Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2010

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:44, 28 September 2010 [1].

---

List of largest volcanic eruptions

Nominator(s): QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC), ResMar, Avenue (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because it may be the most complete and usable list of its kind anywhere on the internet, and passes WP:Featured list criteria. I should not that the list did not go through a formal peer review (as it is not required to do so), but did go through an extensive informal peer review on my talk page, my sandbox talk page, and the WikiVolc talk page. QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Restarted, old version.
• Director's note I have restarted this nomination because it was growing prohibitively long with commentary, and the consensus was unclear. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

*Prose/lead: As a novice to the subject, I think the lead is excellent. Comprehensiveness: Obviously this can never be a complete list, so I would defer to the three experts on this point. Structure: Very good. Style: I still question whether a better image could be found, but it's certainly not a deal breaker. Stability: Whether or not the content of this can be considered stable will largely depend on the outcome of this discussion. Although long-winded, the previous discussion and editing pattern was constructive, and there is no reason to assume that won't continue. Summary: I'll check that the references back up the prose, and do a little bit of random sampling for factual accuracy in the tables. Assuming no problems there I'm close to supporting, but will wait until there is consensus from the experts that the list is as comprehensive as can reasonably be expected. --WFC-- 00:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I wonder if this image (or a more readable version) might be a better lead image than the current one. Two of the four eruptions on the left are in our list.; Mt St Helens is the smallest of the three on the right. --Avenue (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC) ResMar has put it in, and I've replaced it with a more readable version (at full size). --Avenue (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, on the basis that the specific issues in this post will be easy to deal with. As a novice I'm happy that everything provided in the tables is explained before I get to it, so from that perspective the prose is fine. Although a co-nom, I strongly anticipate that Avenue will ensure the prose is improved from the perspective of people with background knowledge, and therefore have no worries on that front. Experts would probably be more concerned with the comprehensiveness and reliability of the raw data. There is consensus that this is as comprehensive as it can be, and I'm happy with that. We could do with a bit more information on ref 45, and perhaps an explanation that the speaker in ref 30 was working for the USGS. That just leaves ref 24, but I guess there's simply nothing to add there. Criteria 6 clearly isn't an issue at all. I've filled in the alt parameter for the lead diagram. I could have done proper alt text, but I don't see what discussing cuboids and spheres would have added. There should also be some proper alt text for the volcano image though, and some sort of text in the alt parameter of the map, so that someone who cannot see the map is receiving a similar level of information. --WFC-- 03:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've added alt text for the volcano photo and the map. --Avenue (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've expanded our citations in refs 45 and 30, and cited another source to back up ref 24 (the journal article it used as a source). --Avenue (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The page has improved a lot, especially in comprehensiveness, but I don't think it's there yet. I'm hopeful that we can bring it into line with the FL criteria vithin the next week or so, though. Taking the criteria one by one:

1. Prose. I think bigger issues should be addressed before we worry about this.

2. Lead. The lead seems to meander a bit. More importantly it has an out-of-date scope, which needs to be revised now that the page includes a sub-list of large effusive eruptions.

2. Comprehensiveness. This aspect is much improved since the original nom, and is probably good enough.

(a) The page now covers the scope implied by its title (i.e. the largest known eruptions, including effusive ones). I'm not sure how useful the annotations in the Notes column are to readers, but this isn't something I feel strongly about.

(b) The page now sits comfortably as a standalone list.

4. Structure. This page seems very hard to follow, IMO, due to LIPs and effusive eruptions being elided, the consequent inaccuracies in the lead section, and the absence of a clear explanation about how LIPs fit into the topic. It does have sensible section headings and table sort facilities. Unfortunately the DRE/tephra confusion makes the default ordering of the explosive eruptions table misleading in places. I'll raise this latter point on the talk page to begin with, to avoid cluttering up the discussion here.

5. Style. This seems okay at first glance, although it needs a light copyedit to get rid of a couple of minor issues like run-on sentences and capitals inside sentences. I haven't checked the citations. A few images could help a lot, e.g. to illustrate the areas affected by recent examples of explosive and effusive eruptions.

6. Stability. It has changed a lot during the featured list process, but I'm not aware of any edit wars.

I hope I'll have time tomorrow to start helping to address the outstanding issues. By the way, I certainly don't claim to be an expert. --Avenue (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Some concerns now dealt with, and struck out. --Avenue (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More struck out. --Avenue (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that could still be tidied up, like the DRE/tephra ranking issue and the location descriptions, but I think this is now in pretty good shape. --Avenue (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Agree that the list has improved quite a bit. But I still think the list should be renamed List of largest volcanic eruptions, so that it is consistent with other lists (e.g. List of largest buildings in the world).—Chris!_c/t 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, but Dabomb is demanding I build concensus :) ResMar 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also prefer that name to the current one. --Avenue (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, no prob with the name change, as long as we keep the current redirect. I'm just thinking along the lines of likely google searches... QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments: There are some abbreviations in the volcano/eruption column such as "P2O5", "PAV F",... that should be explained in a footnote or so. Pfft, geologists think up all the wierdest names for strata identification and the like. Not sure what to do with it, exactly. ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC) OK, I think I figured out that P2O5 is Phosphorus pentoxide. If it is too weird, it is fine with me to leave it out. However, I am not happy with the first tables' columns because it is not always clear which names refer to a volcano and which to an eruption. Sometimes there are "/" separating the two, but not always. This should be made more clear. bamse (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Will look into it. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Not sure if you changed anything. For entries that don't have a "/", I am still not sure if it is a volcano or an eruption. Also, what is the difference between long and short dash ("Guarapuava —Ventura" vs. "Sana'a Ignimbrite – Tephra 2W63" for instance)? bamse (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I have removed the weird prenames (not needed anyway, in hidden if you want it), and also standardized the dashes and "/" to —. Cheers, ResMar 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Should the "Date" column be renamed to "Age"? Done. ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Sorting of the date columns does not work. It's geology: numbers go from 20,000 to 200 million. Sorting almost never works automatically. Will add keys soon. ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Added sortkeys to the biggest concern, explosive eruptions ages. Will add them to the effusive eruptions list and work out locations later. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Works now, thanks. bamse (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC) There is some inconsistency in the "Location" entries. Sometimes the state/country is mentioned and sometimes not. Please make it uniform. It would be more useful if this column sorted as "Country-name Sublocation-name" instead of "Sublocatoin-name Country-name". Will look into it. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The biggest difficulty I see with making the "Location" entries uniform is that we know the location of some eruptions much better than others. For some, the caldera is identified, but for others, we just have a vast expanse of tuff, spread over two continents and several countries. I don't see a nice way to express this uniformly. --Avenue (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC) OK. bamse (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Unify the heading of the 4th column among the three tables. Done. Note the thousands/millions scale difference between the first/second and third lists. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 4th column sorting is broken (at least) in the third table. That's cause someone wrote "at least" there :) ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Surely we should write "at least" (or some equivalent) if that's what the cited source says. Getting our table to sort nicely is a secondary issue. --Avenue (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Fixing, see above. Largely a non-issue now but needs some tweaking. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) If it does not sort (as it seems to be the case at the moment), make the column "unsortable" like the "Notes" and "Refs" columns not to give the wrong impression of sortability. bamse (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Now sorting okay. --Avenue (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC) bamse (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks. bamse (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Support, after all my comments have been (patiently) addressed. bamse (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no big issues with the suggestions above, and welcome anyone to change them, as I have gotten bogged down with real life lately. I will do what I can, which is not much. As far as expert agreement, I think what Avenue addresses above is quite appropriate, and once these changes are made, it should be fine. We have had an epic debate over the presentation of this list, but it has been civil, and no edit warring has taken place... we have, for the most (99%) part, gradually come to an agreement. The name issue I thought was previously decided, but again, any consensus to change the name is fine. I think the current name is fine (since many, MANY FL do not start with "List of") with the "List of" redirect. If a change is agreed upon, that is fine, but I believe we had this discussion, and more people wanted it to stay the way it is. OK, if there is something specific anyone needs me to do, I am happy to (try to) help, and a talk message to me would be welcome. Otherwise, I will pitch in as I can, but I think the list is, in general, in great shape, much better than my initial draft. QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 00:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gimmie a bit of time and I will handle it for you. Sucks about your rl commitments; I'm currently enjoying a 4-day break myself, but once it gets back to serious schoolwork, my time here will be distinctly limited :( ResMar 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nt: Most of the attached classifications to the list are largly useless and add a lot of space. I've hidden them bar removal. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Avenue, I think you've done enough now to get a conom on this :) ResMar 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say no. :) --Avenue (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Annnndd done :) ResMar 23:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a non-essential suggestion: Did you consider moving the paragraphs that explain what "Explosive eruptions","Effusive eruptions" and "Large igneous provinces" are from the lead to their respective sections (i.e. in front of each table)? bamse (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth trying. I've done it, and added a couple more images. --Avenue (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article has moved in leaps and bounds (I certainly wouldn't have nominated it in such an unprepared state...), and this discussion is wholeheartidly helping the process, but can we get a little bit of voting action...? At the end of the day it's the !votes that count, after all ;) ResMar 01:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold yer horses, Anne Robinson.  ;) I'll try to take a good read through it by Tuesday. Courcelles 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The last thing I want to get right now is de ja vu. ResMar 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Towards oppose I did not go in detail through the list but when the article starts with "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries. + This is a list of the world's largest known volcanic eruptions." I am not very hopeful with it. A featured list should be essentially complete, but having such a banner implies it is clearly not close to it. Then, having "this is a [insert title of list here]" further adds to the level of unprofessionalism. Plus, the sentence suggests that the list might also include non-Earth eruptions. 86.123.16.86 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are IPs allowed to vote in FAC nominations? Anyhow, the reason that the {{dynamic list}} template is used is because this article is esentially incomplete. For the one part there is no divident; what is "a large eruption?" Secondly, there are plenty of articles that use the template, for example List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian - Emperor seamount chain. This is because in some cases no clear line can be drawn; a constantly evolving science and advancing technologies allow us to discover more and more about the Earth's history, and in many cases much more detailed studies are needed to understand them. For some, the complete area and range is not even known. ResMar 20:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the offending statement. ResMar 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the idea that acknowledging incompleteness is unprofessional. It is much more professional to explain the extent and reasons for incompleteness than to pretend something is more complete than it really is. I'd agree that that template can seem too glib, but I think we discuss the reasons why this list is incomplete in enough detail later on.

Why do you think "the world's largest known eruptions" suggests that extraterrestrial eruptions might be included? I think it is clear from the context that the world we are speaking about is Earth. --Avenue (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Our knowledge of extraterrestrial volcanism slim, of their eruptive areas nonexistant. If such a page was made it would go on List of largest volcanic eruptions on Io etc. ResMar 21:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Our knowledge of extraterrestrial eruptions is slim, yes, but we do have some idea about volcanism. We could perhaps add a comment near the LIP list about the relative size of Olympus Mons, the lunar maria, and the resurfacing of Venus. --Avenue (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's more fitting we focus on Earth; the article is obvious Earth-centered. I never really thought of extraterrestrial volcanism, and we shouldn't when we write these articles; they'de better be on seperate pages imo. ResMar 02:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

HELLO? ANYONE THERE? ResMar 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I agree that earthly eruptions should be the primary focus. But I think a "List of extra-terrestrial eruptions" sounds interesting, and the IP has a point that only focusing on Earth is a form of systemic bias :) Sandman888 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A good idea for a new disclaimer: "This list focuses only on Earth features; extraterrestrial features are listed seperate." Speaking of which, I really want to write a extraterrestial volcano article: it would be fun :) ResMar 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments (all above is a little TLDR for me, so here's an objective review based on hitting it fresh) Would prefer to see you explain what a volcanic eruption was before you tell me facts and figures about ash produced etc. I've added a sentence along these lines. --Avenue (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I think the lead image is designed to turn people off. No offence but I would like to see a brilliant eruption photo here instead. Releveant photographs are located in the sections below. The image provides extremely important context supporting the text. Also, look at Mt. St. Helens and see how tiny it was =) ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC) The lead image would not encourage me to read on. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I've added a photo of Pinatubo's 1991 eruption, the biggest eruption that we have a photo of. I think the diagram is very informative, and is worth keeping, but I agree it's probably not the best lead image for a general audience. It's colours are a bit muted, too, which doesn't help. I'll have a go at punching it up soon. --Avenue (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Diagram now replaced with darkened version. --Avenue (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I know ejecta leads to a dab which you probably can't do much about, but perhaps include a note to clarify what type of "ejecta" you're talking about. In the general sense. ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Have you noted that? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I've now replaced "ejecta" with "tephra" (which is briefly defined earlier). --Avenue (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC) " In comparison, the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens produced only 1 km3 (0.2 cu mi) of material,[4] and the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, the largest eruption in recent history, produced 160 km3 (38 cu mi) of volcanic deposits." while these comparisons are (I'm sure) fascinating, you don't go anyway to explaining their relevance to (me) a non-expert. As a comparison to the massive eruptive scales below? It's a bad misconception that the Mt. St. Helens eruption was a large one; it was actually very small (not small small, but small). 1 km3 of material is pretty easy to imagine in ones head; the bigger figures (millions of km3!) are not =) ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I've changed the text a bit to try to make the comparison clearer. --Avenue (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Your lead caption mentions "supereruption" - it's unclear what this is, from both the image or the list. Avenue removed it. ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Yep, it didn't seem to add enough to be worth explaining. --Avenue (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Would prefer to see "Age" with same d.p. and right-aligned so it's easy to compare row to row. d.p.? ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Decimal places. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC) "~132.000" does not read well at all. Alignment would be good, but not at this cost. --Avenue (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, I've managed to get the ages to align fairly well without adding zeroes (to avoid showing spurious precision). --Avenue (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Volume col, might as well just have the biggest as 8,600 and smallest as 1,000 to prevent the ugly lack of sig fig throughout the column. Plus it makes the col title a little neater. Done. Please note however that the other two are in Ma, so it would probably be best not to change them to avoid confusion. ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC) No, only the LIPs are measured in millions of km³. I've changed the volumes in effusive eruptions list to km³ for consistency with the explosive eruptions list. --Avenue (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC) "1.509 [n 4]" no space between number and note please. Done. ResMar 01:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC) " (map in German)" - perhaps link to German language? Done. --Avenue (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 27: is " 8713–1732" correct? Fixed. ResMar 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 35 page range needs an en-dash. Em, it is an en-dash...? ResMar 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Retrieval dates need to be consistently formatted, either DMY or ISO... Done. Things had sprung up since my last ref check :) ResMar 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 52 has pp50–9 while other page ranges repeat the full page number, e.g. 343–364, so 52 should pp50–59. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC) That actually referred to paper 50-9 (i.e. the 9th paper in session 50), not a page range. I've changed the citation to use {{cite conference}} instead, and to give the actual page number. --Avenue (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - this looks much better now—Chris!_c/t 02:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Looks a lot better than when I commented on the article's talk page in August. Volcanoguy 05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:44, 28 September 2010 [2].

---

1992 College Baseball All-America Team

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the same quality as the 1991 College Baseball All-America Team, which was promoted a couple months ago.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note Removed from FLC list; please wait until your first nomination (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans/archive1) receives significant support before relisting. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Three support and no opposes now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 22:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments "he 1992 All-American class featured 3 Major League Baseball All-Stars, 2 Olympians, one Major League Baseball record holder and a 2-time World Series champion" -MOSNUM = three, two, one, two-time... O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the refs. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) You have a template whose main article doesn't exist. This is borderline grounds for TFD'ing the template. I was just going to change the link to go to college baseball and All-American, but I created an article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Accomplishment section seems a little weak given a number of these guys seem to have awards. Do you want the last paragraph of the WP:LEAD in the accomplishments section? Do you want me to talk about other collegiate awards such as Golden Spikes Award , Rotary Smith Award], College World Series Most Outstanding Player and Dick Howser Trophy?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I'm saying that your "Notes" column pretty much relates to accomplishments of the various players. These could be discussed, expanded upon so the prose doesn't have a weak feel about it (which, in my opinion, it does). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I have moved the paragraph into the accomplishments section. The only other thing I could really do to beef it up is add the four awards above when relevant. I will do so now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 08:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "Various organizations selected All-American lists of the best players for the 1991 NCAA Division I college baseball season." Is this left-over form the 1991 list? Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC) These are only the Division I players, right? Perhaps should be made more explicit. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC) The refs had some inconsistent date formatting; I just fixed it with the script. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Looks like pretty good work, all things considered. Courcelles 07:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 08:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments – In Accomplishments, I see multiple misspellings of Jason Varitek's last name as Veritek (three in the section's first paragraph). Thanks--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC) "Hammonds led the National League in fielding with 1.000 fielding percentage...". Add "a" before the number. Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Comma needed for the number in "1000 hits". O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC) "Both Chris Roberts and McConnell both played Baseball at the 1992 Summer Olympics." The struck word is an unnecessary repeat, and Baseball should be lower-case. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Also de-capitalize Champion in "World Series Champion". thanks. The general source and reference 6 (the same link) should have PDF indications. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Look good to me. Harrias ^talk 09:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:44, 28 September 2010 [3].

---

List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK)

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Back from a wikibreak I was delighted to find that the 1980s list was promoted. I can now present the next in the series for your delictation. Thanks in advance for all comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "1952 when Percy Dickins from NME" NME? Help for the non music folks? Done (although NME is the name of the wiki page) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Should the green cells have another symbol? They have a better equivalent, each green cell has an explatory footnote. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC) "Artists Frankie Laine, Guy Mitchell and Elvis Presley were the most successful act of the decade" Acts, rather? Done "Each had four number-ones." Combine with prior sentence? Done Note 1; "One should note that," Why not just get on with noting the fact, without this awkward intro? Done Page for ref 4? Done Courcelles 21:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I believe I've addressed each item. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Regarding the first comment, my main issue was that NME wasn't even wikilinked for context. Courcelles 22:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Disc nor Melody Maker are linked in the lead, why not? If they're not notable enough for a link then should their "opinion" even be considered here? Ah yes, that is because I was hoping to have "...list of number one" pages for them like Record Mirror. Now fixed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC) "successful artists of the decade having" we've moved into the 60s in the previous para, so perhaps "of the 1950s having"? Frankie Lane is overlinked in the lead. Done "for the most (non-consecutive) weeks " why is non-consec in parentheses? Because if someone asked for the record for the most weeks it would be that, however it isn't the record for the most consecutive weeks (Bryan Adams). Putting it directly as part o the sentence may read like there is something that has more consecutive weeks. I could remove the parenthesis material all together I suppose,would that be better? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC) It's no big deal for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC) I understand the need for repeated headings throughout the table, but a single line "section" is odd when you re-order the table. No real advice here, just an observation. Martino's caption - needs 9->nine and a full stop. Done Bill Haley's caption needs a full stop. Done Ditto Cliff Richard. Done Green singles, while they have [nb], this isn't in the key so you may fall foul of WP:ACCESS. Fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Believe I've addressed them all. As for the caption full stops I thought I'd finally cracked the "sentence" vs "extended nominal groups" distinction. Obviously not! (PS. I hope you light the padding on the footnote numbers to keep them in the centre, I was quite proud of that). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• "asking for a list the 10 best-selling songs." Missing "of".
• There's an apparent misspelling of Frankie Laine's last name in the third paragraph. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. I appreciate you taking a look and good spots. Those were two fairly trivial errors that slipped my attention. Thank you Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I found no problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:44, 28 September 2010 [4].

---

Robert Bathurst filmography

Nominator(s): Bradley0110 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The filmography and list of stage roles of an actor you have probably never heard of.

I've been working on this list for the last month or so, mainly to get it up to WP:ACCESS's standards; all tables are sortable, the one image has alt text, and body text is not overlinked. Some may notice that there are gaps in the theatre table. This is because there are no reliable sources that cover Bathurst's early roles (since he was just a jobbing actor back then who didn't warrant much coverage). However, the section does fulfill section 3a of WIAFL (...providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items...).

I would hope that other editors agree with me that it fulfills the other FL criteria too. :) Bradley0110 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment: It seems redundant to have identical section titles as well as table titles. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, AB. User:Jack Merridew explained that it is a feature of WP:ACCESS. As I understand it, the section headings introduce the section for a screen reader, then be followed by prose information within the section (though in the case of this list, all of the information is contained in the lead), then be followed by an introduction to the table in the form of the table header. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that does make sense. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I found no problems. Ruslik_Zero 08:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments "spread over almost 30 years" (personal thing) would prefer "spanning almost 30 years" "unbroadcast" whoa, odd word. Do you mean "unbroadcasted"? Either way, it's ugly. "the Black Adder series" this links to "The Black Adder" so be accurate. "Throughout the rest of the 1980s, ..." this is the first mention of any date at all. Perhaps you need to add a date for his debut, so this makes more sense? "TV series" would prefer "television series". Why doesn't Twenty-One have an article? " role of prime minister " maybe reinforce it was British Prime Minister (there are many worldwide, after all). "1 episode"->"One episode". Plenty of these. Split references into "specific" and "general" so you don't have a nasty juxtaposition of bullet points and auto-numbered refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Reply to The Rambling Man "spread over almost 30 years" (personal thing) would prefer "spanning almost 30 years" That sounds better, so I've changed it "unbroadcast" whoa, odd word. Do you mean "unbroadcasted"? Either way, it's ugly. To me, having the prefix un- and the suffix -ed looks even uglier(!) so I've changed it to "never-broadcasted". "the Black Adder series" this links to "The Black Adder" so be accurate. Dropping the article from the title is grammatically accurate here (consider "when the The Black Adder series was commissioned...") "Throughout the rest of the 1980s, ..." this is the first mention of any date at all. Perhaps you need to add a date for his debut, so this makes more sense? Yes, I've added the date of the Black Adder pilot. "TV series" would prefer "television series". Good spot! I tend to use "television series" on first instance then "TV series" thereafter but it seems "television series" didn't appear at all here. Why doesn't Twenty-One have an article? I don't know. " role of prime minister " maybe reinforce it was British Prime Minister (there are many worldwide, after all). Added Blank cells are a no-no for me. Put something in there, even if it's a note. Can you suggest anything to go in there? "1 episode"->"One episode". Plenty of these. Please see point one of WP:ORDINAL Split references into "specific" and "general" so you don't have a nasty juxtaposition of bullet points and auto-numbered refs. I've split the section but not with "specific" and "general", which is something that doesn't appear in any mainstream citation style. Thanks for your comments, TRM! Bradley0110 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Blank cells are a no-no for me. Put something in there, even if it's a note. Can you suggest anything to go in there? If you don't know what role he played, perhaps a "Unknown" with a note. For "no description", perhaps an em-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for getting back so fast. I've filled out the description boxes in the film section (I'm lost for a reason for why I hadn't done it before). Regarding the empty theatre boxes, putting "Unknown" would be factually inaccurate, since the roles and directors are known by someone, just not me. I've added the comment "Some data relating to Bathurst's early theatrical career are not held in published works, though may exist in individual theatre company archives." but I don't know if this sounds a bit wishy-washy to others. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Well, that's much better for me, let's see how everyone else finds it. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I made one minor tweak, but other than that, I don't see any other issues with the article. Good job. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• What is referencing the lists? Sandman888 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The five unnumbered references at the bottom of the article (the Footlights archives, the British Film Institute, the Stage archive and the Scottish Theatre Archive). I haven't used inline citations in the tables simply because of the number of different sources used for each entry could be confusing and potentially more difficult for verification, particularly in the theatre table, which could potentially have one source for the play, another for the character, another for the director and many for the performance history. However I have used inline citations to reference roles and performances not contained in any of those references, such as the Botham venues and the scheduled performance in Blithe Spirit. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • But to add to that (and further reveal my ignorance of Wiki-coding), I have moved the five bottom references into the table headings to hopefully make it clearer[5] (and eliminate a clash of opinion with The Rambling Man over "general" and "specific" reference labels). Bradley0110 (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• weak support weak because I'm new to the filmography format. Cant find anything missing here. Sandman888 (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 24 September 2010 [6].

---

Hugo Award for Best Semiprozine

Nominator(s): PresN 16:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Back again, with the Hugo Award for Best Novel Novella Novelette Short Story Related Work Professional Magazine Semiprozine, the category for semi-professional magazines. As always, comments from previous FLCs have been incorporated into this list. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support You've turned these into a turnkey operation at this point. Hugo Awards FT in the future? Courcelles 22:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, though I'm a bit stuck on the "Best <person>" ones at the moment. --PresN 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - There are no disambiguation links and Checklinks gives it a clean bill of health. The prose is well written, succinct and to the point. From my perspective, it meets all the criteria for a Featured List. Great job as usual. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Having seen all these lists, beginning to wonder if "World Science Fiction Society" is notable enough for an article now? After all, why have a bunch of FLs about awards given by a non-notable organisation? FYI: World Science Fiction Society redirects to Worldcon. Ironically, the Worldcon convention and the Hugo Award are probably more notible than the society which holds the convention and presents the award. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC) "and which has published four " seems an odd tense to me. But I am tired. Should it be "which had published four" (as the previous clause said "was given each year..") "These five works on the ballot are the five most-nominated " do you absolutely need to repeat "five" here? "Note that Thrust and Quantum are the same magazine" a bit picky but couldn't you expand on this a touch to say one became the other, or describe why two names are given to one publication? Ref 11 needs an en-dash for the page range. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Done. --PresN 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as always. Sandman888 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 24 September 2010 [7].

---

List of Arizona Diamondbacks first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Courcelles 04:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I present to you... a fairly boring set of picks. Sorry, but that's the truth here, I had to look pretty hard to find anything interesting to say about these guys. I've tried, though, so I hope you enjoy it, or at least review it so we can push this FT through and stop having these at FLC after October. *grin* Courcelles 04:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Only issue I saw was a typo, which I fixed myself. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments " Five players taken in the first round have been shortstops, with two each taken at first base, third base, and the outfield." call me British but that reads oddly to me as it kind-of implies two outfielders as well. It'd be clearer as "two each at first base and third base, and one in the outfield" (and this way you avoid repeating "taken" as well). It's supposed to imply that- they have taken two Outfielders. (2003 and 2009) Again, forgive me, but that reads still as if you have two each at first base, third base and the outfield, which adds to six... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I think we're having a US/UK problem here. There have been two first basemen, two third basemen, and two outfielders. What you're saying it reads like is what it is supposed to read like. The five shortstops are entirely separate. Courcelles 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Ahah, so the Five and the subsequent two, two, two are independent of one another. It's confusing to a non-baseball expert. Perhaps a minor re-write so it couldn't imply (to us non-experts) that the first clause is related to the second (and following)? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Aaah, now we're getting somewhere. Read it now. Courcelles 19:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Bingo! The joys of "English"! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You have "Phoenix, Arizona" all linked up to just Phoenix, and then you need to link Arizona some time later. This seems a little incongruous to me. Fixed. Started because our article on the city is at Phoenix, Arizona, but it didn't work that well. "Sergio Santos (2002) was drafted as a shortstop, but later played as a pitcher." forgive my ignorance but I couldn't easily see where this is sourced. Ref added Ref 3 has a publication date (12/01/08), could be added. Wow, not the thing I'm used to missing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Courcelles 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support and thanks for your patience in getting to the bottom of my very British concerns...! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 24 September 2010 [8].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is another list of National Treasures of Japan. It has been modelled after the featured lists of national treasure paintings, sculptures, temples, shrines, residences, castles and archaeological materials. Unfortunately there are not many (a total of two) pictures of usable pictures of national treasure swords available and more are likely not going to be available in the near future. This is probably due to the fact that many of the swords are owned privately or located in museums where photography is restricted. Furthermore relatively high quality pictures would be necessary to show the differences between the listed blades, which makes the task of finding images even more difficult. For these reasons there is no "Image" column in the tables, unlike in other national treasure of Japan lists. bamse (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Following on the comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 116#Excessive footnote links, I really think the article name should be changed to something along the lines of "List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords)". The use of the hyphen here is rather ambiguous and does not comply with WP:HYPHEN. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, can I just move it to the new name, or would I have to restart the FLC? bamse (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

With an FLC involved, this will be easier if done by an admin. Tell me where you think it ought to go, and either I or Dabomb can move it. Courcelles 09:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The name suggested by Dabomb seems fine: List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords). bamse (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Move complete. Courcelles 10:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. bamse (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – This is an interesting and well written article. The introduction to each list within the article provides excellent background to the list. Although there are a number of red links, in my opinion these are to subjects that are notable and should be written. I used check links to add access dates. I also converted an external link that redirects to a non-redirecting link. Overall, this is excellent list that fully meets all the criteria for a feature list. Great job! --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 02:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

;Comments "The term 'National Treasure' has been used in Japan to denote cultural properties since 1897,[1]" - [1] does not appear to back that statement. Added another reference which is more clear in this respect. "spanning the late Kofun to the Muromachi period" - Missing a from after spanning? Fixed by Truthkeeper88. "museums or held in privately." - Strike the in? Fixed by Truthkeeper88. Goodraise 03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I think all have been addressed. bamse (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC) "During the Yayoi period from about 300 BC to 300 AD, metal casting, and with it the ability to manufacture iron tools and weapons such as knives, axes, swords or spears, was introduced to Japan from Korea and China. Shortly thereafter, Chinese, Korean, and eventually Japanese swordsmiths produced ironwork locally." - This passage confuses me a bit. They acquired the ability to cast iron during the Yayoi period, but they started using it only "shortly thereafter"? I checked the sources again and the correct order of events is: first introduction of iron tools and weapons, then local production of these. I corrected the sentence accordingly. bamse (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC) "During the Yayoi period from about 300 BC to 300 AD, iron tools and weapons such as knives, axes, swords or spears, were introduced to Japan from Korea and China. Shortly thereafter, Chinese, Korean, and eventually Japanese swordsmiths produced ironwork locally." - Does "thereafter" refer to the Yayoi period or to the introduction of the tools and weapons? Goodraise 05:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Reworded: "thereafter"->"after the introduction". bamse (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Reworded again to read: "Shortly after this event...", which is non-ambiguous and sounds better to me. bamse (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC) "Excavated swords are typically 60–70 cm (24–28 in) long." - Could you be more specific on what swords this is referring to? This refers to the swords discovered in tumuli (mentioned in the preceding sentence). Since none of the national treasure swords in this list have been excavated from tumuli, this sentence is not very important. If you think that it is confusing, I'll remove it. It is mainly here for comparison. (Note that four of the five ancient swords in this list fall into that length interval. Though these four have not been excavated, they have a religious purpose just like the tumuli swords.) bamse (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC) "This refers to the swords discovered in tumuli (mentioned in the preceding sentence)." - That's not obvious. If the information is kept, this needs to be made more clear. Goodraise 05:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC) "this sentence is not very important" - If it isn't important, then it should not be in the lead. Perhaps you could put it somewhere else? Goodraise 05:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Good point. I found the value for comparison too low and got rid of the sentence. bamse (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Goodraise 19:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment–no dead external links. Dablinks says there is still a link to the old title, which is now a redirect pointing back here, but I can't find it, even after running the entire article through Special:ExpandTemplates; it might be a server lag issue. Ucucha 09:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Gone now; I guess I was right. Ucucha 09:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I know I've asked this before, but why do we have to have a bunch of squares in the tables (presumeably they are japanese characters, but that doesn't show in IE). I think it's highly confusing and they ought to be moved out of table. If access is truly that important, squares could be in footnote and I believe a warning should be in the top of the article stating something along the line that this article uses japanese characters which might just display as squares etc. Sandman888 (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You want a warning at the top of the article? Aren't the few dozen links to Help:Installing Japanese character sets enough? Goodraise 10:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Which links? Sandman888 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Goodraise is referring to the small superscript "?" created by the nihongo templates. bamse (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To someone who hasn't spent ages on wikipedia, a small hyperlinked question mark is not the most intuitive solution. I doubt my grandfather would even recognize them. Sandman888 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question for the reason of having Japanese in the table. Basically there are two types of reasons:

1. "Signature" column: The signature on the sword is written in Japanese, so in my opinion it is a must to have the original (in Japanese) signature here.
2. "Swordsmith" and "Present location" columns: Japanese text in these columns only appears if there is no wikipedia article for a swordsmith or a museum or other institution. I will happily remove it as wikipedia articles are created for the respective smiths and museums. At present the Japanese text allows to better identify a certain smith or museum/institution. Due to ambiguity in reading of Japanese characters, there are various ways of spelling a certain name in Japanese and in fact there are smiths with the same (English) name that are spelled differently in Japanese. Providing the original name alongside the (English) name helps to avoid ambiguity. Similarly not all museums/institutions have a definite English name and the Japanese names help to clearly identify the locations. bamse (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

An old similar discussion has been archived here. bamse (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How about template:Contains Japanese text? Seems made for this list Sandman888 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Added it. I am neutral towards this particular template. Basically I think it is a good idea to put such warning, but don't really like its layout, especially the look together with right-aligned intro pictures (which are kind of required for FLC). It seems to have been under discussion with a rather negative result, though there are some positive opinions as well. If I remember correctly, this template was removed once by a bot from one of the articles I put it in... bamse (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the spirit of it is good, I can see your layout concerns but that's an argument for improving the template rather than removing it. I fixed the hyperlink in the template per the discussion you linked to (which seemed to be the crux of the debate). Perhaps it should just render the text in italics in the start of the article? Sandman888 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note. In light of the above development, I have asked for input from WT:MOS-JP. Goodraise 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if its always redundant. It is redundant for articles primarly about Japan, its history, culture, religion, etc. An article about word origins that mentions a Japanese word as contributing to modern usage isn't and where the Japanese text is appropriate isn't necessarily redundant there. This article not only is primarily about something Japanese, it says so it the title. common sense should prevail that an article about something in Japan that has squares where one presumes there should be text should lead to the conclusion that if it occurs that person is missing the Japanese text and the ? symobol next to it is there for help in this regard.陣内_Jinnai 21:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think per WP:ACCESS and per elements of the lead, the lead, perhaps, is not the appropriate place for the Japanese text box because the lead has very little Japanese text. I've never had a formatting problem with any of these articles, but if one does exist, and consensus is the add the box, it might be better to add it elsewhere. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine in topics which are not primarily about a Japan-related topic but which happen to have some Japanese in them. However, including it in every article with Japanese in it is excessive and pointless. People viewing topics which are primarily Japanese are going to expect Japanese to be in them, and the box becomes as pointless as the thankfully long-gone spoiler tag. The box simply clutters up the article, especially when the article contains multiple languages and multiple "contains x text" boxes start being added to the article. If someone could make one which far less intrusive and perhaps allowed use of one box with multiple languages specified (perhaps a {{Contains non-latin text}} template?), I might begin to warm up to using it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on these comments, I have removed the "Contains Japanese text" template. bamse (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe's comment seconded (though probably too late to make any difference). -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support (but with the disclosure that I've made copyedits to the article). Although all the lists in this series are impressive, I find this one to be particularly comprehensive, and meets the criteria for feature list. I made some suggestions for improvement to Bamse before the list was submitted for review; the fixes have been incorporated, and I'm happy to support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Question Why all those {{nihongo|...}} templates? (Why not instead have just one {{nihongo|...}} for the first Japanese script in any major section, and a less obtrusive {{nihongo2|...}} template for the rest?) -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure I understand your suggestion. As far as I can see, the nihongo2 template is for the kanji part only. I'd still have romaji and English to put somehow. Also, in which way do you consider the nihongo2 template "less obtrusive"? Are you referring to the nihongo templates in a particular table column or to all nihongo templates? bamse (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Compare (a) "{{nihongo|Tegai Kanenaga|手掻包永|}}" = "Tegai Kanenaga (手掻包永)" and (b) "Tegai Kanenaga ({{nihongo2|手掻包永}})" = "Tegai Kanenaga (手掻包永)". The former adds ^{<a href="/wiki/Help:Installing_Japanese_character_sets" title="Help:Installing Japanese character sets"><span class="t_nihongo_icon" style="color: #00e; font: bold 80% sans-serif; text-decoration: none; padding: 0 .1em;">?</span></a>}. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. Does the additional stuff slow down page loading considerably? From an editor perspective, using the nihongo template is easier, since I don't need to think how to format the kanji/romaji/English. I also like it because it keeps things together: with the nihongo template, it is structurally clear that the three parts (kanji/romaji/English) belong together. If I use the nihongo2 template this is lost. (just like in LaTeX versus MS Word...) I noticed that the nihongo2 template has an option "help=yes". Can we have a "help=no" option for the nihongo template? bamse (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Surely we can't have such an option any time very soon. I don't suppose all this bloat adds up to many bytes by today's standards of graphics-laden (not to mention Flash-dehanced) websites. I see what you mean about structural clarity, but this is only in the Mediawiki preformatting and is lost in the XHTML, where the only useful part (in my view) of the nihongo template is the announcement to the browser that one part is in Japanese script. And you get that with the nihongo2 template. To me, it just looks like clutter: having lots of underlined question marks is rather like linking every single instance of "Japan" or "sword" or "museum". No, the huge drawback of agreeing with me that nihongo2 is preferable is that once you have a great number of nihongo tags then conversion to nihongo2 either requires programming or is a lot of work. I've done the work before but I'm not offering to do it here and I'm certainly not demanding it of you. I was just wondering if there was a reason I'd overlooked (and if there isn't, then nudging you toward nihongo2 in the future). -- Hoary (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for not being demanding (;-). As you wrote, conversion is a lot of work and I'd rather not do that. I will keep nihongo2 in mind for future articles though. If somebody comes up with a script/bot/whatever way to automatically convert the nihongo to nihongo2 templates, I am happy to change it. bamse (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• OK then! -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (based purely on my WP:ACCESS queries, other things are neither here nor there) It's permissible (and encouraged here) to make the lead image bigger. Done. Big enough or too big? bamse (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC) In Safari, the tables in the Statistics section, left one has "National Treasures" left justified, while right-hand one has "National Treasures" right justified. Looks odd. Fixed (both left-aligned now). bamse (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC) "(except for Remarks and Design and material) " ok, I see Remarks, but not "Design and material" It appears in the sword mounting table. Do you think this requires a footnote or inline explanation? bamse (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't see that, I'm okay with the note as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Some Usage notes end in a full stop. Others don't. Any reason? No reason and therefore fixed. bamse (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Be aware of WP:ACCESS when you say that some swords are noted in yellow or green. Not sure what your objection is. Is it (i) the use of color at all, or (ii) the use of words to refer to colors (better to use a legend)? I ran the page through vischeck and the table colors were not a problem, i.e. they could be distinguished in any of the three color vision simulations. bamse (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Also asked about it here. bamse (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC) This is a problem, because anyone who cannot see those colours (screen reader/text-only browser/colour-blind) does not receive the information intended. The simplest solution that occurs to me is to add: "(meibutsu)" to the yellow cells; "(juttetsu)" to the green cells; "(goban kaji)" to the blue cells. A legend won't help the visually-impaired if the colour is the only way that the relevant cell is identified. You could try a group note (<ref group="...) in each cell and link it to an explanation, but I still think a little extra text in each cell is a cleaner solution. --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I added a non-color key (†, *, ‡) to the tables which makes it understandable for anybody who cannot see colors. I went with the short key solution instead of the full-text solution suggested by RexxS, because I think that this list already is quite massive and I don't want to add much more text to it. This seems to be a common practice in other featured and not-featured lists as well. bamse (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC) OK. We should just check the characters (†, ‡) are red correctly by a modern screen reader. I suggest to show those signs to user:Graham87 and ask him if his fairly recent version of JAWS (screen reader) get it right or read it as a question mark. We never know with those unicode characters. Regards, Dodoïste (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Based on his feedback, I changed the daggers to ^, #. bamse (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks Bamse. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Can you just check that saying "marked in red" in a map also meets WP:ACCESS? Added alt-text to the image to make it more accessible. Also the information encoded in the red color (i.e. which provinces are associated with the five traditions) is present in the prose just next to the image. Is this sufficient? I don't mind changing the color or otherwise modifying the map, but don't know how to find out if it is difficult to read for some people. bamse (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC) The alt-text taken together with the caption is what will be reported by a screen reader (alternative text). In this case, "Centers of sword production were located in central and western Japan. The provinces associated with the five traditions: Yamato, Bizen, Yamashiro, Mino and Sagami are located in central Japan. Centers of sword production during the old sword (kotō) period. Provinces related to the Five Traditions are marked in red." would at least be understandable. It is unlikely that all of the information available in a map can be communicated textually, but the rest of the article goes into detail, so even without images, a reader will have lost relatively little information. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC) "Curvature: 2.7 cm (1.1 in)" vs "Curvature: 2.9 cm (1.1 in)" one of these must be incorrect. Check all. Actually, rounding to one significant digit, this is right. 2.7 cm is 1.0629 in, 2.9 cm is 1.1417 in. Both round to 1.1; so it would be worth adding another significant digit to the conversion if the template will do so. Courcelles 20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe that's why when you get to such small measurements it should be to more than 1 d.p... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I know. (The nominator needs to use to sigfig parameter of the convert template to solve this, because it which does look odd.) Courcelles 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Honestly I don't know how to deal with this. To me it is natural to have one significant digit for both cm and in and I don't have a problem with this issue. I am happy to add "sigfig", but to which of the many lengths should I add it? bamse (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC) My issue comes from the idea that you have at least three different metric measures than translate to one imperial measure. How that's resolved is up to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC) This is due to the fact that an inch is larger than a cm (and that there is some weird/non-power-of-ten conversion factor between the two). My problem with providing additional digits is the following. The sources provide lengths in "cm" with one digit which means that these lengths have a precision of ±0.05cm. If I provided an inch-length with two digits, such as "1.14 in.", a precision of ±0.005 in (±0.01cm) would be implied, i.e., the precision would have increased miraculously just by using mathematics (and not a better ruler). Let me know if this answer satisfies you. If not I'll add "sigfig". bamse (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Some notes start with capital letters, some don't. Any reason? No reason and therefore fixed. bamse (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC) "Its overall length is 109 (cm?)." not sure you need that ? link, and there appear to be several others. Fixed two occurences (hopefully all). bamse (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Jargon 10 vs 11, why the difference in italics/bold for same words? Typo. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Same for 35 and 37. Fixed. bamse (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Several Japanese sources which don't have language=Japanese such as 49 and 50. Check all. Checked and fixed all (quite a lot). bamse (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. I fixed the obvious stuff but am still unsure on what to do about "ACCESS" and cm->in. I'd be happy if you could steer me in the right direction. bamse (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Added a key (see above) to address the color/access problem. bamse (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Here are a few concerns which may need addressing. I apologize if they have been brought up already as I only skimmed the comments made above.

• In the Ancient swords (jokotō) section, a shrine is listed as "Komura Shrine (小村神社, omura jinja), Hidaka, Kōchi". If the shrine is called "Omura Jinja" in Japanese, why is it listed here as "Komura Shrine"? Also in the same section, Shitennō-ji is linked twice in a row in the table.

• Fixed double-linking to Shitennō-ji. Refs 14 and 36 have the name of the shrine as "Komura", while the Japanese wikipedia has it as "Omura". I changed it to "Komura jinja". bamse (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• It would seem that those refs just have the name of the shrine wrong. The train station right by the shrine is named Omura-Jinja-Mae Station[9], and shrine itself refers to itself as "Omura Jinja". I would recommend changing them to "Omura Shrine" and including a note explaining the contradicting romanizations. It seems silly to use an incorrect name simply because two sources couldn't be bothered to get it right. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Changed it back to "Omura". The strange thing is that one of the references appears to be by a Japanese author and the other by a Japanese co-author. Could there be an alternative spelling? bamse (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, 小村 can be read both "Omura" and "Komura", so you often have to research how it really is read. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• In the Yamato Province section, is there a reason why The Society for Preservation of Japanese Art Swords is redlinked twice in a row in the table? In fact, there are many instances of multiple linkings to the same article (or not-yet-existing article). Should some of these links be removed or the number of them reduced to avoid overlinking?

• Per this, "each row should stand on its own", so multiple linking is permitted unless it occurs in the same table row. bamse (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, that makes sense then. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• There seems to be inconsistency in redlinking (at least to me). Some swordsmiths are redlinked many times, while others are not linked to at all. Is there a reason why some are linked (even if they are redlinked) and others are not?

• I linked the more famous/important smiths, i.e. those that are more likely to get an article on en-wiki soon. As far as I understand that is how red-linking should be done. For the same reason I did not red-link some of the locations such as "Tsuchiura City Museum". (also see: MOS (red links)) bamse (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. I think that if any of the smiths have a reasonably-developed article on jawiki, we should include a redlink here. Otherwise, I'm fine with having them unlinked. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Capitalization in the {{nihongo}} templates is not consistent with WP:MOS-JA. The capitalization of words should be the same as if those words were in English, i.e., proper nouns should be capitalized. For example, The Society for Preservation of Japanese Art Swords (日本美術刀剣保存協会, zaidanhōjin nippon bijutsu tōkenhozonkyōkai) should be written The Society for Preservation of Japanese Art Swords (日本美術刀剣保存協会, Zaidanhōjin Nippon Bijutsu Tōkenhozonkyōkai).

• Done. Capitalized (hopefully) all such instances. bamse (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• This list seems to have fewer images than the previous national treasure lists you've created. Is this due to lack of images to include, or some other reason?

• It is due to a lack of images. Please have a look at the very top of this page for the reason. bamse (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, that makes sense. No worries, then. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside of the above, I think this is a very well done list and I would support it becoming a featured list once these items are addressed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I addressed all of them. bamse (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I Support this candidacy now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Tachi occurs in the lead a few times, but is linked only the second time used. How about linking only the first time used. Good question! The reason for this linking is, that (in the lead) the second (and later) "tachi" are different to the first "tachi". The second and later tachi are the same as described in the tachi article. The first tachi does not have a wikipedia article yet, but should be covered in the chokutō article. Instead of linking the first tachi, I added a footnote: These tachi of the ancient sword (jokotō) period should not be confused with later tachi of the old sword (kotō) period. The former, spelled 大刀, are Chinese style straight chokutō, while the latter, spelled 太刀, are curved blades., to explain this. If you want to know more about these tachi, have a look at Talk:Chokutō#Same as tachi (大刀)?, but (warning) it might be confusing. bamse (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Very thorough explanation, thank you :) Jujutacular talk 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC) "In fact one of the Imperial Regalia of Japan is a sword" - perhaps a comma after 'in fact'? Added comma. bamse (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular talk 14:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. I replied to both of your comments. bamse (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Extremely thorough list on the topic, great work. Jujutacular ^talk 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Fascinating read, meets the standards. Courcelles 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 24 September 2010 [10].

---

1973 NBA Draft

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 01:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) & User:Martin tamb

We are nominating this for featured list because it's up to FL standard. It failed the first time due to the lack of comments.—Chris!_c/t 01:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wow. It has been here for 12 days. And still there is no comments.—Chris!_c/t 19:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments I haven't mentioned this before, but wikilinking "draft" twice within a couple of sentences to different articles is a little odd. Removed I have no idea what an "underclassman" is. Linked to Wikitionary "comprising 211 players selected." maybe that's common USEng, but in my Queen's English, I'd prefer "comprising the selection of 211 players." Fixed "for 13 seasons and won 5 Italian league titles and 2 Euroleague titles." would prefer "for thirteen seasons and won five ... and two ..." Spelled out except 13. Somewhere on WP:MOSNUM says number larger than 10 doesn't need to spelled out. "which concluded with an induction to t" looked to me like he finished in 1995 and was inducted in 2001, so the "concluded" thing is a little strange for me. Removed What exactly is the information in parentheses? The player trade info or the class level in college.—Chris!c/t 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "After retiring as a player, he went on to coach the Chicago Bulls, the Detroit Pistons and the Washington Wizards." Citation? "He has been selected to three ABA All-Star Games and two NBA All-Star Games." Present tense? Is there any chance he is ever selected to any more? "He played there for 13 seasons and won five Italian league titles and two Euroleague titles. After retiring as a player, he coached Olimpia Milano and Benetton Treviso, leading the latter to 2 Italian league titles." MOSNUM problems here. All of these numbers have the same "quality"; when comparing like to like, you ignore the rule of 10 and make everything consistent into either words or numerals. "the Major League Baseball (MLB)" "in the MLB." Read those aloud, the "the"'s there aren't needed. Three pictures, three somewhat boring captions. Can you make them more interesting? Publisher and location for refs 4, 39, and 41. Courcelles 04:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Still thinking about alternative captions, any suggestion? — Martin tamb (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't follow the NBA at all, so better captions are eluding me. Courcelles 00:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments – No need for two List of NBA All-Stars links in consecutive sentences. Euroleague is also overlinked in the lead. Remove "the" in front of Major League Baseball (occurs twice by Winfield). Nobody refers to it that way. On the other hand, "and ABA" could use "the". Note 1: "and Sonic's second-round pick as compensations." "Sonic's" → "the Sonics'" Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed. — Martin tamb (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) The last one is still missing "the"; without it, the grammar is not optimal. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Oops, I missed that, sorry. Fixed. — Martin tamb (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Aside from the others noted:
  • "leading the latter to 2 Italian league titles" spell out two.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. — Martin tamb (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 24 September 2010 [11].

---

List of Olympic medalists in volleyball

Nominator(s): Courcelles 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because; well, I'm actually kind of nervous about this nomination, mainly because after running it up to DYK, it often languished on the back burner while other projects came and went. There's a massive list of athletes here, a good many of whom we struggle to put two sentences together about. I've considered whether this should be two lists due to the page's size, over 65kb, but there's enough value in having all the athletes on one page to leave it as is, in my opinion. The images are all fairly recent, I spent a lot of time looking for free images of some of the older athletes both on Commons and through the Toolserver, but to mix my sport metaphors, consistently struck out. At any rate, this is already tl;dr, so enjoy. Courcelles 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: I noticed this exquisite piece of work today just before your nomination. I'm eager to support this once these easy-to-fix points are addressed. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "... at the first five Olympics..."; Done. "At the 1980 Moscow Olympics..." — Add a comma after "Olympics"; Done. "United States led boycott" — Isn't an hyphen supposed to appear between "United States" and "led"? Done. "...the Soviet Union and some of her allies..." — Is "her" the most appropriate pronoun? Oh, you're right, changed. "... for the 1972 Munich or the 1976 Montreal Games." — "or" or "and"? They missed both Games, right? They did miss both. Logically, either works, but I agree 'and' is clearer, so changed. "In the women's competition in Barcelona, the Unified Team won the silver medal., and Cuba won their first of three consecutive gold medals." — No need to mention Barcelona as you just finished the previous sentence with it. Doh. Should have seen that one. Fixed. Courcelles 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "A nation is permitted to enter..." — NOC is more correct; Done. I see to many "At the .... Summer Olympics..." in succession. Could you avoid this? Got rid of two of them by some rearrangement (1996 and 2000 were the ones that went away). Actually, the thing that bugs me is the "At the..." in successive sentences. But it's not this will obstruct my support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "This tied the former Soviet Union's record..." — This matched? This equalled? Equalled works well. "There are two athletes with four medals each in volleyball." — Don't know why but this doesn't sound very "encyclopedic"... Maybe "Two athletes have each won four medals in volleyball.". Also, "Cuban player Ana Fernández has won four medals, three golds and one bronze,..."; It was the old "anything you have to do to avoid starting a sentence with a number" thing. Didn't work that well, did it? Fixed. "Five athletes have won three gold medals: four of them were members of the Cuban..." — Mind the semicolon replacemente with a colon; Done "... either sex..." — gender; Done "... with one medal of each color." — Mind the American English "color" to be consistent with "program"; Done the removals. Since all the dates and a couple of other things are Commonwealth style, changing program to programme was easier. Good call. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) On some occasions you link an NOC to the team page at specific Games, while in others you don't. Be consistent; Only two were linked, and linking all countries would have make a blue mess, so I just unlinked those two. The links appear in the table anyway. Good call #2. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) The caption on Lioubov Kılıç's image should not end with a period, whereas Heather Brown's should; Fixed Innocent question: anything against a ToC such as the one in List of Olympic medalists in luge? Stylistic choice, It saves some vertical space, but has to be manually maintained, and makes an already long/template heavy list 500 characters and a dozen templates longer. "Athletes who have won at least three total medals, at least one of which was a gold medal,...". Gone Thanks for the review! Courcelles 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Great list, great job! Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Question: is there a good reason why the summary table stops at 3 medals? How many more are with two (at least one of which is gold)? It might be worth at least explicitly stating the number if not listing the names. Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There are lots more. The Soviet mens teams of the 60's and 70's didn't change much from Games to Games, and won five medals in five Olympics. The Brazilian mens teams of '04 and '08 were substantially identical. The women's side is the same situation with the Japanese and Soviet teams of the 60s-70s, and the Cubans of the 90's. I'm thinking of expanding it to everyone who has three medals, full stop, as that would only run the table to 27 entries. Probably the longest in any of these FL's, but not insanely long. Thoughts? Courcelles 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • This is now done; the table lists anyone who has three medals, regardless of colour. Like I said above, expanding it to those with just two would overwhelm the page. Courcelles 15:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It's not quite what I had in mind. Essentially everybody cares more about gold than the total. Since it is medal leaders, I would really prefer having all the multiple medalists with at least one gold medal (i.e. the last should be 1 gold 1 bronze). Would that be too long? If yes, then count them and write after the table that there are "x with 1 gold and 1 silver", "y with 1 gold and 1 bronze", etc. And chop off the non-golden ones (but you could still write the number of multiple medalists without gold). Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, saying golds are more important than other colours is something we would have to debate- I would strongly disagree that two medals, one gold, is better than three silvers. The real problem is that what you're asking would have to be put together by counting (your edit seems to indicate this, even), which would be too far into original research for my tastes. Courcelles 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
          • The counting issue: when one says that US has 50 states, or EU has 27 members it does mean they counted them. I don't get it what is the problem saying "over 50 (or whatever number) have won two medals in volleyball". Nergaal (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Just so everybody is happy (some would say a gold is more important than 2 bronze medals) I think the simplest would be to just leave out the triple medalists without a gold (i.e. like it was initially). That way there won't be a discussion that someone with 2 golds should be put above the ones with 2 bronze and a silver, and so on. All I wanted is to have a sentence before or after that table saying x more people won 3 medals and y more won at least 2. Nergaal (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. After actually going through the text in detail, I noticed that the first two paragraphs are about USSR and USA, with a very brief mention of China. Just to give an example The United States men's team did not compete in the three Olympics prior to 1984, as they failed to qualify for the 1972 Munich and the 1976 Montreal Games. This has almost nothing to do with being a medallist, while the likes of Japan, Poland, Yugoslavia get no mention. Seriously, please change the intro from appearing almost like a USA vs USSR issue to something that truly covers the medalists. Also, a very notable missing element is the fact that there is no summary on countries. Since Olympics are much about national pride, and especially since volleyball is a team sport, having a summary on the national performance makes very much sense. Nergaal (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a table of NOC's who have won more than a single medal. What this reveals, though, is that while the lede does need to discuss Japan more (I'll work on that), the Soviet Union would be the medal leader if she and her successor entities were considered one entity (they are not; the USSR, the Unified Team, and the Russian Federation are three separate NOC's), and the United States is third. Brazil has the most medals, and more emphasis can be put on them, though most of their medals are in the newer beach game. But this lede is in chronological order, and the USSR was dominant until the Los Angeles Games, hence why it looks disproportionate in the first two paragraphs. Courcelles 01:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure why you would leave out the single-medal NOCs (at a quick glimpse there seem to be only about 5 of them). Also, since indoor and beach are so different, I think having a 3*4 table like here would be appropriate (a set of 4 for indoor, a set of 4 for beach, and another one for totals). I know I sound picky, but I am saying all of these because I do think these are notable issues. Nergaal (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've edited the lede to mention a few other countries it didn't originally discuss. As to the table by NOC, actually there are ten more, not five. The 4 by 3 table is excessively large for normal-sized monitors, and expanding this table-either way- will require the use of sort templates, making a very slow page even slower for negligible benefit. What you are requesting would require adding another ~250 templates to this page to get the sorting to work properly, a feature of little value, not present in any similar lists, and in no way required by the FL criteria. Courcelles 00:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Fine. I thought it would make sense but if it requires that much work for that little benefit then I am fine. I stroked down my oppose. Nergaal (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Please explain me how is The United States men's team did not compete in the three Olympics prior to 1984, as they failed to qualify for the 1972 Munich and the 1976 Montreal Games.[5] relevant to the text? The intro is now a bit on the long side; I would prefer have the text consolidated a bit. Nergaal (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Removed that. It got put in when I was looking for a decent DYK hook, but it's not all that useful now that the lede is a good bit longer. Courcelles 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Always a little nervous that the lead sentence could imply that volleyball is only played at the Olympics. Perhaps, "one of the sports" played at the Olympics? Done. You go into the Soviet Union medalling at the first five, and then onto China winning first women's gold, perhaps mention (before Soviet Union) who won the first men's gold, and then mention the Soviet Union's ongoing success? (reading on, it turns out the soviet men won the gold in the first edition, so maybe just make that clear?) Done. Actually, that first para is a bit of a factoid-festival with reasonably unrelated short sentences fired at me. Yeah, that first paragraph was too long. Did some rearranging avoiding of short sentences. Suggest linking Unified team in the lead. Done. "the IOC voted to add beach" instead of repeating IOC, could you say "the Committee"? Done. programme vs program - be consistent. Done. Big gap before the last para of the lead. Extra line break that came in somewhere removed. "Cuban player Ana Fernández has" no need for player here. Removed "while Soviet athlete Inna Ryskal has" ditto for athlete. Removed "later coached the Polish national team.[16]" clarify it was the men's team. Done. Sadatoshi Sugahara's article spells his name as Sadatoshi Sugawara. And the IOC database says Sadatoshi Sugahara. Kimberley Ruddins seems to be missing an E from her first name (according to the redirect, but then not according to the intro!) The IOC database gives her name as Kimberly Grace Ruddins. Our article might be at the wrong title. A number of the Chinese women's names redirect, any reason why you're not using the Wikipedia names? I would dare hazard a guess you're using the IOC names per registration for the Games? If so, perhaps a note to that effect would be useful? Yeah, I'll add a note. Though I have to wonder where we got some of our article names from. Cuban Aguero seems to be missing diacritic (but then again, if you're sourcing your names from somewhere else...) Done. Kely Fraga->Kelly Fraga (etc) Covered by the note. You merge sexes in the Medal leaders table. Perhaps worth identifying M/F? Done Any reason why two general references appear (to the reader) to be identical? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Just the template we tend to use because the IOC rearranges their website frequently. I've clarified which link is which. Thanks for the comments. Courcelles 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Looks fine to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The list, in my opinion, fully satisfies FL criteria. Ruslik_Zero 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:16, 23 September 2010 [12].

---

List of longest streams of Oregon

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC); LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Seventy-six rivers and creeks of at least 50 miles (80 km) in length flow through or entirely within Oregon. I am nominating a sortable list of these streams for featured status because, in addition to meeting the criteria, it is unique and might serve as a model for similar lists for other states. I could not have completed this list without a lot of help from others. Little Mountain 5, the co-nominator, created the map and found many missing bits of data that eluded me. When we had gone as far as we could, Kmusser and Pfly tracked down the rest of the missing data in national GIS datasets. Ruhrfisch, whose List of tributaries of Larrys Creek served as a good model of a stream list, contributed high-value advice before and during a peer review. H1nkles also helped with a peer review, and Shannon1 helped with advice on the article's talk page and created a sidebar article, Cow Creek (Oregon), that turned one of the list's red links into a working link. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as noted above, I peer reviewed this and find it more than meets the FL criteria. I am already working on research for a similar article for Pennsylvnaia streams. Very well done and a nice example of collaboration, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and support as well as your PR and earlier help. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments (all minor, and I didn't participate in the PR, so apologies if I cover already-covered ground) Not sure you need to force the bold lead, especially as it means a quick repeat of Oregon just so you can link it sooner rather than later. Good point. Yes, I forced the syntax a bit, thank you. I have removed the bolding and slightly modified the next sentence to avoid repeating "Oregon". Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I might be slow (and I am tired) but are the lengths quoted the absolute total lengths or the lengths of the streams within Oregon? Like, if a stream cuts a tiny 1-foot corner of Oregon but spends the remaining 2,000 km outside, is that classed as one of the "longest streams in Oregon"? You are not slow. I have added the word "total" to the first sentence in hopes of eliminating this ambiguity. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I added "Total" before Length in the column header too (and then Little Mountain 5 fixed my capitalization error). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Malheur Lake is linked only once (e.g.) and as it's a sortable table, it should be linked every time. Same with anything like this. Quite right. Thank you for catching this. I have now added links throughout that entire column. I wasn't sure whether or not to link Pacific Ocean, but I went ahead and did it. If you think that violates WP:OVERLINK, I can remove the ocean links. Finetooth (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The Map is a bit of an issue in that it says "Major cities are shaded in pink." and (even though I think I'm just mildly colour-blind), I find it hard to see these, and I'm sure this fails WP:ACCESS by denoting something with colour only... I should confer with Little Mountain 5 about this one. My thought is that we could simply delete the pink areas and not mention the cities at all. Would that solve the problem? Finetooth (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I'm on it. LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Removed the cities. LittleMountain5 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Most of the rivers are only denoted in blue, should it then be black&white to comply with access? Sandman888 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The colour section of WP:ACCESS applies to text, tables, and templates - for maps apply the images section. Kmusser (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Comments Sandman888 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC) What is the inclusion criteria (i.e. which stream is considered long?) Any stream that flows at all within Oregon and has a total length of at least 50 miles (80 km) has been included in the list. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) And why 50 miles (80 km)? Sandman888 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC) The choice is arbitrary, but it was also thoughtful and deliberate. I first intended to include all of the streams that are 25 miles (40 km) or longer. I picked 25 and not something like 23 or 27 because 25 seemed easier to remember and somehow more natural. Well into the project, I realized that the list was going to be so long that it would grossly exceed 100 kilobytes, which I consider to be the practical upper limit for Wikipedia articles. I cut back to 40 miles (64 km), and eventually, with a lot of help, compiled a complete list. The data for all of those that did not make the cut is on the talk page of the article. There are 21 streams of 40 to 50 miles (64 to 80 km) in length that flow wholly or partly in Oregon. Eleven of them appear in the sortable table on the talk page, and the other 10 are in the "new finds" list further down on the talk page. I did not want to discard the work that had gone into these additional 21, but we could think of no way to include them in the main list without making it monstrously big and clumsy. In addition, we noted that 50 miles (80 km) has a nice memorable symmetry in that the tidy 50 converts to the tidy 80. After deliberation, that's what we settled on. Finetooth (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I do not like (that was a bit strong) am not keen on the gallery, and they are generally discouraged unless they really add something. I'm sorry you do not like it. I agree that galleries are generally discouraged. It seems to me that in this case the gallery contains information that is not possible to convey in words alone. Finetooth (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC) What don't you like about it? We've been trying to get it right for a while now... LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC) It follows the model of List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, a FL, which has a similar gallery. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If a gallery is used, they usually go in the end of the article, as the list of streams is what it's really about (and more important than the images). Sandman888 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with you that galleries are often misused and are generally discouraged. I have often pointed that out to editors during peer reviews. However, galleries are not banned outright, and they can be effective if used with good reason and judiciously. I also agree with you that the usual place for galleries is at or near the bottoms of articles. However, this also is not an ironclad rule. The choice depends on the context and what the images are intended to convey. The placing of images is something that the group of editors who worked on this list gave some thought to. We tried a panel of four placed above the list, a panel of eight placed above the list, and a panel of four placed below the list, before settling on the panel of six above the list. The was the combination that looked best to us and that included images of the Columbia and Snake, the two longest streams. WP:IG has gallery guidelines; in one place it suggests looking at 1750–1795 in fashion as an example of a good use of galleries. The galleries in that article are placed where they are most useful, not stuck at the bottom as a kind of afterthought. The decision about where to place images is in part subjective, and it's natural that different people have different subjective tastes. All I can say is that the editors who worked on the list didn't entirely or immediately agree on the images or where to put them, but we reached consensus, and we don't think our consensus violates any Wikipedia rules. Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Some other geography FLs with similar galleries are List of Pennsylvania state parks, List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, and List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Some of the coordinates have a globe next to them, some doesn't? They all have a globe next to them on my computer screen. I'm not sure what could cause them not to appear on yours, but I suspect it has something to do with the size of the article. Does anybody reading this know the cause or what to do about it? Finetooth (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I don't know what could cause that; they all show up for me. Probably the list's massive size. LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC) In Internet Explorer on my computer not all of the coordinates have globes - Mozilla Firefox shows them all. I suspect it is a size of the list in IE issue. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I am using IE aswell so might just be a browser thing. Sandman888 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC) are all of the creeks really notable? Yes. The fact that we were able to find the data, published by reliable sources outside of Wikipedia, establishes their notability. That is to say, outside experts find them notable. Finetooth (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC) what's the source for cities shaded in pink and how large is "major"? These are good questions. Thank you. "Major" is vague, and we have not provided a source. I am thinking of recommending to Little Mountain 5 that we remove the pink from the map and not mention cities at all. Does this seem like a good solution? Finetooth (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I'm on it. LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Removed the cities. LittleMountain5 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC) "approx 475 miles across" across Oregon (~willow creek to pacific) or the whole length of the map? Another good question. I don't know; I will have to defer to Little Mountain 5 on this one. Thank you for your questions and comments. Finetooth (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The entire map; I'll add a note. LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Added. LittleMountain5 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Support though I wd like gallery in bottom (if you must have it) and prefer the title to be "List of streams of..." avoiding longest. That would open for complete lists of streams of oregon to be recorded. Eventually. Sandman888 (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. Just as an aside, I'll mention that there is a List of rivers of Oregon (probably mis-named). It is already quite big, and the Oregon project's hope is that someday it will be a complete list of named streams (creeks, sloughs, etc., as well as rivers) in Oregon. Finetooth (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Support and comment/question I trust that the red links will be blue soon. Is the body of water in southeast Oregon Donner und Blitzen as it says on the map or is that a typo? Lovely galleries. I am a fan. Dincher (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support of the list and the gallery. :) Yes, it is the Donner und Blitzen River, German for thunder and lightning. Finetooth and I have been working on the redlinks (soon to come!), and Shannon1 wrote one as well. Eventually there should at least be a stub for every article. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 23:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was right, I just wanted to make sure. I suppose I could've checked myself. Another question that I forgot from earlier. Is there a reason why you have so many links to the same rivers, specifically the Snake and the Columbia in the table. I think one link to each river in the table should do the trick, but that's up to you. Other users might call it overlinking and get fussy about it. Dincher (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because it's sortable table (see The Rambling Man's collapsed comments above). Cheers, LittleMountain5 23:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. It would be a neat trick if a sortable table could automatically make the link closest to the top the only link in the table for the particular article. I imagine it could be done, but certainly not me. Dincher (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and comments. I've recently done articles for Jordan Creek (Owyhee River) and Dry River (Crooked River) from this list that were long enough to nominate for DYKs. The DYKs are still pending. More to come. Finetooth (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support; as I paged down I was thinking, "Surely there'll be a map, right...?" and then there was, and it was of such high quality I nearly applauded. Seriously. And as Dincher, supporting on the assumption that the redlinks will be fixed. Good job, Oregon project :) --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words and support. Little Mountain 5 gets all the credit for the map. Finetooth (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered, thank you! :) (Finetooth gets all the credit for having the idea for the map.) LittleMountain5 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

*Question would it be possible to have an extra column with the length within the state? The map might be more useful if used near the intro. Also, it is quite unusual to have a gallery before the table. Why is the "Remarks" section not named "Source"? It is a really nice list otherwise. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC) An extra column would certainly be possible, but it would take a lot more work; I don't think there are many reliable sources for that kind of information. (We could barely find the total lengths for some of the streams, let alone how much of them are in Oregon!) I think the map is a bit too large to move farther up... it would look odd. Thoughts? And yes, the gallery is unusual, but does it look bad where it is? We've been trying to fit the pictures in somewhere, without them all being lumped in one place. The 'remarks' section should probably be renamed to 'location', or something similar (the mouth location is also included). Thanks, LittleMountain5 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the kind words, Nergaal. I agree with Little Mountain 5 about the extra column, the map, and the gallery. However, you make a good point about "Remarks", which I originally meant as a catch-all. It turned out to have only two kinds of information, source and mouth. Would "Source and mouth" be better than "Remarks"? Finetooth (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I boldly changed the column head to "Source and mouth locations". Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Instead of a whole column, why don't you add a third row to the two coordinate columns. I don't think having the exact length within Oregon for all of the streams is necessary, but if the last column is moved to the coordinates ones, then it would allow for some extra space: here you could have the exact length for say the first 20 ones (the ones above 100 miles) while for the other ones it would suffice to say either "all within Oregon" or "only partially within Oregon". If you cannot find even the length of the say first 20 ones, then at least take a look at the map, and color all the length boxes with some color for the rivers that are not completely within Oregon; even then, the first two tough should have the actual (at least approximative) length within Oregon as a footnote. The gallery is a bit unrelated as is, so try to at least add some informative caption such as "Snake River (the second longest river in Oregon) in Hells Canyon"; otherwise the pictures don't add much to the article. Nergaal (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC) One more little thing: having some 15 red links is a bit much for a FL. Try to fix at least a few of them. Nergaal (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your suggestions. Changing the list in the ways you mention might be possible but, in my opinion, would not make the list more readable or useful. It is already possible to look at the map to see which streams cross state borders, and, as Little Mountain 5 has said, we know of no reliable source that breaks the stream lengths down by state. As for the gallery and the red links, we have already discussed these matters above. We like the gallery we have, and we are working on the red links, but it will take time to create useful articles on all of the remaining ones. Finetooth (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC) The point is not to look at the map and guess which one is within the state, but to have that information provided... by a featured list! I have provided a model for the Columbia entry. As for the breaking down by state, I am sure that if you look (i.e. google) both Columbia and Snake have such sources for their length within Oregon. Redlinks: if the creeks do not deserve an article then do not link them; if they do, at least provide a redirect the the relevant mouth or something like that. Nergaal (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but is this (break down by state) absolutely necessary? We already have source and mouth location information that provide details about which state each stream begins and ends in. And—not to be harsh—we are most likely never going to be able to figure out the how much of the streams are in Oregon. (Maybe the Columbia and Snake, but what good would that do?) As for the redlinks, Shannon1, Finetooth, and I have written at least eight nice articles, and more are coming. I think all the streams deserve an article; but, as Finetooth said above, it takes time. I've redirected the forks to their parent streams for the time being. Cheers, LittleMountain5 14:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Seeing Nergaal's latest comments, I realized that I had not understood the colored boxes suggestion but thought it referred to coloring bits of the map again. I've now colored the appropriate nine boxes and added the special symbol, which I assume is to allow the key to work for people who can't see the color of the boxes. In the course of doing that, I noticed that we had not mentioned in the right-hand column that the Applegate River starts in California. I added that bit of information. Also, I noticed that the map shows the Illinois starting in northern California, but, although its forks start there, the main stem begins in Oregon. Little Mountain 5, could you tweak the map accordingly? Thanks for the suggestion, Nergaal, and for showing how it's done. The example was necessary for me to see what you were getting at. Finetooth (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC) I did not notice the coloring/symbols example before my last comment; I like it. (Thanks Nergaal!) Tweaking the map in progress, nice catch. LittleMountain5 22:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC) The Illinois is now shorter. :) LittleMountain5 22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Little Mountain 5. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Yep about the color scheme. I hate when I the editors refuse to do the work, but here is the reference for how much of Columbia and Snake are within Oregon: http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/NAV/navigwaterways.shtml. You should consider using it for other of the rivers. Another thing: I counted 12 rivers not completely within Oregon, but only 11 are colored now. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC) The 11 are Columbia River, Snake River, Walla Walla River, Grand Ronde River, Succor Creek, Jordan Creek, Owyhee River, Applegate River, Klamath River, Lost River, and Cow Creek. The 12th was probably the Illinois (unless I have missed one), which was a minor error on the map and has now been corrected. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC) The source you cite, Nergaal, for the Columbia and Snake lengths within Oregon is a good one for checking the navigable lengths of Oregon streams. Since the Columbia and Snake are likely navigable for their entire lengths within Oregon, those numbers would be correct for the total lengths within Oregon. However, none of the other nine streams on the list of 11 are navigable for their full lengths (if at all). Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC) We red-linked all of the streams in order to encourage editors to expand the encyclopedia. All of the streams in the list deserve articles, and, as we have said above, we are working to create them. Would it be better for us to delete the red links from the article and simply maintain a private list? Finetooth (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Per your suggestion, Nergaal, I have added position data to each of the image captions. Is this better? Finetooth (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support once you add the two notes to the Columbia and Snake. Everything else looks nice, and the position in the images looks good. The 12th one that you missed is Cow Cr. Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank your for your advice and support. Meanwhile, with the help of Ruhrfisch, we have created stub or start articles for all of the remaining red links except Catlow Valley, which I unlinked as unlikely to have an article any time soon. All of the links in the article are now blue. Also, before noticing your support, I decided to try to reach consensus on the gallery location by moving it to near the bottom. If somebody reverses that decision, I don't mind. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)\

I have added the notes about the Columbia and the Snake. Finetooth (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the URL for the ref used in the Columbia and Snake notes, and was bold and moved the gallery back to the top as I thought the gallery and panorama together looked bad (poor layout). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged on both counts. Using your calculation and Nergaal's source, I have added a note giving the length of the Klamath River inside Oregon. Finetooth (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—The external link to http://geonames2.nrcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/v9/sima_unique_v9?english?JATIP?C is timing out at the moment. Ucucha 00:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha. I switched the source to BC Geographical Names, which gives the same coordinates for the lake as the Canadian national database. I don't know why the larger site wigs out from time to time, but the provincial one seems stable. Finetooth (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha 13:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:16, 23 September 2010 [13].

---

Amsterdam Tournament

Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Having seen this I felt compelled to do one myself. I believe that it meets all specified criteria. Cheers. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The refs seem a bit repetitive, using {{Harv}} maybe would've been more appropriate... otherwise, nicely done. -- œ^™ 03:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response. I haven't seen {{Harv}} used in my field of expertise before, interesting.

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

* I'm glad the Gamper got you going. Sandman888 (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC) It hadn't crossed my mind before I saw your effort, so thanks. link "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation" first time around. Linked. innovative use of table legend. Thanks, I like avoiding white space if possible. why did you split the stats table in two? I thought readers might want to sort winners and "also-rans" separately. It would be straight-forward to merge them if needs must. "winners" seems to be randomly sorted initially. They're listed chronologically if teams are tied. If I sort by total and then by winners I no longer get the original listing (IE on XP). Sandman888 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) That would be because its listing them in order of wins and then total, unless I'm missing something? As far as I'm aware you can't reset a sorting table without refreshing the page - that is what I do anyway. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 06:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I believe that the initial sorting should be available after re-sorting without refreshing. Why don't you just sort them by wins and then totals to start with? Sandman888 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Done. no scores? What do you include and what do you leave out? In its current format, its possible for the winner and runner-up not to play each other. Ah, ok. Sandman888 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 08:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Sandman888 (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - "John Wark scored in the the 1981 final" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I should have double checked the captions! Thanks. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments on an otherwise fine list: "... while Belgium has produced the most individual winners; four. One more than England and Netherlands." — I'd replace the semicolon and period with commas, thus joining the two related sentences; Done. I would much prefer that winners and non-winners be presented and sorted in a single table. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Your wish is my command. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 04:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Four teams participate in the competition, which has been in a league" maybe "...competition, played in a league..." Done. "Since its return in 1999," not convinced you need to repeat this information which you gave some two sentences ago.. Removed year to avoid repetition. "Ajax's main domestic rivals" I think we all know they're the "main" rivals, but without sourcing, this could be misconstrued as POV, so maybe just leave it as "Ajax's domestic rivals"? Done. You link Belgium, but you didn't link Belgian, which appeared a few lines beforehand... Delinked for consistency. Q: Is there any guide to who was invited? I noted my lot were invited after winning the FA Cup. What about the others? I couldn't find anything reliable. The first tournament included Molenbeek as Belgian champions, but Feyenoord and Barcelona didn't appear to win anything in the previous season. Cruyff caption, could you put some dates on his involvement please? Added that he scored once in the first tournament. Typically we expand and link RSSSF in the references as it's a bit nebulous for non-experts. Should I definitely link RSSSF in each reference? I thought it might be considered overlinking. I've added its full name while its linked at the top as a general reference. Okay, that's fine by me, I missed it, sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Refs 34 to 38 need an en-dash, not spaced hyphens. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 05:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Was there a competition this year? If so, why isn't it included?
• Remove comma immediately after first use of Arsenal. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No there wasn't one for 2010. Ajax were involved in the third qualifying round of the Champions League this season, which took place when the tournament is played, so I believe that is the reason. It says on the Dutch version that the competition was taking a one year break due to Ajax's busy fixture schedule. Removed the comma. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:52, 21 September 2010 [14].

---

FC Barcelona in Europe

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

With three supports and MoS issue fixed the Gamper looks a closed deal. Incorporating the legend into this oddball of various competitions, it has been through two PRs and one FLC. Sandman888 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—a dab link to neutral ground (which doesn't seem like a particularly useful link anyway); no dead externals. Ucucha 12:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There is not much text to go on, but I think [15] is in Spanish, not Catalan. Ucucha 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • oh you're right, changed to Spanish. Delinked neutral as it doesn't exist(!). Sandman888 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—There is a huge mistake in this page that Inter Cities Fairs Cup is UEFA Cup, That's truly wrong. You should fix that by omitting the un-official (Inter Cities Fairs Cup) or making another list for it. This source (which is one of page's references) provides that "Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record."--Life alone (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Another mistake : Pyrenees Cup is not international/European competition, correct that. It was regional competition like nowadays friendly cups.--Life alone (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• From the introductory note: "The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is considered to be the forerunner to the Europe League, but it is not recognized as an UEFA competition. As such Inter-Cities Fairs Cup wins doesn't count toward the tally of Europa League wins, though it is recognized as the forerunner.[46] This list tallies the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup together with the Europa League tournament." emphasis added. I don't see how it could be any clearer. Sandman888 (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Comma needed after "which lasted from 1910 to 1914". The Manual of Style says we should avoid slashes if possible. A few of the section headings use them; would dashes work? UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: Decapitalization needed in "in the First round." Remove last word in "In 1969 they". Inter Cities Fairs Cup: "but it is not recognized as an UEFA competition." "an" → "a". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC) All done, thanks for spotting it. Regarding slashes, I do believe they are more intuitive than dashes (one might think the competitions were simultaneous). According to MOS:SLASH, slashes are okay if "a different construction would be inaccurate, unfamiliar, or ambiguous". I do believe slashes works better than dashes here. Sandman888 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

*The lead is inadequate, far too short for a "list" of this size. PR preferred longer intros in subsequent sections versus a long lead. Sandman888 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Well I think the lead is too short. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I've expanded slightly. Anything in particular that needs mentioning? Sandman888 (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Latin Cup or Copa Latina? "and the old Inter-Cities Fairs Cup " as opposed to the new one? Not sure you need the years in the headings. Instead, include that information in the prose for each section. Link "friendly" appropriately. "these games"? You've only mentioned one so far. Why is Les Corts in italics? "After the introduction of the European Cup it disappeared, and today it is not recognized..." What is "it" here? recognized is USEng, is that what you want here? "after being champions in the 1958–59 season." champions of what? "part from becoming runners-up " very poor English. " In 1992 Johan Cruyff's Dream Team led the side" Cruyff's dream team led the side? Really? Wasn't it Cruyff's Dream Team that won the final? "but it was to last three years " -> it was three years "first round" or "First Round"? There seems to be a considerable amount of over-capitalisation in the list. "Fairs Cup wins doesn't count toward" - do not. Not at all convinced about a separate "Finals" table which repeats a lot of what's already happened. If you do keep it, consider making it sortable. Overall record table - the total row shouldn't sort. Why not? Because it's the total row and should always be at the bottom. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC) How does one do that? Sandman888 (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Ahh, cheers. Sandman888 (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC) All notes which claim scores, results etc should be referenced. Ref 45 doesn't have the expanded version of UEFA like all other UEFA refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Taken care of unless noted, final table is gone. Thanks for the review! Sandman888 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Oppose - very weak grammar and internal inconsistencies... "semi-final" or semifinal" or "Semi-Final"? Semi-final Why Quarter-Final then? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC) And First round vs Second Round. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Both fixed "he first international cup they took part in was the Pyrenees Cup, which lasted from ..." I bet the first cup didn't last four years, perhaps the competition did. Done "winning four out of five competitions. " who did? Barcelona "From 1914 to the start of the Latin Cup in 1949," do you mean the first edition of the Latin Cup? Tes. Beginning? "Barcelona did not participate in any international competitions." is this referenced? Latin Cup is overlinked. Delinked two "two times as champions " why not just "twice"? twice This is just the lead. I'll come back, if requested, to the rest of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC) "Barcelona was among the first participants in European football" prove it. removed " the matches are given in the Finals table below." doesn't exist now. removed what does "City" mean? The reference only list the city where it was held. "with Barcelona's arch-rivals Real Madrid" POV. I think that's a little excessive but ref included "Johan Cruyff's Dream Team " direct ref for Dream Team? ref included "The Cup Winner's Cup started in 1960, but it was three years before Barcelona participated in the cup" terrible prose. removed "in the cup". "In their first competition they were eliminated by Hamburg SV in the first round. In 1969, their second participation, they advanced to the final, but were beaten by Czechoslovakian side, Slovan Bratislava." ditto. could you be a bit more specific here? "before the cup was absorbed " no no no, it wasn't "absorbed"... Rephrase. "was re-organised as" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Possible copyvio You have copy-and-pasted text from RSSSF for reference 63, word-for-word. This is very worrying. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC) "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." This is indeed brief and hard to re-word. But independent query has been made at media questions. Sandman888 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC) You have just copied sentences of prose. This can easily be phrased another way to avoid copyvio. I have detected other instances of this throughout the article. I will need to check your other work as a result. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Why did you clog up the question I filed with duplicate information just to frame it more to your liking? I added both instances in full, which is the honest thing to do. But have fun investigating. Sandman888 (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I was illuminating the fact that you copy-and-pasted a complete sentence of prose. No "clogging". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC) You removed the context. Why did you feel the need to "illuminate" when I gave the full sentences, but for framing it as a accusation. Anyone could tell whether or not it was a copyvio by the information already given. Sandman888 (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Who's clogging now? It would be much easier if you just reworded the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC) To be fair, I think that RSSSF page is free to copy verbatim, but it really is a bad idea to get into that habit, particularly when it's incredibly simple to rephrase it to avoid any of this discussion. As such I've added "possible" above. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, that's fair enough. In lieu of recent events (Reg. Dharious or something), I'm a bit defensive regarding copyvio allegations, hence the media question instead of immediate re-word. I've re-phrased it now. Sandman888 (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Comments "round" in Latin Cup table should be "Round" (it's a heading). Done I'm still not sure why you think "Semi-final" is a proper noun, e.g. "featured two Semi-finals, a third ", particularly if final isn't. sorry, yes that's true. "established themselves as one of the strongest sides in European competitions, when measured in UEFA coefficients" is this referenced? Added UEFA ref. I am not sure whether the xs4all.net ref given in the wikilink is acceptable. Why "Second Stage" in capitals? decapped "round of 16"->"Round of 16". Certainly. Notes A to C are unreferenced. That they lost on coin toss etc. is reffed in the table reference. I think that is easier to verify than re-list all of the refs again. Sandman888 (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't the 2010–11 season be included if this list is to be complete? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Normally ongoing seasons are not included for stability reasons. Sandman888 (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, maybe a note on the overall record that says accurate as of the end of the 2009/10 season then? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Re-worded the update section. Better? Sandman888 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Question: Where are the individual rounds referenced? I looked at reference 29 for instance, where I can see the score of the final referenced, but not the preceding rounds, which are referenced here, here, here and here... Also, in that particular instance, you call it "Round of 16" while UEFA call it "First knockout round"... Ref 35 (63/64 CWC) doesn't even mention Barcelona... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC) There's a table to the right where you can click "preliminary round" "first round" etc. Is it not clear enough how to navigate the page? Sandman888 (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Well it's not ideal, considering these are "specific" references... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I've added a note above the specific references. Better? Sandman888 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Also I had a look at refs 59 through 61 which you use to reference the overall record, and I can't see how you got the data you use in the table, most specifically the goals for and against, but also in wins (one of those references is a 2009 page, the other includes this season, so neither tally up with your data). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC) this gives Goals for and against up to December 2009. this gives Goals from August 2009 to July 2010. this gives the # of games, updated continuously. Sandman888 (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't see the middle reference you've given there in the list, must have missed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I also can't see where the specific venues for the Intercontinental Cup / FIFA Club World Cup section are referenced, I can find Tokyo, but no mention of the National Stadium... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC) from the RSSSF ref "Since the beginning of the eighties the Cup was sponsored by Toyota and played in one leg in Tokyo (Tokyo National Stadium or Kokuritsu Kyogijou, from 1980 to 2001)". The FIFA venues are harder to locate on the FIFA page, so have added RSSSF refs. Sandman888 (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 35 appears to repeat Mike Morrison a couple of times, not sure why? And the last two refs appear to have the same author, but in differnet formats... And is there a reason why the source for Murray has him as Bill Murray and William J Murray, and this is repeated in the refs? And what does ref 13 refer to? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Ref issues fixed. Sandman888 (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Be consistent with hyphenation in Inter-Cities Fairs Cup throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Two instances hyphenated. Sandman888 (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thorough review TRM. Always appreciated. Sandman888 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• In my opinion, such articles are a "bit too much", and i explain why i think so:

if i'm not mistaken, some clubs - as BARCELONA - have articles with "X" or "Y" season, which contains info on both domestic and European play. Moreover, in the team article proper, storyline on both can also be found. Hence, i think this one is unnecessary, with all due respect. I oppose. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Just to clarify: Is that a content fork concern? I must say that none of the information here is anywhere else; several of the FC Barcelona season articles does not exist. Sandman888 (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh i see mate. In that case, and being the club that it is, i support. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, thank you. Sandman888 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: Why are there five refs all clustered together, when some of them don't even concern that sentence or even paragraph? They were previously all used. I have removed the two which currently doesnt reference anything. Sandman888 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) The refs on the CWC and ICFC could be placed just after the sentence that talks about them. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Yes that's true, duly moved. Sandman888 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think that last paragraph about the tables should be in the lead. Could you find a better fitting place? I do believe the lede is the best place to have it, if it were in the first table it might easily be missed. This way it's clear that this concerns the whole article Sandman888 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) My idea would be to create a section named "Competitions", under which all the sections about Barça's participations in European cups would be moved, and place the notes on the tables plus flag legend as an intro text just before the cup sections. This way those explanatory notes/legends would still concern the whole article as you say. Anyway, my suggestion, not an imposition. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) And then have the individual competitions as sub-section? I must admit it doesn't sound as a very tempting idea. Sandman888 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC) OK, I just think that it looks extraneous in an already not-so-big lead. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC) There's a great image of the 1952 Latin Cup won by Barcelona that you could use alongside its section. It used to be there but it's too big and messes with the next section. Alright, no big deal. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) How does the Intercontinental Cup/FIFA World Club Cup fit into an article about Barcelona's participation in European competitions? OK, at least the Intercontinental Cup was endorsed/co-organized by UEFA, but such thing is not true for the FIFA World Club Cup. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC) I don't see how the fact that UEFA organised it made it a European competition. To keep consistency with other "Club in Europe" article this has the same title format; the FCWC/intercontinental cup is the exception to the rule. Sandman888 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) That's it: it doesn't. But at least UEFA was somehow involved in that cup which could be an argument to keep those records. These are all international competitions, so an article title defining that better could be a solution that included all these records. I'm not saying that this should be done now nor that this should be the prototype for that change, but it's something to think about. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC) yeah I did think about it and asked the WP:FOOTY project for some input, but nobody really cared that much... Sandman888 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe that's a sign that they wouldn't bother if you did it yourself ;) Parutakupiu (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Oh no trust me, it is very hard to make the FOOTY project decide on anything and just unilaterally moving stuff without discussion is not considered polite (even though noone wants to discuss it). I dont want anymore drama on that front. Sandman888 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC) You sourced every season's results for the EC/UCL and UCWC in their respective tables, but not for the UC. Any reason why? Parutakupiu (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC) In the refs provided for the UC it is very easy to navigate to the specific season. But that is not the case for the other references. Sandman888 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC) It's just as easy to do that for the EC/UCL and UCWC. But this to say that I think that—if we can—we should provide direct links to sources and not make the reader have to cruise through them to find what they're looking for. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC) No what I mean is that the ICFC/UC refs are easy to navigate, a general ref for CL is not. I'm not sure providing separate refs are really necessary, it's easy to verify if you want to. Sandman888 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry but I'm not sure I'm following you... Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Yeah sorry I sometime fail to make myself clear. it is easy to find the specific season in the RSSSF reference given, that is why it is the only one used. I could perhaps list it under general references instead, would that be better? Sandman888 (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC) I guess that would suffice. I just think that if you provided specific refs for each season of the EC/UCL and ECWC (from UEFA.com) you should at least do the same for the UC seasons, since UEFA.com also has the results for every season. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Only noticed this now: refs 3 and 49 are one and the same. Check if you don't have more duplicates. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC) You have a single general source (a book), but there's only one specific ref taken from it (ref 7). If this is the only info taken from that source, you might as well cite it wholy in the specific refs rather than as a general source. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Good call! Both instances taken care of. Sandman888 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support gladly. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 12:53, 21 September 2010 [16].

---

List of Family Guy episodes

Nominator(s): Gage (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I hope to address any concerns about the list, as best as possible. Gage (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — there are quite a few issues in this list, especially the lack of referencing in most of the list portion. For now, I'm regrettably opposing. Striking oppose per my comments being mostly fixed What is "total" in the key? It doesn't seem to be clear to me. Done. I attempted to explain it based on other FL's indication of the numbers. Gage (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC) The list for the most part lacks any citations. Could you add citations for the writers and the episodes somewhere? Done. Gage (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC) The three movies mentioned in the seasons section should be italicized per WP:ITALICS (unless they were actually TV specials, but I don't think they were). Done. I've italicized the first special. The other two are considered episodes. Gage (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Release dates should be cited for the release of the DVDs and the seasons. Done. Gage (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Why does the lead mention Stewie Griffin: Untold Story, but not Something, Something Dark Side and Blue Harvest? Done. Gage (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I think reference 2 should cite the Boston Herald as the publisher, not pqasb, which just seems to be the archival service that the newspaper uses. It was originally printed in the paper. Done. Gage (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC) In reference 5, IGN is not a newspaper or a magazine but a website, and per WP:ITALICS should not be italicized. Done. Gage (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Same with reference 6: imdb should not be italicized. Done. Gage (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Judging by the discussions about imdb (i.e. this one), I'm not sure that it's the most reliable source for the award information. Could you replace it with a more reliable source, or would that not be possible? Nomader (Talk) 06:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Gage (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Comment — one last thing, you should add some citations to the season nine episode that's listed. After that, I'll support. Nomader (Talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support — All of mine and Dan's concerns have been addressed, great work on the list. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dan Dassow (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

* Comment There are only a few things fundamentally wrong with the list. For instance, the Russian language version of the list is a featured list. However, it will require a lot of clean up to meet the featured list criteria. This list is a summary of Family Guy (season 1) through Family Guy (season 9). This is useful. However, this also means that it probably fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 3b, since it largely recreates material from other articles. I'm confused then. How have any lists whatsoever, based on this exact structure, been promoted? Additionally, since you want to cite specific criteria, 3b also states, "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." In no way could all the information in this list be included as a part of a single related article. Gage (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC) After looking at similar Featured List articles, I concede this point. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) The Article lacks citations. Sources for citations include: Family Guy (season 1) and sister articles, The Hollywood Reporter, 'Variety (magazine), Billboard (magazine), newspapers, and the organizations giving the awards. Sources have been improved, thanks to concerns listed by another user. Gage (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC) See the featured list List of 24 episodes for an example. --Dan Dassow (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Citations lack the name of the publisher. For instance the publisher for the IMDb is Amazon.com. Done. Gage (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC) The links to two citations redirect. Change these to non-redirecting links. 5 Goldman, Eric (May 5, 2008). "Big New Deal for Family Guy's Seth MacFarlane". IGN. http://tv.ign.com/articles/871/871629p1.html. Retrieved May 11, 2007. Change link to: http://uk.tv.ign.com/articles/871/871629p1.html Done. Gage (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 7 ^ Collins, Scott (July 17, 2009). "Family Guy breaks the funny bone barrier with Emmy nod". Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-et-emmy-family17-2009jul17,0,5898425.story. Retrieved August 24, 2009. Change link to: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/17/entertainment/et-emmy-family17 --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - You've address all of my concerns. Great work. Once you address Nomader's comment concerning citations for season nine, I will support. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Pedro J. took care of the remaining known issue. I replaced the link for ref 124 (Pedro's citaiton) with a non-redirecting link. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Great work to both Gage and Pedro, the article looks great, and is extremely well sourced, good work guys! CTJF83 chat 20:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Since this list uses information already present on the season pages, I would suggest using sublists to keep the data consistent.

    We used to have that but it was changed by Gage quoteing him on the reason "it eliminated a lot of the unnecessary formatting that came with the previous template". --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I also notice that episode ratings are missing. They should be included in the list.
    • That is completely a matter of opinion. For no reason should they be required to be included in the episode templates, especially since ratings for the first three seasons are nonexistent. Gage (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Eight seasons have aired. Without them the list does not meet the criteria of comprehensiveness. Ωphois 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Please inform me where in the criteria it states that ratings have anything to do with comprehensiveness. Gage (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • The definition of the word "comprehensive". Ωphois 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
            • You still have yet to explain why ratings would be considered comprehensive according to the FL criteria. Gage (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
              • "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items". As Bignole has already pointed out, the article has no reception information, which is pertinent to episodes. Ωphois 03:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
                • Done. Gage (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I feel that the Key explaining production numbers is overly detailed and should be trimmed.
    • That was completely based on the Keys from other featured lists. Gage (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Trimed them minnamaly. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The heading links should be removed since Main Article tags are used.
    • Done. Gage (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The DVD section should include Region 2 and 4 releases, as well as any Blu-Ray or HD DVD releases.
    • Done. Blu-Ray have always been released on the same day as the DVD. HD does not exist. Gage (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The table still only lists DVD's. If Blu-ray is released the same day, it should be noted and sourced. You should also take note that Blu-Ray regions are different than DVD's. Ωphois 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The only Blu-Ray released has been added. Gage (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, didn't notice that section. "It's a Trap!" will also be released on Blu-ray, so it would be better and more visually appealing to just create a separate table for Blu-ray releases. Ωphois 21:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
            • I was considering giving its own table, but considering only one Blu-ray has been released, with only one more planned at the moment, I think a table would be largely unnecessary. Gage (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The list of awards should probably be removed since this is just a list of episodes.
    • When the awards specifically refer to the episodes themselves, it is a matter of interest, and should be included in the list. Gage (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The lead uses the phrase "However, reruns on Turner Broadcasting Cartoon Network's block called Adult Swim drove up interest..." I think it would be more appropriate to phrase it "However, reruns on the Cartoon Network block Adult Swim drove up interest..."

    Done Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • "FOX" should be listed as "Fox". Ωphois 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • There are no sources listed for the production codes. Ωphois 22:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Right now most of the cells are aligned to the left. #, airdates, writers, and directors should be centered to be more visually appealing. Ωphois 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That is a matter of opinion. Gage (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The tables also are of different sizes. They should all be the same width. Ωphois 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That is unfixable, due to the length of several of the episode titles. Gage (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The width can be set to 100%. Ωphois 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Due to my computer's small screen resolution, despite adding a width of 100%, they all still look the same as they did previously. Please let me know if a difference was made. Gage (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Yep. Ωphois 03:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• I also agree with Bignole's concern of the order of the column titles. It would be more appropriate for airdate and production code to be placed last. Ωphois 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Gage (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Ωphois 06:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The lead is really good, but appears to go into a bit too much detail about the show being cancelled and the reasons FOX brought it back. The lead should summarize the article, not introduce a lot of new information that isn't covered in this article in more depth. I think you could trim it down to a basic understanding that the show was cancelled, but audience (use "audience" over "fan", as it's more professional) response over re-runs on Adult Swim led to it being renewed in 2004. I'd cut the "100th" episode info. It's irrelevant on this page, and all TV shows go into syndication with their 100th episode. It's the criteria for syndication. Also, you seem to go into specifics on who won which awards and for what episode in the lead. Again, too much material being introduced for what is really just a summary page. They key is to "summarize". I would trim some of that out, and then think about adding a brief mention of the voice actors who voice the main characters. I know MacFarlane voices a lot of people, but it's kind of important to point that basic info out. Lastly, why are seasons 4 onward containing a source for every individual who wrote and directed an episode? It's unnecessary since they have aired and the episodes themselves can verify the info. At best, you'd just need a single source (like TV Guide or MSN) at the top of each season table where we can verify the episodes for that season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A source for each writer was added because it was requested. Gage (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know who requested a source for each writer for each episode in the manner in which it is presented, but that's simply overboard. Plus, it's inconsistent since the first 3 seasons are not like that. Find an episode guide source (e.g., TV Guide, MSN, etc.) and just list it at the top of each season table. There is no need to list it next to every single name. In addition, shouldn't "Air date" and "Production #" come after "Title", "Director", and "Writer"? They're far less important than the other three categories. I would also say that the page needs some ratings info. In the least, maybe a section for season averages and ranks. Otherwise, there's no reception on this page, and just about every LOE page that's FL that I can think of covers reception in some way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • To my knowledge, such a source is nonexistent. Gage (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • This doesn't exist? You're using it in the article already to source the writers and directors. The difference is, you're applying it to every specific episode page. Just link to the overall episode guide. You are not required to link to every specific episode page for something non-controversial as a list of the people that wrote and directed the episodes. Just list each season's page in the season table itself. Anyone that needs to check a name can click the source and then click the episode itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I guarantee if I had linked it in that manner previously, that it would have been unacceptable. Regardless, I've changed the article to your suggested format. Gage (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, technically if there isn't a direct quote being sourced, then in-line citations are not required by any policy or guideline. They are suggested, but not required. So, in theory, if there are no quotes in the article all your sources can simply be listed at the bottom of the page (just in case anyone every says "they have to be next to every statement" - not true, unless you're dealing with a quotation). But, just listing in the table makes it the best of both worlds. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
              • I've reorganized the list's lead, basing it on several other featured lists. I was reluctant to mention the show's cast, but I was considering the following format: father Peter (Seth MacFarlane), mother Lois (Alex Borstein), daughter Meg (Mila Kunis), son Chris (Seth Green), baby Stewie (Seth MacFarlane) and Brian (Seth MacFarlane), the family pet. Gage (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That format is fine. Isn't Lacey Chabert the voice actress for Meg in the first season?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. How should it be indicated? Gage (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if Kunis didn't take over till season 2, then you don't need to mention her at all. She wasn't part of this season if she didn't do any episodes in it. If she did, then I would probably indicate Chabert first with a note later indicating that Kunis took over later in the first season. I don't know when she took over, I just recall that Chabert voiced her first. If she only voiced her in two episodes, or something like that, then do the reverse. Leave Kunis and note later that Chabert voiced initially, but was replaced at the start of the season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Chabert only voiced Meg for the first eight episodes. Since then, she has been voiced by Kunis in the latest 139. Gage (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I kept thinking I was looking at the page for season 1. Duh, this is for all the seasons. I think you're find the way you currently have it, with both listed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured, actually, as I wasn't really sure why you suggested Kunis shouldn't be mentioned. Gage (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "on January 31, 1999 the show" needs a comma after 1999. Done. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Not sure you need to keep repeating Seth's first name for every role he plays. Done. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Also don't think you need a wikt link to tangent. Done. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "The family was conceived by" let's be explicit and say the "concept of the family" because it could be easily misconstrued as to how one would conceive a family.... Done. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "MacFarlane created two shorts" just "He created" would work fine. Done. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "After two seasons, the Fox Broadcasting Company" any reason why you went from Fox back to the FBC? Done. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "after which it was officially canceled" it -> replace with "the series". Done. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "Family Guy and its cast were nominated for thirteen..." have been rather than were - the series is still current. Done. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "The episode was released on Blu-ray in Region A ..." do you mean "The season..."? No, Something, Something, Something, Dark Side isn't a season. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) This may have been asked before, but where are production numbers referenced? The reference is located at the top of each season's table, after 'Prod.' Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Would prefer the columns to be the same width from section to section. Due to length variations, that is not possible, at least not on my screen resolution. It may look different on your screen, however. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Director -> Director(s), same with Writer for series where there are multiple contributors. I wasn't sure if you meant add '(s)' in every season's table, so I only added it to the one's where multiple Writers or Directors were listed for an episode. Gage (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I think the WP:MOS discourages use of # for "number" so your Nielsen ratings table fails WP:WIAFL. I'd be happy to be corrected though..... Done. Gage (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Season Premiere, Finale etc, why all those capital letters? Done. Gage (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC) TV Season -> Television season. Done. Gage (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Several spaced hyphens in the references which should be en-dashes per WP:DASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Where specifically should the en-dashes be added in the references? Gage (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Some examples: currently refs 12 to 15, 17 to 18, 21, 23, 25 to 26, (ref 27 & 30 look etc different from, say ref 18, by the way), 32, 33, 35, 38, 41, 51 to 56.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Gage (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment there are redirects that need to be fixed like Cartoon Network (United States) which redirects to Cartoon Network. JJ98 (Talk) 21:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:R2D, you aren't supposed to fix redirects that don't change the appearance of the text. Courcelles 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to support but the seasons section lacks Blu-Ray releases, and the two episodes in the DVD column seem to be placed in the wrong place; try renaming the column as Volume/Special or something more appropriate. Also, there is no reason not to have all the tables with identical column widths. Nergaal (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There has only been one Blu-ray released, and one that has yet to be released. Both of those are indicated already. Fixed the header. And the widths all look the same to me, due to my small screen resolution, so I would be unable to fix whatever you are noticing without some sort of guidance. Gage (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The solution for varying width is to set a fixed width for #, airdate and prod #, and explicitly set the other widths with % (now, the widths vary because the names of the episodes and directors vary among seasons and the browser tries to equalize the empty space. As for Blu-rays, it might be worth saying explicitly saying that only the two specials have been released in Blu-ray; I for example would have expected to have more than just those released by now. Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Would you mind adding the widths to the first season table, so I can use it as an example for the remaining eight? And I believe I tried something similar to this a while ago, and it ended up messing it up on my computer, but it may look fine on larger screens. And I added the Blu-ray line. Gage (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Your size reccomendations have been added. Gage (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Support Nergaal (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 06:59, 21 September 2010 [17].

---

Billboard Top Latin Songs Year-End Chart

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is acurate and complete, it includes the best performing Latin singles since the Billboard Top Latin Songs chart inception. I'll be glad to receive feedback about it so it can be useful. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments Any good reason that image isn't on the right-hand side of the page? FIXED "in the last issue of" clarify this is the last issue for that particular year. FIXED "and it yielded " no need for "it". FIXED You need to say that yellow background and bold text is used to denote the most successful single of the year. FIXED Check where "Cómo..." sorts with regard to the other C... words. I have been trying my best to sort it right, but maybe I am not doing it right, can somebody help me? I think you probably need to force the sort using the {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC) I fixed this for you. You have to {{sort|"Como...|"Title"}}. Missing the quotation mark in the first parameter breaks the sorting worse than it was broken before. Courcelles 08:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC) And "Déjame..." with D's. And "Lástima..." with L's. In general, if the second letter of a song title has a diacritic, it sorts out of logical order. Did these two too, since I was already mucking around with your table. Courcelles 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Some Billboard refs seem to have a publisher, some don't. The refs for the magazine have publisher, but the ref from the webpage says only Billboard, do i have to duplicate it in the refs? I see, perhaps you need to make it clear that the magazine is being referenced (ie. Billboard magazine) rather than just the official website. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Don't use all capitals in reference titles. FIXED. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Refs 1, 4, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 26 need publisher. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment Good list as usual. My only concern is that bold is discouraged as an indicator; consider using symbols (such as * or #) instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Since I am already using color to show the best-performing single of the year, I can take the bold out, without other indicator, what do you think? Jaespinoza (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, we always need a symbol to accompany the color for accessibility reasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Supporting, my comments have been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've looked at this a few times, and nothing is jumping at me. I do wonder if some of the unlinked songs are actually sufficiently notable, but I'm not certain of notability requirements in the field. Courcelles 04:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: "The Year-End charts represents" double plural; 'charts represent'. Only issue I found. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • FIXED. Thank you. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I see alot of WP:OVERLINK on the article, the artist should only be linked once in the list, remove that. Secret ^account 02:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overlinking in tables is permitted if the table is sortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok I didn't know, as I rarely participate in FLC, Support Secret ^account 03:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:12, 19 September 2010 [18].

---

Minnesota Mr. Basketball

Nominator(s): ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all the FLC criteria. It is well-written and comprehensive, at least in my opinion. I'm relatively new to the FLC process, so if there is something wrong, just tell me. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—The links to Charlotte Hornets, Division I, Division II, and Kevin Lynch lead to dab pages, and the external link to http://www.mndaily.com/1996/10/09/kolander-enjoys-life-after-u-hoops is dead. Ucucha 20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed the dab pages, while I turned the dead link into "hard" form. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment — player column not sorted properly; need to use {{sortname}}—Chris!_c/t 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm curious: why is this? 2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans passed FLC without having the sortname template. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, it used sortname template, too. But, names in non-sortable tables don't need sortname template.—Chris!_c/t 21:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You didn't answer my original question. Why should I go to all the work to do this? Is it in some policy that I don't know of? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Because the names in the column don't sort by last name, which is incorrect when sorting alphabetically. There is no policy about this that I am aware of. But a featured list should get this right.—Chris!_c/t 22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Agreed. Sorting should be alphabetical by last name, as is standard with sortable featured lists. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I will add the sortname template, despite how pointless it seems. But, you are not suggesting I sort the list by last name? Because, the list is much better ordered in year form. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
              • The table can still be ordered by year. There is no need to change that. But you need to use sortname templates for names, otherwise the name column will sort incorrectly after clicking the icon on top.—Chris!_c/t 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Reference error needs fixing—Chris!_c/t 23:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think it looks good now.—Chris!_c/t 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

Resolved comments from Reywas92) 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

*First sentence: Is the basketball for only one boy? Added "(s)". Read the bottom of the paragraph. It mentions that twice the award was given to two people.. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC) No, I mean that it should be boys' basketball. There are many boys involved so you need the plural possessive. Reywas92Talk 00:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Done. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Also needs an apostrophe in the third sentence. Done. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC) The details about Boston College and WVU's coach seem irrelevant. Removed. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC) It also seems irrelevant that Northeastern Illinois has dropped its athletic programs. This has nothing to do with the award. Removed. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC) References do not need to be repeated in the University or high school tables. Removed. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Very nice overall. Reywas92Talk 22:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jrcla2 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

;Comments from Jrcla2 Lists descend from earliest to latest; ergo, 2010 should be at the bottom and 1975 at the top. Aww, shit. Okay, I fixed it. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC) The Notes column should be unsortable. Fixed. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC) The image of Peterson is not a good one to use. It shows him from the back while the true focus of the image – Kevin McHale shooting – is right in the center. I would take it out. I added a request at the graphics lab to crop Petersen from this. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I'll wait and see how the image turns out before I yea or nay it, but I'm still skeptical that the image (cropped) of the back of his body is really all that usable. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I replaced the original Peterson image with a crop of it. Check it out. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC) The following sentences need references attributed to them: "The first award winner was Gene Glynn, who attended Waseca High School in Waseca, Minnesota. He played for Mankato State University, now known as Minnesota State University." Reffed. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC) There's a cite error at the bottom. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Whoops! Fixed that. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC) "The current winner, Kevin Noreen, is the all-time leading scorer in Minnesota high school history, with 4,086 career points." See below. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC) See response below. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC) "In his senior year at Minnesota Transitions School, Noreen posted averages of 38.6 points, 16.5 rebounds, 5.9 assists, 3.9 steals, and 3.2 blocks, while also having a 4.0 grade point average." I don't think a ref is necessary here, as the one at the bottom of the paragraph should do. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Disagree. I'd be fine with using that same reference after each of those statements, but they need to be cited. If someone read the sentence and wanted to know which ref it came from, they wouldn't necessarily look for the one at the end of the paragraph - they'd look for one located right at the end of the sentence. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Whatever, I reffed it. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC) When the acronym NBA is used in paragraph four, it needs to be spelled out like National Basketball Association (NBA) Draft because the term had never been clarified before. After that, it is fine to use "NBA". Done. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC) *Typo, sice → since The word must have been taken out. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Jrcla2 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC) A few more things. I think the high school redlinks need to be removed. They clutter the page. I don't foresee anyone making all of those high school articles anytime soon or else I wouldn't care as much. I do not intend to remove all those redlinks. They encourage creation of articles, and frankly they don't bother me at all. If they bother you that much I could go around and create articles on them, but unless you will oppose this FLC I really don't feel like it. Yes, I am too lazy. :) ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) The Notes column is pretty insufficient. If there is going to be a notes column, then IMO there shouldn't be a 25-no notes to 13-notes ratio. There's got to be at least one thing worth mentioning about most of these players in that column. I changed the notes column to NBA Draft. The other notes I compiled into a seperate notes section. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) In 1981, it says that Redd Overton went on to an "unknown" junior college. I'm assuming that it's too difficult to track down, via internet resources, which school that was. I have no problem with not knowing which junior college he went to, but I think the word "unknown" needs to be removed because it is ambiguous as to why it's unknown and it doesn't further elucidate the fact that he went to junior college, which is really all that's pertinent in that note. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Removed. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - All of my comments have been addressed. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved question from Jrcla2 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

;Question I want to see what other people think of this idea: Since there seems to be so much dead space next to the sections titled "Most winners by university" and "Most winners by high school", I propose that they be condensed into one section. The section header would something like ==Winners by school==, and then within that section it would be two columns. The left column would be titled By university and the right column would be titled By high school. This would condense the page and eliminate dead space without being impractical or aesthetically unappealing. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC) As the author of the list, you should take this with a grain of salt, but I am opposed to this. The so-called "dead space" doesn't really bother me that much, and it would be superior, I think, to a massive combined table. This might just be a stylistic preference, so I want to hear other opinions. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC) There may be miscommunication for what I meant, and after reading what I wrote I blame myself. I do not want to combine the lists into one; I think that would be a bad idea. What I mean is to split the pre-existing school breakdown lists into two separate columns within that section, using {{col-begin}}, {{col-2}}, and {{col-end}} to do so. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC) I like the idea of having the tables positioned side by side, similar with the conference standings in 2009–10 NBA season#By conference. — Martin tamb (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Martin tamb (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

;Comments Per WP:REPEATLINK, I think every entries in the high school and university columns need to be wikilinked. Linked. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC) I think it is worth mentioning that Kevin McHale has been inducted to the Basketball Hall of Fame. I added this, plus a bit about his NBA career.~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Has Ken Lien headed the selection committee since the first award in 1975? Since 1977. Clarified. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Were the finalists selection dates and the winners announcement date always on January, March and April since the first award in 1975? See below. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Have the numbers of finalists always been 15 and 5 since the first award in 1975? Yes, clarified. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Overall, nice list and very well referenced. — Martin tamb (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Great job, but just one more thing, I think the notes in notes section will look better if they are using normal citation, rather than the "See...". Not a big issue though, just a suggestion. — Martin tamb (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• • I tried that, but I think that <ref> and <ref group=note> are incompatible. I wish they would work, anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Interesting, never knew that they wouldn't work. Anyway I've made the change using another method from WP:REFGROUP. Now the notes can have citations. — Martin tamb (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments "The female equivalent is Minnesota Miss Basketball. " shouldn't be the second sentence of this list. It should go somewhere but not second sentence. I like where it is, and I cannot think of a better place to put it. If you can, please tell me. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC) If no-one else objects, fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "high school" and "basketball" linked second time round rather than first time. Delinked both. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "selects five finalists in March of every year since it began" what's "it" here? re-iterate "the award" rather than "it". Done. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe consider linking "assists", "rebounds", "steals", "blocks" etc for non-experts. Done. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC) No lead image? I didn't know whether to put the images in the awards section or in the lead. What do you suggest? ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC) No big deal, wondered if there was a logo for the award or something similar? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I don't know, their is no official Minnesota Mr. Basketball website and I don't think there's an official logo. Perhaps I could have the logo of the Minnesota Golden Gophers, because most recipients played there? ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Not sure "Most winners" section is really necessary as only 3 uni's have multiple winners and 4 high schools. This can easily be covered in the lead. Yes but it is useful to see which schools have won the award without directly consulting the main list. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I think you could cover this in the lead in a single sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I personally like the section, mainly for the reasons above. Others have supported the FLC while providing touch-ups to it, but not objecting to its presence. I'd rather not remove it. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Template is weird because it looks incomplete (presumably to avoid red links?).
  • Do you want me to fill them in? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • Well it's not directly related to this FLC, but it is very odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, I filled it in. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It doesn't appear so to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
          • That's because it was reverted. Apparently not all states have Mr. and Miss Basketballs. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Then the template should be modified so that it only includes states which do have Mr & Miss Basketballs, otherwise it's quite misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "selects five finalists in March of every year since the award began." Considering the structure of the sentence, should "selects" be "has selected"?
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• I see the image that had been at the top got deleted. Can it be replaced with a photo of another winner? There are already a couple in use here.
  • I could not find any besides the ones on the page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • In that case, could one of the existing images be moved to the top to improve the appearance of the intro? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, I moved up McHale's image because he had the most successful career of any player on the list. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• In the notes, remove the space before reference 43. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose for now There's nothing too major, but the references need a significant clean-up.  :*A lede image would make this look so much nicer. Right now it is just a "wall o' text" See above. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC) "Joel Przybilla was the co-recipient of the award in 1998." There's five guys in that picture. Use a more precise caption. Added "center, in black". ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC) "White signed with the Minnesota Golden Gophers, but did not play due to shoplifting and trespassing charges. however, he transferred to Iowa State in July 2010 before playing a game with the Golden Gophers." When it is not necessary, don't include negative BLP information. Quite honestly, we don't need the one sentence on this entire website about someone saying they've been charged with stealing unless absolutely necessary. Done. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) References, you've got quite a few problems, none major, but a good deal of collective clean-up needed. Ref numbers are of this revision. NewsBank is an archival service; the MediaNews Group is the publisher of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Do not list the archival service that is hosting your convenience link as the publisher- use the paper's actual publisher, and leave the archival service out of the template all-together. The rest you're going to have to look up, but refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38, 40, and 42 all need publisher clean-up or added. I did not know this rule. In any case, I think I fixed them all. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC) May I was why you took the easy route and simply removed the wrong information, instead of adding the correct info? Courcelles 00:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Pardon? I did add Media News Group to the appropriate references. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, but you need to look up the publishers for the other papers, I only gave you one of them, the rest aren't hard to find. Courcelles 01:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, I filled the rest in. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Anything that doesn't have the city name in the paper; for example, the Deseret News, add the location. Ref 5 will need a location because you're citing a paper from Charleston, WV, and there are two major cities named Charleston. Hopefully I didn't screw this up. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Refs 30 and 41 need author Fixed number 30. I already had the author on 41, but for whatever reason it isn't showing up. This is very strange. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You were missing a | in the template call. Went ahead and fixed it while I was looking. Courcelles 04:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Quite frankly, so many of these newspaper links are behind pay walls, we might be better without the links than tagging them all as subscription required. For the St. Paul Pioneer Press links, when you open it up, and it says , "St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) - April 19, 1988 - 5D Sports" Add the 5D to the page field if you take this route. Same thing for the Duluth News-Tribune reference. Courcelles 04:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I don't know how to tag subscription required. Could you do it for me? ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Add |format=subscription required to the templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Capped most off, but this one needs to be fixed. Courcelles 05:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Ok, done. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:41, 17 September 2010 [19].

---

Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Jazz Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated (see my profile for complete list). I realize another Grammy-related list is currently being examined by reviewers, but the list has received support already so I thought it was acceptable to nominate another list (and I have other lists waiting as well). Please note that this is the second time I have nominated this list--the previous attempt was closed after just one review, even though the concerns were addressed. Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to examine the list and offer suggestions! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 16:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "American artists have been presented with the award more than any other nationality, though it has been presented to a group from Austria once." Meh, not the best way to say what is happening here. "Artists from the United States have won every award except the most recent, which was awarded to a group from Austria" or something is better, because the point is that the U.S. have won all of them save one, not just more than anyone else. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 'Beginning in 2001, award recipients included the producers, engineers, and/or mixers associated with the nominated work in addition to the recording artists." Citation needed. Is the General reference good enough of a citation? If I were to add a citation to follow the claim, it would be the same as the General one. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc. should be using cite news. It it came from a newspaper, even with a Google or web convenience link, cite news is still the correct template. Fortunately, merely changing the template is sufficient, the other parameters are identical. I changed all newspapers to display using the "cite news" template. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 6 needs location. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 15 needs publisher. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 23:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to offer suggestions. I hope your concerns have been addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 16:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support my concerns addressed last time round, and while Courcelle's careful eyes found further minor issues, these are now all done and dusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good work, though I usually don't review music lists I found this interesting. Sandman888 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:41, 17 September 2010 [20].

---

1970 NBA Draft

Nominator(s): Martin tamb (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Another NBA Draft list, similar format to the already-promoted 1984 NBA Draft (FLC) and the not-promoted 1973 NBA Draft (FLC). — Martin tamb (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "In this draft, 17 NBA teams took turns selecting amateur U.S. college basketball players." - International players were also selected in the draft. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.

• Suggest you re-nominate 1973 NBA Draft for FLC, since I believe all the comments were resolved on the previous FLC. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll consider re-nominate it after this one is done. —— Martin tamb (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Link Eligibility for the NBA Draft somewhere in the article. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me—Chris!_c/t 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Would love an appropriate lead image in that infobox... Moved the first pick's image to the lead. I tried to put that in the infobox but I think it looks really weird. Draft logo is better suited for the infobox, but I don't think they had a logo in 1970. Draft is linked twice, quickly, one more specifically than the other. Removed the second link to Draft (sports). I think a link to NBA Draft should be enough. "Fourth pick Dave Cowens from Florida State University and eight pick" -> eighth? Fixed. Other picks table, sorting by round has different effect from sorting the Draft section, namely in the former case, Pick sorts similarly but in the latter case, Pick sorts somewhat randomly (in Safari). I couldn't find any problems, even in Safari. I'm not really sure what's wrong because every entries in Pick column are numbers, so it should has numerical sorting order. — Martin tamb (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Grammar is faulty in "He played six seasons in the ABA before finally joined the NBA...". "He has been selected to five All-ABA teams, six ABA All-Star Games and one NBA All-Star Game." "has been" → "was". He's not gaining any more of these honors, after all. "He has been selected to both All-NBA Team and All-Star Game." Same problem here, along with the lack of at least one connecting "the". "The Rockets first and second round picks". Apostrophe needed for Rockets? "The 1970 Draft also known as...". Missing "is". "the Atlanta Hawks drafted Mexican Manuel Raga and Italian Dino Meneghin, both were playing in the Italian league at the time." Comma should be a semi-colon here. Reference 31 should include an indication that the link is in PDF format. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 01:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 04:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments In the finest split of the hair splits, you need a citation for this being the 24th draft. You have three straight sentences that start with "X's achievements include..." A little variety in sentences, please? "Mexican Manuel Raga and Italian Dino Meneghin; " I think Mexico and Italy are familiar enough concepts the links can be removed. It would look better if the two tables were perfectly lined up, instead of the second one being wider. Ref 25; first name is Jeff to go with the last name you've got. Courcelles 04:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think a citation is needed for the 24th draft as it is a easily verifiable fact that is unlikely to be challenged. I tried to tweak the table but I can't get them to line up perfectly. Everything else fixed.—Chris!c/t 03:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support No big deal on the table widths. Courcelles 04:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: "Three other players from this draft, 8th pick Geoff Petrie, 5th pick Sam Lacey and 7th pick John Johnson, have also been selected to at least one All-Star Game." earlier you spell them out (fifth, seventh) so it should be here too. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Martin tamb (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:41, 17 September 2010 [21].

---

List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this list of Connecticut Huskies bowl games meets the featured list criteria. Please review and concur if you agree.

This list is intended to be the capstone to a future Connecticut Huskies bowl game featured topic, similar to the (now-demoted) Virginia Tech Hokies bowl game featured topic. Right now only one of the bowl game articles, 2009 International Bowl, is of featured quality; I plan to improve the other three bowl game articles following working on this list. –Grondemar 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment (to the reviewers) - 10 entries rule? --K. Annoyomous (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have sufficient prose, the 10 entry rule does not apply. And it is also irrelevant whether all bowl games could be at List of college bowl games, because having them in one place would be bad and it's divided after teams (because that is what the reviewer want) and to hell with what the MoS of WP:LIST says. But if he can't vigorously argue his case, then of course it will probably fail. But note we have precedent for letting this stuff pass so luckily we don't have to think about, unless we want to change precedent in which case someone will say "standard changes", and then Grondemar will have to file an RfC for this criteria, and it will likely end in no consensus and that's just though luck buddy! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 08:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of criterion 3b of the featured list criteria is that a featured list cannot reasonably be included as part of another article. In this case, the article in question would not be List of college bowl games, which is a list of bowl game series rather than specific annual games, but rather Connecticut Huskies football, the main article for the Connecticut Huskies football program. I would agree it would be reasonable to include the summary table of games in the main program article; in fact, it is already there. What would be undue weight would be to include the individual game capsules. In my mind this list meets that aspect of the criteria as the game capsules could not reasonably be included in the main program article. I also note two other things: first, that since UConn will in all likelihood be invited to a bowl game every year they have a winning season, this list will continue to grow over time; and second, I don't see any specific mention of a "10 entry" rule in the featured list criteria. I am unfamiliar if this is considered to be an unwritten, colloquial standard, however. –Grondemar 09:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The 10-entry rule is not a rule, but in the past the FL community has considered lists with fewer than 10 entries to be "too short" for FL status. However, I encourage reviewers to consider each list individually instead of applying a robotic "standard" to all FLCs. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Was just wanting some feedback on whether or not this "violates" that "rule". It certainly doesn't violate any FL criteria, so let the reviewing go on! --K. Annoyomous (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 04:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose Nothing major on its own, but a lot of concerns- this needed a copy-edit from someone who doesn't follow football. If this were like the Texas Tech one currently nominated, I'd be opposing for 3b and be done with it. However, this follows the Virginia Tech list in structure, and as such the level of richness present here would overwhelm the team's main article-which is already surprisingly long for an article that barely skims over 90+ years of the team's history; so it could clearly be made much longer. (Especially since the prose fails to discuss a national championship!) I agree that Connecticut Huskies football needs to be improved, but even if theoretically that article was improved to featured article quality, there would still be a need for this standalone list for the reasons you mentioned above. See below for the national championship issue. –Grondemar 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The terms 1-A and 1-AA aren't used anymore by the NCAA. Should we be using them here? (I can live with it, most people know the old terms better than the new.) I added the note I used in the recently-promoted featured article 2009 International Bowl: "In August 2006 the NCAA changed the name of Division I-A to Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Division I-AA to Football Championship Subdivision (FCS). In this article the old names are used to refer to events that occurred prior to August 2006." Let me know if that works for you. –Grondemar 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, that national championship again. How does the second paragraph avoid mentioning it? I'm not sure I understand the issue here; UConn has never won a national championship in American football. The Huskies have won several national championships in men's and women's basketball; perhaps that is what you're thinking of? If not, could you point me to where in the list it indicates that the Huskies have won a football national championship? –Grondemar 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I should look things up. My brain was cross wired with UConn and UMass here. Sorry. Courcelles 00:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Backing up, I don't care for the introductory sentence. We really try not to start FL's with any form of "This is a list..." or "The list..." anymore I based the first paragraph directly off of the first paragraph of the List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games. If you have an alternate phrasing in mind I would be certainly glad to change it. –Grondemar 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 4th paragraph. Do we have to mention beating South Carolina? (Don't change it. It's just embarrassing for a South Carolinian ;) ) The summary table. Three of the four stadiums are just corporate naming deals... did you consider giving the cities instead? I added a column called "Location" to link to the cities; let me know what you think. –Grondemar 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "4-way tie for first place; they filled four of the five conference bowl slots." I don't care for the mixing of 4 and four in a single sentence, I must admit. I changed "4" to "four". –Grondemar 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "The remaining slot was filled by Notre Dame, who was not a member of the Big East Conference for football" They're not to this day, so why the past tense? This is in past tense to match the tense of the rest of the sentence. I'll run it by a copyeditor for a second opinion, however. –Grondemar 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "The game was anticipated to be a high-scoring affair[12]," If we're going to stick a reference in the middle of a sentence, but it after the comma. Fixed. –Grondemar 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "The 2004 Motor City Bowl kicked off on December 27, 2004 at Ford Field in Detroit, Michigan." kicked off? Try contested. This isn't Test Cricket, we finish in one stretch here. I meant in this case "kick offed" as in the literal kickoff that is the first play in every American football game; but in any case I changed it to "was played". –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "and had to leave the game for good by halftime." Rather colloquial for an encyclopaedia. Try "and did not return following halftime" I changed it to "did not play in the second half". –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) In the 2007 capsule, don't link Orlovsky again, he's linked not four lines up. Link removed. –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "Connecticut returned to bowl eligibility in 2007. UConn finished the regular season with a record of 9–3 and claimed a share of the Big East Conference championship." These sentences would flow better as a single sentence. Done. –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "Their opponent was Wake Forest, the previous year's" Given all the mess about New Year's, can we just go with "season" here? Done. –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "win over then-No. 12–ranked" We have an endash here, then in the next section, two without endashes and the notes inserted in a different place. Please be consistent. I removed the word "ranked" in all occurences. –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I feel like there are general WP:OVERLINK issues with the various positions. The first time they're mentioned is plenty. I believe these are all fixed now. –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Ref 11, date consistency with the rest, please. Now ref 12 and fixed. –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Like I said, nothing major here. This can be fixed within the FLC period; but I do know football, so I'm not sure what someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the sport would think of things I might have glossed over. Courcelles 23:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I have replied in part and will work on correcting the other issues. Thanks for the review! –Grondemar 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Please review and let me know if you find anything else. –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Regarding the lede sentence, the VT list is a 2+ year old promotion; back then, such introductory sentences were acceptable in FL's. I think you're going to need to completely rewrite this sentence, and you're unlikely to be left with any bold text. Courcelles 04:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I rewrote the lead; please review and let me know what you think. –Grondemar 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't have any 3b concerns because of the level of detail presented here; this would be out of balance on the team's main article. All other issues resolved. (Still, next time, lose to the Gamecocks.) Courcelles 16:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! (If it's any consolation, I'll be rooting for the Gamecocks to take the SEC East this year. If they're ever going to do it, this will be the year.) –Grondemar 16:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Regarding 3b, I believe that this list could reasonably be included as part of a related article (Connecticut Huskies football). The table already is included in Connecticut Huskies football and the information in this list could be merged into that section of the article where only the table exists now. NThomas (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Connecticut Huskies football is currently 1658 words of readable prose. List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games has 1417 words of readable prose. Even if the history section (which is most of the readable prose of the article) is doubled in size, it would be unreasonable to have a third of that article taken up by bowl game summaries. Including the full details of this list article in the main team article would be undue weight on a very narrow aspect of the history of the Connecticut Huskies football team. –Grondemar 01:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

3.b is such a joke. You have article like List of New York Yankees no-hitters (B) and List of Major League Baseball no-hitters (A), where B is a complete subset of A. The same goes for the current Watford POY and previous similar lists. The reason why they're allowed? Due to extensive prose written and effort on behalf of nominator. But what is the purpose of lists you ask? it's to make it easy for people to navigate in different wikipedia articles. Therefore they shouldn't be this hybrid of lists and articles just to avoid 3.b failure, but whatever. Sandman888 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I didn't find anything at fault. Sandman888 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on a second thought, I genuinely believe that extra prose does not make a list meet 3b. The games are all linked so there's no need to c&p a summary of each into a list and then create a spin-off list. Following that logic I could equally split any list of football players into 20 sub-lists by adding prose from the relevant players articles. Perhaps 3b should just be deleted since it doesn't work. Sandman888 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• 3.b changed for the better. However I'm still confused if you can oppose on 3.b or it should be taken to AfD? See the current FLRC on mergers. Sandman888 (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• The structure of the game capsules follows the summary style guideline, where the parent article (the bowl game list) links to each of the games while providing a summary of each of the games, beyond what one could get from a single table, in the game capsules section. This is a similar structure to what is done in individual college football season articles—2005 Texas Longhorns football team is an example of a featured article with this kind of structure (along with other sections which aren't applicable to a list of bowl games). –Grondemar 05:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments – First off, I think the present structure is about the only way this could meet 3b, given that we're talking about four games. Also, I can't see how putting this much on the bowl game into the team article wouldn't be too much for that article. I don't care for the third paragraph of the lead. The writing is fine, but I don't see some of what is here is relevant to the bowl games. Is it really that important to know that four of their players were drafted high one year? I would rather see a taste of what lies in the body of the article, with some basics on the games themselves. There, something like Donald Brown's MVP performance would be a natural fit in my opinion. The reason that paragraph is there is because I based the lead structure directly on List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games. I'll have to think about how to restructure it. –Grondemar 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I added a new section to the article listing the top 5 performers for UConn in bowl games in three offensive statistics: rushing, passing, and receiving. I changed the third paragraph of the lead to directly reference this paragraph. Let me know what you think now. –Grondemar 07:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 2004 Motor City Bowl: Remove space before reference 11. Fixed. –Grondemar 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Replace dash in "one–yard" with a regular hyphen. There are a couple more uses like this later. These should all be fixed now. –Grondemar 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2007 Meineke Car Care Bowl: "The second half was all Wake Forest" reads like something from a game recap; it's not necessarily the best tone for an encyclopedia page. Section rewritten. –Grondemar 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2010 PapaJohn's.com Bowl: Another tone concern with "tragic murder". It surely was tragic, but it is a weasel word of sorts. I removed the word "tragic". –Grondemar 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I see no need to abbreviate SEC when it's not used. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Removed. –Grondemar 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Note that I'm supporting this one and the Texas Tech list. No one ever said that all FLs in a genre must look the same. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose a few points, but enough (for me) to be concerned with immediate promotion... (and my apologies for not being around sooner) Don't worry about the timing, I appreciate your input. I only ask the FL Directors' patience while I respond to the below comments over the next day or two. –Grondemar 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Well, I guess that since I'm one of the FL Directors, I'll assure you our patience...... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC) "UConn has been invited to a bowl game every year since 2007, a three-year streak" I don't see 2008? And if it's a "season thing", that statement is still confusing to non-experts. I changed it to "UConn has been invited to a bowl game every season since the 2007 season, a three-year streak." College football seasons are customarily referred to by the year in which the regular season takes place; for instance, the 2007 season refers to the season in which regular season games were played in 2007. Bowl games are played following the end of the regular season. Some bowls are played in December, and thus are played in the same calendar year as the regular season games. Other bowl games, however, are played in January; these games, despite the fact they occur in a different calendar year as the regular season games, are considered part of the season of that previous calendar year. For example, the 2009 International Bowl, which was played on January 3, 2009, is considered to be part of the 2008 season rather than the 2009 season. This is due to the fact that the team rosters are the same from the end of the regular season to the bowl game, while the rosters change due to graduation and class year advancement in May-June, and new players coming in in August-September, following standard American academic year cycles. Connecticut played in bowl games at the conclusion of the 2007, 2008, and 2009 seasons; however, two of the bowl games took place in January and therefore are the 2009 and 2010 editions of the games even though they took place during the previous season. To help clarify this, in the main list I put a "Season" column which clarifies which season each bowl game was in. I understand this is confusing; let me know if you think this needs any further clarification. –Grondemar 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) "Connecticut's first post-season bowl game was in 2004, when the Huskies participated in the 2004 Motor ..." would prefer to not read Connecticut and Huskies in same sentence referring to the same thing. Perhaps "The Huskies first ..., when they participated in..."? Changed as requested. Throughout the article I attempted to rotate "Connecticut", "UConn", and "the Huskies" for the name of the team to reduce repetitiveness. –Grondemar 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC) "Attendance records are correct as of the end of the 2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season.[4][5]" not sure this is quite the right phrasing for one-off bowl games? See my responses above and below. –Grondemar 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) To what is the attendance record relevant? Is it the venue? The bowl game? In other words, why isn't 53,126 the attendance record when it's bigger than any of the Huskies' other games? The attendance record is the individual bowl game attendance record (for instance, the International Bowl attendance record). I rewrote the sentence to clarify this. –Grondemar 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) On a similar note, interesting that you link punt but not 4th-down-and-6 play which is far more technical. I added a link to Down (American football)#Terminology here. –Grondemar 02:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC) No need to repeat Orlovksy's first name (unless there was more than one Orlovsky...) Fixed. –Grondemar 02:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Ineffective player: "only able to complete six of twelve passes" (completion 50%), MVP player : "he completed 20 of 41 passes" (completion <50%, but yes, 2 TDs), it's a cruel world... More significant here than the completion percentage is the total number of passes completed as well as the yardage. The fact that Gradkowski was out of the game by the second half while Orlovsky played the whole game also weighs in. Also note that it wasn't me saying that Gradkowski was ineffective; that was from the source (which unfortunately I only got through Lexis-Nexis and can't find online). –Grondemar "fourth quarter off of a field goal and a nine-yard touchdown run" hate, hate, hate that "off of", but realise it could be conventional USEng. Could you dare compromise with "with" or "from"? As far as I know "off of" is accepted US English, but I changed it to "from" which also works. –Grondemar 02:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC) "UConn earned only nine first downs" again (sorry), what's a typical number of first downs? Howard jersey image is a little sad and actually messes up the formatting on my screen of the following section. Is it really worth it? The Jasper Howard jersey picture is intended to be poignant; 2009 was a very emotional and sad season for the Huskies. To fix the formatting issue, I took the marching band picture from the previous section, shrunk it in resolution, moved it to the left, and reduced the caption. Let me know how it looks now. –Grondemar 02:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe a bridge too far, but the Stats section, could you make the Player, Pos. and Game column the same width from section to section? I know the remaining columns are different but the ones that aren't would look a lot better (imo) if they were the same size. Done. –Grondemar 03:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Refs have a mixture of Pg and p for page number referencing. Fixed—all references should use "p." now. –Grondemar 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC) ESPN references appear to be formatted slightly differently. I checked the ESPN references and they all appear to be correct. I believe what you're seeing is reference 5, which uses {{cite web}} instead of {{cite news}}. The reason that is the page is a publication of the PapaJohns.com Bowl, which is actually owned by ESPN; however, the website is not part of ESPN.com, and therefore really isn't a "news source" per se. The only other difference in the ESPN refs is that some are reprints of the Associated Press or STATS INC (which are indicated by including the wire service's name) and others are ESPN original reporting (which don't have any additional name). –Grondemar 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I think we avoid all-CAPS in refs, regardless of the original source, so SPORTS->Sports, FOOTBALL->Football... These should all be fixed now, except for STATS INC., which I believe is a company name so should stay capitalized, similar to ESPN. –Grondemar 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC) If ref 28 & 29 are the same (which they appear to be) you should use ref name. Even though they have the same page title, these references have different URLs; one lists the draft results for UConn, and one lists the draft results for South Carolina. –Grondemar 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Refs 17, 26, 30 through 33 appear to have spaced hyphens when, according to WP:DASH, they should probably be en-dashes. These should all be fixed now. –Grondemar 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I know what I'm about to say is very amateur but I'd like to see some clue for non-experts as to what those bowl synopsis infoboxes mean, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 (these are quarters, right?) and the respective scores in each? All I'm saying is perhaps we need to focus a little harder on non-experts here? The "1,2,3,4" are indeed quarters, and the "Total" column is the final score of the game (computed by adding the scores from the four quarters). The infobox is a standard template; I tried modifying it to show the word "Quarter" above the numbers, but couldn't get it to look right. I'll take another look at it later today. –Grondemar 13:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I successfully modified {{NCAAFootballSingleGameHeaderMini}} to say "Quarter" above the 1, 2, 3, 4 sections. This template is only used by this list and the List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games, so this change shouldn't have an unexpected impact on other articles. Let me know if this satisfies your concern. –Grondemar 02:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry to drone on about non-experts, but Europeans (at least, Brits) have no idea what a "losing season" is. I understand from other reviews this is when you lose more games than you win? It would be nice to pamper our non-experts once more with a note or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I changed it to "two seasons where they...lost more games than they won". –Grondemar 13:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:41, 17 September 2010 [22].

---

List of Atlanta Braves managers

Nominator(s): LAAFan 00:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC) --K. Annoyomous (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets criteria. Thanks for comments in advance. LAAFan 00:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—dab links to Fred Mitchell and Georgia; no dead external links. Ucucha 06:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. Fixed.--LAAFan 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments "...that formed..." sounds a little passive, can you be more active, i.e. "were formed in"? Done by LAAFan. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Four paras, three of which are short, in the lead, probably could go to three paras max. Done by LAAFan. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) "Cox lost the 1991 World Series, 1992 World Series, 1996 World Series and 1999 World Series with the Braves" do you need to repeat "World Series" each time here? Done by LAAFan. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) "Cox has managed more games than any other Braves manager" maybe "Cox has managed the Braves for more games than any other manager"? Done by LAAFan. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) "Cox has managed more games than any other Braves manager. Billy Southworth, Luman Harris, Joe Torre, Cox, Haney, and Stallings are the only managers to have led the Braves into the playoffs. What's the comment here?. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) "The highest win–loss total for a Braves manager is held by Cox, with 1,792 wins and 1,315 losses. Cox became the first Braves manager to win the Manager of the Year award, in 1991, 2004, and 2005.[2] The current manager of the Braves is Cox, who replaced Russ Nixon during the 1990 season." Count the sentences, count the "Cox"s. One per sentence is too much. Done by LAAFan. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) "Thus, any managers who has two or more separate" English.... any "manager" who has. Done by LAAFan. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Curious point. Once I've re-sorted the list by anything, how can I re-sort it by #? Especially as sorting by year results in 38 Ted Turner sorting ahead of 39 Vern Benson followed by 37 Dave Bristol... Done by LAAFan. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) In Safari under Mac OS X, PL doesn't sort correctly (current Cox is between Southworth and Haney) Done. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Images aren't same width. Done. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Suddenly in the total, you have a thousand separator, but nowhere else in the table? Be consistent. Don't understand what you're trying to say... --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Done, added commas to Frank Selee and Bobby Cox's wins and losses, consistent with the commas in the Totals rows. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:SECONDARY. I only see Sports Reference sources.

Will do that tomorrow. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Use {{nts}} for the playoff columns.

Done. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

--K. Annoyomous (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments – First, it looks like some of the comments above have been taken care of. It would be nice if the nominator could indicate which ones are done. "They are members of the eastern division of Major League Baseball's National League." If we want to see correct terminology, "eastern" should probably be "East", since that is the official title. Done. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) In addition to the managers named in the lead as reaching the World Series, Billy Southworth also led the Braves to the Series in 1948. Don't think adding that onto the lead is really necessary. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) In the sentence on Bobby Cox's Series appearances, there is still a repetition of World Series; try removing the first one. Done. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) A few of the table columns (PA, PW and PL) are sorting oddly. Done. --K. Annoyomous (talk) References 1 and 2 have slightly different formatting than the rest, without the Baseball-Reference.com. Done. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC) "The Braves were a charter member of the NL in 1876 as the Boston Red Caps, and is...". What is "is" doing here? Should be "were". I don't think it should be were...I read over the sentence more than 10 times. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) I think you're right. It should be "are"; anything but "is" for a plural item like a team nickname. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "The franchise was known as Boston Bees from 1936 to 1940". Missing "the" after "as". Fixed. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) "which ended the Braves 34-year postseason drought". Braves needs an apostrophe at the end. Fixed. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) "the team moved from Milwaukee to its current location Atlanta." Needs a comma before Atlanta. I think it would've been fine without a comma, but added it anyways. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) "and is managing his current tenure with the team since 1990." This bit badly needs a re-write. Re-written. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) The general reference should be bulleted. Done. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Can this FLC please be closed. I have a lot of work to do that I cannot finish in a limited time.--LAAFan 03:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't close it. I will voluntarily finish this FLC nomination free of charge. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• comment leaning towards oppose. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't believe the lead is very engaging, and I think a telling sign of such is the lack of quotes to books or newspapers. A stats-site simply cannot back up any brilliant prose without turning into OR. Who is considered significant of these managers, who turned the club around etc? I recommend reading some of the history section of the club article to get some ideas. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I was supposed to cite some secondary sources into the article yesterday, but forgot to. If I have time, I will then research more about the history of the club. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support lead is better, not fantastic but I'm satisfied, thanks for the effort. :) Sandman888 (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. :D --K. Annoyomous (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Re-wrote entire lead. Please re-review the article, and see if any corrections need to be made. Sorry for the inconvenience. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: For the sorting, is there a way to get the hyphens to come after the numbers when descending? right now it's the dashes, then the highest number, going down, which to me makes less sense than in reverse. (in other words, now it's -, -, -, 14, 10, 1, 0 when it should be 14, 10, 1, 0, -, - -) Fixed. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC) "Since starting to play as" I'd reword a bit; maybe "Since the franchise's start as the.." Done. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC) "the World Series ended in a losing result to the Braves." for the Braves Done. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC) "team three season before in Milwaukee." you mean for three earlier seasons? reword Reworded. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC) While the lead is impressive, I actually think it's a bit too long. I'll defer to a second opinion on that though. One guy said it was too short, now you say it's too long. Interesting... --K. Annoyomous (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'll support this, cautiously, presuming another opinion or two on the lead will create a full support shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 03:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments Could you put the caption of the image in the lead in prose form? "the team has changed its name several times, and relocated twice" - Serial comma are only used in lists of three or more. (multiple occurences) The lead could still use a bit of copy-editing. Goodraise 03:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Fixed everything except the copy-editing. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. The prose is not up to standards. The list is fine otherwise. Goodraise 03:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Restricted support. Meets criteria 2–6. No comment on criterion 1. Will return to complete the review, if I find the time. Goodraise 14:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Should probably mention in the prose (here's an easy place to use a secondary source) that the Braves have retired Eddie Mathews #. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support I made some copy-edits a few days ago, and I just did one more due to the FLC being rather long in the tooth. Prose isn't great, but it is hard to make this rather dry subject jump off the page. All the other criteria are fully satisfied. Courcelles 05:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:46, 15 September 2010 [23].

---

List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All fixed up for a nice off-the-beaten-path baseball list. I have a couple questions for you guys: Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• 1. The name. Would you prefer something like List of Major League Baseball players to hit four home runs in one game? If nothing else List of MLB players follows the standard of many other lists (rather than "hitters". A pitcher could technically do it anyways).
• 2. Should a ref to the box score for the game be included where available (box score archives exist for about 60% of these)?

• Jeez, feels like just yesterday I found this page and gave it a wikitable. Here you went and fixed it up properly. (1) Yes, (2) Yes. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Haha, I hadn't even noticed! Feel free to add your name to the list as you did a lot of the technical work on the table, obviously. I'll wait on more responses before making the changes. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was wondering if you were stalking my contributions page. :P Looks like you did a good job, I'll take a closer look though. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. I like the current title better than the one you propose above. Ucucha 11:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• Like the current title as well.
• Superscript daggers.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Any reason for a fixed table width? I don't think an unfixed width would be an issue here, and the three entries that are broken over two lines on my monitor would be solved.

• Originally I copied the ref column with a set width and if one column has a set width it auto sets the table to 100% (at least on my screen) unless you define the table size. I'll leave it totally unfixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is it worth marking losses in the table, since you mention it in the lead?

• Thought about doing this, I'll do it with red. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Mark Whiten for example," - comma after Whiten

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• "four homer game" - four-homer becomes a compound adjective here.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Remove "ALL CAPS" in reference in favor of title case per MOS. — KV5 • Talk • 22:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 12:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Few minor nit-picking or thinking aloud things. Nice list, either title would be fine with me, in the highly-unlikely event a pitcher ever accomplishes the feat, a move may need to be pursued, but I don't think it is necessary now. Yeah, the pitcher thing I feel is secondary. My main concern is (at least as far as I know) most of these lists are List of MLB players, not hitters, such as players with a .400 OBP). Staxringold talkcontribs 17:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Is there any way to rearrange it not to start the article with a number? How's that? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC) "Mike Cameron hit his four on May 2, 2002" Don't we normally put a comma after the year in this format? Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Score, why does 8–11 sort before 8–9, yet 15–2, 15–4, and 15–7 sort in that order? I fixed this. — KV5 • Talk • 12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Opposing Team, should the Boston and Milwaukee Braves sort together, since they are the same team? Same thing for the Brooklyn and LA Dodgers in the team field. With all past baseball lists we've avoided doing this, I'm just following that style. For the Triple Crown lists, for the pennant/WS champ lists, for older awards lists, anything that goes far enough back to hit franchises under multiple names (Expos/Nationals, Senators/Twins/Rangers) or locations (Brooklyn/LA, New York/San Fran) we let them sort by the actual name. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 04:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support No need to break convention on the sorting. Courcelles 17:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

*"have resulted in other MLB single-game records as a result " result, result... Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "also from such a game" do you mean "in the same game"? No, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "5 have been elected. " five... Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 6 says "Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A)" and "Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.", not "have played at least 10 major league seasons and been retired five seasons."... you're quoting, so at least quote precisely. I'll remove the quotes. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC) " in the past 5 seasons a" five. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Call me controversial, but I'd like more than one source to say that this achievement (4 home runs in one game) is notable... Well, the general refs go to that as well but [24], [25], [26], [27]. I'll get to adding some of them. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Added. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "$4000 " - $4,000. That's created by a template for adjusting for inflation, dunno how to make it do that. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe just skip the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't I then have to update every year to check for inflation though? That's the point of the template. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I can fix the template; just give me a few. — KV5 • Talk • 19:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Done. — KV5 • Talk • 19:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Picky, but according to whom were some of these "milestone games"? It's another way of saying 4 home run game, since we're talking about the milestone of hitting 4 HR in a game. Trying to avoid sounding repetitive. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I understand that. No big deal I suppose, but one could argue you're the one saying these games are milestones... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I suppose, but that's a pretty funky issue. I understand we want to stay NPOV, but I don't think this really goes into POV. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Borderline. I'm just here to be a pain in the British arse, so I'll leave it. I'm sure your compatriots will embrace it and ignore my plaintive cries... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Heh. I want your love and support though! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Non-expert warning, what do you mean by "Warren Spahn allowed the first of..."? Warren Spahn was the pitcher who pitched the ball which Adcock hit for his first HR on his 4 HR day. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Cool but to a non-expert (e.g. any one of several hundred million non-baseballers!) that phraseology is difficult to follow... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC) It's a pretty random fact, could be removed altogether but what would make it clearer for you? "Warren Spahn was the pitcher who yielded the first of..."? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC) It's just a bit of a tiny issue with the technicalities of baseball I suppose.. things you (and other baseball fans) take completely for granted are subtle and indecipherable (particularly to non-US readers) so it's a case of finding something that meets a universal audience I suppose. Maybe go back to your first definition, i.e. "Spahn pitched the ball which Adcock hit for his first home run..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Which bit of ref 19, ref 21, indicates these two players are still active? For Cameron it's easy, his 2011 contract status shows he's signed and he's playing in 2010. Delgado's tricky as he's injured. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC) So whatcha gonna do? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Technically the B-Ref page cites the fact, because it doesn't list a Final Game (as it does for all retired players). I could add a random citation to show he's still on the roster, just recovering from injury, but that seems odd to do. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC) This is a minor sore point for me because I've been asked to prove that "current" EPL footballers are still "current" and it's, once again, an arse-pain. Suggest something that will convince me (nothing random) and I'll buy it. 100%. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I know what you mean. Delgado is one of the worst case scenarios in this kind of situation, sort of like the issue with Barry Bonds in 2008. He's not signed by anyone, there's a reason to think he won't get signed (Delgado's injuries and surgeries), but he's really still trying to play. See this and this. Since he's not signed to an MLB team currently I'll remove the active status. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support my retentive issues resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Four home runs generate significant offense which generally allow a team to win". "s" needed at end of "allow".
• Italics needed for publisher of reference 3 (NYT). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done and done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Support what a great list. Dincher (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: "Shawn Green hit a double and a single along with his four home runs for 19 total bases, an MLB record breaking Joe Adcock's mark of 18, also from a four-homer game." This feels run-on-ish. I'd split before breaking, changing the second part to "It broke Joe..." That's the only issue I found; once fixed I'll support. (Which reminds me, I should get working on Seerey's bio..) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Done. And there's a silly FT/GT we could eventually put together, players who have hit 4 HRs in a game. :p Staxringold talkcontribs 00:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC) A possibility, yes, though since many are Hall of Famers it'd be a hard one to do. Wizardman Operation Big Bear

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:46, 15 September 2010 [28].

---

List of accolades received by Up

Nominator(s): Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because although it is based on the IMDb list, I believe the article pass the FL criteria. It is well-sourced and, as far as I know, well-written. Thank you for your comments. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 09:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dan Dassow (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comment-Check links found no problems. Summary paragraph is fine. The citations seem relevant. The summary and main table do not agree. The Blimp Award is shown in main table and Kids' Choice Awards (Blimper Award) is show the in summary table. Need to add Palm Dog Award to summary table (1 nomination, 1 win). Total nominations should be 63. Total wins should be 37. --Dan Dassow (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you, I forgot to update it, and it is fixed now. TbhotchTalk C. 15:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good. My concerns were addressed. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The source for the "Annie Awards" does not lead to any information like the others. Its a blank page.--PeterGriffin • Talk 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. I hate when that happens. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good now :).--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for their comments :) Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Probably a good idea to link "Wilderness Explorer" to Boy scout or something appropriate. Linked to Scouting in popular culture TbhotchTalk C. 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "$68,108,790 dollars and grossing $731,342,724" to the nearest dollar! Presumably this was on a precise date, so you need to quote it (Up was still running periodically at my local cinema up until a few weeks ago). Shortened to over $731 million dolars. TbhotchTalk C. 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "winning two of them" not sure you need "of them" Removed TbhotchTalk C. 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "fully animated" hyphenate? What do you mean? TbhotchTalk C. 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Would definitely prefer nowrap on the date of each award. I don't understand this, could you specify please? TbhotchTalk C. Force the dates not to wrap onto two lines. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC) I think that the   on May 29, 2009, were doing that, so it is removed. TbhotchTalk C. 16:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Ref 3 has spare period (blame the template...) Removed TbhotchTalk C. 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Impressive work. On par with the best film award lists like that of Precious. I looked in the article for a long time, but its pretty flawless. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :D Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Much as I wanted to pick apart the prose, I couldn't find anything that needed picking apart. Very nice piece of work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

lol, thanks Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 04:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Ref 10 has an author available. Added TbhotchTalk C. Ref 12 needs a work/publisher Oops TbhotchTalk C. "Pete Docter won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature while he held his iPhone." This needs a retry. He's holding his phone in the photo, but he didn't win the Award while doing so! An IP user added it, and I didn't noticed about the meaning, sorry TbhotchTalk C. "It is the second fully animated film to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture," It was, perhaps? Changed TbhotchTalk C. "Furthermore the film was nominated at the Satellite Awards 2009..." Furthermore the film was nominated at the 2009 Satellite Awards... Courcelles 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Changed. TbhotchTalk C. 04:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Should have looked at the history for vandalism when I saw that caption, it looked so strange. Glad that's sorted. Courcelles 04:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• that happens, thanks for your comments. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 14 September 2010 [29].

---

List of Washington Nationals first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Wizardman 14:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I can. This one was actually a pain to do, since there were a lot of draft picks from the same year at a few spots (I can't find a cite, but eight picks in 1997 has to be a record - and yet none of them were any good).

This list's fun fact: Fewer people are in the Baseball Hall of Fame (0) than the Canadian Football Hall of Fame (1). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—a dab link to John Patterson (baseball), and a dead link to http://espn.go.com/mlb/draft/history/_/team/wsn Ucucha 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. Ucucha 15:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
*Comments "franchise based in Washington, D.C.." Don't need both periods. "Twelve outfielders, nine shortstops, four third basemen, four catchers, and three first basemen." That sentence needs a subject Ref 1 needs a work or publisher Courcelles 15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Everything looks good to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 14 September 2010 [30].

---

Registrar of the University of Oxford

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 23:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been a while since I bored you with an FLC on the theme of the University of Oxford, so here we go - my summer holiday work.

A job with a 550-year history? Tick. No article on Wikipedia until I started this one? Tick. No article giving the same basic information (let alone the added detail) anywhere on the internet or in print? Tick. Nicely linked from existing articles? Tick. Six articles on Registrars written to remove redlinks? Tick, at no extra charge. Completely necessary mention of Peterhouse, Cambridge in the article and here to get the attention of User:The Rambling Tab? Tick. Violence? Tick. Extortionate fees charged to students? Tick. A piece of Wikipedia's very best work? (Well, you know what I think...)

What might you be thinking as you read this? Not enough images? Well, I've found one hidden on Commons and uploaded the only other free one I could find. Registrars, it seems, were shy people and / or too busy to pose for portraits... There's a problem with new thumbnails at the moment, apparently, so do not adjust your set if (like me) two of the images aren't appearing and you can only see trees. Blacklinked names, not even redlinks? Well, if they didn't get into the Dictionary of National Biography, "Who's Who" / "Who Was Who" or have a Times obituary, I'm struggling to see how much of an article could be written about them, beyond the info I give here. Is it complete? I think that all I need is confirmation of which college Alan Dorey attended as a student, which I hope to track down this week at the Guildhall Library, and then I think the details are finalised. As for the names before 1508 that would complete the 550-year history, if the university doesn't publish a fuller list of names, and if the other sources only mention a couple of people between the mid-1400s and 1508, then I don't think there's much more we can do about it. Enjoy, review! Bencherlite^Talk 23:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 07:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 09:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the images are now working but I've removed this image of Julie Maxton because, well, it's not exactly great. Thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 09:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support list, the closest I've seen to Sturmvogel class so far, and removal of grumpy picture with the bizarre file name. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Though the current image is better than leafy trees, there is no source that painter J. Bridge died before 1940. Sandman888 (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• All that I could find was that he was active between 1818 and 1854, so definitely dead by 1940. Added to image description page. Bencherlite^Talk 09:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 03:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "The current Registrar, Julie Maxton, was appointed in 2006 and is the first women to hold the position;" First, emdashes for the commas, second, women? Typo fixed. Looking at MOS:EMDASH, I don't think emdashes are required, as they make too much of a "break" in the sentence for the reader. "The position carried an annual salary of four marks;" If the source puts this in marks, at least convert to Sterling. (I think it is 2 Pounds 13s 4d, but don't quote me on that....) Source uses marks. I get the same conversion as you; added. "Registrar no longer received personally fees paid by students" Would this read better with received and personally flipped? Yes, done. "first women" is repeated down here. If this is a Commonwealth thing I'm not familiar with, so be it, but it reads strange to have a single individual called the "first women" Copy-n-paste typo from body to lead fixed here. Ref 41, don't use abbreviations for months. Ref 51 fixed. ("Who's Who" online has a ready-made citation for each entry, and I sometimes overlook the abbreviation when making it Wikipedia-friendly.) Courcelles 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your review. Hope it's looking better for you now. BencherliteTalk 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 03:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tab Now then, the predominant feature of the lead image is a pair of trees, while the caption claims "Some... buildings". While it's ... interesting ... it shouldn't be the lead image. Bliss works much better for me, adds a load of gravitas to the list and is actually directly relevant to the content of the list. Agree entirely. Would you believe it, that was the only image of Wellington Square I could find anywhere - Flickr, Geograph and Commons? Dreadful, isn't it? Style corner (SC): "acting (according to the university's statutes) as the" I would prefer "who, according to the university's statutes, acts as the..." Taking style tips from TRM? Gosh, I must be having a bad day! SC ii: "Council (its main decision-making body)." just follow Council with a comma and continue without the parentheses. Fair enough. "a law professor from Oxford " picky, but I'm assuming you mean he's a prof at Oxon, not necessarily from Oxford? Reworded Don't see a huge need to re-link Registrar in the "History and duties" section. I tend to link once in the lead and once thereafter, save for repeated links in sortable tables. S'okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC) "carrying out similar tasks in the 15th century" well, just because London died in 1508, it doesn't mean he wasn't alive, well, kicking and registraring in 1499 does it? It's not a reference to London; clarified. Consider linking "Bachelor of Arts", "Masters degree" etc ('cos I've got 'em!) Show-off... Picky: "and there was until then no diary" would prefer comma after was and then. Your wish is my something Forgive me. You have a column entitled "College as Registrar". What do you mean? This is the first mention of College in the list... Added a sentence. Now then. NOW THEN. You have deliberately inserted a fundamental error here. "Peterhouse College". Is that some kind of joke? Will this do? Holy ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC) There is a bot that has permission to fix these completely wrong redirects, so adding that template to the redirect does have a point... Any chance that any of the unlinked Reg's are actually notable enough to have an article? Are you trying to avoid writing articles? Are you trying to cheat us? No, no and no. As I said in my nom statement, I've written all the articles where I think notability is established. Will complete this later. BencherliteTalk 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Ok, ok, ok. Just chancing my arm. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Publication dates. While I'm enchanted, not sure we need the day of the week those Times articles were published, unless you consider it vital to the verifiability of the list....! Was using {{cite newspaper The Times}} which allows this info, but have removed it as it's on the trivial side. Would consider making Foster a general ref, therefore giving you a luxury of just say Foster, pp xx–xy rather than repeat everything about the tome every time. Good idea... and done. Issue numbers that list into the tens of thousands, consider adding a comma separator? Added Foster's dates (by the way) go 1891–92 while all other year ranges in the article seem to have 1891–1892 style. Yes, I'm inconsistent and proud. "Said Business School" should be "Saïd Business School" OK. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Ok, what d'ya reckon now? BencherliteTalk

• Support once again, no surprises for me, initially very poor but now excellent. Despite the flaws that only I will ever see and have to live with, this is a nice piece of work, and interesting too. Bonus. Good work B'lite. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Go and play with your Tractor Boys, TRM, and leave us hard-working penniless lawyers in peace... Many thanks for spending the time wrecking reviewing this list. Bencherlite^Talk 20:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I see you've made a lame legalistic attempt to master markup. For this, we are all grateful. Move along. As ever, a sheer joy to cross swords....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I've now been to the library and found the missing info about Alan Dorey. Bencherlite^Talk 13:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 14 September 2010 [31].

---

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... this list meets all FL criteria. NThomas (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—dab links to 2010 Alamo Bowl and Independence Stadium; no dead external links. Ucucha 05:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the disambiguation links. NThomas (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, although the issue with key still needs to be resolved. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for the following reasons:

1. Texas Tech bowl game occurred on January 2, 2010 when ... This is quite a meaningless sentence. Something is missing. Do you mean "The last Texas Tech game ..."?

   • I combined this sentence with the following one, and corrected both problems with the new sentence. NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

2. The Red Raiders' 41–31 victory over the Michigan State Spartans brought Texas Tech ... When did this happen?

   • See #1. NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

3. The Red Raiders' have made 33 bowl appearances, the 4th-most ... This repeats the second sentence in the first paragraph.

   • Removed. NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Ten bowl games Texas Tech has accepted bids to, have set attendance records. This sentence should probably begin with "all" or "the".

   • It should start with "all" or "the" if the team had only accepted then bowl game bids. If "all" or "the" were added to the sentence, the sentence would read as if the team had set attendance records to all 10 games the team has been excepted to when they have been to 33. Maybe changing the sentence to "Ten of the thirty-three bowl games Texas Tech has been accepted bids to..." would clear that issue up? NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

5. There is no need to have a special section for key. (There is plenty of space to the right of the main table.)

   • A separate section for the key has never been a problem with the other 4 FLs I've taken through FLC. Dozens of similar articles of recently promoted FLs have a separate section for the key also. NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   I really hate these two tiny tables hanging over the main table and surrounded by a lot of white space. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

6. Please, use a consistent formating for ranges. Currently it is a mixture of "2004, 2005", "2001–02" and "2001–2006". Use a consistent number of digits.

   • I went ahead and fixed the rest. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   Still you sometimes use 2002–03 (two digits) and sometimes 2002–2005 (four digits), the same for 1994–1999. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thought I had them all before. Now they're all corrected. NThomas (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not fixed. They are still inconsistent. Ruslik_Zero 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Despite my unfamiliarity with the subject, I have stepped in to fix the remainder of the dates to be consistent. It should now satisfy at least that requirement. CycloneGU (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 16:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is currently one other featured list on bowl games, List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games. This list is nowhere near the referencing and detail standards of that featured list. While I believe certain features of this list, such as the sortable game list itself, would be good to port to the Virginia Tech bowl game list, there are many aspects of the Virginia Tech list, such as the detailed lead and game capsules, that are simply not present here. I believe this article needs a significant rewrite and expansion before it can be considered a Featured List. –Grondemar 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• So you're opposing this nomination because it doesn't match the "standard" "set" by the only other FL with the same title? I fail to understand which part of Featured list criteria this FLC doesn't not satisfy. NThomas (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• The specific criteria I would say this FLC does not meet are 2 (lead) and 3a (comprehensiveness, specifically related to the absence of the game capsules). –Grondemar 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can understand if you think this is alone doesn't meet those two, but you're still comparing this list to another. Because this article isn't written similar to the Virginia Tech article doesn't mean it isn't comprehensive. I thought comparing one article to another is discouraged nominations according to WP:WAX. NThomas (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I note that the page WP:WAX links to is titled "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"; I'm not sure I agree it is fully applicable to featured content processes. I personally don't see an issue, when two lists are talking about the same aspect of two different topics, and one is already featured while the other is being nominated to be featured, in comparing the two lists to see if the candidate list is comprehensive. I don't think List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games is a bad list by any means; I do think that, in order to be fully comprehensive, the lead should at least talk about the most notable players to play for Texas Tech in bowl games, and the body should include summaries of each of the bowl games, especially for those who don't even yet have an article. –Grondemar 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:WAX is applicable for this discussion as the points in makes apply to your comparison of an existing FL, not about this FLC meeting FLC. What you're talking about is something I'd expect to find in a peer review, not check to see if a submission meets nomination. This list is in a table format, not a summarized section format like the Virgina Tech list, which doesn't disqualify this list, as a table, from meeting FLC 3a. If the table should include more information to meet 3a, that would be understandable. Adding notable players to the lead would require an expansion of the table. So, what should criteria should the "notable players" included? I could also expand the lead to include which referees and umpire officiated the game. How about who the special teams coaches were? Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article. The lead summarizes that is already in the table, meeting FLC 2. If you would stop comparing this list to the Virgina Tech list, I'd still appreciate to get your thoughts on what this article is lacking to meet FLC, not why this list isn't more like the Virgina Tech article. NThomas (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in here folks. I believe NThomas has a point. We have to treat each article on its own without doing a comparison. I mean, using a random manufactured example, if Apple is a featured article, we can't compare Orange to it just because it might not have as many sources or as much information available as Apple does and not promote it based on that comment. Comprehensiveness is a per article determination, not a comparison. If it was a comparison, then Glee (season 1) would have been promoted without delay because it provides much more information than other T.V. lists, and it well-sourced, but so far we are still addressing objections. CycloneGU (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree we need to judge each article and/or list individually against the criteria. However, when two articles cover similar topics, reviewing whether or not the articles discuss similar aspects is a good way to determine whether or not they are comprehensive. To use your example of Apple vs Orange: let's say the Apple article was a featured article, and included a section on the culinary uses of apples. If the Orange article was a featured article candidate, and it said nothing on that subject, it would be reasonable for someone to object on the grounds that the Orange article was not comprehensive. I don't think this is outside ; I've seen comparisons of this nature on WP:FAC relatively frequently.
  Regarding whether sources are available to expand the article: they positively are. ESPN.com has game recaps for all bowl games going back to 2002. 2003 Houston Bowl is a redlink in the list; here is the ESPN game recap. For games prior to 2002 I've sure newspaper archives as well as resources such as the College Football Data Warehouse will have plenty of information. I don't believe without including this type of information this list can be considered sufficiently comprehensive to meet the featured list criteria. –Grondemar 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't spend anymore time debating this since we keep going in circles. NThomas (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Again, I have nothing to do with this article and don't have an interest one way or another whether it goes FL. I do note, however, that this is an application for a Featured LIST. It is NOT an application for a featured ARTICLE. I do agree that more information is available for the subject at hand; however, things like bowl games are quite often likely to have their own pages since they are themselves notable, and the LIST article is likely to have summarized information, not an entire section of prose on each game. Thus, I still consider your argument invalid. CycloneGU (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Upon further reading of the example you provided, I can see that these two articles are in fact COMPELTELY different. From the sounds of it, you want a complete rewrite of the article excluding the actual list, and instead prefer a list of different prose sections for each game that is available. CycloneGU (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I support the format of this list, and I don't think that the format of the VT list (while a great article) should necessarily be the same format for all bowl game lists.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

After further consideration, while I still oppose promotion of this article for the reasons I state above, I ask that, if the FLC delegates believe there is a consensus to promote outside of my oppose, to please disregard my objection and go ahead and promote the list. I am new to FLC and realize that my judgment in this instance may not be fully aligned with the FL criteria. –Grondemar 01:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my position after reading Giants2008's Support, and have decided to strike my oppose. I would like to see articles created for the missing bowl games before I could be persuaded to support myself, however. –Grondemar 02:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 13:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comment What is sourcing the attendance figures? Courcelles 06:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC) It's found in the "Bowl/All-Star Game Records" general reference starting on page 30. NThomas (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Well... Can this be changed to use page numbers in the referencing, then? I can't get behind a list whose referencing is not more delineated than a 113 page PDF file. Also, when you sort by score, the single digit results show up right in the middle. Courcelles 05:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC) I added a citation in the "Attendance" column with the page numbers, 6 total, for the attendance figures. Also, the "Result" column sorts correctly now. NThomas (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support As much as I like the VT and UConn formats, there's nothing in the criteria to mandate it, and this list passes comprehensiveness requirements. Courcelles 21:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments – I'm really conflicted on the issue relating to the list's structure, and can see both sides. The Virginia Tech page is clearly a labor of love, with a lot of hard work put into it, but this is more of a traditional list. They both have their strengths, but I really have no preference either way. I do think, however, that the lead could be improved here, with more on the team's history. The notable players are overplayed in the Virginia Tech list in my view, but there are other things that could be added. For instance, they seem to have had a few long losing streaks of 5–6 games, which seems interesting. You could also mention the program's most successful coaches. I took the coaches idea and ran with it. I added a column with the head coach for the bowl game. I'm still working on expanding the lead to incorporate the information though. NThomas (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Expanded the lead with more information about the coaches records. Thanks for being patient. NThomas (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC) "The 2010 Valero Alamo Bowl was the the team's tenth consecutive bowl game appearance." Repeated word needs chopping. I changed the sentence to "The game was the the team's tenth consecutive bowl appearance." since the previous one already mentions the bowl game by name. NThomas (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Actually, I meant that the "the the" double word was the problem, though I do like the new sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I still saw this in my most recent look at the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry. I must have forgot to save the changes. It's fixed now. NThomas (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC) "The Red Raiders' have an overall bowl record of 11 wins, 22 losses, and 1 tie." Remove the apostrophe after Raiders. Fixed. NThomas (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "to the second–oldest college football bowl game." The dash should probably just be a regular hyphen. Oh, and this is joint second-oldest with the Orange and Sugar Bowls. I know it reads better this way, but I fear it's somewhat misleading, implying that it's second-oldest on its own. When I wrote the lead originally, I had mentioned the Orange and Sugar Bowls but adding them back into the sentence in my opinion would almost border on becoming a run on sentence. What about adding a note at the end of the sentence? NThomas (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I like that idea. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Added the footnote. NThomas (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Remove comma after "nine more bowl games that Texas Tech has accepted bids to", and after "2009 AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic." Fixed. NThomas (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The general reference should be bulleted. Added. NThomas (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – I was asked to come back here by Dabomb87 to give a final verdict. While I like the extended game recaps in the Connecticut list, I'm loath to say that they should be standard for all lists of this type. Many lists that come through FLC are similar or slightly improved versions of what has come before. Often, it's difficult for someone who wants to try something different in a list with a previously standard format. I'm still not sure in my own mind which of the two formats in question here is better, but if FL criteria are met, that's all that matters to me. In my mind, they are. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Query - where a record attendance is denoted, does that mean a record attendance for any bowl game involving Texas? For any game involving Texas at all? For any iteration of that particular bowl? For any bowl game at all? It's not at all clear to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it means that the particular game was the attendance record for that particular bowl game. So, like the 60,127 in attendance for the 1965 Gator Bowl was the record attendance for the Gator Bowl, but that number was later eclipsed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I've expanded the definition in the lead to explain what the records are for. NThomas (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Support now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption doesn't tell me what's going on at all. And if the resolution allows, the image could be larger. Increased the size of the image, and expanded the caption. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Don't think you need to link New Year's Day. Most English speakers are aware of that concept. Removed. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "second–oldest " maybe my eyes but that looks like an en-dash, shouldn't it be a hyphen? Replaced. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "has accepted bids to " -> "to which Texas Tech has accepted bids..." Fixed. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "second most attended" you hyphenate/dash second-oldest but not second most... Fixed. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "of the 2008–2009 bowl game season" - just 2008–09 would be fine. Same with other year ranges, e.g. the notes. Corrected formating on ranges except for ranges spanning different centuries. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Ref 2 needs an en-dash for the page range. Replaced. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for being patient with me while working out all of your critiques. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Confusing how record attendance could go up and down. I guess this is similar to Chris' comment up there ^. Since Chris seems to be on a wikibreak, I'll address this here. The "Record attendance†" denotes the bowl game's record attendance, and "Former record attendance‡" was a bowl game that was that bowl's record attendance but has since been broken. It has nothing to do with Texas Tech, other than that the team played in that bowl game were an attendance record was broken. I don't know of a better way to convey that information in the table. Any advice about what could make it clearer to understand. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) You need to expand the key to contain some of this information. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I've added "bowl game" to the key for these entries to distinguish the attendance as a bowl game record and not a Texas Tech record. NThomas (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) How does the "Bowl game" col sort? In Safari I have no idea.... Its sorts by the bowl game's name (Example: "Builders Square Alamo Bowl", "Sylvania Alamo Bowl" and "Valero Alamo Bowl" sort as simply Alamo Bowl. Same with games that have had completely different names, not just a sponsorship (Example: The "Peach Bowl" sorts as "Chick-fil-A Bowl" the game's current name). Maybe I should add a not similar to the citation in the "Head coach" column? NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) To a non-expert this sorting is completely counter-intuitive, and I'm not convinced that your explanation matches the sorting in Safari in any case! The notes on every bowl game explain the bowl's sorting name but I've added a note also explaining the sorting method. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GrapedApe (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

**Consider creating at least stubs for the redlinked games. I've been working on them offline. They'll be up by the end of the month at the latest.NThomas (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Is there any more information on that image in the lead? Who was it? What kind of play? It looks like a HB/TB sweep, but I have only Madden football experience. If such info can be found from the original yerabook, that would be cool Looked it up in the yearbook and the caption reads: "More Cotton Bowl pics. Tech's ranking was raised although we were beaten by St. Mary's 20-13." NThomas (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Is the reference in the lead necessary? Isn't that information covered by the reference in the table? Removed. NThomas (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) In the phrase "set a then record attendance of 12,000," shouldn't "then record" be "then-record"? Fixed. NThomas (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) --GrapedApe (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Support looks to be comprehensive, well-formatted, well-cited, and visually pleasing. As I mentioned earlier, I'm in favor of the format. A few suggestions to go along with my support !vote.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 14 September 2010 [32].

---

George Orwell bibliography

Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I put a lot of work into it, it appears comprehensive, and I have addressed all of the misgivings from the first FLC nomination (which I did not make.) I am the main contributor to this article and will work with anyone who offers feedback on improving it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. No dead references or dab links, which is a plus. In the Collected editions section, The Sunday Times and Private Eye should be italicized per WP:MOSTITLE. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done I anticipate smaller housekeeping issues like this, which I intend to fix on an as-needed basis. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - mammoth list, so forgive me but this will be a heavily-stilted review. Lead, for a list of this magnitude, should be four magnificent paragraphs, summarising what I'm about to see in the following sections. Working on it I have had a lot of WP:LEAD problems before; I guess I'll give this another go. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Essays is a section but not in the infobox. Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) You could use a key so people know what EL and CEJL I means, plus you italicise them sometimes and other times you don't, so be consistent. Done The Legend for collected editions includes "EL" and "CEJL". Looking through the list, I don't see any instances that aren't emphasized, but I suppose it's not impossible... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Would these have ISBNs? What? I don't understand. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) See ISBN. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Right But would what have ISBNs? Articles? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Books, I'd assume. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC) ISBN's were invented in 1966, and Orwell died in 1950, and as each edition gets a new ISBN, they're unlikely to be of any use. (Though any books used as sources should still have them, of course.) Courcelles 10:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Done I simply deleted them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dan Dassow (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Since this list is so large and comprehensive, I may have additional comments after a further review. Reference 1 unfortunately requires a subscription ("Still the Moon Under Water". The Economist. 30 July 2008. http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11826680.) Done? It was published in the print edition of The Economist from that same date. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Infobox The number of releases add up to 648 not 642. Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) The Infobox list does not line up with the subsection outline of the article. This makes it difficult to verify the number of items in the Infobox. Not done I'm not sure how to fix this, as not every entry warrants its own heading. I suppose the best way to confirm the numbers is to check the table; all of that is sourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) "Articles" links to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell_bibliography#Essays" which is not currently a subsection in the article. Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Redlinks - There are number of red links in the article. Many of these are to people and publications that may not be notable and are unlikely to have articles written about them. Done Any redlinks that are left have at least two other links on Wikipedia (sometimes several more.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) The table in the section Full list of publications accounts for more than 80 percent of the article. Please consider hiding the table as a default. Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Support - Problems resolved to my satisfaction. --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'm unsure about the collapsing (e.g. doesn't show on my phone, which is a strong argument against), but magnificent work! Pick of the week! (if it can beat Joan Gamper Trophy, uhh now that's a tough call) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggested hiding the table in the section Full list of publications since it dominates the article. I had not considered display issues for non-PC platforms. I will retain my support regardless of whether the table is initially hidden. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As Sandman pointed out, collapsing tables in the body of an article causes WP:ACCESS problems, so I would recommend that the table is uncollapsed by default. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done For what it's worth, I simply prefer them personally and especially so if they are a hassle for browsers with JavaScript/ECMAScript implementation problems. Thanks everyone! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am commenting as an editor of Orwell articles rather than an FLC regular, having been alerted to this review by a message at Talk:George Orwell. This bibliography has an admirably ambitious scope (one of the best I have seen), but the prose quality lets it down in many places. The lead section is an inadequate and oddly-sequenced summary of the author's writings, much of the commentary goes without any verification, there is inconsistent level of detailing (I've left {{specify}} and {{clarify}} tags to illustrate some instances of this), padded prose (I've removed some of the more egregious uses of "several" though eleven remain at the time of writing). There is no introduction to the "Collected editions" section, unlike the others. Beyond the prose, the references section is incomplete and inconsistent, mixing citation styles, level of detail and date formats (are either of YYYY-MM-DD and unpunctuated day/month/year really conventional British English as the editnotice claims?). The final section contains a solitary link – surely for such a popular author we can give the reader more to go on? I realise that my comments are general, but there is so much work to be done here to reach featured quality I'm not convinced it would be best to continue with this exercise without the help of editors adept at prose writing/knowledgable enough of Orwell to succinctly introduce him and point the reader to relevant high quality external links/able to sort out the references. I apologise if my tone is strident; the writing is engaging and near-comprehensive, and much better in this regard than any list I have written (including the featured ones) and I congratulate the authors. Best, Skomorokh 03:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Partially done I have addressed all of your concerns for the tags, minus one {{clarify}} that seemed pretty straight-forward to me. For that matter, the dates in the references have been amended by a script. I will continue to work on the text itself--clearly my weakest suit--tomorrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

More I have amended the text to have a more logical flow and added another external link. It seems like the biggest problems are incosistent referencing (easily fixed by the use of {{Citation}} and related templates) and the lead--my perennial weakness. I think I can work out these problems tomorrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And more I have made consistent references using citation templates and will now take another crack at the lead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Done? I've amended the lead once again to have a more logical flow from paragraph to paragraph as well as give a better overview of his body of work and the collections published since his death. Please let me know if this seems sufficient to you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Extended comments to follow. Skomorokh 20:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

This section is a lot less perfunctory and scattered than when the list was first nominated, covers most bases – good job. I have a few comments, mostly cosmetic, to push this towards the professional standard demanded by the FLC:

MOS:BOLDTITLE; you need not boldface the title of the article, as it is a description of the subject rather than a proper name. Some editors have an aesthetic preference for boldfacing, but in this article it appears odd to link George Orwell at the second mention rather than the first.

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If the list is comprehensive, you ought to be able to say what media the bibliography definitively encompasses, rather than "includes". If you're not certain of course, that's fine.

Not done It's not necessary to mention that he wrote a single play or recipes in the lead; the bulk of his work is mentioned by genre or type. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Orwell was a prolific writer and" – this is a little sparse as an introduction to what sort of writer Orwell was, especially considering that the rest of the sentence does not elaborate on his being prolific. Consider moving some of the more descriptive material here.

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason for choosing The Economist as the publication to quote for an assessment of Orwell?

Response The Economist is a respected British publication which writes about political concerns, so it seems acutely relevant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"As he explained in the essay..." This sentence doesn't seem to relate to the previous one (which dwelt on his being prolific and a chronicler of English culture) – it tells us the political focus of his work. It's a bit outlandish to imply one can chronicle English culture purely through political analysis – odd structure.

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a paragraph break, where fiction is elaborated upon. Fine, but it's mixed in with chronology, and then the next paragraph starts by telling us what he primarily wrote – non-fiction. This all seems a little garbled. Some alternative approaches would be to go purely chronological ("first he wrote this, then that" and so on), or in descending order of importance ("Orwell's most significant works were...he also wrote..."). Either way you go, the most important points (wrote mostly nonfic, famous for novels, notable for political analyses) should all be summarised in a line in the opening paragraph.

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"op-ed" is neologistic considering we are discussing an early 20th century writer – I doubt these were termed "op-eds" when Orwell wrote them.

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There are issues with run-on lines and grammar/punctuationin two places – the sentence starting "While fiction" (uses a comma, emdash and semicolon), and the one beginning "Only two compilations". You might consider breaking these up into simpler constructions – particularly in a list article, the reader ougt not expect to have to trip over too many dependent clauses and convoluted pacing.

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The choice of collections to finish the section is a good one, but the last line leaves the reader a little cold. It might be better to "wrap it up" more satisfactorily; for instance by addressing the legacy of Orwell's writing. Skomorokh 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Done I think that the current ending is much better than the abrupt one I had before and while imperfect, is more like what you're suggesting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Books and novels

"Orwell composed six novels" – is it that he only composed six or only had six published? If it is known, it would be best to clarify (strictly speaking, bibliography only covers published works, so the reader might wonder why you mention composition).

Response As mentioned in the "Other works section, he composed two unpublished novels in French. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest you include years of publication after the linked novels for context, but then notice the full publication details are printed right after. Perhaps it is redundant to name and link the novels twice in such a short section?

Response It's a bit of a rock-and-a-hard place: you want to link the first instance, but it also makes sense to link lists as they stand apart from prose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done See WP:REPEATLINK and below. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As we are discussing only nine books, stating that several were semi-autobiographical strikes as lazy; the secondary literature ought to make clear the autobiographical extent of the books.

Response I'm not sure that I understand the problem here... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, the prose in this section is admirably concise and to the point while covering all the important details, nice work.

Skomorokh 23:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 17:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

;Comments The table needs more links. (See WP:REPEATLINK.) Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) "Published French in Progrès Civique" - Isn't there an in missing between Published and French? Goodraise 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Not done. Goodraise 01:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Done Apparently, there were multiple instances of this. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC) "and literary criticism whom British newsweekly" - Personally, I'd place a comma after criticism to aid the reader. I won't insist on it though. I share Skomorokh's concern about the immense weight you are giving to the opinion of The Economist. After all, however respected, it is only one publication. "The majority of his work constitutes this non-fiction cultural and political criticism" - Isn't it the other way round: "This non-fiction cultural and political criticism constitutes the majority of his work"? "Orwell is is best" "Orwell primarily wrote non-fiction" - Do you have to point that out in every paragraph? "has been responsible for cotinued scholarly analyses" - You mean continued, right? Goodraise 08:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Done all —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I share Skomorokh's concern about the immense weight you are giving to the opinion of The Economist. After all, however respected, it is only one publication.

Goodraise 08:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'll have to remain neutral on this nomination, as I didn't find the time to give this fairly large article a complete review. Goodraise

Support. For a subject as weighty and with such a reputation for precision as this, it would be tempting to go on nit-picking, revising, and rethinking in pursuit of the perfect summation. It has certainly come on a great deal since this nomination. That said, the list's quality I think surpasses the modest requirements of the featured list criteria, and the encyclopaedia would be well-served to have it stand as an exemplar for the rest of its bibliographies. Skomorokh 23:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support While I don't think the FLC standards are "modest", I do agree this meets them. Courcelles 23:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - well-written, interesting and meets the FLC criteria.--BelovedFreak 18:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:08, 11 September 2010 [33].

---

Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics

Nominator(s): ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. The article content and layout is similar to others on the same topic, such as Venues of the 2008 Summer Olympics and Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Thank you for taking the time to review it. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose While I look forward to seeing this list back here in a couple months, I just can't see how FL criteria 6 could ever be met in a list about an event that hasn't even started yet. No edit wars, but the content will change during the Olympics... at least, it should. Courcelles (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I understand your concern. However, while the event has yet to begun, the venues to be used have already been confirmed, and it is highly unlikely there is going to be a change as such. Even if this does occur, the changes will probably be minor. The content change will be in other aspects of the Olympics, such as competition results and controversies etc. Actually, I think criterion 6 doesn't apply in the same way you stated. Regards, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC) If this nomination gains traction, the article is going to need a rigorous copy-edit. Courcelles (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC) You mean copyedit as per the typical FLC process? It does sound really major to me. Regards, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 12:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Go through and check all your tenses, and do something about the first sentence, "The 2010 Summer Youth Olympics was held" and I'll strike my opposition. Courcelles 04:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I modified all the tenses on 26 August since the event ended on that day. It's done. As for the first sentence, well it's another grammatical pecularity we are looking at here and I've addressed this in a comment below. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 01:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—a dab link to Catholic High School, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 04:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments not 100% convinced that this is unstable. If something terribly dramatic occurs at one of the venues then fine, but otherwise I expect these to be the actual venues (they are usually designated well in advance of the event) and the information about them is probably reasonably well known at this point. That notwithstanding (nor wishing to sway reviewers one way or another), some comments: Because of N/A, capacity doesn't sort correctly in Safari. Now, how do I resolve this? ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Sorted "N/A" as zero with {{Sort}}. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Comma in that lead image (for 25,000) Fixed. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Is there a good link for Youth Olympic Games you could use in the lead? Done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) "accomodation" usually has two m's! Oh yes, spelling error. Fixed. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) "the bid to host it " we've lost track of what "it" is, so perhaps "the bid to host the event"? Fixed. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) "were temporarily converted" now then, this is the possible issue, this is past tense while the event hasn't actually happened yet. You'd need to keep a close eye on tenses as we move from pre to during to post games... Noted and fixed. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) " is the Kallang Field which holds 500." worth noting what this is used for in the lead. I just added it as it would be worth noting. I'm fine though with removing it or editing it. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC) "Singapore Sports School" caption is weak, what's its relevance to this list? Changed caption. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Tables with one line probably don't need to be sortable! Fixed. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) "Existing competition venues" table - The Float@... should initially be above both "Toa"s Fixed. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) "*scape" isn't linked at all. Why not? There's no article on it? ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC) "The Singapore Indoor Stadium" caption, note you have "The" here and not in "Singapore Sports School" and, in any case, weak because the caption doesn't have any significance. Corrected. Caption edited. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC) YOV section, again, this will need "re-tensing". Should be correct now. Do check as it is possible I might have left a thing or two out. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Worth linking SGD to appropriate currency. Done. USD no need for linking? ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Terribly I thought the plural of bus was busses not buses... Both are fine according to the dictionary. Maybe another Brit/American thing again. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Note Seems like I will have to change the tenses on 14 August, which is tomorrow. I'll handle that. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Before I begin the review, I should say, in response to a comment above, that lists should be in shape before coming here. This isn't a copy-editing service for people, and the whole process is more effective when little needs to be done here. Youth Olympic Village: "that all members of an National Olympic Committee team delegation has to stay overnight...". "an" should be "a", and "has" should be plural ("have"). I would be inclined to think "an national" is a British English thing again, but I was just Googling and I found these: "Dai Sugano won an national Emmy Award for his Sunnyvale video" and "search for an National Historic Landmark through our online database" (NPS.gov), so I would believe that "an national" is more grammatically appropriate than "a national". I guess this syntax isn't often used though. I've edited "has" to make it "have", thanks a lot. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC) The quote here is covered by the following reference, correct? In its entirety, yep. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Since it's a printed publication, The Straits Times should be in italics. Corrected. I'll note that in the future. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC) "announced in July 2010 that that...". Repeat word. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC) "being amongst the first green buses to be used in Singapore." "amongst" → "among", to make the writing a shade less fancy. Corrected. I do agree, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC) In reference 25, Times of India should be italicized (same reason as an earlier comment). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Now that all the others who reviewed this seem satisfied, I'll throw in a support as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Per WP:BOLDTITLE, do not bold "2010 Summer Youth Olympic Games" in the first sentence unless it's a word-by-word reproduction of the title... which is not. Done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The lead image can be resized up to 300 pixels. Resized to 275px since 300px might be too big. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "The 2010 Summer Youth Olympic Games is..." — Are? If the Games were described as an "event", "is" would be right. Well "games" would be plural, the "games" are part of an "event" which is the Olympics, since its "is". ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Conceptually, yes. But in prose your "is" is referring to the "Games" which is plural, therefore, I assume, not correct. However, I'm not a native English speaker so I might be wrong; perhaps native speakers could help on this. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Another grammatical peculiarity that has to occur in this article, but nevertheless here is my response. Here are some quotes I sieved out online: "The phrase "the Olympic Games" usually takes a plural verb... However, as noted in our previous response, the singular verb can occur when the "games" refers to a particular, singular event..." (from this webpage). Also, "(used with a sing. verb) The set of contests that occur in one season: an Olympic Games that was boycotted by many countries" (from this webpage) "...are participating in 184 events in 18 competition venues.[n 1] Events take are taking place at eighteen competition venues, of which eleven are pre-existing venues, one new venue was newly constructed for the Olympics, and six are temporary venues that will be removed following the Games." Done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "The Games is organised..." — are. See above comment. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Same comment as above. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC) It wasn't the SYOGOC that won the bid, it was the Singapore bidding committee. The SYOGOC was established with the signing of the host city contract between the IOC and the winning bidding committee. Rephrased. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "Certain venues such as the Singapore Indoor Stadium and The Float@Marina Bay have been temporarily converted to host the respective sports, while Kallang Field was upgraded to be able to host the archery competition." — Source? Kallang Field given a citation. I rephrased the first half of the sentence, so Singapore Indoor Stadium and The Float@Marina Bay don't need citations now since they have to be converted anyway to host any thing. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "... main stadium for the Games." — I think "main venue" is more appropriate, since not all venues are stadiums. Agreed. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "The 55,000-seater National Stadium will not be used..." Corrected. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I recommend using {{Stack}} to align vertically all those venue images without messing up with the section "edit" links. I decided to use {{Fix bunching}} instead. Issue corrected. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The problem now is that in some browser resolutions the stacked images are pushed to the left by that navigation template below the lead image, and the venue tables are pushed down in consequence... Parutakupiu (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Hmm... is it still a problem now? ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Update the tense of the image captions, and add a period at the end. Updated. As for the periods, well in this and this two articles, both of which are FLs, there are no periods in the captions. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Just because they are FLs doesn't mean they are top-notch perfect. In fact, the lead image in the 2010 Winter Olympics venue list should have a period. All the others, in both FLs you mentioned are correct because they consist of sentence fragments, not full sentences which would require period marks. In your case, only the image with the Suntec Singapore International doesn't need a period - all the others do. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Okay I added the periods where necessary, thanks. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 15:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC) In "Youth Olympic Village", no need to link "SYOGOC" and "National Olympic Committee", as they've been linked before. Also, add periods at the end of those two sentences that close with Rogge's quotes. Done for SYOGOC and National Olympic Committee. As for the periods, they are already there, placed just before the quotation marks. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I mean after the quotation marks. Those are quoted periods but don't work as closing punctuation in the sentences where those quotes are included. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Okay this only applies to one quote right? One of the quotation marks does work as closing punctuation, so the period comes before the quotation marks. In the other quote, yep the period would be behind the quotation marks. I've made the edits as such. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 15:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Forget what I said. They were correct with the period inside the quotations. I read the MoS on quotations and it says that period inside quotations serve as closing punctuation for the sentences in which they are included. Sorry, you can revert the changes. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Done! ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 08:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Massive overlinking in the references section! Leave only the first link to SYOGOC. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) In "External links", remove the link to the Village because it is already used as citation. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC) But must the external link be removed because the URL is used as a source? After all, it is an informative webpage that is linked and not all readers might see the reference. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Alright. It's not that essential. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comment the tree subsections should be definitely be merged into a single table, and two background colors should be used (i.e. blue for the new venue, and red/yellow for the temporary ones). Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I'm following the precedent set (see here and here), so I'm not for merging the three subsections. Nor using different colours. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 11:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose then. The nominator is not cooperative and does not seem to understand that precedents are useful but only when the situation is identical. This is a much smaller event, and for example a whole section contains a whole table with one entry. If FACs don't accept one-sentence paragraphs, I don't see why FLCs should accept one-entry tables. Plus, one of the two examples is an almost 2-year old FL. Also, the "*scape" should have a note added to it as to a new reader it may appear as a mistake/joke. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Mmm. Precedents are for similar and not limited to identical situations. We can liken it to a persuasive precedent in this case. I understand that the Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics article used only one table to list all competitive venues, but that event used fewer venues than the one we are looking at. I decided to follow Venues of the 2008 Summer Olympics as a more appropriate model – which used three tables. As for the *scape issue, okay I think I will add a note there. Labelling me as "not cooperative" is rather hurtful and I hope you will not use on it me again. Thank you, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 06:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Looks really nice now. One issue though: "10 to 28 August 2010 for a total of 18 days"??? Also, is the author of the sculpture known? Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC) The 18 days mention has been removed. You mean the sculptor? Okay, I've mentioned the sculptor's name. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Another thing: intro does not say one word on the YOV. Please fix that. Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Actually it does, look at the last sentence of the first paragraph. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support all the issues I had were solved, and the list looks like it is as best as it is going to get. Nergaal (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

* I don't understand why you present the competition venues in three separate tables instead of one. By doing so, you sacrifice some of the list's functionality (table sort). What is it that you gain? Goodraise 23:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC) I had the intention of following Venues of the 2008 Summer Olympics as I stated earlier. Though in retrospect, merging the three into one table is definitely possible, although using different colours in that one table as suggested by Nergaal might not be necessary. I say: if we merge, add one column to the table, which will denote the status of the venue (new, existing or temporary). Agree? Thank you. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 14:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC) That would be better than the present version. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, I'm gonna follow-up on my proposal. Done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 07:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC) What are "youth athletes"? Is that term used in the sources? Why not just say "athletes"? I would think both terms are used, though I decided to use "athletes" alone anyway. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ "from 10 to 28 August 2010 for a total of 18 days" - That's so obvious, pointing it out is basically insulting the reader's intelligence. Not sure if I placed that, though I've personally removed it. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 14:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC) "The International Olympic Committee (IOC) specifies that all members ..." - Are you sure about the tenses in this paragraph? Shouldn't it be past tense? Well, the rule applies to all the Youth Olympic Games and not just this one, so it is still "present". Cheers, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 14:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC) How can you be sure that it will apply to any future Youth Olympic Games? You can't. That's why this needs to be changed somehow. Goodraise 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Okay I get what you're saying. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC) "IOC president Jacques Rogge was quoted as saying that a fun element should be instilled in the Games and that there should not be 'a gravity that you have at the traditional Games that's for later.'" - Looking at the source, this seems to be a somewhat rough translation. I'd rather see the whole sentence quoted so as not to give the impression that the bad grammar is a result of your abridging. Changed phrasing, do take a look now. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 15:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC) [citation needed] flags are unacceptable in featured lists. It was added very recently, I've addressed and cleared that. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 14:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Oppose for now. Goodraise 09:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "About Us - Our Story" - Use an en-dash. The webpage isn't using the dash type you specified. I just copied the one it used. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Admirably cautious, but this falls under "allowable typographical changes". (See MOS:QUOTE.) Goodraise 11:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Alright. Edited. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC) The date format should be consistent throughout the article (including references). Done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC) The copyright claim at the bottom of ref. 35 is made by "morethanthegames.com". That's normally what should be put into the "publisher" field. Done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Analogously: "RedSports.sg" -> "Red Sports". Done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Goodraise 06:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC) In the references, either use SYOGOC or Singapore Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee, but not both. Goodraise 07:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Okay that reference was recently added, I've corrected it. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC) "The Games was ..." - Is it common to use singular here? By convention, yes. It's been raised twice, and I've addressed the word form issue there. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "... Singapore Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee (SYOGOC), which the city-state of Singapore won the bid to host ..." - I guess you mean they won the bid to host the Games, but that's not what this passage says. It says that they won the bid to host the SYOGOC. Sorry, got that rephrased. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "... to be constructed for the Games, and it was completed in 2009." - This feels clumsy. I've removed "it". ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "was the only new venue to be constructed for the Games" - Redundant wording. Goodraise 11:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Whoops. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC) "The 55,000-seater National Stadium was not used as it is undergoing demolition ..." - That state won't persist. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "... Kallang Field which held 500." - 500 spectators were there throughout the Games? Goodraise 12:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Changed phrasing, thanks. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "Weightlifting, volleyball" - W follows V. Done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "volleyball, Weightlifting" - Mind the capitalization. Goodraise 11:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Sorting by capacity isn't working properly. It's working now. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Training venues aren't sorted alphabetically by default. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "football, fencing," - O follows E. Goodraise 12:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Okay done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) If you link Singapore Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee only a single time in the references, then you should link it the first time it appears. Goodraise 12:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Argh that's oversight on my part. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• "... expected to open in 2014." - How is that relevant?

• Rephrased, do take a look now. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• "to make way for the Singapore Sports Hub expected to open after the Games." - Again, how is that relevant to the "Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics"? Goodraise 11:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's really add-on information, since the national stadium of the country is usually used for major events like this. It's about the main venue, so a line of explanation regarding its selection is fine, I believe? ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Goodraise 12:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nominator away for few days I will be away on overseas travel for a few days. I don't see any major issues/problems with the FLC right now, so if any minor issues/errors arise over the next few days, I hope someone will take the onus and correct them so long they do not impact the gist of the article. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 14:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:05, 7 September 2010 [34].

---

List of Seattle Mariners first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Courcelles 08:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

How did I get here? I was going to do one of these, and a long story later, somehow this is the third of these draft pick lists I've worked on. This list (assuming the Cardinals list that is nominated passes) would be 2/3rds of the way through the Featured Topic. Enjoy. Courcelles 08:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments Picky, but I dislike linking years like you have in the lead image caption. Maybe instead of "overall in 1987 and a 13 time", you could have "overall in the 1987 draft and a 13-time", linking 1987 draft, instead of just 1987? "left handed" hyphenate for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Done, and done. Thanks. Courcelles 00:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Baseball, so this was an interesting read. A good list (as usual) and the only thing I saw was in your external links; I'm gussing Tha Baseball Cube should be The Baseball Cube. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Does t help if I say I'm not the one that put that there? Still should have seen it, fixed, thanks. Courcelles 02:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Support. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 10:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: "The Mariners' 2007 pick—Phillippe Aumont—is the only selection from outside the United States." I'd add in he was drafted from Canada (most players drafted outside the US end up being from Puerto Rico i've noticed, so the country's worth noting) I've added this, though since Puerto Rico is part of the U.S., I'm not totally sure it was necessary. The high schools without articles can be linked; just make sure they're disambiguated right. Done. "the team received the 38rd pick in the 1990 draft and the 37th pick in the 2003 draft respectively" comma before respectively. Done. As a side comment, I'm surprised as how great the Mariners are at drafting. Griffey, A-Rod, very few players that did not make the majors. And how little they've produced from them. For the players they've had, you'd expect a ring. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Courcelles 21:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Caption is missing "the" and a hyphen between 13 and time. Done. "None of the Mariners' first-round picks has won a World Series championship with the team, and no pick has been elected to the Hall of Fame. None of these picks have won the Rookie of the Year Award or the Cy Young Award. " I know this is factually correct, and matches the standard "first round draft picks" "template" we have at FLC, but it's somewhat odd to read, particularly if you've never read one of these before, if you see what I mean. Okay, I tried something different. Take a look. Better, if it were me I'd merge those two so you get "The Mariners have never won a World Series championship and none of the franchise's first-round picks have been honored with the Rookie of the Year Award, the Cy Young Award or election to the Hall of Fame." But it's still a little odd to note that picks "haven't" achieved something. Are first-round drafts normally expected to win these awards? If so (and if you can find a suitable ref) then I'll shut up right away, but to an outsider, it's a little odd listing all the things these guys haven't achieved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Merged those sentences. And, no, not really; it's largely a product of the "template". The Mariners have had two Rookies of the Year, one that was a sixth-round selection, and one that wasn't a draftee. I could just remove all that, and merge what little would be left of the 3rd paragraph with the fourth, would that work better for those (and in the future, those teams without such honours?) Courcelles 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC) ETA: Merged as above without all the "Haven't done" type things. Let me know if that works better. Courcelles 19:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Perhaps make sure the MVP in the caption is expanded? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) thanks for the comments. Courcelles 18:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - bingo! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• "The Mariners' 2007 pick...". Aumont wasn't their only first round pick that year, which is implied to a certain degree. How about "One of the Mariners' 2007 picks"?
• Capitalization fix needed in "American league MVP awards"; "league" should begin with a capital letter. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done and done. Thanks. Courcelles 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:05, 7 September 2010 [35].

---

Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year

Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have based this list on similar Featured Lists such as Ipswich Town F.C. Player of the Year and Watford F.C. Player of the Season, and I believe it now meets the criteria. Thanks. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport I supported last time and probably will again if there have been improvements. I do want to check a few things just to make sure everything is feature quality before making a !vote.

To start with

• Dablinks is good.
• http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Plymouth_Argyle_F.C._Player_of_the_Year Checklinks] shows to suspicious as probable 404s but they check out. One did not work earlier even though it does now so the site might be having issues.
• Alt viewer shows it is taken care of. I am under the impression that this was dropped from the criteria but just to make it better: Try adding something baout the first guy's hair or something to clarify that it is dated. Try adding a mention to Wotton like "with his arms raised triumphantly".Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Any dashes are OK with the MoS.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've added some more alternative text to the lead image and Wotton's as suggested. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I am happy to support this. It appears to be a perfectly fine list. I do not believe it needs to be mad into an article or merged but that is still a possibility if people feel strongly about it. As of right now, it meets (if not exceeds) the requirements. The lead is great and the list is thoroughly detailed. The first FL nom had some concerns with sources. These have been addressed. It does not over rely on primary sources. I was initially wary of Statto but the "about us" page convinced me otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Commment Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 20:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• This list is essentially a content fork of "List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players", being a reduced duplicate of the information there. While the AfD of York was a keep, many of the keep-arguments concerned the lists FL status being a sufficient guarantee against 3.b, however this is not the case here, so it would take novel arguments as to why this content fork is acceptable. I defer my oppose until a case has been made.
• "Plymouth Argyle Hall of Fame" delink Plymouth Argyle.

• There is some crossover between the two but I don't believe that is a reason to fail/delete. The main "List of players" inclusion criteria is 100 appearances but I wanted to include POTY winners/Hall of Famers because they are undeniably notable. The award is only mentioned briefly so if a reader wondered how a winner is picked and this list didn't exist then they would be stuck. Merely adding it on to the bottom of the list is a non-starter for me because the "List of players" is long enough already and both will continue to grow as time progresses. WP:CF backs up my belief in the lead. Delinked name in Table key. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Arguable that makes the case for removing the list and converting this into an article proper. A simple wikilink from the main list would then be sufficient. I simply fail to see what constitute a breach of 3.b if this does not, i.e. if a different lead is sufficient. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure if I'm going to review this, due to a close association with this strand of lists. What I will say is that if an AfD survived solely on the grounds that WP:FOOTY editors didn't want to see an FL deleted, that would not be a valid close. If you believe that has happened, you should seek to clarify the decision at deletion review. --WFC-- 04:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• In the By player table, players are sorting by first name, not last.

Fixed. Not sure why that table wasn't using {{sortname}}. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note E: "and the players article as appropriate thereafter." Wait a second. "players" needs an apostrophe in it, but that's not my real concern here. Does this mean that we're using Wikipedia articles as sources for this page? If so, I see no way that they can pass muster as reliable sources. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I should've taken that out a while ago because it isn't true. Each international player has a reference in the caps column. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support – In my mind at least, an actual award article is valid, and this one meets all the standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I'm reluctant to do this, but I sincerely believe this list can be incorporated into another, and thus it does not meet the criteria set forth in WP:FL?. I'm sorry it wasn't promoted last year, because then it would most likely have been a FL like the rest of them as the way to FL and back is asymmetrical. Sandman888 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Satisfied that it passes 3b. The aforementioned AfD was closed as a clear keep, and the DRV was withdrawn by the nominator. Consensus clearly seems to be in favour of these lists. --WFC-- 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments - also satisfied that this is a legitimate stand-alone list, so that's out of the way. Caption - perhaps just be super clear - "Mariner, winner of the Player of the Year award in..."? Added. I know it's obvious to most of us, but I'm not sure your current source backs up your claim of "This is the more prestigious ..." I've included a reference to The Herald that describes it as the main award. One award is described without apostrophes, one is. Removed apostrophes. "the coveted award" - POV warning... Heh thats true. I saw it in another featured list of this type, but I've removed it now. Specific refs which relate to Dane's book, shouldn't you at least preserve the name of the book as per the general reference? I was going to until I saw a clever way to link the name, so when clicked it highlights the book in question. BBC refs have publication dates, so they should be included in the references (e.g. Ref 28). Added publication dates. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 07:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

*Refs 8, 10, 12 should have authors Forgetting that is a bad habit of mine. Presume your division definitions are copied from your main Players list, hence the Third Div South which I'd guess isn't particularly appropriate. Might be tempted to include year ranges to indicate when the names changed. A reader unacquainted with the English league structure would wonder why Second Division was in two different rows. You're right about the Third Division South since it was long gone by the time the POTY was introduced. I like the year ranges. Added. Why up-to-date as at 22 August? i.e. after the first few games of the season. Do you intend to update after every match: if so, remember to update the accessdate from the appropriate reference(s) as well, at the moment you're referencing appearances on the 21st to a source last accessed a fortnight earlier... If it was me, given the award is only made once a season, I'd only update at the end of each season. I was going to update after every match but it is a alot of extra work, now that you mention it, so I've put it back to the end of the 2009–10 season. Soccerbase is a work published by Centurycomm, not a publisher. Added to the Soccerbase reference. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Created a few more player articles linked to the List of players I see. :) Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Comments Now you've added interesting captions to the piccies you'll have to add sources for the facts you put in them (sorry). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I had a feeling it might. Done. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Not sure that the Larrieu one verifies his being the longest-serving foreign player, unless I've missed it. It would verify his winning the award in his ninth season with the club, if that'd do. Also, you've got a key for pre- and post-1965 playing positions, but aren't using those positions. Either change the positions in the list or disappear the key. Ignore me, I was looking at the main players list at the time, sorry Struway2 (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Dabomb kindly asked me to address 3b. Thanks for that... Some thoughts:

• Don't think the York City keep at AfD is all that relevant: the prevailing argument did seem to be appealing to the current FL criteria, when the criteria in force when that list was promoted didn't include any content fork-related requirement;
• This article deals with the Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year award, an award which has been running for approaching fifty years. It has independent third-party notability in the various newspapers of the West Country, as can be seen on the internet nowadays, and there's no reason to doubt that similar coverage existed over the lifetime of the award. Therefore, it's a perfectly acceptable notable free-standing topic to spin out either from the main club article or from a list of players, because it can't be covered in the same detail in a more general article without giving it undue weight.
• However, once this article has been spun out, I don't think there's any need to include those winners in the main players list who were there only as PotY winners. With only one list, it's currently acceptable to include clearly-defined extras. Once those extras are spun out into their own list which goes into extra detail about the award itself, I don't see any reason for those who don't qualify for the main list on appearances or as Hall of Fame members to be in it.

• However (too much however) I will

Support this list, assuming something suitable gets done about Larrieu's caption and/or reference, and the unused playing position key. If the RfC on 3b, and the other RfC on notability of lists, come to any conclusion, then this list and any others affected can be dealt with as appropriate. But as it stands, I'd have supported this list two weeks ago, before this matter was raised, and the criteria haven't changed in that two weeks. So I'll support it now. yours inconsistently, Struway2 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the extra feedback. I see you noticed my edit! I've changed Larrieu's caption because I couldn't find anywhere reliable that states he is our longest serving foreign player. The only players above him here come from the British Isles, but using Wikipedia for referencing purposes is generally frowned upon of course. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "Argyle won their first Football League championship, and promotion to the second tier of English football for the first time, ten years later." Um, when? This sentence is missing a date reference. Added 1930. "This is the more prestigious of just two awards made by Plymouth Argyle itself" Just -> the. Just implies a POV about the number of awards they present. Changed. "As of 2010, only former striker Tommy Tynan has received the annual award for a third time." You've already told us it is presented each year three sentences prior. Removed. "of whom only England international Mariner has been Plymouth Argyle's Player of the Year twice." Come again? I'm not getting this sentence. Other than a seafarer, what is a Mariner here? Added his first name. "It's obvious by the number, that the apps is for their career... but what about goals? And is it for their entire career, or up to the season in which they won this trophy? Expanded note D to include all appearances and goals. Can the captions be made more, well, more interesting? They're all so repetitive at the moment. Fair point. I've had a go. "As of 2010, only former striker" link striker. Linked. Location and publisher for ref 17; "The Herald" is highly ambiguous. Added Plymouth. Courcelles 03:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 10:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Quite honestly, I've never seen the argument that these lists fail 3b as having any merit. The award is notable in itself, making this fine as a stand-alone list. Courcelles 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:05, 7 September 2010 [36].

---

List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall

Nominator(s): Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, even though it is my first attempt at a Featured List I believe it meets the criteria. It has just had a WP:MILHIST peer review and all comments have been addressed.. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'll come back and do a full review of this later, but we don't start FL's like this anymore. Look at Army of the Danube order of battle for a somewhat similar list for an idea of how to open this list. When you're done, there is unlikely to be any bold text left. Courcelles 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Can't understand why Operation Chariot is referenced as the greatest raid of all time multiple times in the article. The only reason given is because Jeremy Clarkson made a documentary about it. Objectively it seems to me as Operation Claymore and Operation Archery had much better results especially as in Operation Chariot many were killed and many more captured. Philistus (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply - No Clarkson did a BBC programme on the raid which used the title already in common use see here for a Google book search [37] The term is only used twice once in the lede and once beside the entry for the raid. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply - oh ok, I get it now. Thanks for explaining. Philistus (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

*comment Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Galleries are usually discouraged, but I think your list has some merit in them. However, do put one or to pictures in the prose. Lists no longer starts with "This is a list" but try to engage the reader with something sharp and exciting, like "Call me Ishmael." or other great lyrical intros. Why isn't it sortable? Sortability is encouraged per WP:FL?. Replies - image added into prose , change to text in lede and the first two sections are now sortable could not see any need for the other sections.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Unit and "Numbers taking part" are good candidates for sortability. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Also now included Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Did you try sorting them? template:sort is what you need. replace 100 men with {{sort|100|100 men}}, etc Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 22:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Yes now added thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, should have told you. For two- and single-digit numbers use {sort

• After sorting is ordered I support this list. Btw, per wp:lead, a picture up in the lead section would be good. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 17:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

*Is there a consistent approach to capitalising Commando? "of all Commandos captured" vs "chronological list of all the commando raids" All now large Commando "two largest raids Operation Gauntlet and Operation Jubilee drew" neesd commas after "raids" and "Jubilee". Fixed "The largest raid was the 10,500 men" -> "The largest raid involved 10,500 men" Fixed "capture or death of all involved." all Commandos or everyone? Specified Commandos Image could be moved to the lead, and the caption should be improved to be more informative. Image replaced into lead Date column doesn't sort correctly in Firefox. I think this was with the different formats used 1/2, 3&ndash4 etc. I have removed the sort code, I believe it would only go from top to bottom which is the same as the first column 1 - 57 True. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC) "Propaganda victory two Germans killed for no loss" surely some punctuation here! Yes added Sortable table so link linkable things (e.g. 3 Commando) every time. See above "destroyed[23]." remove . Be consistent with use of full stops in the notes. All now added Agree with concern over single source stating "greatest raid of all time". Web link to BBC removed and replaced by two book sources Also, no information on why. Note added "four 1/2 hours" ->"four-and-a-half" Changed to "four-and-a-half" The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the taking the time to assess the list, hope I have resolved your concerns. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose Unit sorts curiously as well. all wikilinked which solves the problem Not strictly true, I would expect 2 Commando to follow 1 Commando, not come after 10... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Its been a bit trial and error but I have managed to sort them now, in cases where two or more units were involved I have put the higher formation or senior unit first. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support! One question: Is alt-text required on pictures in galleries? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not sure so tried to add alt text but it does not work within the gallery template. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The FLC criteria doesn't require alt text at all at present. Courcelles 01:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments I can't say I'm too happy with the introductory sentence. It's a one-sentence paragraph that is out of chronological order. "This is a list" is depreciated in FLs these days. Line changed "The 57 raids were all between 1940–1944 and were mostly against targets in France, which had 36 raids. There were 12 raids in Norway, seven raids in the Channel Islands and one each in Belgium and the Netherlands." Don't mix numbers and words in like-to-like sentences. This is in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Numbers as figures or words. No, it's not. Bullet point four, "Render comparable quantities, mentioned together, either all as words or all as figures" Courcelles 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Learn something new every day. Changed 12 - twelve etc.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC) "Operation Chariot the raid against dock installations at Saint-Nazaire, has since been called the greatest raid of all. " First,s et off "the raid against dock installations at Saint-Nazaire" with em-dashes, not a comma splice, second such a POV statement needs a source. Its referenced in the body of the article. Its not normal to reference in the lede. The em-dashes have been added. Ref 33; we have two Saunders books in the references, which is being cited here? Rectified it was the 2005 book In general, this needed to go through an ACR over at Milhist, as the prose is choppy and lacks a lot of flow. It needs attention from subject matter experts as well as an independent copyeditor. Its not normal for lists to go through an A Class review at MILHIST but the point is appreciated. It has had a peer review admittedly with only one reviewer. What would you class as a subject matter expert ? V--Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Independent copy edit completed. Hopefully this will be adequate as there do not seem to be a lot of active copy editors at present. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Place of publication needed for virtually all references.
• Titles should follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes missed that - both done --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've found it very helpful to build a library page with all of my books and references properly formatted; you might consider the same.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and that's a good idea as I use the same books all the time. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:05, 7 September 2010 [38].

---

Joan Gamper Trophy

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC), User:Djln

I already have one here with two supports, and hopefully another reviewer will support so it can be closed. Due to calls for more FLCs I hereby nom this. This is quite the inverse of my earlier FLC in terms of complexion, being basically a copy of a RSSSF list. Have a go at it! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I co-nomed Djln, he doesn't answer to talkpage queries.

• Comment - why is the list in backwards chronological order? Existing FLs such as List of FA Cup winners, etc etc, are all in forwards chronological order, I see no compelling reason for this one to be different...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • re-ordered per WP:SALAT Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 10:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - general refs should go before specific refs. Can't see any issues other than that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Anything else that will sway you to support? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 09:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - all looks OK now to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I'd have the general reference font size the same as the specific ones, but its no big deal. Good work. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I just added a couple of things that you can revise. You have done a very good work. I only have one small comment regarding the "Flag legend" section. Is that section really needed?. If a flag is unknown for you at any of the tables, you can always place the mouse on it, and a yellow text is telling you the country. Anyway, if you finally decide to keep this section, I would rather move it below all the tables. --Jordiferrer (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "and later president of the club." Didn't you get a list of these presidents through FLC? Seems like a good link for context. Same with the managers earlier in that sentence. Should appearances 1981 and before be using the older Spanish flags? What month(s) is the competition usually held in? "Köln subsequently won the competition in 1978 and 1981 and were runners-up in 1981," Umm... check that. Can't win and be 2nd in the same year. Flags again, that wasn't Bulgaria's flag in 1972. That said, advancing the flags to modern in the "Appearances by club" section makes sense. Courcelles 00:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Ah, I should have thought of the wikilink and checked the flags. Oh well, all done now, thanks for pointing it out. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 00:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments "usually held in late August" reference? Whose season? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Link Barcelona first time round. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC) "Barcelona. It is named in" merge "Barcelona and is named..." "a 800 grams silver cup with five micrometres of gold finishing, on-top of a 10-kilogram" Would like to see these converted. Converted, there is no imperial equivalent for micrometres. "a 800 grams" -> an 800-gram. "Barça were joined" avoid this nickname, just stick with Barcelona. "Barcelona beat the latter team 3–1 in the final. Köln subsequently" "the latter team" reads poorly to me. Needs a small revision to avoid the inevitable repeat of Koln, I understand, but please try. "beat the German team..." I think it sounds worse. " The next edition saw the first appearance of another Spanish team, Atlético Madrid, who were joined by German side Bayern Munich, and Argentine Boca Juniors" makes it sound like only three teams in this edition. "Bayern were runners-up in 1984, 1987 and 2006. Boca became the first of several South American guests to be invited and have since returned in 1977, 1984, 2003 and 2008." merge with "2006 while Boca..." "the Italian Serie A" you qualify Serie A (even though it's linked) with "the Italian", similarly with "Spanish La Liga", is this really necessary? TBH I think a lot of non-Europeans would not. I don't see the harm. If they need to know what 800 grams is... You don't say German Bundesliga though? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC) "most notably Tenerife and Valencia" perhaps just "including" rather than "most notably". Did I miss where the teams selected to play are determined? Are Barcelona always involved? Is that a rhetorical question? It is stated that Barcelona host the tournament, seems to be labouring the point to include a sentence stating they also participate. Table: Winners->Winner Runners Up->Runner-up What does (p) mean? Should Újpest sort after or before V? Right now it sorts after V (in alphabetical order). "Participations by club" -> Participation by club. This table shouldn't be all cells, it looks terrible, perhaps just two columns, no rowspans. Could you clarify what you mean? Just have two columns, one for # of participations, one for the clubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Done Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 06:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Category suggests this is a Friendly competition, this isn't mentioned in the lead. Link "friendly" in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review! All done unless noted. Updated. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 06:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

*Infobox. Does the infobox template impose the tiny font in the parenthesised bits? if not, could we have the same size as everything else Lead. "hosted by Spanish club FC Barcelona" not side "on-top" shouldn't have a hyphen If it was me, I'd put the score in the final between the teams participating in the final, rather than between the r-u and the 3rd If including the third-place playoff teams in the table, why omit the score in that game? Hmm between 3rd and 4th? That's what I was asking, yes. There are a few club names which would be clearer using their English common names and/or not piped quite so much: Crvena Zvezda is still Red Star Belgrade, after 6 (and counting) requested moves, and certainly would have been in 2002; Athletic Club doesn't imply Athletic Bilbao, to the general English reader; FC Zurich rather than just Zurich, to avoid confusion with Grasshoppers; Use Moscow rather than Moskva for the various Moscow clubs, as their respective page names do; If it was me, I'd use Rapid Vienna and Steaua Bucharest, even though the page names don't, but others might disagree; AC Milan for clarity. Following on from that, if you're keeping the flags in the Participation by clubs section, despite the aesthetic opinions expressed at WT:MOSICON, please could you put non-breaking spaces between each flag and its club, to keep them together at line breaks. The &nbsp's didn't work for me, on Firefox, Chrome or IE7; did they for you? The next suggestion from Wikipedia:Line break handling is {{nowrap}}, which does work, at least on FF3.6 Removed per below. Also, could you clarify what the flags in that section mean. They appear to indicate the countries the clubs are based in as of 2010, not the countries they were in when they appeared in the trophy... If that really is what you intended, please could you say why? I don't see the relevance of the 2010 country to a 1969 participation. Removed per below. In 2002, would Belgrade not have been in Serbia and Montenegro rather than Serbia? Still seems to be in Serbia Sorry missed it. The Titles by club doesn't sort, because of the rowspan Unsortable, was no real point in that.

Comments.

• MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names says that "The name of a flag's country ... should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags." Further, in sortable tables, each row should be able to stand on its own, so the name would need to be repeated for each use, just as you have with the club names.
  • Yes I thought about that, hated as it is it's still 'policy'. I recommend we ignore it, the only solution is to remove the flags which I don't see how anyone can gain from. Including four extra columns for all of the flags would be horrible. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry, but I'll have to oppose on the flags. Daresay most of us have bits of the MoS that we're not keen on, but I don't think this is one that can be ignored. Are there no other lists of this type? if there are, how do they deal with the issue? Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Legend added per recommendation on MoS#Flag. I'm unaware of similar lists. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 08:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comments shuffled a bit to put whole conversation together. My fault for separating them in the first place. Thank you for taking the trouble to seek advice at WT:MOSICON#The use of flags and common sense. I'm no expert on accessibility considerations: if providing a legend is an accessible alternative to using country names with flags, then I strike my oppose. Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Table. Aren't numeric columns (edition, year, score) normally centre-aligned?
  • I havn't thought of that before you asked. A question of taste I guess, I do not think the layout as such stand out.
    • Probably a matter of taste, See if others have a view. Struway2 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Numbers such as km or kg are better should preferably be right-aligned. Regarding a match score, both left and center seem fine.--Jordiferrer (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

All done except if commented on. Thanks for the review! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose A legend may be added but it's still a multicoloured mess. The flags should go . Words are clearerGnevin (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that legend could do with some reformatting, but otherwise it meets policy. --WFC-- 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have, flattering the aesthetic considerations of the MoS#icons people, removed the flags from the participation by country. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That strikes a good balance in my opinion. The flags are clearly relevant in the big table, even if they are not to everyone's tastes. --WFC-- 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Barcelona were joined by Belgian RSC Anderlecht, French FC Nantes and German FC Koln." I get the feeling that the word "side" or similar is missing before each of the team names. I also know that you want to avoid repeated that word, so how about this: "Barcelona were joined by RSC Anderlecht of Belgium, FC Nantes of France and FC Koln of Germany."? Later on I see "Argentine Boca Juniors." Here, "Argentina's" would work fine; in fact, a similar solution could work as an alternate to the suggestion above. Bonus points for the flag legend, It's a creative approach to resolving a problem that has been seen intermittently at FLC for a while. If there were 100 countries or something it wouldn't be as practical, but for this number it functions well. Is reference 5 a Spanish-language page? If so, it should have an indication of the language, just like reference 3. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC) It's all "Country's Club", the language parameter added. Thanks for review. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. While I personally prefer score and year columns to be center-aligned, it's not something I feel strongly enough about to withhold support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:05, 7 September 2010 [39].

---

Kesha discography

Nominator(s): - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The lead is engaging and contains valuable information that accurately summarizes the body of the article.
2. All certifications are sourced by certification agencies and are done in a neat fashion.
3. All chart positions are properly sourced and are properly updated.
4. All sources are properly formatted, accurate, and reliable.

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) (part 1)

:comment, i'll refrain from voting yes or no right now because I'll take a thorough look over the next few days. However there are a few things I will say. The review for Kelly Rowland discography (which was recently promoted) determined that the format of discographies will need to be updated in the future to match WP:ACCESSIBILITY. However there is some changes which can be made immediately. The music video and collaboration tables need to be updated according to WP:Wikitable. Also you've used a press release to source "My First Kiss" reaching platinum in the US. This should be sourced directly from RIAA or its not considered official. Also see Kelly Rowland discography for the correct link to for certification heading. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Alright, ive fixed the music video section and replaced the My First Kiss link with RIAA. How do you suggest i fix the Kesha_discography#Collaborations section? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I dont think you quite understood what I mean. Instead of using !Title in the data table you have to use !scope="col"

• Support -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from –Chase (talk)

*Comment: Everything here looks good, but I don't think "other charted songs" and "collaborations" should be here. The discography is supposed to cover musical releases, and those were not released as singles. –Chase (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC) This has been discussed time and time again. A discography is all the work of an artist, its a descriptive catalog of musical recordings and chartings. They should be included. If you remove other charted songs how will you know that that particular song charted? If you remove her collaborations there is no other appropriate place for people to find out about her other work. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I personally don't find it rather important if a non-single gets a lot of downloads and charts off of that. And I think WP:WikiProject Discographies/style explains it best: "this is a discography not a songography". The goal is to cover the releases, not charted non-releases. –Chase (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Although i do see your point, on the same page it is not listed on things to avoid on a discography: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#What_should_not_be_included. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC) And i dont mean this in a rude way, but the quote you took is somewhat out of context, its from the quote "Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release. Remember, this is a discography not a songography, so we're mostly concerned with the release, not every song on that release." It is referring Tracklistings and B-sides, it doesnt refer to other songs that gain notability. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I still don't like that non-releases are included, but if it's that big of a deal to keep them in here, I suppose it's not too large of a concern. –Chase (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, if it ever becomes a rule or guideline not to include them for FL requirements ill remove them with out hesitation. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You should probably place non-print sources in the publisher instead of work field though. Perfectly acceptable and it reduces the amount of markup in the ref. –Chase (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there a reason why the year columns for the music videos and collaboration sections are at the end of the table? Just wondering, because I've never seen it done like that on any other pages, and none of the featured discography pages seem to be like that (for the music videos section, at least). Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It was actually Lil_℧niquℇ №1 who changed it, i dont really care either way. His reasoning was which is most important as your reading? The song or the year it was released? which if you think about it it actually makes sense to have the year last. BTW thanks for making some corrections to the article :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You may change if you disagree as i have no strong feelings either way. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no problem! Well, the year is used as the first column for the single and album tables throughout, so I just thought it should be the same for consistency. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

mhmm, i could really care less but ive changed it back to year being first as thats how it is for the rest of the article :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. Per WP:wikitable and WP:ACCESS articles are undergoing some changes to meet accessibility guidelines. When using a screen reader (blind users will use such software) the screen reader should read the most important peice of information first because it is the first thing said by the reader which is the identifying piece of information. For users who cannot see the make-up of the tables the song title is the most important piece of info not the year. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For machine readability it is also desirable to get rid of the rowspan, so each line has the year. Example: Helena Bonham Carter#Filmography. Note the table is also sortable and the colour has been removed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs)
*Comment looks good, but the lead needs a quick copy-edit, including the addition of some commas. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Done? lol. Punctuation is not my strong suit. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC) I had another quick go. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I will now support, but I think that the lead could also do with a bit of wikifying, particularly that of genres and countries. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and i added more wiki links. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Legolas (talk2me)

Comment These are some concerns that I found with the article and hence I won't support yet still. Lead: wikilink first appearance of singles & studio albums. "Although she had been an active musician since 2005, singing background vocals and writing songs for other artists, her breakthrough only came in early 2009 after she appeared on Flo Rida's number one single "Right Round"." — Chop up the snake, try something like "Since 2005 she was an active musician, singing background vocals and writing songs for other artists. But breakthrough only came in early 2009, after she appeared on Flo Rida's number one single "Right Round"." this way the sentence doesnot drag on and on. Her debut album, Animal — mention when it was released. Also you can mention its digital performance too. Its important. Following this sentence, instead of autolinking the country names, why not link them to their respective album charts to be more specific? "The song performed best in the United States where it topped the charts" — Which chart? Hot 100? Pop songs? Dance Club? "and the top ten in two other countries" — remove countries, redundant. "been certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association" — This is the first occurence of ARIA in the lead, hence link it, with the abbreviation in braces. done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Singles: "Dirty Picture" did not receive any certifications? Pity, my favourite. Ive checked, couldn't locate any. Other charted songs: Try to move any notes section to the bottom of the page, before the references. Look in the Lady Gaga discography. done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - References: Link Billboard for the first time. Similar for About.com Is there any external link pointing to Kesha's website discography? No. Infobox image — Can we please reduce the pinkiness of the image as well as the color of the featured singles link? Everything about the infobox looks like we are talking about Barbie. Lol. A greenish image suits best for Kesha IMO. Since this is not a songography, try to reduce the writing credits to major artists. Remove such obscure names like Dirt nasty, Charlee, Avalon, whose songs hardly received any third party notability, neither did Kesha's songwriting in it. I just removed it all together per similar requests earlier. done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - These are the things I found for now. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Not Done: I don't see "Tik Tok" being gold in any of the certifications mentioned in the table. So saying "gold" is a redundancy in the following line. Album: Pipe IFPI to the expanded format. Collaborations: Can you update the chartstats link with those from officialcharts.com? Just a suggestion. No, i did chartstats because 3OH!3 arnt listed on official and neither is Dirty Picture for some reason. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Correct reference nine. Sp mistake.

Support — Everything looks good with the discography now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose Active: Be consistent about using the serial comma or not, your very first sentence goes both ways. Done? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Nope. Check your first sentence again. You have two lists of three, one using the serial comma, and one without. Courcelles 20:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC) "one on it's first week" Nope; that's not correct usage of it's. Further, "Her debut album, Animal, was released on January 1, 2010 and features at dominant dance-pop/electropop sound." at is not the word you want there. Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - "setting a record with sales of 152,000 (76% of which were digital sales, setting a percentage record as opposed to physical sales for a number one album)." Try this clause again, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Suggestions how to fix? Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - "Australia, Canada, Germany and New Zealand." When you have four items, the serial comma is not optional. Suggestions how to fix? Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - No, not done. When you have more than three items, it must be W, X, Y, and Z. You have W, X, Y and Z. Courcelles 20:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC) There is no number of items that requires a serial comma. Both are correct. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Done, thank you, i forgot the , - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC) "Both songs achieved similar success both reaching the top five and top ten in multiple countries as well as receiving gold and platinum certifications in similar regions." This sentence doesn't flow well at all. Suggestions how to fix? Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me Done: Ref 8, typo; "Australian-aharts.com" done "Since 2005 she was an active musician, singing background vocals and writing songs for other artists. But her breakthrough only came in early 2009, after she appeared on Flo Rida's number one single "Right Round"." Sources for any of this? It smacks of POV as it stands. done (added ref) "At the age of eighteen, Kesha was signed to Dr. Luke's record label and publishing company." This needs a link or something. Right now it's just a giant, "so what?" sentence. Is this record label notable? Who is Dr. Luke? done (added wiki link to Dr. Luke) Courcelles 18:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC) "The song performed best in the United States where it topped the Billboard Hot 100 for nine consecutive weeks and has gone on to sell five million copies as of July 2010" best? POV? Yes, Best, meaning thats where the song preformed best. No, it's an NPOV violation as it stands, best is a WP:PEACOCK word. Tell us why this is the "best". Courcelles 20:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I argue that but what ever, ive rewritten the sentence. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - With only one album, I'm somewhat surprised this is considered necessary. But, I tend to avoid discogs like the plague. Its eligible because she meets the requirements for stand alone lists. Main page is over 30, (34 to be exact)if this is merged then the main page is well over 40 which a split is required. Ref 1, About.com is not automatically reliable, why does this qualify as a WP:RS? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this reference. No, that's not how this works. I challenge the source, and then you prove it is reliable. You logically can't prove a negative. Courcelles 19:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Okay easy, Established reliable source, established writer (Bill Lamb). Can you explain why an established and verified source cannot be used? (Thats not meant to come across as rude) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Read this thread from the reliable sources noticeboard and try again. About.com falls under WP:SPS. So again, why is this reliable. With links, explanation, and not just the hand-waving. Courcelles 20:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, a two year ago discussion should probably not be called into play. That aside, i have never heard of anyone calling About.com into play as unreliable, with that i strongly feel it meets Wikipedia:RS#Overview "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Right, and About.com has no such reputation. It's the same site that was discussed on the RSN; it hasn't changed in two years, while our standards have gone up; considerably. And that you've never heard it questioned merely proves that you don't read many FAC's, not that it isn't done, often and vehemently. Courcelles 20:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC) You may also want to read User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You, one of the best essays on reliable sources and featured content processes there is. Courcelles 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I 100% do not agree with this but what ever, the links have replaced. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - The replacement source isn't a third-party source, and is being used to source information favourable to the subject. Please read WP:SELFPUB bullet #1. Courcelles 21:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Sourcing is not my strong point, but, FWiW, I believe Bill Lamb (the author of the first source) is considered an authority in his field. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, ive replaced with A Billboard Cover story :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I'm still concerned with the prose, but the sourcing issue is resolved; and was very long, so capped. Courcelles 21:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Even after the rewrite, I'm not liking the prose too much. See the WP:GOCE- this needs an independent copy edit. Courcelles 20:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Further, the lede says Tick Tock reached number one in twelve countries; the body shows seven. Where are the other five coming from? Courcelles 20:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Ive put in a request for help and i added another ref for the 12 countries. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -

• Neutral Issues resolved, I'm not 100% sold on 3b, but I withdraw my oppose. Courcelles 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments. The lead section needs a copy edit. The prose is quite choppy, sentences shouldn't start with "but", there are commas where they shouldn't be and no commas where they should be. I would also suggest that you consider including her full name (but I don't consider that a big deal). Also, the last sentence of the lead doesn't have a citation and is there a photo where she doesn't look drunk? They're not fundamental issues and could be addressed fairly easily, but they're worth fixing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Removed "But". I believe i have fixed the punctuation, i may have missed some. Please be bold and correct any i have missed. Please and Thank you. And there are very very limited free images of Kesha. This is one of the best unfortunately. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC) OK, you've addressed my more trivial concerns, but what about the choppiness of the prose? FL criterion #1. What of the uncited final sentence? As things are, I'm going to have to oppose per criteria 1 and 2. I don't wish to cause offence, the idea here is to get the best possible article, but it doesn't fall to the reviewer to be bold to make sure an FLC meets the criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) It has since reached the top forty in six countries (three of them being top twenty peaks). Doesnt need a source. Thats what the body of the article is for. Please be more specific about criteria 1 and 2 or i cannot improve it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC) The prose is very choppy—there are a lot of very short sentences and it's difficult for the reader to retain interest. Also, as Courcelles pointed out above, you make inconsistent use of the serial comma. Personally, I despise the damn thing, but you need to make up your own mind on whether to use it or not. As for the prose quality, have a look at Taylor Swift discography and some other fairly recent FL discographies. While the first paragraph of Swift's is structured very similarly, it make s much better use of varied sentence structure to hold the reader's interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I have done some copy edits which I hope will be adequate. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I decided to copy edit it myself and I'm now satisfied with the prose and the other technical aspects. On 3b, although there isn't much of a discography, I believe it's of more use in its own article than it would be merged back into Kesha, not least since it would more-than-likely be split again in the near-ish future as she releases more music. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mild oppose (sorry if some repeat resolved stuff ^^) Why does lead contradict infobox (e.g. singles in lead = three, singles in infobox = four)? ?? What are you talking about. "consists of one studio album, four singles as a solo artist, and three singles as a featured artist" infobox says 4 singles, 3 feature, one album. Theres no issue - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Kesha repeated three times in the first three sentences. Repetitive. Changed one to she - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - "Other charted songs" not sure, but I'd say "Other charting songs"? The way its written not is correct. - (CK)Lakeshade - [[User talk:L-l-CLK-l- l|talk2me]] - Mix of date formats in the references contravenes WP:MOS. Where? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - I have a script installed that does this, so did this one. Courcelles 18:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC) "It set a record for sales, with 152,000 copies" context, i.e. what record? was it "most sales in a week"? "most sales in a day"? "most sales in the US in one week"? Read the next sentence. It states which record. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Reads very poorly, unclear still. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Link "certification" appropriately. ?Where? In the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Avoid bold links per the WP:MOS, there's absolutely no need to force some bold into the lead. Was changed by MOS and Copy Editor User:Diannaa so im not going to change it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Contravenes MOS, so oppose still stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - "early 2009 " hyphenate. ? Why? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Because you'd hyphenate "mid-2009"... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Was her debut album really realised worldwide on the same date?
  • you choose to first release date, which was January 1 - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
    • Says who? Perhaps just clarify in the lead where it was initially released. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Might I suggest adding the word "from" as this is a quick solution? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Honestly i dont really care, if you want to change it please do. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I've promoted, but please be address this issue in a timely manner. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:05, 7 September 2010 [40].

---

Lady Gaga discography

Nominator(s): –Chase (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have structured it off several current FL-class discographies, including but not limited to: Madonna singles discography, Madonna albums discography, Taylor Swift discography, and Eminem discography. I believe that this is one of the finest pop discographies currently on Wikipedia and that this deserves to be a featured list. –Chase (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but all external links to Vevo don't work for me; they say that Vevo is not available in my country. Ucucha 06:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, Vevo is generally not available for people outside of USA. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I would use MTV.com but UMG and Vevo have pulled artists such as Gaga's videos from the site. –Chase (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What about VEVO on YouTube? I can use those in Canada. Unless you aren't referring to videos.

Also, I remember helping work on some Lady Gaga articles during the entire debate about whether The Fame Monster was a new version of The Fame. Long time no see Legolas. =)

Oh yeah. Support. CycloneGU (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Vevo on YouTube doesn't list directors, unfortunately. –Chase (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Chase, I was thinking what about Interscope or LadyGaga.com? They list directors as well as the video it self. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Director info doesn't seem to be available for all the videos at Interscope.com and I'm not sure where videos can be found at LadyGaga.com. Links? –Chase (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Adabow (talk · contribs)

Comment Shouldn't "Chillin" be in a separate table from her solo singles? And if "Chillin" is here, why isn't "Video Phone"? Also what are the selected 10 charts decided by? One would think that they are the charts where an artist has had the most success. In the albums table(s), the Swedish Chart is chosen, but in New Zealand both studio albums and The Remix have charted higher [41]. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Consensus was gained that as "Video Phone" is a remix of a song that originally did not feature Gaga, it should not be a part of the discography except for the music video. And it seems silly to me to put one featured single in a different table. (Look at Madonna singles discography and Taylor Swift discography - current featured lists.) Per your request, I will replace the Swedish charts with the New Zealand ones. –Chase (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Consensus also has to do with the fact that the remix was not released as the A-side of any single. –Chase (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. There is still a bit of info missing, I feel. On the article for The Remix 23 charts are listed, but in the discography there are only 6. Also some singles only mention a few (sometimes only one) certifications, such as "Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)", "Telephone" and "Alejandro", but on their articles there are plenty mentioned. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I'm not too sure about the alt text of the infobox image ("A blond woman..."); shouldn't it be "Lady Gaga..."? Take a look at the Blair and Bush example at WP:ALT#Examples. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC) The ten territories selected are those where Gaga has performed the best overall, per the discography standard, and the certifications are summaries of how her albums/singles have done in some of the largest territories. Not every country and cert can be listed; we have wikilinks to the main articles - which provide all that info - for that. And I'd really hate to list other certs for lesser-certified singles such as "Eh, Eh" and not list those in others, as that would ruin the consistency. Alt text has been changed. –Chase (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Please note that alt text has not been part of the FL criteria for some time now. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, I didn't realise this. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Support My issues have been clarified. The lack of access to VEVO links outside of US worries me a bit, but I guess that its not much different from offline sources. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry to be a pain, but one more tiny thing: The Fame Monster was a re-release of The Fame in New Zealand, and they charted together. While the Hung Medien sources says that they are separate, I think that this is because of the international meta-linking up system they have. Anyway, the official chart by the RIANZ counted them as one and the same [42], and (apart from iTunes) I have not seen TFM sold separately over here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Done –Chase (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think I am finished for good now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments "To date, the album..." quantify "to date" Done. –Chase (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC) "reached the first or second position" awkward phrasing, perhaps "made it to the top two"? Just not keen on "first/second position". Done. –Chase (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Sales - World - can you clarify this includes the data that follows (i.e. sales in US, Canada, UK aren't treated separately) May I ask what you mean by this? The sources used say that the albums sold those amounts worldwide, so I'm sure the world figures would include those of US, Canada, and the UK, if that's what you mean. However, The Remix's world figures do not include US sales as the figure listed was determined before it was released in America. –Chase (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Just that in the table you have World sales, then US, Canada etc. Just think it should be made clear in the table that World sales include the subsequent US, Canada sales.. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Pretty sure that the fact that it is worldwide sales implies that. I'm not sure how it can be more specific. –Chase (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: WP:DISCOG and WP:GAGA have been notified of this FLC in hope of attaining more comments. –Chase (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: Exact release dates would be good to have in the lead Like most albums, none of Gaga's were released simultaneously worldwide. Plus, it's a little too specific for the lead, IMO. –Chase (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) I disagree. I think it's a useful piece of information and it only takes up an extra character or 2 tog give the exact release date for the first sountry it was released in (presumably the US?). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? Done. –Chase (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) While the focus obviously is on the music, a sentence or two on Gaga and her music career would be nice to give the reader more than "an American dance-pop recording artist" Done. –Chase (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The facts in parentheses actually appear quite important; I suggest reworking the sentences to incorporate those facts into the prose Done. –Chase (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) We're in September now; last sentences of first and second paragraphs needs updating Changed to "to date" so it doesn't have to constantly be rewritten. –Chase (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "To date" isn't very encyclopaedic imo, because it doesn't tell the reader what date and since articles constantly change, there's no way of telling (without doing research elsewhere) whether it was the 1st of August or yesterday or whenever. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? Back to August 2010. In response to your original comment on this, it should not be changed to September since all of those figures were reported in August. –Chase (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "Most countries worldwide"? "Most" is quite subjective, a number would be better. Remove either "most countries" or "worldwide", to use both is redundant redundancy Done. –Chase (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The prose gets a bit choppy and repetitive in the second paragraph Whole lead has been rewritten - problems should be fixed, but let me know if you spot any more. –Chase (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Linking of works and publishers in references is inconsistent—as a rule of thumb, link 'em all or don't link any WP:OVERLINK. After the first time a publication is cited, it should not be linked again. –Chase (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Those Vevo links need to be changed or removed if only people in the US can access them—we cater for the whole world, not just the United States Done. –Chase (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Nothing major. A note on my talk page would be appreciated when these have been addressed or if you need clarification on anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC) I'm impressed with the rewrite of the lead and much happier with the prose quality now. I still think the inconsistent linking in the references looks untidy, but I won't oppose on that basis. Once the two niggling issues above are resolved, I expect I'll support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Very happy with the prose quality. All my concerns have been addressed and I can't see anything else of concern. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 04:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC))

*General A redirect It actually didn't redirect if you went to the link, but it's been fixed anyway as the information that cited that ref was linked to the wrong comments page. –Chase (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Lead as Britney Spears and New Kids on the Block[3] prior to releasing -> as Britney Spears and New Kids on the Block,[3] prior to releasing ; comma, both are different topics. Done. –Chase (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Actually, on second thought, undone. The comma is redundant. –Chase (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC) the successful singles "Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)" -> If we compare "Paparazzi" and "LoveGame", "Eh Eh" was not as successful as those singles. I would consider top 20 in the territories it was released to successful. Nowhere is it said that the songs achieved the same amounts of success. –Chase (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) References At first I would made a list of them, but all the references need publisher. TbhotchTalk C. 17:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) No they don't, especially since the publisher field is already being used in many refs to list non-print works. –Chase (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Yes they need, Billboard, MTV Networks, Yahoo! Music, etc. need publisher, they don't publish by themselves. TbhotchTalk C. 01:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Please see discussions that have gone on at Template talk:Cite web. It is now perfectly acceptable to use the publisher field as a replacement for the work field for non-print sources and therefore many refs in this list cannot have publishers such as MTV Networks. –Chase (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral to Weak oppose If you want to make a B+ article is up to you. The lead still needing tweaks, I'm not an English speaker, but some issues are obvious. I really don't want to discuss about the citations, but if you want to follow to other lazy users (do not take it as a personal attack, because it is not) that do not want to fill all the parameters of the citation web ({{cite web |url= |title= |first= |last= |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |month= |year= |work= |publisher= |location= |page= |pages= |at= |language= |trans_title= |format= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate= |quote= |ref= |separator= |postscript= }}) is not my problem. They exist and is for a reason, I've never passed/supported an article through GA, FA or FL, if the basic usage ({{cite web |url= |title= |first= |last= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}) is not present, and of course, this won't be the only exception. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC))
  • I don't spot any obvious issues. It's rather rude and annoying if you say there are problems but don't provide suggestions for improvement... sorry, but no matter how you wish to put it, "lazy" is a disrespectful comment that was not necessary. Most A good amount of of the websites used here publish themselves, and as I have already said several times, the publisher field is already occupied in many refs (as a replacement for the work field for non-print sources). –Chase (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sigh... I'm probably just being difficult. Publishers have been added. Some had to be added as an addition to an already-occupied field so I'm not sure if those were done correctly. –Chase (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

      • Austrian, Canadian, German, Irish, New Zealand, Swiss and British is an example, Austrian, Irish and Swiss are gentilics, New Zealand no, also why is the British at the end while the others are in alphabetical order?

        • Changed, is "many countries worldwide" better? –Chase (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

peaked at number two in the United States and topped -> would not be better list the "best" position first, just because she is American we not need to be remembered in each line.

Done. –Chase (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not follow our policy of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we know that she is having her fame but lines like were international number one hits. They were followed by the successful singles, yes were well-received, but you cannot praise them when they are not "Poker Face" or "Bad Romance" Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is this not neutral? "Just Dance", "Poker Face", and "Bad Romance" were number one hits in many countries, hence they were international number ones. I'm just stating facts here, there's nothing POV about it. And again, nowhere is it said that the last singles from The Fame were as successful as "Poker Face" or "Bad Romance". It is simply said that they were successful, which is, again, a fact. –Chase (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Gage (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 3 September 2010 [43].

---

List of accolades received by An Education

Nominator(s): JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I present to you yet another film accolades list. This time round, I created it entirely from scratch and worked on it off Wiki until I was happy that it met the criteria. I was not aware that the film had received as many awards and nominations that it has, as the table in the film's article was (very) incomplete. I look forward, as always, to your comments. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I gave it a copy edit, made a few minor fixes in the refs, but nothing major. Although my FL experience is limited, as far as I can see, this meets the criteria. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help & support. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I updated the links to reference 5 and 8 so they point to non-redirecting links. I corrected the win count for one award in the infobox. I found no other problems. From what I can tell it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Great work. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Ref 42; the USC Scripter Award cannot be the publisher. Don't pipe away the end of Broadcast Film Critics Association in the table. "An Education is a 2009 coming-of-age drama film directed by Lone Scherfig and written by Nick Hornby. It is based on the memoirs of the same name by British journalist Lynn Barber." We need sources for all of this, including describing it as "coming of age". "The film received three Academy Award nominations, but failed to win any while, at" Check your commas. That last one needs to be somewhere else. "An Education won Best Foreign Film at the Independent Spirit Awards and went on to win Best Film at both the Sundance Film and Mill Valley Film Festivals." This sentence doesn't work at all since the Independent Spirit Awards were the last of those three chronologically. "The film's music, costume, hair and make-up" Do 'hair and make-up' go together as one clause? If not, you need an extra comma. If so, you need an extra 'and'. Courcelles 01:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Fixed all (I hope). - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments "make up" or "make-up", just be internally consistent. On my screen (1050px wide), some dates wrap to two lines, seems a shame... Are you sure those IMDB references are reliable? Many times the reliability of IMDB has been called into question. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Fixed the make-up issue. Not sure what I can do about the dates, I might need to go and have a play with the table (or ask an expert). IMDb is not being used as the source, it's just the publisher of Box Office Mojo. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Courcelles has added a table of contents to give the table more space. Do the dates look better? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 10:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support nice work, and thanks for addressing my concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 3 September 2010 [44].

---

Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine

Nominator(s): PresN 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Having finished Novels, Novellas, Novelettes, Short Stories, and Related Works, our Hugo Award journey continues on to one of the original categories, Best Professional Magazine. This is the first category brought to FLC that no longer exists, having been replaced in 1973 with an award specifically for editors. As always, comments from previous FLCs have been addressed here as well. --PresN 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "Worldcons are generally held near Labor Day, " This is a little too US-centric for my tastes. Someone will come along and nit-pick the fourth paragraph for MOS:NUM issues. Not my strong point, so I won't try, but I think you have a couple problems. "Note that Astounding Science-Fiction and Analog Science Fact & Fiction are the same magazine;" Pedantic since I know you're right, but... citation for this? Location and/or publisher for ref 2. Courcelles 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Labor day->start of September; replicated back across the other articles as well. Cleaned up to just use words rather than figures; there's no way to make numbers >10 be figures without violating the "same style within a single sentence" rule. Done. Done. --PresN 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Courcelles 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Meets criteria. I found no problems. Good work. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support you got the blueprint by now. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 08:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Beginning in 1973, the award was retired " better to say "annually through 1972 when it was retired..." "supporting or attending members of the annual World Science Fiction Convention, or Worldcon, " Is this an exclusive "or"? To avoid repeating "or", perhaps just (Worldcon) after "World Science Fiction Convention". One Infinity has (American magazine) after it, one doesn't. In fact, there are a few of these. Surely this needs repeating because the table is sortable, just like why you relink everything every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Fixed. No, non-exclusive, fixed. As stated in the lead, "For the 1957 awards, the category was split into American and British magazine categories, a distinction which was not repeated any other year." The (American magazine) or (British magazine) is only after the nominees/winners of the 1957 awards, and is not repeated for magazines which were also nominated some other year. --PresN 14:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC) But as the table is sortable, shouldn't it be repeated in case it isn't the first one? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC) But it has nothing to do with being the first one. (American magazine) refers to the award, not the magazine. I'll move the postscript to the year column to clarify and make a note of it above the table; I think that will make it more clear. --PresN 16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, glad to see (by your revision) that you kind of agree that it could be confusing. Will re-review momentarily. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 3 September 2010 [45].

---

Glee (season 1)

Nominator(s): CycloneGU (talk), Frickative (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am co-nominating this for featured list with Frickative because I believe it meets the featured list criteria, has undergone a recent peer review, and was written based on other featured lists such as Lost (season 1) and 30 Rock (season 1). We've worked hard on this and hope it qualifies to be among the best. We will both be watching this and addressing any concerns in the process. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Support (per nom). CycloneGU (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment (as co-nominator). The article has undergone thorough editing over the past week to ensure it is up to the necessary standard, and I believe that it is of comparable quality to other featured lists on television seasons. Frickative 03:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment–no dab links, no dead external links. By the way, it's not customary for nominators to support: the FL directors are looking for uninvolved support. Ucucha 06:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, I've crossed mine. I've seen others do it before, so I thought it was customary. CycloneGU (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - "The season consisted of 22 episodes, with the first 13 episodes airing on Wednesdays at 9 pm (ET) and the final 12 airing on Tuesdays at 9 pm (ET)." 13 plus 12 does not equal to 22. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Whoops...I will check that. CycloneGU (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Fixed. I think the second half was supposed to originally have 12, but that never got checked. CycloneGU (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Note My previous comments can be found at the talk page of this nomination Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's OK to nom this for FL. While everything Matthew says is true, this is an area where we don't always follow summary style. They jumped the gun a little bit, but Glee has been renewed for a third season already, and the second is only a month away. This is what this article should look like in few months, and a lot of effort has gone into this FL review, so I think you should just review what's here without regard to the other articles. As soon as the second season premiere airs next month, the two parent articles will begin to diverge significantly, or at least they should. I think there's a lot of Glee episode GAs too, but I wouldn't overthink it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well that's why I didn't go and AFD it. When the second season airs and if it gets as much coverage as the first, it's likely that season pages will be valid as the series page gives a summary overview of both seasons and everything else. I think you're wrong though, that "this is what the article should look like in a few months". There is so much valuable detail in that series page that is missing here, and when the series page is developed and expanded over the course of the second season, it will likely disappear. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't actually compared to the articles, and was just speaking in general. If you're talking about FA vs FL season pages, I prefer the FA versions. I think it's kinda silly you can't have a fat production section and then nom for either FA or FL, but whatev. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Outstanding issue: Perhaps you could rename the DVD and Blu-Ray release section to "Home media releases" which would allow you to introduce the fact that the season was available at iTunes, V-Cast on the Verizon Wireless network, Sprint PCS, Zune for the X-Box, Hulu, etc.

You've done some real good work on this page during this nomination. Most of my concerns are met now. I believe the page has got the right amount of information now, and it no longer serves as a summary of Glee (TV series) (which now correctly serves as an overview of the entire series).

The only thing now is to think about whether this still qualifies as FL over FA. Previously it did. There was the episode list, a cast list, a crew list, a list of DVD info, a list of awards and nominations. The only thing that really wasn't a list was the reception part. Now though, it seems to me to be more of an article with a list. There's a lot more prose and detail in the production section. There's more info in the character section, so it is now less of a cast list in prose form. The award section is still listy, but they usually are. I don't mean to say that it shouldn't be listed at FLC any more, just that it could be listed at FAC and its something to consider. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends whether you regard FAC higher than FLC, or whether you think our readers do, and if you want to have the chance of it appearing on the main page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree Matt, primarily on the basis of how the info is presented. The "cast" section is really just a list of who appeared on the show, and not really a prose of casting information about selecting actors, how those actors characterized their roles, etc. When you look at WP:MOSTV, the article would get caught up in a debate on comprehensiveness. The production section is largely a broadcast history and less a production history. It does do well with the info on musical information, but there is other stuff going on with the show (storylines, character development), which are largely absent. Some of the music in "Production" also seems more relevant to the "Music" section under "Reception". Because it talks about the release of 5 CDs, which has nothing to do with the production of a show. Given that this show is about singing and dancing, and the production section doesn't cover the latter, it wouldn't meet the FAC criteria. I think if the production section was more developed and spent more time talking about actual production of episodes and not broadcast history and the release of records, it probably would be a good candidate for FA (over FL) because the rest of the page is great. It's just, when I read the "Production" section....if I removed the info that isn't really production, that section would probably only have the 3rd and 4th paragraphs left, with everything else needing to be either placed somewhere else, or dropped entirely (i.e. the first paragraph is redundant to the episode table because you're just listing people who wrote and directed episode...which the table does already...there's no context as to why that was important enough to be separated on its own).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, both of you :) Matthew, I'm really glad you feel that most of your concerns have been addressed, and I'll try and fix up the home media section asap. Re: FL vs. FA - I've given the current season FAs a careful read through, and my gut feeling is similar to Bignole's comments. I think this article would fall down on broadness of coverage because of the "Production" section. The existing FAs have very detailed sections on "Writing", "Filming" (and "Effects" in the case of the Smallville/Supernatural articles), and while there are multiple good sources available on the "Music" element of Glee, I believe the former two sections are sparse on coverage at the present time. My instinct is to continue with the article at FLC at present, and if, in the future, there is information available with which the "Production" section can be expanded, perhaps try for FA at a later date. Frickative 22:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to have a slight difference in opinion here. I agree that the Production section is our biggest obstacle here. The thing is we don't have good sources regarding the filming of Glee; even a search for "filming in Glee season 1" brings up "They started filming Season 2!" and other similar results (I also tried "conception of glee"), and nothing about production of the show itself. I did find a fantastic picture of Britney Spears playing Maude on the show, however (too bad it's a blog). The writers, I think, tend to talk more about the music and discussions of future plots and twists, but there is no detail on a lot of the normal production information you'd expect in these articles. My point is that just because we don't have any real information on things that normally would be in a television season article shouldn't detract from whether the article is well-written. If the information isn't available, we can't say it, and a section will appear bland in comparison. We've still provided all of the information we DO have, even if it is music; once again, music is a heavy element of the show's production more than anything else. CycloneGU (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But you have to show that the information isn't available. Given that a simple Google search cannot prove a negative, you'd need someone with a LexisNexis account to be able to search a much broader searching field. Plus, I still think the lack of info on choregraphy and other dance elements is a big deficiency. The show is about character development, singing, and dancing. You got the music covered, but nothing else. Now, the individual episode pages seem to have more true production info, but you cannot duplicate what's there to this page because it would mean that those pages are unnecessary. That's the Catch-22. You can fill this page out more by putting more info on individual episodes here, but then that would negate the need for those individual episode pages because they would otherwise create the same problem that Matt brought up originally---multiple pages saying the exact same thing. The difference between this page and other FL seasons with the few FA season pages we have is that those "article" pages don't typically have more than a couple episode articles. The rest of the episode info is on those season pages. You'd have a hard time meeting criteria for comrehensiveness when you have 22 episodes to cover on this page and you don't really cover any.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Point noted. But we can't simply move the information to the Season 1 article from the episode articles because then we'd be having a detrimental effect on the episode articles. We probably could add some information on special locations for filming (such as in April when they filmed the finale to an audience of Gleeks from Twitter and Facebook), but there isn't a lot we can put in without simply copying the other articles. How much coverage would be needed to make it comprehensive? CycloneGU (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Compare the page to Smallville, Supernatural, and Parks and Recreation (which are the only 3 series I know of that have "articles" for season pages). My fear is that, it sets a principle that "comprehensive" doesn't actually mean comprehensive in the future. If the info is on the episode pages, that's perfectly fine. This page does not need to be FA, it can be FL (though some things probably need to be eliminated because of redundancy in this article alone, let alone across multiple articles). When you look at this production section, it's largely non-existent. Only two paragraphs really talk about any production related information, and they aren't really lengthy paragraphs at that. It's just missing a lot for coverage. There isn't truly a lot of info on the music for a 22 episode series, nothing on any dance routines, and for a show that deals a lot with human drama there's really nothing as far as that goes either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am replying late to this. I do agree that this page lacks information on dance routines, production, and so on. You refer to this as the Catch-22, and I fully agree; we can put that information here, but it then could make one or more episode pages unnecessary. Perhaps we can cover information on some of the more memorable routines, for example, and maximum of one per episode, but it would clutter the page unnecessarily to have 22 dance routine discussions on the article, so that is out. Maybe two or three of the more memorable ones could be used, and this would tie into production, but the question is which ones we can cover best in the article to give the detail that would meet the criteria.

On another note, I have seen two opinions from other editors off of this page supporting this article as a potential FAC, not just an FLC. Dabomb87 and DocKino‎ have both made such comments (the former comparing it to the first time I took it to FAC without a peer review), and while I don't intend to copy their comments to this FLC or start long discussions on their talk pages, it does show one of the great things about a community such as Wikipedia in having a great group of diverse people with diverse opinions, and we all have the same goal of making this such a great wealth of information for free for everyone. CycloneGU (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think just a couple of routines wouldn't be enough, because a couple of routines can be covered in a couple of sentences and the section is lacking by more than just a couple of sentences. Personally, I think given what appears to be a huge critical response for each episode (the reception sections are rather fleshed out compared to most episode articles) I wouldn't try and trim any episodes. You have three options when it comes to the production info. You can either remove it from certain/most episode pages and place it here, which would flesh out this page closer to comprehensiveness; or you can copy and paste leaving it on both. If it's on both, then it makes it redundant on one of the pages and this page would most likely be deemed the unnecessary one given the strong critical reception each episode gets. As such, the third option is to not change anything and leave this page as a list. I'm not sure why there is a push to force this page to be an article when it doesn't seem to naturally flow in that category. There is nothing wrong with it being a list (which is actually the most common form for season pages, especially when episodes are so well discussed in the media). I think, unless there is significant coverage on production info for the season that isn't directed at specific episodes (e.g., see Smallville (season 9) or Smallville (season 10) to see how info can be established on a more general scale in significant depth), then I wouldn't try and create bigger problems with multiple pages by trying to pick and choose what to snatch from episode pages and then either be left with diminished episode pages or redundant material (which was an issue this page had at the start of this FLC). I think it fits the "list" category better right now (though it certainly has a strong reception section than any season list or article), which is what I support for this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything is wrong with being an FL over an FA. I'm just saying that the article is on a fence. My requests of the editors in question were to simply give a straight opinion without review on which category it better fits, and I linked to them for that reason only to include them since another comment appears below this string here. My main thing to take away is that if some people think it fits FA, then it likely fits FL as well in their opinion.

As for why I'm coming up with ideas to get more production info in, it's only for completeness purposes. If you think having more info on musical numbers would fit the article/list well, then we should try to include it. With or without it, if it doesn't still qualify for FA, then we still have a very good FL candidate here and I think we'll both be proud of that, pass or fail (and for me, my first that I've helped spruce up, even if only as a minor contributor). =) We've been debating running the page for FA again, but we'll let this run its course first and determine the best action after that, pass or fail. CycloneGU (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I was asked to look over this to weigh in on if it's better fitting as a list or an article. Doing a read-through, I can say this: This is essentially a slightly more prose-driven season list than others. That being said, everything structurally and comprehensively is equivalent to that of a season Featured List. Just with more prose than usual. So, I'd say this is definitely better suited for FL and not FAC. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 03:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• support Sorry. Been away for a few days and didn't get chance to follow up. As I've said before, I haven't reviewed the episode summaries at all because I don't want to be spoiled for when the DVDs come out next month, but with regard to everything else, I support this becoming a FL. I feel it meets the criteria and all other WP policies and relevant guidelines. Nice work on getting Summary Style and article hierarchy sorted out. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose I know it is almost customary, but I really do question the value of the DVD box image under NFCC 8. The purpose of use- given as "To show show the cover for public interest and/or it's content." is extremely weak. I've removed the image. You're right, the FUR was no good, and unable to come up with anything stronger (I really can't think of a compelling reason it would be necessary) I nixed it entirely. There's already a free image of two of the cover stars beside "Cast", and I suppose we could add the title card in the ibox if an image there is necessary, but I don't think it would be of any particular value. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "The executive producers were series creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk, and Dante Di Loreto," Remove one of those ands. I was trying to denote the fact that Murphy and Falchuk are the series creators and Di Loreto isn't, but yes, the end result was unnecessarily awkward. I've re-worded it as "The executive producers were Dante Di Loreto and series creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk'. Any better? Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I like that myself, good point before the change. I thought it looked a little odd, too, but never got back to that. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) "Due to a scheduling conflict with American Idol, the fourteenth episode, "Hell-O", was pushed back to 9:30 pm, before moving back to the earlier timeslot for the remaining episodes." Isn't that a bit trivial for a season article? Agreed and removed. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "Virtually every song on the five albums has been released as singles with exception to bonus tracks and the entirety of Journey to Regionals, which had no singles." Just try that sentence again. This one is my fault. I'll fix this in the morning or so, I have only now seen this review and I have had a long day, am half asleep, and not on my best thinking terms. If I think of something good, I'll fix it tonite. =) CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) How's this? "Journey to Regionals did not release any official singles, while the remaining four albums were fully released as singles." Currently in article. CycloneGU (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Like Matthewedwards, figuring I may eventually watch this show, I skipped the Episodes section entirely. The Cast section, first paragraph. Any words besides "played" and "portrayed", which are both used many times would be nice. How about using brackets? i.e. "Glee is a series where William Schuester (Matthew Morrison) teaches a group of misfit students..." Otherwise, I'll find some synonyms. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) "played Santana Lopez and Brittany," Commas. We need more commas. Actually, that entire sentence could do with some work. 3 paragraphs in a row starting with "The season" is rather jarring Decided to fix this while doing the item below. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Actually, the entire Cast section is prone to run-on sentences, and so many citations it is almost unreadable. Any chance those citations would be fine at the ends of sentences? Fixing this now. I like putting all the citations at the end. I don't see an issue with doing it this way. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Done. Let me know if this is what you had in mind, or if you prefer them at the end of the relevant sentence instead of in the middle. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC) "and the UK[90][88] and" footnotes in order, please Fixed. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "ARIA and CRIA,[102][98] an" Again Fixed. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "and gold by the BPI and RIAA.[99][91]" Ditto. Fixed. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) You need to formally define RIAA- by putting it in parenthesis next to the expansion- to use it. Oops, total oversight. Fixed. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "However, as Scott Collins for the Los Angeles Times noted, the other major networks besides Fox all opened the evening by airing a speech by President Barack Obama, disrupting regular viewing patterns" You're attributing something to someone, the citation must be repeated before the sentence Done. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "The following eight episodes averaged 6.63–7.65 million viewers," How can you "average" a range? Averages are by definition a single number. Will fix this shortly. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Actually, I'm holding off on that ATM until Frickative checks this. I think she meant one show averaged 6.63 million viewers over the hour, and the highest averaged 7.65 million over the hour. The wording isn't clear, however, so this does need some clarification. I'll let her look at this. CycloneGU (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Actually, this entire ratings section needs a chop; almost all this data is in the table. Fixed the first point, but I agree no need to say something twice, so it may be removed shortly upon study. May render above point pointless. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) General refs need access dates. Done. Frickative 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Refs 1, 12, 61, 75, 82 need locations Done. Frickative 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Refs 11, 38, 139 needs the work Done. 11 and 139 had two publisher parameters, silly mistake. Frickative 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Refs 12, 15, 16, 49, 58, 59, 61, 75, 76, 86, 114 need publisher What makes Refs 55 and 56 reliable? I think these were left over from the early days of the show, when coverage of the supporting cast was sparse. I've replaced them both with a ref to a New York magazine interview. Frickative 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Refs 101 and 106 won't work in a year and a half. Plan now. I'm late to the party, but I show 101 as the AllMusic page (which should work years from now), and 106 is tvbythenumbers.com which I know nothing about in terms of longevity. I had a problem with 102 (a Billboard article), however. CycloneGU (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC) FOLLOWUP: I've now seen that the refs in question are Scottish charts or such. I still had a problem with 102 tho. CycloneGU (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Added archiveurls for both. Billboard has been up and down for the past few weeks, so I've added archiveurls for the six Billboard refs as well. Frickative 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Until the DVD image is removed or a much, much better rationale written, I must oppose. Courcelles 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Quick question, but do you oppose every film article up for FA status for having a poster in the infobox? Because there isn't a fair use rationale strong enough for 99% of films to justify that image in the infobox either and that is what the DVD cover equates to in TV since most TV shows don't get posters like films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I'd oppose anything with NFC whose rationale was as weak as this one's was, yes. Look at File:Richardiii poster original.jpg and compare the FUR there to the one I quoted above. Courcelles 09:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Ah, see you're looking at a FUR. But there's nothing in that article that talks about the poster itself. There is no critical commentary in that film article on the poster, and WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE require critical commentary in the article on any piece of promotional material. So, in theory, Frickative could simply copy and paste the FUR from Richard III's poster and use that to justify the use of the DVD cover art since just as much information in the Glee page is supporting those claims as is in the Richard III article supporting the claim that that poster is something illustrating the style of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support If and only if the non-free content stays out. If you reinsert it, please contact me to examine the FUR you write for it. Courcelles 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I don't know if this was mentioned, but could the production be moved under the episode list? I doubt it would make or break the FA status, just wondering. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. The only reason "Production" leads at the moment is because having "Episodes" first would have left a large whitespace when there was an ibox image. Now the image is out, there's no reason not to shuffle the sections, so I'll change it now. Frickative 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - In case it wasn't clear in the long winded reply above. I also support the page with the DVD cover art, because that is the standard practice of ALL season pages (whether articles or lists) right now and if someone has an issue with this page then they need to bring it up at WP:TV to change it across the board and not simply trying to change a single page. (i.e. I'd put the image back in)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments (sorry if they've been covered/discussed above, a little TLDR for me) - just a few that I found on a quick read. I think it's safe to appropriately link pilot in the lead here. Fixed. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) "The series is executive produced " series was (you're talking about a specific season, after all), and shouldn't exec prod'ed be hyphenated? Fixed. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Link glee club. Fixed. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) "Will's wife Terri" -> "Schuester's wife"? I'm confused here. You mean we should change it to just "Schuester's wife"? CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Ignore me! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Is that metascore (a) referenced and (b) current? Just checked the metascore. It's referenced under Reception (ref 71 as I type). We can move the reference to the lead where it's first mentioned, but we're repeating information here. I'll let Frickative decide on this, but I do think moving the reference up is smart here. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) ET isn't linked in the lead, it's linked later on. Fixed. Should we link it in both places or just in lead? CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) ".[45][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]" - any reason why you leave all the references to the end of this para (and the next) whereas you don't for the rest of the article? This was based on a suggestion from Courcelles that he only referenced to that section. I wasn't sure if this setup is what he meant, or references to the end of each sentence. He didn't like them appearing mid-sentence so frequently in that section, though, hence why I did this; I can always change it to after each sentence instead, which seems more sensible to me than either of the other setups. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) The end of each sentence is what I really meant. I think I counted one sentence that was interrupted five times by citations the way it was, which was excessive, but at the end of the paragraph isn't all that useful either. Courcelles 22:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Cheers. I'll go back to how it looked before and work on it again, but in order to be sure any fixed bits don't get reverted in the process I'll be working between Notepads to figure out where everything goes. CycloneGU (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Notepads actually got messy at one paragraph because I mixed the two up, so ended up pieceing it together in the site editor in any case with the help of loads of Previews. *LOL* Let me know if this meets your suggestion Courcelles, and Rambling if you're happy with it also. I can fix it up more if needed. CycloneGU (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC) .*"Australia,[103], Ireland,[88]" spare comma after [103]. Fixed. Missed this easy one on my first scan, and that comma might have been my fault in the first place. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "Seven-discs (DVD) Four-discs (BD)" odd capitalisation after a space. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Also added a comma. Didn't compare that to the other sections, will reread it later after more fixes are made. CycloneGU (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Just compared. No other instance of this occurs, but I removed the s from "discs" in both cases and reworded slightly. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "and several guild awards" what's a "guild award"? Could be one of two things: 2009 Writers Guild of America Awards (bookmarking to where Glee is visibly seen on two wins) or 16th Screen Actors Guild Awards held in 2010 (look in infobox to right). I think Frickative combined them here, maybe they should be split up but again, she knows what she was writing and I'll let her address this. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) I think this was pretty flimsy wording on my part. The season was nominated for two "Directors Guild of America Awards", two "Writers Guild of America Awards" an "Art Directors Guild Award" and won a "Screen Actors Guild Award", but the wording implies these things are all related in some way. I've changed it entirely to "and 57 other awards" which I think gives better scope on the success of the season. Frickative 15:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 3 September 2010 [46].

---

2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have reformatted this identically like 2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans and feel it is equally high caliber.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—dab links to Center and Jeff Teague, and a dead external link to http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1089222.html . Ucucha 18:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • dabs fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • dead link fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments A shame to have no lead image whatsoever. I added some images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Not overly keen on the table format you've used in the "2009 Consensus All-America team" section. Same in the "Academic All-Americans" section. They are in that format for two reasons: 1. they are artifacts from prior to my FLC attempt. 2. they are the same format as the 2010 version of this article, which just passed FLC a few weeks ago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Why does Arizona State sort before Arizona? Table sorts always confound me. You would have to talk to the experts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I guess an en-dash means zero. So it should sort as a zero in every column. Which it doesn't (in Safari) right now. I don't understand the sort functions that well. I am just repeating approved formatting from the aforementioned 2010 list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC) "By team" table, not keen on those thick lines. Why are they there? They serve to separate the various lists. I think they serve a good purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC) What on earth is GPA? Linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC) And " Ind. Engineering & Mgmnt"? all fields now linked and spelled--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC) And " Int. Science, Business & Tech."? Think about this as if you were an Englishman who'd unfortunately missed out on the whole idea of this all-US concept, would you understand all the nuances and abbreviations that I'm sure you take for granted? all fields now linked and spelled--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Date format in references should be consistently formatted per the MOS. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC) And not have ALL THE TITLE IN CAPS EVEN IF THE SOURCE DOES. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC) And use en-dashes per our MOS (see ref 20) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments – The template of All-American lists should be below the references. moved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC) References 2 and 7 should include an indication that they are in PDF format. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Reference 28 should be formatted further. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Still needs a publisher, as noted below. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC) fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments- It looks good to me and I would support this nomination (but I just did a quick review of the article). I generally prefer the template going below the references section, but that is not a big thing. Remember (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New comment - I would suggest changing the following sentence in the lead to read as follows (insert in bold): The 2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans is an honorary list that includes All-American selections from the Associated Press (AP), the United States Basketball Writers Association (USBWA), the Sporting News (TSN), and the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) drawn from the 2008–09 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. Thoughts?Remember (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - Remember (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose Surely we don't need a link to sport. I think most everyone that gets here is familiar with the concept. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "The 2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans is an honorary list" Americans is? This sentence could use another try. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "AP also lists honorable mention selections." Would work better if integrated into prior sentence. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "aggregating the results of four major All-American teams" of the four, perhaps? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC) USBW or USBWA? Pick one and stick with it, please Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Can you provide a more informative caption for the lede image? done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Spell out the positions the first time you use them. I think that would look goofy. So I created a legend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Make it explicit somewhere that this is for the 2008-09 season, and not the 2009-10 one. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Blake Griffin is the only player with anything worth mentioning in the notes column for the by player chart? Considering Hansbrough won all/most the awards you list for Griffin two years prior, you can do better here. Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Not to mention that that laundry list of honours for Griffin needs to be cited done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Isn't there a better way to present the AP Honourable Mention stuff? It's an unreadable sea of blue as it is. delinked redundant--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "On February 25, 2009 CoSIDA and" If you're going to use it, put CoSIDA in parenthesis in the last sentence of the lede. where the full name is. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Why is it worth listing the Academic All-Americans, but not the Wooden or Senior lists? Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC) "Mike Schachtner UW-Green Bay" UW-Green Bay? Try "Wisconsin-Green Bay" or the like, unexplained acronyms are bad. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Ref 3 uses a date format out of sync with the rest fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Ref 1; give a fuller citation. Does the book have an author, an ISBN, or at least the city of publication? I don't have access to the citation any more. That is all the info I have.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Ref 5; why are dates included as part of the title? fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Why the break from ESPN to ESPN.com for ref 26? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Ref 29 need Work/Publisher fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Nothing really all that major except one, but lots and lots of little issues. Courcelles 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blake Griffin is the only player with anything worth mentioning in the notes column for the by player chart? Considering Hansbrough won all/most the awards you list for Griffin two years prior, you can do better here.

Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Capped the rest, leaving this one out for the moment. I was using Hansbrough as an example, surely there are interesting things to say about most- of not all- of these players? Courcelles 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I will call WP:WPCBB and WP:NBA and get opinions on whether they would prefer to have things like Conference POYs and first overall draft pick added. I would prefer not to add conference POY. Not averse to national statistical champions or number 1 draft.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jrcla2 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

;Jrcla2 thoughts re: Notes column I agree with Tony that conference players of the year should not be included. They are certainly notable achievements, yes, but not notable enough to call out in an All-American page. If anyone wants to see that Player X was their conference's POY, all they have to do is click that player's link. There are conference POY navboxes for every D1 conference at this point. Include NBA #1 overall selections – that is definitely worth mentioning (but it needs to be referenced also). Done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Only include major category statistical leaders if they were the number one leader (i.e., no need to mention Player X was the #2-leading scorer in the nation; only mention if he was #1) done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Include any notable "firsts". If there even any to be mentioned, I would say "first player from School Z to be named a consensus first or second team All-American". Again, it probably won't apply very often, but if it does I feel it's worthy of a mention. I don't know which firsts are important enough and think it would be OR to think of which ones are. Whereas we have a pretty well agreed on set of annual awards and statistical leadership categories, this one is a bit of an OR nightmare. I am staying away from this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) That's all I can think of for the moment. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. Sorry I forgot to add my !vote. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the major National awards (Cousy, Freshman of the Year, Defensive POY, etc.) as well as NCAA Tournament MOP should be noted. Only other special case could be if the player received the honor posthumously. like Hank Gathers or Wayne Estes - but that's obviously a pretty rare and extreme case. Rikster2 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Curry led the nation in scoring and Griffin led in rebounding. Rikster2 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Added. I will add sources to all these later. Also, keep an eye on 2010, which I am also changing to mirror this. Off the top of my head, I knew Wall led in assists, but was not sure who led in points or rebounds.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Actually, Wall didn't lead the country in assists - he was third. If you ever need them, the top 5 in all major individual stat categories are listed on each season's page. Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I just took another look - I think the position key should be no more than 5 positions - PG, SG, C, PF and SF. If a player played more than one position, it can be noted as "PF-C" or "PG-SG" without having to note things like "swingman." People can figure it out and the key will be short and sweet. Rikster2 (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I copied the legend from 2010 where some of the combination positions are necessary. Now fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Also, I think the "By Player" list's default sort should be by Consensus points vs. starting with the AP team as the first five. People can always sort by the various granting parties if they are interested. Just my opinion on this one. Rikster2 (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed the default order.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I know this was feedback from this or the 2010 nomination, but I am not a fan of listing the Wooden and Lowe's All-Americans. These lists are less All-American teams and more the finalist lists for these awards. I think the information is intresting and notable, but probably should reside on the pages for thos awards. This might take an overhaul to those pages to fit it cleanly, but my opinion is that would be the place for it to go. Also, I would recommend a deparate discussion about the format of these on Talk:WP CBB before we get too far along on converting the 70+ pages. I think good feedback is coming in as these are nominated as FLs, but we should have a WP:CBB POV on what info should be in vs. out, formats, etc. - especially when we look at what info is scalable to All-America lists from 40+ years ago. Probably would require inviting in all the regulars since not everyone checks the project page that often. Rikster2 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think the thing to do is to call all concerned parties here and settle it now. Then implement it on the two lists currently in the FL domain. Whatever is agreed to here will probably be the default format for 2011 and years forward. Not so sure how much historical improvement is likely outside of the WP:CUP. I am going to post a notice on the talk page noting the disagreement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• OK, then here are my suggestions to get the ball rolling. It IS important that the historical lists in the same format over time - this is the right thing to do to enable ease of use for readers and is frankly one of the reasons you have Wikipedia projects. I don't mind doing some of the work, but considering I did 98% of the work getting the 1939-2008 articles in the current format, I kind of feel I've "done my time" on them and would like to concentrate on new material:
  • As content, each list should include the consensus teams, individual teams and Academic AA teams. The new sortable list of all players is also helpful.
  • Only the teams used to determine the consensus teams should be included - this is a clear standard on what to include and not include and matches what the NCAA record book officially tracks. IE - no Wooden teams, Lowe's teams, ESPN.com teams, etc.
  • Use only the 5 positions on the court to show what position players play - SF, PF, C, SG, PG. I'd even be comfortable limiting it to three (G, F, C). Use dashes or slashes to show a player logged time at more than one position.
  • Keep the Academic All-Americans but only wikilink those with current Wikipedia articles. These guys are not necessarily notable due to their basketball achievements and articles don't need to be created (and in most cases shouldn't be created)
  • We need to decide on if we should keep the AP honorable mention list. I think it is interesting information and is often noted on mid-major star players' articles, but it's just a really long list and the format is ugly (I created it so I have no problem admitting that). However, showing the team as a big vertical list gives the topic way too much real estate in the article. The issue gets worse once you start to document the HM AA's from the 80s - where the lists are sometimes close to 100 players.
  • Might be interesting to add the AP Preseason All-Americans so the pre- and post- season selections can be compared. These started in the 1986-87 season. Others need to weigh in on this idea.
    • I think we should keep all players included on lists by all-selectors regardless of whether they contribute to consensus. Thus, HM as well as 4th and 5th teams should be included.
  • I will repeat my assertion that every player does NOT need to be cited on these articles to their University player pages. To me, the citing should prove that the teams are who the article says (or that any notes about honors are legit or that any statements in the lead are valid) - NOT to prove the players exist or that they played for the team listed. This info is confirmed in the All-American releases and is linked at the individual Wikipedia player pages - which are all just a click away from the All-American article itself.
    • I just think these refs give quick access to the performance of the players on the page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The table abbreviation keys for the consensus teams and player lists are too big and obtrusive right now. Can the font be made smaller, the items listed in something other than a purely vertical table, etc.
  • Notes on the player table should only cover major awards tracked by the NCAA record book. IE - no Athlon, FOX, ESPN, etc Player of the Year awards. Again, a clear standard vs. confusion on what to include vs. not.
    • I have no problem. Either all-national in scope or all included in NCAA record book. Either way is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am sure there are many discussion points we could have, but those are good starters before project team members go off and try to retro-fit the existing articles. Rikster2 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'd say if you're not going to list the Wooden and Lowes' All-Americans, then all mention of such things should be totally expunged from the lede. Though what makes it worth getting rid of those, and yet keeping the Academic lists? Courcelles 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Because at least first team Academic All-Americans over time are also recorded in the NCAA Record Book - whereas Wooden and Lowe's All-Americans are not. The Wooden Award and Lowe's Senior CLASS award themselves ARE tracked, just not the lists of finalists that constitute their "All-American teams" Rikster2 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't have a problem limiting the article to All-American lists mentioned in the NCAA record books. We could do what WP:CFB does and include all All-American teams considered to be produced for a national audience, which would include ESPN, Wooden and Lowes. I can go either way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
      • If no one else has an opinion on Wooden and Lowe's I will remove them tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I'd prefer to keep them, though I wouldn't oppose promotion over it. (Since they're here, how are we really improving the list by removing them?) However, it they go, then the sentences in the lede really ought to go with them, since the article will no longer discuss them in the body. Courcelles 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I think I'd prefer to keep them too. I am looking for people who want to suppport this article. Thus, I am hoping you want to keep them enough to support. I don't see you having any other issue with this list. We are sort of getting to decision time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, Support in present condition. Courcelles 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Tony, I'll surprise you and support as well. My issues don't have to do with the quality of the article as an FL candidate, they just have to do with general WP:CBB POV. That's why I suggested a discussion there as opposed to on this nomination. I think there are a lot of policy issues to figure out for the project and this nomination just surfaced some of them. Rikster2 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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