite frustrated with the wording, so I'm glad someone else brought it up. What about "bat-shaped trophy", for succinctness? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Done as per my above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "in the American League" - you've already abbreviated this to AL above so why not use the abbreviation?
  • Same with National League.
    • To the two above, this is in keeping with the "consistent use" guideline for abbreviations. IMO, using abbreviations in prose looks ugly (unless it's something extremely long and tedious to read like Trinitrotoluene vs TNT), so I use them in the captions and nowhere else. This is the same convention followed in all of the Silver Slugger lists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair enough but it runs a high risk of a reader getting to the abbreviation before the explanation if you use the abbreviation in lead images, which, in my opinion, is suboptimal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I never actually use the league abbreviation in the lead image because that spot is reserved for the overall leader in MLB. The DH is the only one where I could see this causing an issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Agreed, my mistake, it was the DH in the lead caption that worries me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Would it be breaking with the "consistent usage" guideline to say "designated hitter (DH)" in the first caption? Or should I perhaps consider that the "first usage"? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
              • I don't think anyone would complain if you simply said "designated hitter" without the abbreviation in the lead image. That would certainly get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I may be showing my ignorance (as a Brit who considers baseball even more tedious than US football!), but I am really struggling to get my head around "Because lineups in the American League include the designated hitter (DH),[4] that position receives a Silver Slugger Award[5] rather than pitchers, who receive an award in the National League[6] because they are included in the batting order"...
    • I've tried re-wording this several times; I fought with it in the regular list too. I already changed it once in this list as well; I have no idea how to make it better at this point, which could just be my frustration with off-Wiki issues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Is the wording in the pitcher list any better? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The wording there is clear, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, I copied that wording into Silver Slugger Award and tweaked the wording in this list, following that pattern, to be more clear. Should be done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "1983, 1985–1986" - would be better a 1983, 1985, 1986 in my opinion.
    • Again, this follows conventions from other lists; the en-dash is used to emphasize consecutive wins. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I just think it adds potential for confusion that there may have been a season spanning over two years (like our European football seasons), and thus one missing year. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I understand your concern; however, I think that the table explicates clearly that seasons are self-contained in a year (i.e., links to the individual MLB seasons). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd expand DH in the lead caption as it may be one of the first things someone reads and it may not be terribly clear to a non-expert.
    • See above comment on abbreviations. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Otherwise good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [31].

---

List of Grade I listed buildings in West Somerset

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk

I am nominating this as a featured list because it is comprehensive, supported by appropriate references and images and, I believe, meets all FL criteria. It follows the design & layout of the recently promoted List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset. — Rod ^talk 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments by Truco Lead 'The district of West Somerset covers a largely rural area, with a population of 35,400 in an area of 726.84 square kilometres (280.63 sq mi). The largest centres of population are the coastal towns of Minehead (population 10,000) and Watchet (4,400). The council's administrative headquarters are located in the village of Williton.' -- Source? 'There are 33 Grade I listed buildings in West Somerset, the oldest being Culbone Church, which is believed to be the smallest church in England,[3] and Tarr Steps. ' -- 1)instead of 'which is believed', how about is one of the smallest churches in England, the original is a bit POV-ish 2)To expand the lead, it needs to be a bit more detailed as in how old they are by stating the approximate completion date. 'Church of St Columba the Virgin' is used in the table, and Culbone church is used in the prose, be consistent. State the most recently completed listed buildings. You can further summarize the list by stating which location has the most buildings as well.--Truco 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Response - thanks for your comments. I have attempted to address them by adding sources for population and area, rewording the oldest.. and adding more recent buildings. The article title is Culbone Church so I have used that in the lead & table and commented on Dunster having the highest number. If there is anything you feel is needed please let me know.— Rod talk 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 'There are 33 Grade I listed buildings in West Somerset, the oldest being Culbone Church, which is one of the smallest churches in England,[5] and pre-Norman in origin[6] and Tarr Steps which may originate in the Bronze Age, although others date them from around 1400.' -- Hmm. Consider rewording or splitting this sentence because its a bit wordy and just never seems to end. 'The most recent buildings included in the list are Crowcombe Court which was completed in 1739[8] and the Church of St John the Baptist in Carhampton which was rebuilt in 1863.' -> 'The most recent buildings included in the list are Crowcombe Court, which was completed in 1739,[8] and the Church of St John the Baptist in Carhampton, which was rebuilt in 1863.'--Truco 00:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Response - various commas added to try to improve.— Rod talk 07:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Great. I did a small fix.--Truco 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; list now meets WP:FL?. Excellent work!--Truco 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There's not really much one can find to object to, or helpful criticism to improve it; or at least, I'm not good enough to help. There is one single issue that leaves me a bit skeptical, and this regards the Church of St John the Baptist, Carhampton. You write: "The most recent buildings included in the list" is "the Church of St John the Baptist in Carhampton, which was rebuilt in 1863". Now, as you know better than me, the great majority of parish churches were subject to heavyhanded restoration in the Victorian age; now to single out St John is in my opinion misleading, because while the tower was rebuilt the church remains essentially medieval, nothwstanding the restoration, and not a Neo-Gothic building. On the same grounds I'm not sure saying in the tables for date completion at St John "1863" is fully correct.--Aldux (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Further Comment When you say "date completed" among the columns, what does "completed" stand exactly for? The doubt came reading the description of the Church of St Andrew, Stogursey; you date completion 1117, but it was considerably enlarged in 1180 and remodelled in the 15th-century, according to your article on the church.--Aldux (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Response - thank you for your comments. As you know obtaining accurate dates and other details of buildings hundreds of years old can be difficult, and as you say the majority have undergone extensive changes. I have tried to take as the key date the first sentence of the descriptions at Images of England or the Somerset Historic Environment Record as these are the details used by reliable sources (English Heritage and the County Council) as part of the formal record of listed buildings, but would agree "completion" is often nebulous. I am aware of one Grade I listed building at Downside Abbey which is still listed as unfinished! Perhaps you could suggest another heading for the date column or we could add another "note" explaining that completion date is often unclear? I will also remove the "most recent" claim from the lede.— Rod ^talk 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the lede. I personally believe the date column is a useful bit of information and I perfectly understand your difficulties - I'm currently facing similar ones with that column in a separate article. Maybe a good idea was what you propose, i.e. a note clarifying that medieval churches were generally built and rebuilt through an arc of several centuries.--Aldux (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Further response - I've added a note, but it seems "wordy" and tries to cover lots of options - if you can improve the wording that would be great.— Rod ^talk 15:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave a try, but somebody with a better control of the language than me would be certainly more successful. That said, as all issues are now covered I pass to support.--Aldux (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose this seems an unnecessary forking of content that should be in the article List of listed buildings in West Somerset as is with the case of List of listed buildings in Runcorn. Nergaal (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Don't take this personally, but your comment hasn't exactly striked me as one of the most thoughtful and ponderated I've had the the opportunity to read at FLC... Do begin with, you know that Runcorn is just a civil parish, while West Somerset is a district with 43 civil parishes in it; and that while Runcorn has only 59 listed buildings, West Somerset has 1228 listed buildings. And you seriously want to put these all in a single page? Oh, and lets not forget another tiny detail: List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol and List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester are all featured lists; and also, there are such lists of Grade I listed buildings for every single county of England, while the case of the Runcorn list is quite exceptional.--Aldux (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Response Thanks to Aldux for making most of the points I would have done about the numbers & if all listed buildings were included it would exceed the recommended page size. If there is any forking it is of List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which was split into districts because of the page size issues. I'd also point out that as it says in the article - Grade I structures are those considered to be "buildings of exceptional interest" and therefore the most important.— Rod ^talk 20:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I also think that this page passes on 3b. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Hassocks Great list! I'm very excited to see this here, as I am currently preparing several similar lists for other parts of England. I am comfortable with the layout in its present form, but will suggest some things to think about (maybe you have already considered these, Rod, and found them to be inappropriate for this list, which is fine). Also some other comments...

• You could work in a quote about Grade I buildings being considered "of more than national importance". I've got a ref for it somewhere if it's not in ref [1]. It would help to put the buildings' importance in a wider context.
• Second paragraph might need refs for the largest centres of population and administrative HQ information; I'm not sure, but I would probably add them to be on the safe side.
• There are numerous religious structures in Somerset, with the largest number being Anglican parish churches, dating from norman or medieval eras. Some problems:
• →Perhaps "Somerset has many religious structures..." for the first clause
• →"With" as a connector is ungainly; try "...religious structures; the largest number are from the Norman or medieval eras".
• →"norman" should be capitalised.
• Suggest wikilinking manor house.
• It would be lovely to have a picture column with a small (100px?) image of each building. Many are already available on the individual articles, and others would be reasonably easy to source, I imagine...? I wouldn't necessarily recommend this for longer lists of listed buildings, or those which contain lots of private houses, farms etc. I "don't mind the ribbon of pics down the side" approach, and have used it myself in the past; but for a relatively short list, adding pictures for each would bring benefits without causing the page to be too huge.
• Did you consider coordinates rather than grid references? I prefer coordinates for their precision and more intuitive feel.
• To save space, especially if pics are added (thereby making your rows wider), the grid ref (or coordinates) could be added to the location column. I have done this on some articles and it seems to work quite well.
• Refs are good – Images of England is a resource I know well :) All buildings have their own articles, which is also good.

Also agree with comments above that the content fork argument is not an issue. Lists of "all" listed buildings (i.e. all grades) have their place in instances where there aren't many: hence List of listed buildings and structures in Crawley, a borough with only 95, and indeed the FL-status Runcorn list mentioned above. In Crawley, only three are Grade I, so a split into the three grades would not serve readers well. In the other direction, whole counties are far too large to create lists for, even for individual grades. Even some districts are problematic once you get down to the Grade II level (Brighton and Hove has about 1,120...). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Response Thank you for helpful suggestions and good luck with the similar lists in your area.

• The extra quote for Grade I being "of more than national importance" would be good. It is not in [1]. I looked at List of listed buildings and structures in Crawley and thought it might be in ref [4] on that page - but this gives a broken link - help appreciated.
• I haven't given figures of populations for largest centres, these can be confirmed from the articles themselves if needed and are not key to the list.
• I have accepted & revised the lede based on your comments about the churches sentence & linking manor house - which I've also done on List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset which was recently promoted & I will apply to all the districts listed at List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which are all at various stages of development.
• A picture column has been discussed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset/archive1. I can see the attraction but have previously been advised against having too many images because of download times. It also doesn't look good where pictures are not available for all entries in a list & (having searched extensively while doing all the articles) I do not believe that appropriate free/licenced images "would be reasonably easy to source" (although I will be in West Somerset with a camera this weekend :).
• The gridrefs link to the same GeoHack Tool as other forms of coordinates - which form has a "more intuitive feel" will probably depend on a readers previous experience. I would be happy to add these to the location column if others think this would be a good idea.

Thanks also for your comment on forking and size of lists. The one which is scaring me just to think about is List of Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset and possible Grade II* and II lists. The council claims over 5,000 listed buildings of which 663 are grade I (although there are only around 100 English Heritage listings covering them).— Rod ^talk 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Please don't link common terms such as England. "are located in the village of Williton." "The oldest is either Culbone Church, which is one of the smallest churches in England,[5] and pre-Norman in origin" "Dunster has the greatest concentration of Grade I listed buildings" Comma after here. "Somerset has many religious structures; the largest number are from the Norman or medieval eras. Some of the churches are included in the Somerset towers, a collection of distinctive, mostly spireless Gothic church towers."-->Somerset has many religious structures, most of which are from the Norman or medieval eras. Some of the churches are part of the Somerset towers, a collection of mostly spireless Gothic church towers. I removed "distinctive" as it seemed unnecessary; is "part of" better than included? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Response Thank you for your suggestions re grammar which I have accepted and changed.— Rod talk 07:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

*Weak support - a few minor issues and a suggestion... The population in the lead is very precise, I would add a timeframe to it, or "according to the xxxx Census" or whatever. Any reason why Ref of Grid Ref is capitalised? Notes 2 and 5 appear to be missing a full stop. Personal preference, I'd like one larger lead image, up to 300px, then the rest in the Buildings section. You may lose one image doing this though. Just something to consider. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC) ResponseThank you for your comments Added 2001 census Capitalisation changed in Grid ref Full stops added for notes 2 & 5 I don't think one single image can represent the variety of buildings in the list - therefore I'm not sure how to select an appropriate one to make large & more significant than the rest. I will continue working on the images & lede - taking into account the comments below.— Rod talk 21:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Disappointed. I find it hard to get a grip on the articles this relates to. There appear to be no links to articles on the architectural styles, and precious little summary information on them. I'd be happy for a lead twice that size—it seems necessary to prepare our readers to get a lot out of the table. Can we have just a little info as well on the listing process / agency? How long has listing been going on for (since the 70s, if I had to have a guess). It's a fabulously rich topic and the list is much-needed. Lovely pics; but could you expand the captions for them by stating, at the very least, the century or year of construction, the style, and the location? Tony (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Response. Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to expand the lede with a little more information about the listing process (begun by a provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947), but I would suggest readers who want more about English Heritage etc could read the specific articles about them. The architectural styles are very mixed but I've added some dates and further info on the structures mentioned. I've also expanded the captions on the images to provide further context. I would be grateful for further guidance about what else should go in the lede & perhaps make you less disappointed with the list.— Rod ^talk 21:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a better title for the "Date completed" column? The column has no specific dates, just years and centuries. Perhaps "Year completed" instead? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Response column title changed as suggested.— Rod ^talk 21:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [32].

---

List of United States Military Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk •

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next in my long term work on service academy alumni. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments by Truco Lead 'It is also called The Academy, The Point, and West Point. Sports media refer to the Academy as "Army" and the students as "Cadets"; this usage is officially endorsed.[1]' || This ref does not verify the first four names. You've missed this on all the others;-) I fixed them too. Added a ref where they refer to themselves as the academy and west point. the point is short for WP. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Trying to be sneaky huh? :P--Truco 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 'The football team is also known as "The Black Knights of the Hudson" and "The Black Knights".' || 1)Reword to The football team is also known as "The Black Knights of the Hudson", or simply "The Black Knights". 2)Specify what type of football this refers to. Fixed. Other lists done too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 'Before the the founding of the United States Air Force Academy in 1955, the Academy was a major source of officers for the Air Force and its predecessors.' || I don't understand the use of 'predecessors' here, clarify? The Air Force wasn't always called the Air Force, it would be wordy to explain all that so I've cut "predecessors". — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC) That works.--Truco 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 'The curriculum emphasizes the sciences and engineering fields.' || Who's curriculum? Isn't that rather obvious? All the other alumni lists I've done have that. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I guess.--Truco 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 'Of all alumni who have received the Medal of Honor, Humbert Roque Versace (Class of 1959) is the most recent recipient, and Paul William Bucha (Class of 1965) is the most recent graduate.' || The Paul William Bucha phrase isn't needed here since this list is about MOH recipients He is an MOH recipient. It means Versace's is the most recently awarded (about 2002) Bucha graduated afer him but got the MOH before him. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Its not really clear though with the wording in the article.--Truco 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Julian tweaked it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 'In addition to the 81 Medal of Honor recipients who are alumni of the Academy, other notable alumni include 2 American Presidents, 4 additional heads of state, 18 astronauts, 70 Rhodes Scholars,[9] and 3 Heisman Trophy winners. Among American universities, the academy is fourth on the list of total winners for Rhodes Scholarships, seventh for Marshall Scholarships and fourth on the list of Hertz Fellowships.' || I never understood why this is relevant to this list? All the other alumni lists I've done have that setup, kind of late to be changing now. It's relevant to show depth of achievement by alumni. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I guess its ok.--Truco 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) List What does 'ex 1939' mean? added a note at the top, it means they attended but did not graduate. This is explained in all the notability sections — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I needed note :P--Truco 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) IDK, but on my screen resolution (which is wide) the images leave a lot of white space between the Civil War section and the one following that, possible remove 2 images. The same for the World War II section. on mine the lists go way past the images, but oook. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I agree with you Rlevse, the images looked better before, now the right side looks empty.  Ahodges7   talk 02:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC) So let's agree to put them back. We can't accomdate every resolution on every monitor in the world, just most of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Like I said, it could just be my reso.--Truco 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) References Per WP:ACCESS and {{reflist}} use only 2 rows. Explain. It's the same as all the others that got to FL status and I don't see what you're talking about. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Three columns are usually allowed. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but not every computer in the world can make 3 work, see the template instructions.--Truco 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) But it's not set to three, it's shows as two on two of my screens, so it must be your monitor again. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC) It's the colwidth. The inline citations are displayed through {{reflist}}—the number of columns depends on the monitor size. It's OK to do this, but it's not OK to display a reflist with a fixed number of columns—more than 3—(e.g. {{reflist|3}}). Bottom line, everything is OK here, move on. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Well then...--Truco 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) There is an inconsistency with the name of the "HomeOfHeroes.com" publisher, they should all be formatted as I mentioned. Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Goarmysports.com is not the publisher, United States Military Academy at West Point is the publisher. Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, the publisher of GoArmySports.com is the "Office of the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics", but the bottom of the webpage does say the copyright belongs to United States Military Academy at West Point.  Ahodges7   talk 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I just made it "United States Military Academy" for consistencies sake. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC) For the Nightly News ref, its MSNBC not NBC. Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC) --Truco 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I added {{main}} at the top because I think it's important to have a visible link to the main list (perhaps you could add one to the other lists?). Is the hat tossing image really the best one to use as the lead image? I realize it shows graduates, but I'm assuming that none of them are actually in the list. Perhaps an image of the campus would work better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Starting a list/article off with "main" simply doesn't set right with me. That's the whole purpose of the template at the bottom linking them all together, plus the template links all together not just the main one. Yes, hat tossing over a school photo as we're mainly dealing with grads here, not the curriculum, buildings, school history, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The ISO date in the image caption should be changed to month-day format. Done but why is the image different from the refs? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC) "most recent graduate to receive the Medal of Honor. "-->most recent graduate to have received the Medal of Honor. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC) "2 American Presidents,"-->2 United States Presidents, Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC) "prior to"-->before (two occurences in "Indian Wars" section) Done. — Rlevse • Talk • "Spanish-American War"-->Spanish–American War Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

*Comments In the lead, Cadet is capitalised. Is this correct? The US military has funny and inconsistent rules on this. In the USNA lists, Midshipmen is capiltalized. We should be consistent and those are already FLs. Let's be consistent and leave Cadet here UC. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC) No worries. Consistency is paramount, your expertise here equally so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC) "Humbert Roque Versace (Class of 1959) is the most recent recipient, and Paul William Bucha (Class of 1965) is the most recent graduate to have received the Medal of Honor. " reads strangely to me as you have "recipient" followed a more verbose "received the MOH" in the same sentence. This is a tough one, Versace wasn't awarded it til 2002 or so, so he's the most recent one to be awarded it but Bucha was the last person to graduate to receive it, but he received long before Versace. Any ideas on how to improve this are welcome. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I've re-read the sentence several times. Perhaps... "Humbert Roque Versace (Class of 1959) is the most recent recipient while Paul William Bucha (Class of 1965) is the most recent graduate to have received the award."? I understand it appears highly subjective and I wouldn't expect you to modify it based purely on my review. I cannot oppose on this alone so use your judgement. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC) How about we ditch that and since we started that part with "fist actions", we cut Bucha and Versace and say "The last person to perform actions to be recognized with the Medal of Honor was Andre Lucas (Class of 1954)".? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC) The "ex" class years don't sort properly. Look at the {{sort}} template, that should "sort" it out... put the ex after the year to fix it. Done — Rlevse • Talk • 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Ames - "for his for continuing " Done — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Don't think you need to continually link Medal of Honor in the table. In fact, you abbreviated it in the lead, so why not use the abbreviation in the table? Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Beebe - "a fortified postiion" Done — Rlevse • Talk • 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) McClemand - "at aBear Paw " Done — Rlevse • Talk • 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) "which greatly crippled them" not literally. Perhaps crippled their ability to fight? Done — Rlevse • Talk • 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Bell - " attacking 7 enemy " seven. Done — Rlevse • Talk • 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Foley - "on 1966-11-05" could you not write this as prose? Done — Rlevse • Talk • 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Ref 88 is missing a 0 in the date field. Done — Rlevse • Talk • 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Why do you have the "a" note as a general reference? It's used for George Ritter Burnett only, isn't it? Why is it a "general reference" and not an "inline citation"?
    • Because the ref provides a ton of info on all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • If it provides info on all of them, then it should be listed as a general reference with an asterisk next to it. Right now, it looks as if it only provides info on Burnett. This format is very confusing and inconsistent with other WP:FLs. --Crzycheetah 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The "b" note is used for everyone, so why can't you have just an asterisk next to the source under "general references" and remove all repetitive "b" notes?
    • I could, but there's more than one way to skin a cat ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Yet in all FLs only one way is used...why should this be any different?--Crzycheetah 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
        • A problem to this solution would be nice. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the difference between the source you used as "c" and any source in the "inline citations"? In other words, why is "c" listed in the "general references"?
    • Because the ref provides a ton of info on all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • In short, there's a whole series of these lists and I like to keep them consistent in layout, format, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if you already answered these questions...--Crzycheetah 06:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your response layout is so confusing I had to read it by using the diff. Over the course of the nine FLs I have to my credit, you're the first to complain about this, so I'd like more input. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some links to your previous FLs? Thanks!--Crzycheetah 21:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just found some. I see that you were using that way to list your references. OK, let's wait for more input.--Crzycheetah 21:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment well I already support the list. I've reviewed and supported several of the other lists in this series, I see no major trauma in keeping them as a series with similar layouts. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Images: I don't have time to do a full image review. But I clicked on a small sample and found no issues. In case no full image review is done, I'm assuming from what I've seen that they are okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [33].

---

List of number-one albums of 2008 (Japan)

Nominator(s): ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets WP:FL's criteria and feedback could also help the article improve, if needed. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments by Truco Lead "The data is compiled by Oricon based on each album's weekly physical sales. In 2008, 37 albums reached the peak of the chart." -- per other FLs, "is" should be are This wasn't done.--Truco 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) done ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC) "R&B singer Namie Amuro's Best Fiction remained at the top of the charts from its issue date of August 11 until September 15." -- 1) Do not link R&B, its too common of a genre per WP:OVERLINK 2)You need to clarify a bit further that this is the longest chart run in 2008 Could you give me some suggestions? I'm drawing a blank. ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Well, just add a phrase in the sentence that states that it had the longest chart run at number one for 2008.--Truco 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) done ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC) "Amuro became the first solo female artist in 28 years to have a album at number one for so long; the record is held by Saki Kubota (久保田早紀 ,Kubota Saki?), who had a album at number one for seven consecutive weeks in 1980." --> Amuro became the first solo female artist in 28 years to have an album chart number one for an extended time; the record was previously held by Saki Kubota (久保田早紀 ,Kubota Saki?), who had a album at number one for seven consecutive weeks in 1980. "Pop singer Mariya Takeuchi's greatest hits album, Expressions, stayed atop the Oricon for three consecutive weeks, making her the first artist over 50 years old to accomplish this." -- 1)Unlink Pop, its also a common genre 2)Remove the commas before and after Expressions 3)Is it proper to state it as "the Oricon"? [ this applies to all instances] 4)I think it would read better if it was written as over 50 years of age instead of "old" "Rock singer Yui's b-side album, My Short Stories, debuted atop the charts, making her the second female artist after Seiko Matsuda to have a b-side debut at the top." --> Rock singer Yui's b-side album My Short Stories debuted atop the charts, making her the second female artist after Seiko Matsuda to have a b-side debut at the top. "The second best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction with 1,447,149 sales, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296 with 1,404,658." -- There should be commas before the "with"'s Images "R&B singer Namie Amuro's greatest hits album, Best Fiction, stayed atop the Oricon for six consecutive weeks making it the longest-running number-one album and second best-selling album of 2008." --Remove the link to R&B, remove the commas before and and after the album name, and add a comma before "making" "Pop singer BoA became the second artist to have six consecutive number-one albums." -- Remove the link from "pop" References Per WP:ACCESS, only have 2 rows of refs, not 3. See also The see also section goes before the referenes--Truco 17:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC) done ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; the list now meets WP:WIAFL. Great work for one of the first album lists from Japan.--Truco 14:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "issue date of August 11 until September 15" "until"-->to "have an album chart number one for an extended time" What is an "extended time"? "Other artists that had extended runs" "that"-->who "since their debut"-->since her debut "to have a number-one album on the charts."-->to have an album reach number one. "B'z The Best "Ultra Pleasure" was hard rock duo B'z's twenty-second number-one album, allowing them to surpass Yumi Matsutoya in having the most number-one albums."-->B'z The Best "Ultra Pleasure" was hard rock duo B'z's twenty-second number-one album, surpassing Yumi Matsutoya for having the most number-one albums. "b-side"-->B-side "second best-selling"-->second-best-selling "The second best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, with 1,447,149 sales, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296 with, 1,404,658."-->The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold 1,447,149 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with 1,404,658 albums sold. Don't put 2008 in music in the See also section because it is already linked in the lead. "M-flo"-->M-Flo Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC) done ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Companies and websites (e.g. Oricon and Excite) should not be italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to remove the italicization. The cite web template did that itself. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Change work= to publisher= in the templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

done ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 16:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done? Does that exclude YMO, SMAP, and KAT-TUN? Because all three are acronyms. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 18:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't change BoA to Boa because her name is also an acronym. So I think I answered all of your concerns. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 20:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Remove "which is"?

Done. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• "2008" looks like a useless sea of trivia in the year article. For hidden links like this, why not instead list them in the "See also" section (UNpiped and possibly with your expert comment for readers). Otherwise, no one's gonna click on them. And separate the numbers: "In 2008 alone, 37 albums reached the peak of the chart." ... or put "in 2008" at the end of the sentence. Or "2008 saw 37" ...

Done. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• "eighteen" but "28"? See WP:MOSNUM on spelling out.

Changed. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• in 2008, not of?

Changed. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• "1,447,149 copies"? I hope it's iron-clad accurate; otherwise, don't repeat your source's unreasonable claim to accuracy: "more than 1.4 million copies" ... easier to read, too. Same one second later.

The source clearly says the number of the sales. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what Tony is saying is that it's a super-extraordinary claim, and one that should be supported by more than one reference. Narrowing down to such an accurate figure is dangerous. "The best-selling album overall of 2008 was R&B group Exile's Exile Love, released in late 2007, which sold 1,470,959 copies. The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold 1,447,149 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with 1,404,658 albums sold." For one thing, the reference is dated December 11; that leaves 20 more days in 2008 to accumulate more sales, meaning the figure is probably wrong (and yes, I'm aware of Verifiability vs Truth). If the paragraph said "The best-selling album overall of 2008 was R&B group Exile's Exile Love, released in late 2007, which sold over 1,470,000 copies. The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold more than 1,447,000 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with nearly 1,405,000 albums sold." it's still correct and the source still verifies the statement. Please follow up with Tony at his talk page to make sure that I'm not putting words in his mouth, though. His concern may be different and I've interpreted it wrong. One other thing here, could you do something about the "parastub"biness of the two sentences? Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oricon starts it's new chart in the middle of December of the previous year and ends it in the middle of December the current year. The sale figures are correct. Any sales made after the yearly chart is posted and ends gets counted into the new yearly chart, in this case the 2009 yearly chart. The source which supports the claim is from the Oricon itself, which is the official chart in Japan. Anyway I'll ask him if that's what he meant. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 12:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can you widen the first column so that it's more likely to avoid the wrapping of many of the dates? Rob from the second (or better, the last) column.

I don't know how to widen the columns. Can you tell me how? 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• So the nav-box should be tucked away right down the bottom?

List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.) has the box at the bottom. Where do you propose I put it then? 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this one will be fine also; the navbox placement is a WikiProject standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it probably will pass, but needs a little finishing off. Tony (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

*Comments "a B-side debut " B-side album debut... Shouldn't Best Fiction and 5296 be in italics (last para of lead)? "twenty three" - 23 per MOSNUM. Check for others. Just Reference is fine, you don't appear to have any instances of multiple refs on one line. Issue Date -> Issue date. A shame that there are so few English references, what with this being English Wikipedia and all! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Done. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Moon, the hyper-accurate figure is no big deal. Matthew explains it perfectly: which particular hour was that arrived at? It will remain for ages until updated in this list. But it was only a thought. Tony (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I changed it again. Do you support the article now or...? 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Tony doesn't usually support; if his concerns are addressed that's usually good enough for him. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
      • OIC. Thanks for informing me. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 23:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - why does dates of chart go from April 7 to April 19? And the publication date of the reference for the album on April 19 is April 10 - did they predict the future? Same with ref 23, dated 1 April but used to reference April 7 charts... Perhaps there's a simple explanation for this? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I made a mistake while editing the article. It's suppose to be April 14. The Oricon charts work like the Billboard charts. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [34].

---

List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²²

My second Canadian Olympic player list, modeled after List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada. This one is different because it contains columns for each Olympic year. I figured this would be useful because there are so few teams and because many have participated in multiple tournaments, the sort feature didn't work properly before. I realize that it may be a little confiusing because the years column doesn't have an "Olympics" header, but I tried to add one and I couldnt' figure out a way to do it without killing the sortability. Just in case someone asks, I don't think this system could be used in the men's list because there is an extra 70 years of history (thus making it far too wide) and only a handful have played on multiple teams. Also, I was considering adding a small unfancy list of the other potential players for the 2010 team. Does anyone think I should? Anyway, all comments are welcome. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The column Notes shouldn't be sortable. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Per WP:CAPTION, image captions that are sentence fragments should not have periods at the end. I assume you are referring to the lead image? If so, fixed. Image caption: "Cassie Campbell, is the only Canadian player to be captain of multiple teams." No comma. Fixed. "the staff named 22 players to the 2009 World Championship team as well as four additional players who" No, I think additional players is neeeded in there because they weren't part of the WC team. I wouldn't mind a list of potential players, depending on the source. It would be an official source "Goalst against" I assume this a typo? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Yes.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand the formatting of ref 5 (Podnieks & Szemberg 2008 as well as a link); are that two separate refs? Also, ampersands shouldn't be used. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a book called the top 100 IIHF stories. However, all 100 stories have been posted at the IIHF website. So it credits the author, then links to the online page. That system is used because a similar page, Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, cites that book about 40 times and it was very unweildy having to repeat the same stuff (publisher, date, etc.) over and over again, so I just switched to the format used for books.
  • Thanks once again for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments by Truco Lead "Canada has sent teams to every tournament. Those three teams have consisted of five goaltenders and 32 skaters, all of whom have won Olympic medal"-- Wouldn't it be Canada has sent three teams to every tournament. These teams have consisted of five goaltenders and 32 skaters, all of whom have won Olympic medals. It's three teams in three tournaments, not three in one. That part was badly worded, and I fixed it. "In July 1992, the IOC voted to approve women's hockey as an Olympic event to first be held at the 1998 Winter Olympics." -- IOC needs to be spelled out on its first occurrence Done. "Canada and the United States dominated the round-robin portion of the 1998 tournament and in their head-to-head match up, the United States won 7–4." -- 1)What does "round-robin" mean? 2)Comma before "and" Fixed. "The Canadian and American teams continued their rivalry and in a rematch between the two at the 2002 Winter Olympics, Canada won 3–2." -- Comma before "and" Fixed. "Canada has won two gold and one silver in women's hockey, and is tied with the United States for the most medals." -- IDK, but its really awkward to state "won two gold and silver" medals perhaps? Or is it proper like that? Fixed. "Wickenheiser is the all-time leading scorer in the women's tournament at the Olympics with 14 goals, 20 assists and 34 points." -- Shouldn't there be a comma before "with" Fixed. "In March 2009, the staff named 22 players to the 2009 World Championship team as well as four additional players who would not compete in 2009 but could potentially be included in the Olympic roster. " -- Comma before "as well" "One player has been inducted into the IIHF Hall of Fame and one into the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame." -- I'm a bit edgy on whether you should spell out IIHF here. Fixed. Tables What does the checkmark mean? It should be explained in the key. Done. The notes should be unsortable. I disagree with that one, I think it would be useful to be able to sort by who was team captain, flag bearer and various Hall of Fame inductees. IDK, but IMO the medals column shouldn't be sortable either, since some cells have more than one entry, and sorting isn't really representative of all the content.--Truco 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC) The sorting of that column is fixed so that it goes by number of medals, then by colour, then by year. As always, thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Okay, I agree with everything but the notes being sortable because some of the cells have more than once entry, and if you sort there is no accurate representation of sorting the content.Truco 16:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Okay, since it's a smallish table, I agree, fixed. What do you think of adding the potential 2010 players (sourced to the official Hockey Canada website)? -- Scorpion0422 16:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I don't see a problem with it, since its from the official governing body. Why is there a problem with it?Truco 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I just thought it was somewhat crystalish because even though it is an official source, it is a future team. I'll add them in later. -- Scorpion0422 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Well, since you have a column for the 2010 team for some of the entries already, it just seems to fit IMO. I will cap once those are added, if they are.--Truco 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments - "Canada has sent a team to all three tournaments." Slightly confusing because the previous sentence is about the men's competition. Perhaps making it say "women's tournaments" would fix that. Instead, I rearranged it a little and moved the bit about the men's tournament to the next paragraph. References are out of order in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Fixed. "and is tied with the United States for the most." Medals? They aren't tied in golds or silvers. Yes, medals. The word medals was in there previously but I removed it because the word is already used twice. Readded. Should "the" be removed before Canada's Sports Hall of Fame? I think I mentioned this in the men's player list. Yes. I used to have it written as "the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame", but "Canada's Sports Hall of Fame" is the correct title so I changed the name and forgot about the the. "and Hayley Wickenheiser. Wickenheiser...". Can this be reordered so there aren't two straight Wickenheisers? Done. Excess pp. formatting bit in reference 24 (2002 Salt Lake City results). Giants2008 (17-14) 18:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 19:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Was a very good list to begin with and surely meets the FL standards now. The only thing I would recommend for the future is more photos to the right of the tables if they become avaliable; more than enough room exists for them. That doesn't affect the current status of the page, however. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some more free ones on Flickr, but they aren't particularily good. (example) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—Not well-written; glitches.

• MOS prefers numbers above ten, doesn't it? No big deal, tho. There are other examples ... and then "14" etc.
  • I was told that you should try to be consistant with numbers when they are in one sentence. So either have 6 and 17 or six and seventeen.
• Out-of-order statements: "Canada has sent a team to all three tournaments. Those teams have consisted of five goaltenders and thirty-two skaters, all of whom have won Olympic medals." The goal-keepers and skaters needs to be a separate, prior statement, yes? Join up the three tournaments and medals bits?
  • Done.
• "previously", like "currently" so often, is redundant.
• "Before 1998, women's hockey had been dominated by Canada's national team. Canadian teams had won every World Championship up to that point". Isn't just "Until 1998," good enough, without the last four words? Look throughout for redundant wording, and try these exercises in distributed sessions.
  • Fixed.
• "and is tied with the United States for the most overall medals"—The "is" looks funny to me. What, right now? Last year? When? WP doesn't like time-phrases that immediately become obsolete. There's another "is" a few seconds further on. See MoS on this.
  • Fixed the first statement.

And other things. Please find an unfamiliar word-nerd to copy-edit. Lots of red links; I guess this means your next task is to write stubs and see them through to something better? Tony (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to find a copyeditor. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Images Check out fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:49, 5 May 2009 [35].

---

List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire

Nominator(s): BomBom (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after much hard work, I think it is now up to the FL standards. The subject is obviously of vital historical importance. There are very few monarchy-related FLs, so this one has been modeled after the recently promoted List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty. Since the image issue is likely to be brought up, I would like to say that I uploaded nearly all the images used in the article, and reviewed each one of them several times to ensure proper sourcing/licensing. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to disturb one of the regular image reviewers as this would be a waste of their time. However, if you do find a problem with a particular image, please point it out. Regards. BomBom (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to point out that I notified members of WikiProject Turkey about this FLC, and asked them to review it (just review, not support). This seemed logical to me, because people from an article's WikiProject are likely to be familiar with the topic and are thus the most apt to do content-related comments. However, I was informed by Truco that this was not OK as it constituted potential canvassing. I was not aware of this and apologize for my actions. I will no longer notify WikiProject members when submitting an FLC in the future. Anyway, even if one were not to take into account the 5 support votes from members of WikiProject Turkey (Darwinek, Gökhan, Chapultepec, CeeGee, WillMall), the list still received 3 support votes from users who are not part of the project and whom I didn't notify of this ongoing FLC (Truco, Quadell, Qp10qp). Regards. --BomBom (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Sultans" capitalized in the title? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because that's the why List of Sultans of Zanzibar, a current FL, is named. Do you think it should use a lower case s? --BomBom (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. "sultan" is not a proper noun (unless "Sultan of the Ottoman Empire" is an official post). The other list should be moved also. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BomBom (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comment -- Before I fully review, can some of the paragraphs in the lead be placed into a separate section because the length of the lead is tremendous.--Truco 02:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC) OK, I will work on shortening the lead. --BomBom (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Done. I shortened the lead. I think it is now of appropriate length given the importance of the topic covered. --BomBom (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Comments General There is a self redirect to the article, as outlined by the dab finder tool, can that be fixed? Lead 'The sultans of the Ottoman Dynasty ruled over a vast transcontinental empire from 1299 to 1922.' -- Do not bold something that is not the title, although the bolded part includes some of the title, its not the title so it shouldn't be bolded. 'Although its early days remain shrouded in legend, the Ottoman Empire is generally regarded by most historians to have started in 1299, when Osman I, khan (leader) of the Kayı tribe of the Oghuz Turks, managed to acquire sovereignty for his small Anatolian kingdom from the Seljuq Sultan of Rûm.' -- Remove the comma before managed 'He was supreme military commander and had official title to all land.' -> He was the supreme military commander and had the official title to all land. 'Although theocratic and absolute in theory and in principle, the sultan's powers were in practice limited.' -- Wouldn't it be better stated as were limited in practice? Notes Remove bold from links. Images I would seek an image check on the licensing of each image.--Truco 01:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Done. Your seven comments have all been taken into account. The self-redirect, which was contained in the navigational template at the bottom of the page, has been fixed. Unbolded title in the lead. Comma has been removed. Sentence has been rephrased. Sentence has been rephrased. Unbolded links in the Notes section. Like I said, I went through each image several times, and am pretty sure they're all PD. Nonetheless, I have asked David Fuchs to do an image review.[36] Thanks for your comments. --BomBom (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Awesome!--Truco 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Great work: previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Quadell (talk · contribs)

Issues according to User:Quadell: I agree that part of the lead should be split off into a section or sections. There were other pretenders. They don't all need to be mentioned, but there should be a sentence to say that Ertugrul Osman is not the only one to have existed. I think it would be better to include Glazer's "Turkey: A country study" in the bibliography, spelled out in full... and then the specific references would only need to list the chapter name and an abbreviated reference... like you do for Pearce and Quataert, but with a chapter in the refs. I would move the "general references" down to combine with the bibliography. Nice list! Best of luck, – Quadell (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Done. The lead has been shortened. I removed the section about pretenders and replaced it with a more clearly-worded sentence about Ertugrul Osman in the lead. Your recommendations regarding the references have also been taken into account. Thanks for your comments! --BomBom (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC) All my initial issues have been fixed. Well done! I've given it a thorough reading, and made minor adjustments for clarity, grammar, and NPOV. There are only a few remaining issues. The statement "people within Turkey generally use the title of padishah far more frequently" in note (a) needs a cite. The detailed material on the Ottoman Caliphate is fascinating, but it only belongs in this list in so far as it directly relates to the office of sultan. Note (b) should stay, but the sentence in the lead "Such was the importance of the Ottoman Caliphate that it actually outlived the sultanate for more than a year" should go, in my opinion. Because of this, note (c) should only be referenced at the "Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire" section of the list, and everything after "lacking any political power" should be omitted from the note. Does this make sense? Should "further reading" actually be "bibliography"? I ask because I'm not sure. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Done. A reference has been added in note (a). The sentence in the lead has been removed, and the footnotes reorganized accordingly. I also shortened the footnote per your suggestion. You're right. It should be "Further reading" if the books were not used in the writing of the article, but merely given for those wanting to explore the subject in more detail. However, this is clearly not the case here: the article is directly referenced from the books, so I changed the section heading to "Bibliograhpy". Thank you very much for your thorough review! --BomBom (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support. Fantastic list. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, but a question about the dates of the first three sultans. Checking in my copy of The Ottoman Empire by Colin Imber (Palgrave, 2002), he gives the following: Osman I, d. c. 1324; Orhan, c. 1324–62, Murad I, 1362–89. The Wikipedia article gives the change from Orhan to Murad as 1359. Looking around the internet, there's some variation (for example: [37], [38], [39]). The use of circa is always a good get out in these cases, unless you can be very sure. qp10qp (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I put circa for the first three sultans. The dates used are those given by the Turkish Ministry of Culture, which are themselves based on the book Padişah Portreleri. --BomBom (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments by members of WikiProject Turkey

Support. Very good list, no objects to the content. -- Darwinek (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Support.There's more than enough information here. Summaries are of a good length, the lead and the image are also good. It looks fine to me, I'll Support.--Gökhan 11:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Support. For me it seems appropriate to be a featured article. I have changed Timur's origin to Turco-Mongol.[40] I have also changed Murad I's nickname from Hüdevendigar to Hüdavendigar.[41] The name may also be spelled Hudavendigar.[42] There is one more petty spelling problem in the second paragraph, it should be şeriat rather than seriat as per Turkish spelling. But I have not changed it since maybe it is preferred to use English characters only. --Chapultepec (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Done. I changed the spelling to şeriat. --BomBom (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Support. Very good work. However, I would suggest the partioning of the long paragraphs into smaller ones for better readability.CeeGee (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Done. I divided the third paragraph of the lead. The lead now contains four paragraphs of appropriate length. I don't think it is possible to divide any paragraph more than that, because each one corresponds to a coherent thematic body. --BomBom (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Support. The list complies with the featured list standards. Clearly a lot of hard work gone into it. A great list. WillMall (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC) SUPPORT This is an important topic. The Ottoman Empire sat at the geographic juncture of several states, in several continents, over several centuries. This is deletionist mania to eliminate the list of the sultans. Such an article aids the further exploration of the individual sultans of the empire. I second the sentiment towards breaking the article into several paragraphs. Again, terminating the article is a terrible act against meaningful scholarship on a vitally important topic. Dogru144 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Comment. I striked the above comment since the user seems to have mistaken the FLC for a deletion request. --BomBom (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Support. Very good work. Atabəy (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I grouped comments by members of WikiProject Turkey in a collapse box because of the potential canvassing issue discussed above. Whether or not their support votes should be taken into account is for the FL director to decide. --BomBom (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aramgar

Comments. 1. Constantinople is not in Anatolia. This is a serious error that needs to be corrected. The Ottoman state had three capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and then Constantinople. Only the first of these is in Anatolia. Moreover, the Ottomans are not from the Anatolian heartland, but rather the western periphery of Anatolia. I have read scholars who refer to an "Ottoman heartland" which includes early Ottoman centers like Söğüt, Bilecik, İznik, and Bursa. Aramgar (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2. Perhaps some of the field names in the infobox ought to be adjusted. WP:UE certainly mandates that we call the Ottoman state, especially after from the 15th century, "Empire", but the sovereign is never called an "emperor". Please substitute "sultan". Footnote #4 is misconstrued: Mehmed II claimed succession to the Roman emperors but not the titles themselves. Aramgar (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Done. I rephrased the first few sentences to make things clearer with regard to geography, and added information about the different moves of the Ottoman Empire's capital. I also removed "Emperor" from the infobox and replaced it with "Sultan". Not done. I'm sorry, but the Ottoman rulers did occasionally use the title of caesar. The footnote is thus not misconstrued. I added two more scholarly references to corroborate this. Thanks for your comments. --BomBom (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Interesting. I stand corrected. I will have to look into this further. Aramgar (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 3. I am troubled by the phrase "managed to acquire sovereignty for his small Anatolian kingdom from the Seljuq Sultan of Rûm" and believe it ought to be dropped. The association of the early Ottomans with their illustrious predecessors is based on Ottoman court propaganda of the 15th and 16th century. Though the claim likely has no basis in fact (secondary source here), it is often taken at face value by modern historians, particularly those within Turkey. Observing good summary style, it might be better to emphasize here the frontier character of the early Ottoman state rather than the suspect pedigree. 4. perhaps add Topkapı Palace to the "Official Residence" section in the infobox. 5. perhaps add the nickname Hüdavendigâr in the small typeface below Murad I. Several other sultans bore this name, but Murad is generally known thus within Turkey. I realize that this may cause problems of translation: WP glosses it "the God-liked one"; I have also seen it rendered just "The Ruler". Perhaps it should stay "Hüdavendigâr". Otherwise, good work on this important topic. Aramgar (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Done. 3. The entire phrase about the Ottomans' link with the Seljuqs has been removed. The sentence in the lead now simply reads: "The Ottoman Empire's early years have been the subject of varying narratives due to the difficulty of discerning fact from legend; nevertheless, most modern scholars agree that the empire came into existence around 1299 and that its first ruler was Osman I, khan (leader) of the Kayı tribe of the Oghuz Turks." It is sufficiently concise and neutral. There is also a wikilink to the article about the empire's early days for users wishing to have more information. 4. The Ottomans' three main palaces have been added in the infobox: Topkapı, Dolmabahçe, Yıldız 5. The name Hüdavendigar has been added below Murad I's name. Thank you very much for your useful comments. --BomBom (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Content issues have been resolved. Good work on this important topic. Aramgar (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Although its early days remain shrouded in legend" "shrouded in legend" sounds unencyclopedic. Maybe "obscure"? "ceremony which served "-->ceremony that served "The attitudes of important members of the dynasty, the bureaucratic and military establishments, and religious leaders had to be considered." Considered for what? Political decisions? "Moreover" This additive term doesn't really help the flow and can be removed. "On the other hand, " Another wordy phrase that can be deleted; the contrast can be recovered from the context. Can you move the note about the bold to a separate paragraph so readers can more easily see it? Is there not a more reliable source that can be used than Encyclopædia Britannica? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Done. The whole sentence has been rephrased. It nows reads: "The Ottoman Empire's early years have been the subject of varying narratives due to the difficulty of discerning fact from legend; nevertheless, most modern scholars agree that the empire came into existence in 1299..." I replaced "which served" with "that served". The whole sentence has been rephrased. It now reads: "Political decisions had to take into account the opinions and attitudes of important members of the dynasty, the bureaucratic and military establishments, as well as religious leaders." Removed "moreover". Removed "on the other hand". I added a small key below the paragraph to make the explanation regarding the bold font more visible. Is it OK now? Not done. Encyclopædia Britannica is certainly a reliable source, and is used to reference very non-controversial claims. I thus think it should be kept. Thanks for your comments. --BomBom (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Done. Encyclopædia Britannica has been replaced by two other sources. --BomBom (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Excellent list! Very informative lead and a great table with clear descriptions. I really like that they all have images and tughras. You seem to have taken care of everyone else's remarks, though I agree that a better source than Britannica should be used, if possible. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Encyclopædia Britannica has been replaced by two other sources. --BomBom (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

*Comments - very very good indeed. Remove the space between Majesty and [A] (in the infobox) Not sure why Notes is in italics in the text? The key should not be in small text, think accessibility... And you said bold font indicated deposed before natural death - all sultan's names here are in bold... could be confusing. "Son of Mehmed II and Mükrime Hatun ; " remove space before ; "two and a half " hyphenate? Otherwise excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Done. All your six comments have been taken into account. The sultans' names are no longer in bold to prevent confusion. --BomBom (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support an already excellent piece of work has been improved to an exceptional level during this process. Good work to both reviewers and contributing editors alike. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong support - a superb list, very well referenced, perfect format. Top draw, nice work! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:49, 5 May 2009 [43].

---

Kronos Quartet discography

Nominator(s): Drmies (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because after peer review it seems to be a pretty decent list, and I am interested in its improvement. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Before I fully review, the format of the tables is not the standard used, it should be formatted as other discographies. Such as the FLs located here.--Truco 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of those tables (I looked at a bunch of them before I got started) are predicated on chart success in their very layout, something which hardly applies to (contemporary) classical music: the table would be dashes for their main content. But The Make-Up discography has a different format from many others, and Neutral Milk Hotel discography is not unlike the one for Kronos. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm going to wait for another reviewer's input before I review this, I hope you understand.--Truco 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment It should be noted that those two discographies wbecame Featured in late 2007. Since that time, around 50 other discographies have become Featured, albeit none of them of the same genre of music. Also, a Wikiproject has been established, WikiProject Discographies. Drmies, perhaps you could get some input from members there? Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Started a thread. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Truco referred me to the list of FL discographies, but there's a whole lot of em, and I didn't look at every single one; I certainly didn't look to see when any of them were featured. It would be helpful, in advance of any discussion on the thread you just opened, if I could get an idea of precisely which discography could function as a model, though I have to say, if it's 50 Cent discography then I don't really know what to do--the chart-heavy model simply isn't really relevant here. I went for another type of content: the verification of different elements and qualities of the record. Cannibaloki offered good suggestions in peer review, but he did not suggest that I change the format of the table, and I sure hope that it's not just the format of the table that determines the quality of an article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support the second, as well as the whole work. Cannibaloki 06:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I support either one, but mostly the first one because it is what other discographies are commonly formatted as.--Truco 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If the particular layout of the table stands in the way then I'll gladly change it--but before I do, I'd like to hear if there is consensus on this, since I'm sure you realize it's an awful job... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It kinda is, in a way. Just because its about a different genre of work shouldn't make it different from other formats/layouts.--Truco 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, the first time you referred me to some other discographies I didn't know what to look for, since a lot of those discographies were not like the ones above; instead, they were concerned with chart positions. In other words, I didn't know what you were pointing at, and that's why I remarked on genre. Now I know. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The tables have to change, because you're arranging according to year and not title. The first column is mostly the one the list is arranged with. Plus having a uniform layout between all Discographies is sort of a push towards a better usability. User Drmies should state what he'll do, so that the nomination would show progress.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I have to do, it's simple; I'll follow the first format. As far as progress is concerned, as you can tell from the dates I've been waiting to hear what the desired format is. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I probably won't support or oppose the nomination, but I have a few questions about the list. Why are the names of composers and musicians linked to within the "Title" field? Has Floodplain been released; if not shouldn't it have the "Released" field state "2009 (forthcoming)" like 2081. Also, shouldn't Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters link here? Alex Douglas (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

They were linked as a leftover from the original, which was merely a list on the main article. I've taken care of those links now. Thanks for the Floodplain note; I've corrected that. The album is in pre-order and I'm waiting anxiously. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I suggest the external links are transformed into generic citations, since almost all of the information seems to be sourced from there and is the only way anyone can verify the releases, catalogs, dates etc. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, no--I got the release dates and catalog numbers from the Nonesuch website, and some of the others (soundtracks, etc) from Amazon whenever I could. The Allmusic list only has six titles, the Strings article is old and thus incomplete, and the Parker book has a bibliography, not a discography. I'll gladly make a generic note to the Nonesuch website, but there again, there's a difficulty: look at this, the entry for the Sigur Ros CD--it has the catalog number but not the date; the release dates are in the "ALSO FROM KRONOS QUARTET" menu on the right, and I wouldn't know how to cite that. What would you suggest I do? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was really talking about Kronos Quartet on Nonesuch Records and Kronos Quartet Website - discography. They seem to cover very much of the information provided so I figured they were the original source for some of the content. Overall, anything used as a source should be referenced. In regards to the release dates, you can simply cite this and in the reference add something like "See Releases section on right". Readers aren't stupid and they will understand were to look at. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now--I confused Bibliography with External links. Now it makes sense, sorry. But you wouldn't want a note for every single entry, right? I'll see what I can do and what looks good. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, that would be ridiculous and a waste of time. Most discographies separate their references in "General" which are used all throughout the table, and "Specific" for the more common inline citations. For example, see Kaiser Chiefs discography#References. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a "general" note on that model--thanks. I'm not happy with the vagueness of the Amazon reference (and I really dislike having to use that as a source), but that's the way it is. As time goes by, some more of this information will be filled in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've changed the tables, all of them, and turned them into the preferred format. That was a very lengthy and tedious job...I need a beer. Now, the only place where I was a bit at a loss is the "contributions" section--there's a ton of info in the second cell (I hope I did it consistently for all of them, but right now I can't proofread anymore) but I can't rightly figure out how to do it and make it look better. I'll get to the reference(s) for the catalog info as soon as I can. Thanks for your feedback. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I made the tables sortable, if u don't mind. In any case wether sortable or not I support the promotion of this list to FL status.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--but see note below by Chris: can you make the third column "unsortable"? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - is there any reason for the "notes" column to be sortable (I can't see anyone wanting to sort the notes into alphabetical order)? Also, the columns should retain consistent widths across all the tables. Oh, and the "contributions" table has a stray extra cell on the line for "Heat", which is making a very thin extra column appear at the far right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • (In reverse order:) Thanks--it was the next one, actually. I'm glad you noticed it; after I got done with it I couldn't see straight anymore. I see that the width is not perfectly consistent, but I don't know why that is. In all honesty, I barely know how these tables work; if one of you could have a look that would be great (the second column has a fixed width and the first is nothing but years, so I figured they'd all end up the same way--plus, I copied and pasted them all from the one up on this page). No, they don't need to be sortable by notes, but I don't know how to fix that--perhaps Diaa, who was kind enough to make them sortable in the first place, can help here. Thanks for your comments! Drmies (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both for the sorting and the partial unsorting. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Think I've sorted the table column width disparity issue, hope it looks OK. I support the FLC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks great, thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "a string quartet playing "-->a string quartet that plays
• "The quartet's music is released on "-->The quartet's music has been released on
• "by composers like"-->by composers such as
• "their music covers a who's who of 20th century composers, as one critic phrased it in 1998." "who's who" is a bit loose, can we have a quote for that?
• "besides contributing to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams"-->and has contributed to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams
• "Their interest in collaborations is evident in their contributions to albums by other artists," This is WP:OR; it needs to be rephrased.
• "ranked in the "-->ranked on the
• "The quartet won a Grammy for the 2003 album Lyric Suite (music by Alban Berg), and were the" Inconsistent subject verbs, you use "has been" but "were the" (has is singular, were is plural).
• In the notes, single sentence fragments should not have periods at the end.
• Can you link all notable works, not just the ones that have articles? There is nothing wrong with red links. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Publication titles (newspapers, magazines, journals) in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}, use the work= field for the title of the paper instead of publisher=. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think I've taken care of all your comments, incl. the wikilinks--there's a lot of red on the page now (I've been working on individual articles for the albums, but that's a lot of work). Oh, I disagree (grammatically) on your 2nd remark and have not changed that. (And the who's who thing, that was a quote--I put quotation marks around it.) Thanks for that ref template bit--if only I'd realized that before... I haven't yet taken care of your sentence fragment comment but I'll get on it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose by Truco

Lead

• 'The discography of the Kronos Quartet, a string quartet playing contemporary classical music founded by violinist David Harrington in 1973, includes numerous albums, compilations, and contributions to others' releases.' || 1)'playing' --> that plays 2)'numerous' should be replaced with the actual values

• done

• 'Since 1978 the quartet has been based in San Francisco, California.' || 1)Comma after '1978'

• I disagree--it's a short phrase and a comma is not required.

• That does not matter, all grammar rules apply to all complete sentences. A pause is needed after 1978, this is for all statements like this.--Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am trying to explain to you that that is not a grammatical rule. At best, it's a rule of usage that after an introductory clause, such as a prepositional phrase, a comma can be applied. Please don't try to tell me that such comma usage is part of grammar, since it isn't--at most its style, and all the style manuals agree with me here: after a short introductory phrase one is not required to use a comma. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• 'Early recordings by the quartet contain contemporary classical music and adaptations of more popular music, such as jazz and even rock and roll.' || 1)Unlink Jazz and Rock and Roll, they are common genres and do not need to be linked 2)remove 'even' its POV

• done--though I don't see why I should de-link these.

• 'Since the 1980s, and especially with the release of Cadenza on the Night Plain, written as a collaboration between composer Terry Riley and the quartet, much of the quartet's repertoire and album releases contain music written especially for them, by composers like Terry Riley, Kevin Volans, Henryk Górecki, and Ástor Piazzolla; their music covers a who's who of 20th century composers, as one critic phrased it in 1998.' || This just needs to be reworded, its a run-on (possibly split)

• Sorry, it's not a run-on (note the semicolon). But I'll split it.

• 'Kronos has recorded five soundtracks (music composed by Philip Glass, Clint Mansell, and Lee Brooks), including the score for the 1998 music for the silent movie Dracula, besides contributing to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams.' || 1)No need to state the composers here 2)What does 'including the score' mean? 3)I recommend splitting this sentence or rewording it as well.

• I'm keeping Philip Glass in because this is, after all, the lead to an article and should state something about the importance of the subject. Philip Glass is one of the most influential composers of the 20th century, and that they recorded his music on such things as soundtracks goes to notability. The sentence is reworded.

• That does not matter, unless you give composers for all albums mentioned in the lead, then you can keep it, if not its best to remove it per consistency purposes.--Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Not all of them are among the most influential composers of the 20th century. In a lead you pick the most salient, the most significant details. You don't give Billboard rankings for each album, but if there's a #1 you'd mention that. I left Philip Glass in there for the same reason.

• 'Their interest in collaborations is evident in their contributions to albums by other artists, especially pop artists, such as Joan Armatrading, Dave Matthews Band, Andy Summers, Nelly Furtado, and Nine Inch Nails.' || The first part is POV, how do you know its their interest? Remove sentence or reword it.

• done (see Dabomb's comments above)

• 'The quartet won a Grammy for the 2003 album Lyric Suite (music by Alban Berg), and were the performing artist for Steve Reich's Grammy-winning 1988 composition Different Trains.' || This is really not needed because its not in the main list/tables itself.

• done

Table/list

• The notes need to be copyedit because some of the notes are not complete sentences and the periods need to be removed from them.

• Dabomb said the same thing. I'd like to know why--why do sentence fragments not require periods? In any published piece of writing they do. Moreover, it'll give rise to inconsistencies; some cells (like the third) have two fragments. Surely they should be separated by something, and if that something is, for instance, a semicolon, then you have punctuation in the middle but not at the end. Sentence fragments in tables are acceptable since information needs to be economical, and rephrasing all fragments into complete sentences is awkward and wordy. Look at Music of Bill Evans--two fragments, then a balanced compound sentence containing two independent clauses. Turning a fragment like "With Jim Hall and Eddie Gomez" into a sentence would be very wordy.

• Okay, which is why we're telling you to remove the periods. In all featured lists, its encouraged to do so because they are not complete sentences and a statement like "It was great." is not acceptable. Yes you're right its too wordy to make into complete sentences, which is why the solution is removing the periods.

• So, look at "Compositions by Thelonious Monk. With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)." Do you want me to remove both periods, and produce "Compositions by Thelonious Monk With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" ? OK, so just the last, "Compositions by Thelonious Monk. With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" ? That looks weird also. In this case, since both fragments are short, I could change to "Compositions by Thelonious Monk; with Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" but that doesn't work for all the entries--it won't work very well for the next one. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• The first note, although it is a quote, is used in POV-ish manner, possibly paraphrase the quote or remove it.

• With all due respect, if a critic says something like that about your first release, it's pretty notable. The notes in this discography also substitute for the lack of individual articles on the albums, and so they have both evaluation (all from RS, I may add) and information.

• Yes, but the section is for notes about the album not critical reception.--Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• It says "notes"--and many of them have "critical reception" (which is evaluation). If Leonard Feather gives five stars to an album of Evans songs recorded by a string quartet, is that not a "note about the album" and an evaluation to boot? As I said elsewhere, since there are no individual articles for these albums I tried to collect information from reliable sources, and many of these notes are reviews, yes. Now, if you want me to go through and take all of that information out, that would be sad. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

References

• Billboard, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, TIME, Chicago Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Boston Globe, The Independent, and Washington Post are all literary published works, they need to be in italics.--Truco 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• See Dabomb's comments above. However, "literary published works" they are not. I've moved all the newspapers but not Billboard, since their website is not called "Billboard," and the same goes for a few other websites

• You're right, Nielsen is the publisher but the work is from Billboard magazine, which need italics. So Billboard goes in the work field. --Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• The work is from Billboard magazine, it is not Billboard magazine. But I'll go ahead and change it. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This isn't really a requirement, but can something be done about all of those redlinks? Since they are a notable group, it makes sense that all of their albums should have pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I was told (above) that I should wikilink the most important albums (kind of difficult to decide): "Can you link all notable works, not just the ones that have articles? There is nothing wrong with red links." So I did. I've gotten to work on that, but I don't want to create a ton of stubs; something like this one, Kronos Quartet Performs Alfred Schnittke: The Complete String Quartets, took quite a bit of time. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Here, Winter Was Hard, is another one. And another: Kronos Quartet Plays Sigur Rós. You see, I'm on it! Drmies (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with redlinks. Per WP:RED, "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • One more redlink gone: Terry Riley: Cadenza on the Night Plain. That took hours! Drmies (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Contemporary classical music that was founded by Harrington? The opening sentence is also a long snake. Solve this ambiguity problem by splitting with a semicolon and making two related statements.
• "others' releases": releases by other artists? groups? "similar groups"? Unsure.
• "The quartet's music is released on Nonesuch Records since 1985"—wrong tense.

The opening indicates that the whole lead needs a proper copy-edit. It's short, so surely there are word-nerds who are willing. I agree with Scorpion that the red links are obstructive. If you want a wishlist of articles, at least write stubs for them and there's the next mini project to shepherd them towards post-stub status. Unusual for international date format to be used for a US-base group, but I don't care a toss. Tony (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've rearranged per your desire. I hope the "contributions" bit is more clear now; I appreciate you playing the devil's advocate. The tense in the Nonesuch sentence is in fact correct (I am a word-nerd, professionally). The international date format (from your "toss" I gather you're British) is becoming more and more accepted in the US and is, for instance, recommended by the MLA--thanks for noticing. I've heard different opinions now on the red links; I am inclined to agree with you, but I'm simply trying to follow orders here. Maybe I'll just find a middle way and remove half of them, and I'll write a few more stubs over the next few days. The problem with stubs, though, is that it lessens the likelihood of such an article being eligible for DYK status (five days from creation, an almost biblical measure), and after I got one for Terry Riley: Requiem for Adam I've become greedy for more. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose Caption does not capitalise "quartet" per other uses of the name. Consistency please. OK. Also, and this is a guess, Warszawa is Warsaw in English? Could we use the English name (assuming I'm correct of course!)? Yes it is. Yes we can. "...as one critic phrased it in..." - prefer something like "... as one critic noted in...". OK. Perhaps worth emphasising that the 1998 score for Dracula was actually for a very much older movie? "Silent movie" would suggest that, but OK. "...have ranked on the Billboard charts;[3] the 1992 album Pieces of Africa reached #1 in the Top World Albums chart.[4]..." perhaps just a personal thing but the semicolon (to me) kind of implies a run-on with relevance to the previous clause. There's no clear connection between the Billboard result and the Top World Albums chart. Maybe that's personal; a semicolon separates independent clauses, which is what these are. Changed "Billboard charts" to "various Billboard charts"; individual entries (in "notes") identify which charts. Notes aren't necessarily notes, some of them seem to be selections of criticisms. Be clear about what this column is used for. Those are notes too, in my opinion. Note=short piece of information. Order citations numerically, e.g. turn [20][21][7] into [7][20][21]. Check other instances. OK. I have nothing but time. "...for the Quartet..." - why is this particular instance capitalised while other instances aren't? "...proceeds of all sales to go to ..." a tense change here. Other notes were in the past tense. "...composers incl. Carlos Paredes..." no need to suddenly start abbreviating words. Many, many redlinked albums, but not Mugam Sayagi: Music of Franghiz Ali-Zadeh - why not this one? Same with all three compilation albums. Because I was told explicitly (see the discussion above!) that redlinks are fine and that the most notable need to be redlinked. The Mugam Sayagi is not, in my opinion, that notable, though please feel free to argue that it is. I'm just going to go ahead and redlink them all--and next thing you know, someone else is going to complain about the redlinks. Well, soit. For sortable tables, make sure linked items are linked everywhere, e.g. Philip Glass. Once the table is reordered there's no guarantee that the linked version is the first encountered by the reader. OK. Not sure about the sorting by Soundtrack details - e.g. it's sorted by the first name, including individuals - which ordinarily would be sorted by surname... not a blanket fail for me but just think about what we could do to make it sort as "expected"... I don't understand--it's either sorted by year or by (movie) title. Oh, you're talking about contributors. I don't know what to do--the tables I made weren't even sorted in the first place, and chronological is good enough for me. I'll do whatever folks here tell me to do, I guess. Please forgive my ignorance but in ref 31 you have "p. 84ff.." - can you explain what this means?! It means "more than one page"--or "and the following pages", as ff has it. Here, it really means I didn't have all the bibliographical information. Ref 60 needs an en-dash for the page range. Check all others. Will do. I replaced it, but I can't check the others, since my eyes don't see that difference. Dabomb has some kind of bot to do it; maybe they can set that free again on the page. Odd combination of p. and pp. for page ranges. I would hazard a guess it's our inglorious inconsistency between the citation templates, but could you check? I will; chances are that's what it is. I'll check. One of the pp.'s was an error. Our system is inconsistent in some places, in others just f**ed up. Thanks for your comments. Hey, I have yet to hear anyone say anything nice--someone could have commented that this is a discography of 80+ items with with 70+ references, all in templates, many from print sources. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support a very comprehensive list, but we still have a bare URL in ref 6 and a hyphen, instead of a en-dash, in ref 62. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabomb took care of the one (thanks again...!), I took care of the other, and I added two more references for that album. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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