Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2008

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:21, 31 July 2008 [1].

---

List of actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year

And here's another one. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - do we really need two separate external links to the same domain and one to IMDb when we have an official site which is already linked? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think this style of list is in the correct format to best display the information.
  • I believe that each actor should have one entry for their name which could span two rows (using rowspan="2") Some way is needed to link the two nominations and visually separate them from the next actor's entry.
    • FYI: Rowspan=not sortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Exact reason I didn't do that. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I also think that the actors name should be the first entry
    • Which makes the sorting weird. List goes in chronological order, so years are fine. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The format 1938 (11th) is confusing. The 11th what? Perhaps put in a separate column but at least an explanation is required. Rmhermen (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's the format used in every other Academy Awards list based on time. I don't mind adding an explanation though. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I would do that. I seem to recall pointing out the slight confusion before - a note would be just fine (and if you have the energy, retrospectively adding the note to your other FLs?). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Did so. Part of making lists with new formats is that you have to constantly adjust them :p sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
          • And that's what happens when you do such a good job—we all end up finding absolute trivia to moan about.  ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• I do not find my objections trivial. And I still cannot support this list. Rmhermen (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've expressed why I disagree with your comments. You are free to discuss them. Not doing so isn't really helping anything. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel that this subject is neither notable nor useful to be on Wikipedia. These are purely trivial statistics. I can see this list at Oscarpedia or any other oscar-related website, but not here. Same thing I feel about the list you're currently working on List of films with two or more actors nominated for the same Academy Award. This information may be useful only when you want to play some Oscar trivia.--Crzycheetah 09:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• *sigh* Well, I wondered how far I could take this. Fair enough. I withdraw the nomination. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn per this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 20:17, 30 July 2008 [2].

---

List of Toronto Blue Jays managers

previous FLC (08:36, 17 July 2008)

I am re-nominating this article because I believe it actually deserves to be promoted to featured list material. Annoyomous24 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I can't verify any info in the "playoffs" column. Needs sources. DONE! --Crzycheetah 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not done! I still can't find it.--Crzycheetah 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope this way would work. Annoyomous24 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It would, but I think listing just one link would be even better. It took me 5 mins to find it.;) Put it as an in-line citation in the "playoffs" column.--Crzycheetah 01:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DONE! Annoyomous2403:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Number of coaches" is ambiguous and should be changed to maybe terms of coaches(?)

GC should be changed to GM (games managed)

Crzycheetah 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Done the second bullet. I don't think it's ambigous since almost all sports list related to coaching use it so I don't think it is going to be a problem. Annoyomous24 20:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • They are the first and only team.. - the second part of this sentence is redundant.
  • With the fellow Canadian franchise ... - this sentence should be reworded better.
  • He is followed by Bobby Cox with in both categories with 648 games and 355 wins - Should be reworded
  • Gaston is the only... and Cox is the only... - either these two sentences should be reworded better.
  • The fact that Cox won 1985 AL Manager of the Year is not sourced.
  • Whenever I click on the "c" footnote, nothing happens because there is no 'c" note in the notes section.
  • 2008–Present → 2008–present
  • The "Playoffs Information" reference should be cited from the "playoffs" column instead.

--Crzycheetah 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Done all but I don't get what you mean by The "Playoffs Information" reference should be cited from the "playoffs" column instead. -- K. Annoyomous24 23:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• SupportOppose--Crzycheetah 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose because the sorting does not work properly. Try sorting playoffs stats, plus the seasons should be linked and that coach who is listed 3 times should be linked and the # should be next to his name.--Crzycheetah 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed the sorting. The seasons are linked at their first appearance and do not need to be linked again in sch close proximity; same policies as the lead section. Same goes for Cito Gaston; the reason for no numbers there is explained in the footnote. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, the seasons are not linked at their first appearance when one sorts. And Gaston is not linked at its first appearance when one sorts. When I sort, I see an emdash next to Gasyon's name and I have no idea what the footnote means in this instance.--Crzycheetah 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The linking is based on the default code, not the sorted code. Not knowing what the em-dash means is because no one thought to link the footnote. I've fixed that. Cito Gaston is always first when sorting, I just checked it because that is the way I set up the sortkey. The default sorting is in chronological order, and though you are correct that the codes are not linked in order when the table is resorted into reverse chronological order, the links are close enough together that it certainly works. The sorting's fixed now, and criterion 4 says that the table should be "easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities." (from WP:WIAFL).

Thanks for bringing up the criterion 4, this list is currently failing it. It's hard to navigate now that Gaston still comes up unlinked when I sort and so are the unlinked seasons.--Crzycheetah 05:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Crzycheetah 07:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Object. The list says Bobby Cox has 293 losses but the reference says 292. The list says Jimy Williams has 522 games coached but the reference says 523. maclean 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

They must have miswrote it. I fixed it on the table. Annoyomous24 01:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The mantra at Wikipedia:Verifiability is "verifiability, not truth" which is why we insist on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I understand that Baseball-Reference.com has been accepted in previous FLs as reliable, however, we will require a better source here to verify this list. maclean 02:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually added up the wins and losses and it adds up to what is on the table. Also, there is a second reference which backs up baseball-reference.com. The second reference is more reliable from the stats stand point. Annoyomous24 02:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's considered WP:OR. You need to change current references #5 and 6.--Crzycheetah 07:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

CHANGED REFERENCES FOR BOBBY COX AND JIMY WILLIAMS! -- K. Annoyomous24 20:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected the one inconsistency.[3] The list looks good, but I find the introduction does not demonstrate a command of the subject, specifically why/how managers of the Blue Jays changed over time. --maclean 03:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not good at copyediting and I seriously do not know how to explain it. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 02:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

Comments from Killervogel5

• Some of the grammar in the lead strikes me as a little stunted.
  • "The Blue Jays have never went into the playoffs since their last World Series win." should be "The Blue Jays have not gone to the playoffs since their last World Series win" or something similar.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 20:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The first paragraph jumps around. It talks about the Blue Jays, then about what a manager is, then back to the Blue Jays again, then the last sentence goes back and touches on the first sentence again. It needs a copyedit.

Can you just tell me what to do? I don't know how to copyedit. -- K. Annoyomous24 23:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the paragraph should flow in a logical order, which it doesn't at the moment. For example, if you are going to define "manager," it should be before you state that how many managers there were. You also wrote that they are the only Canadian baseball franchise and that they are the only team outside the United States. One or the other should suffice. To be honest with you, I wouldn't use MLB in your writing either. I like that you've defined the abbreviation, but I still think that it should only be used when an abbreviation is necessary (in a reference or footnote; in an area where space is at a premium, like the key). I don't think I've ever heard a baseball manager called a field manager, though I know the term is properly correct. It's just little things that would lead me to remain neutral or oppose because criterion 1 of FLC states that the article "features professional standards of writing." If I were to look at that professionally, as an educator, I would not be pleased with the organization of the information. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

I don't know if I'm done the copyediting but tell me if I am. If I'm not, tell me what to do. -- K. Annoyomous24 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made the last changes I think are necessary on this point. Let me know what you think. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

Thanks!

• The key states that managers who are marked spent their "entire MLB coaching career with the Blue Jays". It should be managing career, unless you know for a fact and can provide references that show that they only coached for the Blue Jays as well as managing them, since baseball makes a distinction between the two terms.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 20:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Footnote B is a big run-on sentence; it needs commas. My recommendation for better prose: "Gene Tenace coached until the end of the 1991 Toronto Blue Jays season; however, he did not coach in the playoffs, as he was only a interim manager for Cito Gaston."

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 20:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you are going to use the Toronto Blue Jays navbox on the page, you need to change the link in the navbox so that it matches the title of this article.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 20:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• "He is followed by Bobby Cox in both categories with 648 games and 355 wins." needs a reference.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 20:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Cito Gaston, the current manager of the Blue Jays, managed the most games and wins of any Blue Jays manager with 1334 games and 690 wins." needs a reference.

DONE!

• Once you link a year for the first time in the list, it should not be linked again (i.e., 1989, 1991, 1997, 2002, 2004, and 2008).

If you look at all the other baseball manager-related lists, youll see that most of them also relink their years so I currently want to see what people think about that.

Every article I've worked on has had the first year linked in the section and then not again until the next section, especially here, where the years are so close together.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

• Why isn't the table sortable?

In one of my previous FLCs, someone told me that you shouldn't sort the table for sports-coach related lists.

I don't know who told you that, but I'm in an FLC right now for the Phillies managers, and I had to sort that one. The FLC criteria state that the table... "is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities." (from WP:WIAFL).

Your FLC has a different format than mine. if I sort my table, it'll look messed up. Check for yourself. -- K. Annoyomous24

I'm aware that our FLCs are certainly different, but the table is still able to be sorted. Click here for more info.

DONE! but I have a problem that I've been trying to fix all day. That problem is that I can't put the first row back to its original position. -- K. Annoyomous24 00:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It was the rowspan parameter. I removed it, and added an unsortable parameter to the reference column. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Support! I give this list my conditional support, based on the outcome of the comment below. I am now prepared to put my full support behind this list. Congratulations! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Now withholding support until the issue below is resolved. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

I now have a concern (again) that the list does not conform to MOS:LINK, but per WP:IAR will not withhold my support because of it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sortable tables need all potential links to be wikilinked. But fear not, the list will shortly receive its star - I'd like to see if maclean needs further work on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on an addition to the intro: [4] maclean 04:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess I should go fix that at List of Philadelphia Phillies managers because no one said that to me after the table got sorted. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Compared with the list of managers on the Blue Jays website, this list seems to be missing 2 people. maclean 19:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you are absolutely right. Baseball-Reference.com doesn't list them either, that's very unusual. These managers who were listed on the Jays website aren't listed anywhere on Baseball-Reference as having managed the Jays. Let me take a quick look at something and I'll get back to you. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that those two managers were only interims and their records were counted in the regular managers record. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 19:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. They were both coaches at the time they were supposed to have been managing, but if we can't prove anything, then I don't know what we do about sourcing it. The 3 games Rojas supposedly managed would have made sense if Martinez were suspended at any point, as he was Martinez' bench coach, but I can't find any confirmation of a suspension. In addition, there is NO information that I can find about a Harry Warner related to baseball. We don't have an article on him; the only Harry Warners are a science fiction guy and the movie guy. One's a recluse, and the other was dead before the Blue Jays existed. If this can't be fixed, I can't in good conscience support what may very well be an incomplete list. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"O my gosh...I really hate this. Des this mean there is no way we can make this into a featured list or is there any way he can fix this problem? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 20:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It just means that some explanation needs to be found for why Cookie Rojas and Harry Warner are listed as managers on the official website and not on Baseball-Reference. A reason has to be found for why the sources don't agree, and essentially it has to be proven which one is correct. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not 100% commensurate with the issues here but it appears that there are some pretty significant issues that must be resolved. I'd suggest this list is withdrawn and these issues sorted out outside the FLC process (after all, this isn't WP:PR). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur, especially considering that this list didn't go through a peer review before its two FLC noms. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

After 23 days of trying to get this article into a FL status, you finally tell me to PR this article. Seriously? I just want this over with. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 20:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can confirm that Harry Warner took over for about 2 weeks as Hartsfield was assisting his ailing wife in hospital. -maclean 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing note - this list needed a peer review but good editors helped out. Despite that it still lingers in the realms of uncertainty so I'm archiving this discussion and would encourage both reviewers and nominators to work offline on it to bring it to FL standard before re-submitting it at WP:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I will continue this final discussion at the talk page of the list. Reviewers, come join it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:08, 29 July 2008 [5].

---

Def Leppard discography

Well sources and all references links to the right pages. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments (part 1, text)

• "In the twenty-first centaury Def Leppard has released three studio album's entitled X, Yeah!, and Songs from the Sparkle Lounge which have been fairly successful commercially."

• "...fairly successful commercially." –Where? How? When? Cannibaloki 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Def Leppard was formed in 1977 by vocalist Joe Elliott. (and then?)

• Comments (part 2, tables)

• All tables need be re-structured, and mainly correct the alignment.
• Peak chart positions, include a caption like: for excessive unnecessary chart positions, is only possible to see this table using a magnifying glass.
• "Singles", all did charts?

• "Elected" (live) is a single only or non-album single?

• "Videography"? is not "Videos"?
• "Music videos" song titles, needs a correct capitalization.

Cannibaloki 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - please please get these lists peer-reviewed and checked by a native English speaker before bringing them to FLC for the same old comments...
  • "3 compilation albums, 1 extended plays (EP) - 3->three, 1->one, one extended plays->one extended play.
  • 8 videos -> eight videos...
  • 8 videos what? 8 video albums according to the infobox.
  • " entitled The Def Leppard E.P..[1]" - lose the extra full stop.
  • "The band follow up" - what?
  • You've linked United States four times and United Kingdom twice n two paragraphs in the lead.
  • "would be their big breaktrough album and the album would later sell more then ten million copies in the United States alone." - would? it's past now - why not "was their big breakthrough album.." and don't repeat album again in the next part of the sentence.
  • "After touring for the support for Pyromania the band released" - what does this mean?
  • There are far too many errors just in the lead for this list to stay at FLC. I'm quick-failing it and suggest you take it, first to get it copyedited and secondly to peer review before bringing it back here. There are basic issues with spelling and grammar, there are problems with WP:MOS and this process (FLC) is not designed as an "all-in-one no-stop-shop" for extensive peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:24, 28 July 2008 [6].

---

Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award

After cleaning up this list, I believe that it meets all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support*Oppose-Does not meet all of the criteria.

• • Any verifiability for Jackie Robinson's win of the award (lead)?
  • This is called the rookie award, why is there no link to the word rookie anywhere? I suggest wikilink first-year players to the rookie.
  • The lead explains that the award has been named after two players, but it doesn't say how it returned to be called as the MLB rookie of the year award.
  • Per WP:FLAGS#Accompany flags with country names, you should write out the country names in the table.
  • Their are no refs to RS's in the table that verify the winners.
  • What is meant by Major Leagues combined, is this the way the award was presented before its current format?

--S_RX 14:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My comments have been addressed.--S_RX 18:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Use en-dash, not hyphen for season separators.
  • Make the lead image bigger, up to 300px per the WP:MOS#Images.
  • No need for rookies to be italicised.
  • Key needed for positions.
  • Any reason why Player is capitalised in the table heading?
  • Nationality doesn't sort, but I expect if you add the country names in then it'll work out... but check it.
  • Player sort by first name not surname = use the {{sortname}} template.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Done. (Some comments don't apply as I removed the sorting from the table. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• SupportComments
  • In the nationality column, please show the entire country name. For example, use {{USA}} instead of {{flagicon}}
  • I don't quite understand the table. Is there two rookie of the year winners in every given year since 1949, one from each league? Or is there just one winner but two nominees? Perhaps you should clarify this in the lead.

—Chris! _ct 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The above comment have been addressed. Looks good now.—Chris! _ct 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • You should point out the players who were elcted into the hall of fame and players who are currently active.
  • link some of the years that aren't linked to their MLB seasons
  • I think the qualifications should be in a seperate section
  • If done all, I'll "maybe" support.

Annoyomous24 00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Working on this, please give me some time. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Question Nationality is listed prominently with flags and consuming about a quarter of the width. Why is nationality relevant to a rookie-of-the-year award. Why not age or all-star appearance, etc.? maclean 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Object Seems to be missing a few entries (eg. Alfredo Griffin, Pat Zachry). I'll try to do some work on this one. --maclean 05:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I added in the missing players and boosted the lead. I find the table to be lacking in some areas; it focuses a lot of attention on an irrelevant feature like nationality of the winner, while not noting more relevant features, like winner by unanimous votes (14 of them, if I remember correctly), or Hall-of-famers (surprisingly small percentage). I think the sort feature works well for team and position (with default on year, I don't see the need to sort by alphabetical name). The lead seems to indicate the contraversy regarding players with previous experience are being counted rookies is a recent thing, but this has been a source of contention for decades (not just limited to players from foreign leagues but long-standing difficulty in definig "rookie" that ends up excluding potential winners). maclean 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

comments

• Lede looks pretty good, but I think the National League and American League should both be wikilinked
• Is there a reason that the players' nationalities appear before their names in the lists?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments The "names" column should be sortable. Also, there should be a border or a divider of some kind between the National and American players.--Crzycheetah 07:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Closing comment - while the list has a couple of supports, I'm seriously concerned over the last few comments raised by CrzyCheetah and Matthew. The nominator has made one edit in the past 7 days so I am assuming he is now on a wikibreak. The list can be renominated at any point in the future, preferably when the outstanding concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:59, 28 July 2008 [7].

---

List of current heads of state and government

The page is now parallel to the list of countries which is why I am nominationg it.--23prootie (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Woefully inadequate lead.
  • Sorting does not work.
  • No illustrations?
  • No specific references.
  • Virtually quick-failing unless something special happens...
• The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A country is not a state. By changing them to show that severely hurt the list. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this objection. Rmhermen (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A "country" is very different from a "state". Only the states in the list have heads of state and government. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Since this will require very frequent updating - and is likely to often fall out of date, I wonder if this can really fulfill the stability criteria for featured lists. Rmhermen (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment I'm quick-failing this based primarily on the list's inability to meet FL criterion 7 (stability). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 28 July 2008 [8].

---

List of heads of state of Gabon

previous FLC (06:15, 22 June 2008)

All the concerns of the previous FLC that could be humanly addresed have. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I have to oppose to this list based on the number of entries in the table. My suggestion is to make an article about head of state of Gabon and write in prose about these four commanders.--Crzycheetah 21:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never seen this before. Could you explain how I could write this? As fas as I know, number of entries isn't a featured list criteria. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You could talk about what powers the head of the state has, how he is elected, who are his assistants, what he is responsible for. Talk in more detail about each of these leaders. As for the WP:WIAFL, this list violates the very first sentence; this list does not exemplify our very best work.--Crzycheetah 21:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • How does this not exemplify our very best work? It's short-there's nothing I can do about that. And as I've said, in the "list of heads of state" series, this has never been attempted before. The concensus seems to be that it should stay in this format. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • A list of four names with images cannot exemplify our very best work. This page may come close to being our very best work would be if/when more information is added. I already listed what exactly you can do about a short list.--Crzycheetah 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I must agree with Crzycheetah above in that this article is too small for the subject it discusses. This article is the only Wikipedia article that is meant to provide an in-depth explanation of the Gabonese executive branch of government. As such, the article must provide more information about the Gabonese presidency, such as the President's role in politics or how he is elected (just as Crzycheetah said above). It's not impossible to make this list become a featured list; you just have to add more information.--Dem393 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It does have an article that provides an in-depth explanation about the Gabonese executive branch; that is Politics of Gabon. This aims to be a list of the heads of state; nothing more, nothing less. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Politics of Gabon discusses the entire Gabonese government, not just the executive branch. Take the United States, for example. We have President of the United States and List of Presidents of the United States. The former discusses the office of president and the latter lists the presidents. For Gabon, there isn't enough information about the office of president. I doubt you could find enough info to warrant a separate article, so you could just add what you can to this list. If you still need even more info, you could then write about the executive branch in general. --Dem393 (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ironically you supported its last FLC Dem, but I too Oppose this list based on its length. Sorry. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I know that I supported it the last time, but now I've been here long enough to know what's expected in an FL. --Dem393 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: As I've noted on numerous occasions, I don't see any reason why length should be considered relevant. Suggesting merging it into an article on the head of state of Gabon may be defensible, but handwaving about it not being Wikipedia's best work is not really reasonable opposition, IMO. I don't understand why some people don't believe short lists can be Wikipedia's "best work". FYI, I would define "best work" as "information arranged in as useful and articulate a manner as possible within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" - how would those opposed on the basis of length define it? I'll also note that, as far as I am aware, there's no consensus on list length at FLC. Tuf-Kat (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - length is not far beyond a stub, a total of four entries, of which only three are unique, and five good value red links versus maybe ten good value blue links, this is far from our best work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's really not fair for Gabon, just because they only had a fwew heads of state doesn't mean they can't have a list featured. Also note that no articles/lists in WP:GABON are above start-class. Compare this to pop culture/sports related articles. It's sad. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sad or not, a list which barely would scrape {{stub}} status (regardless of content) should not qualify for best of Wikipedia content. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      • This page should indeed be merged with a related article. Gary King (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        • That's what I was thinking too. It's not the fact that this list is too short to be featured, it is too short to be an article/list. You could make a good list if merged with List of colonial heads of Gabon and List of heads of government of Gabon or merge with Politics of Gabon and make it a featured article. Garion96 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
          • This list is about the heads of state of Gabon after its independence. The latter describes, basically, Prime Ministers of Gabon, while the former is before independence. I could merge the former with this, but we only have the list after independence for List of Presidents of the United States. Perhaps we can make this some sort of "good" list? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
            • You don't necessarily have to look at the United States lists to see what should be done with this list. To merge the before independence list with this list would work I think. Garion96 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
              • This can be merged with one of the other lists and then renamed accordingly to adjust the scope. It doesn't have to follow suit with existing lists; as long as the format makes sense, then it should be doable. Also, Good lists have been discussed before, and consensus has usually been against it. Gary King (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:11, 27 July 2008 [9].

---

2008 WWE Draft

I am nominating this article for Featured List status, because I strongly feel that it meets the Featured List criteria. Self nom. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No bold links in the lead.
    • Shouldn't it be bolded per WP:MOSBOLD?--S_RX 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Doesn't MOSBOLD say by all means bold it, but don't link in the bold? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "occurred among" - "took place among"?
    • • • Oh, right, I misread your comment. Sorry.--S_RX 20:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done
  • "draft occurred on " - "took place on"?
    •  Done
  • Link Vince McMahon?
    •  Done
  • "at noon ET" if you're not going to use UTC then you must link what ET is.
    •  Done
  • "Source: World Wrestling Entertainment Official Draft Results" no need for it to be small.
    •  Done
  • Notes don't need to be sortable. Not useful for free text.
    •  Done
  • Not keen on "Brand (to)" and "Brand (from)" firstly the order seems odd to me - I'd have the from column first, but also not keen on the wording anyway.
    • Well the thing is, since matches determined the draft, brand to represents the winner of the draft pick, so it would read, "the winner of the first pick (#) is the Raw brand (brand to, who drafted Batista (employee), a male wrestler, from the SmackDown brand (brand from)" Then the note about how Raw got the pick.--S_RX 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • For non-experts it may be useful to know what kind of employee each of the draftees were (e.g. Diva, announcer etc).
    • I added a role column in each table.--S_RX 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • twenty-eight ->28.
    •  Done
  • Any reason not to have the summary first, before the raw tables?
    • YFixed
  • twenty-two->22
    •  Done
  • "The rating for the three hours was 3.40" what does 3.40 mean?
    • It means rating point, but I added TVR in their, which is the term used to measure rating points.--S_RX 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Category:World Wrestling Entertainment is not needed since you have Category:WWE Raw which itself is a sub-category of the former.
    •  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Several consecutive sentences in the first paragraph begin with "The Draft" so please change this so it isn't as repetitive. Gary King (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• "The Draft, for the second consecutive year, took" could probably be "For the second consecutive year, the Draft took" and one less comma, too.
• For "Source: World Wrestling Entertainment Official Draft Results" and the other one, create a new row in the table that spans the entire table, align it center, then place the reference in there. Like at Charlie_Sheen#Career_awards at the bottom of the table, put References: [1][2][3] etc.

Gary King (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done, hope I did that right.--S_RX 18:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

comments

• "McMahon called fans" -> "McMahon telephoned fans". Or whatever. I'm sure he didn't just shout "Matthew Edwards!" at the TV screen
• Remove the overlinking of WWE Superstar, Diva and commentator. After appearing in the lead, they also appear in "Background" and "Superstar selections"

-- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done--S_RX 21:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:07, 27 July 2008 [10].

---

Aerosmith discography

Nominating. Oh i can't add their singles, videos and music videos cause the other users don't want to add them. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• ??? Cannibaloki 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nom appears to be a "for spite" nomination following an edit war where the nominator lost out to consensus. Suggest a retraction of the article nomination. Libs (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm withdrawing this nomination until the on-going edit war is resolved. Plus, it's certainly failing on a number of basic points that a number of discographies that have recently been promoted. Please do not nominate lists that you know which are simply not ready. Take it to WP:PR first. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:23, 26 July 2008 [11].

---

List of Colorado Avalanche head coaches

I am nominating this article because I believe it is featured list criteria. Annoyomous24 00:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Bad intro. The first sentence is a statement of fact that has nothing to do with introducing the article. The second sentence doesn't make much sense; what does "NHL side" mean? Which Division is it a member of? Intro needs general work. --Golbez (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean the first sentence has nothing to do with the article. The article is about the coaches of the Quebec Nordiques and the Colorado Avalanche. I fixed the second sentence. Annoyomous24 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In a list, we generally start the article by saying what the list is of. This one, it gives a statement of fact not directly related to the subject of the list. If the first sentence were about the coaches... it would be akin to if I started a list of the presidents of the united states with the line, "The United States is a country in North America." That's fine and dandy, but what's the article about? --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If I say what the article is about in the first sentence, that will be repeating the article title. How about if I moved the second sentence, "This list also includes the NHL portion of the head coaches of the Quebec Nordiques." as "This list is about the head coaches of the Colorado Avalache. This list also includes the NHL portion of the head coaches of the Quebec Nordiques." to the starting sentence? Annoyomous24 21:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Since at least one coach FL has this format, I can look past the first sentence, and withdraw my oppose. --Golbez (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank for the withdrawal of your oppose. Annoyomous24 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If you placed the merge tag on the article, then shouldn't this FLC be placed on hold until the merge is resolved? Gary King (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I merged already. Annoyomous24 22:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:HOCKEY standard is to have these teams articles seperate for things such as lists etc. Nominator should have notified the hockey project of his merge proposal. -Djsasso (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Removing oppose since I fixed, please notify appropriate projects when making such a merge. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on the merge has been started on the talk page, feel free to bring your opinions. My suggestion would be to just get the last bit of info for the missing Quebec coaches and bring that list to FL. This one is definately close to FL but is on the shorter side. A bunch more prose would probably remove the concerns about it being too short. -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose consider withdrawal. This list is too short to be on its own, let alone be featured.--Crzycheetah 08:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: First off, I agree that this is far too short a list to warrant promotion. Secondly, the language is clumsy, choppy, overworded and not remotely close to “professional standard writing” as the criteria require: “The team are currently members” instead of “The team is a member,” for instance, never mind that a casual reader might wonder who these Quebec Nordiques are and what they have to do with anything. Thirdly, the creator is not a member of WP:HOCKEY, and doesn’t seem to have a grasp of the Wikiproject’s standards and practices; certainly he’s not solicited the project to aid or review this article. Finally, the creator seems to be headhunting FLs … as witness List of Phoenix Suns head coaches, an article he created Wednesday and nominated for FL status one minute after creation. I’m going to go clean up the language some, but his article isn’t close to the best work the encyclopedia can produce and never should have been proposed.  RGTraynor  17:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Crzycheetah and RGTraynor Djsasso divided this article into two section, Quebec Nordiques head coaches and Colorado Avalanche head coaches. I am currently trying to merge these two back again. Please hold on to your opposes until the merge problem is fixed. -- K. Annoyomous24 19:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I unmerged a merge that had no discussion take place. -Djsasso (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn by nominator per this. Please allow the bot to archive. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:16, 26 July 2008 [12].

---

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution

I believe that this list fits all of the following criteria: WP:WIAFL --—Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs)

• Comment Add a wikitable class to the table. It looks very non-standard compared to other tables right now. Gary King (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Make the table a wikitable as Gary suggests.
  • Widen the date column so the dates don't wrap around.
  • Don't have bold links in the lead.
  • There are hardly any references in the table, none in the lead.
  • WP:COLOR says using only colour to show a particular property is insufficient - you need to add something like an asterisk or a dagger as well as the colour.
  • Not sure why there's a Notes column - there are hardly any notes and those which exist can probably be merged into the main column.
  • Votes should be separated with an en-dash, not hyphen.
  • Same with page ranges in your references.
  • The date column does not sort. And there's little point in allowing the other column(s) to be sortable as they're free text and sorting is not useful.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you widen the first column so the dates don't split? I have to widen my window a huge amount to get them onto one line. The Notes column is a sea of unused white.
• I've removed the autoformatting: it's no longer encouraged by MOSNUM, and I can assure you that no one minds US date formatting—especially when discussing the US Consitution. Tony (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Done Seeing the title "Timeline of the United States Constitution," I expected this article to include amendments to the Constitution (i.e., the content of List of amendments to the United States Constitution). Where I live (in the United States), ratified amendments become part of the Constitution, although they are still identified as amendments. I believe that the title needs to more accurately reflect the scope (for example, "Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution"). (An alternative would be to add the history of the amendments to this article, but I don't think you want to do that.)

• This article needs to display the template Template:US Constitution article series.
• The lead sentence seems backwards to me (and it may be unnecessarily wordy). I suggest changing "From the 1786 Annapolis Convention, which recommended the calling of a Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, to the end of the last state ratifying convention in 1790, the process of drafting and ratifying the United States Constitution took nearly four years" to "The process of drafting and ratifying the United States Constitution took nearly four years, from the Annapolis Convention in 1786, which recommended calling a Constitutional Convention, to the final state ratifying convention in 1790."

--Orlady (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted some of the changes described above: (1) I made the table sortable because the event column can be sorted to isolate certain types of events (ratification, state conventions, elections of delegates, etc.). (2) I've replaced autoformatting because there are so few dates in the prose that there is little chance high value links will be drowned out by these links, so we might as well take advantage of the localization feature. On the point of references, I don't plan to add any further citations as I think anything not already cited is trivially verifiable, however anyone else is welcome to do more along these lines. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• The "Notes" column could be much narrower to pay for more space in a couple of others. En dashes for ranges in the table, please (see MOS). Tony (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For fear of repeating my comments,

• • Widen the date column so the dates don't wrap around.
  • Don't have bold links in the lead.
  • There are hardly any references in the table, none in the lead.
  • WP:COLOR says using only colour to show a particular property is insufficient - you need to add something like an asterisk or a dagger as well as the colour.
  • Not sure why there's a Notes column - there are hardly any notes and those which exist can probably be merged into the main column.
  • Votes should be separated with an en-dash, not hyphen.
  • Same with page ranges in your references.
  • The date column does not sort. And there's little point in allowing the other column(s) to be sortable as they're free text and sorting is not useful.
• None of these comments have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyone who knows how to make a column wider is welcome to address your first point; the rest I have either responded to above or do not feel would add value for readers, though others who disagree are obviously welcome to work on them. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry but if you can't even be bothered to make the list comply with the WP:MOS then I suggest you withdraw this nomination because it will fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The column width issue probably could be fixed simply by merging the material in the "notes" field into the main column (then delete the "notes" column), as The Rambling Man has suggested.
        I cannot support this as a featured list in its current form. Not only are there several WP:MOS issues, but I see the failure to provide navigation to other Constitution-related articles (which could be easily provided by adding Template:US Constitution article series) as a significant barrier to Featured status. If you don't want to fix the article, withdraw the nomination. --Orlady (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:04, 25 July 2008 [13].

---

List of U.S. Routes in Washington

previous FLC (10:07, 16 July 2008)

I am relisting List of U.S. Routes in Washington because I feel after many improvements that were added in the previous FLC would make this a great FL. Please comment. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 19:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Keep the table width in "Auxiliary routes of US 30" the same as the others since all of the tables are 100% widths except for this one. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Computer guy: Can you please control the width of the columns? Notes can go narrow to pay for the huge texts adjacent. Tony (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I withdraw this nomination. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:53, 23 July 2008 [14].

---

Screaming Trees discography

I'm nominating many discographies today. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments'
  • Is there any verifiability to the release dates of the albums?(NOT SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT FL)
  • Much of the prose in the lead needs references because they are not mentioned again in the article/list.
  • Any refs to the extended plays? Compilation? and Other appearances?(YOU DON'T NEED IT LOOK AT SOUNDGARDEN DISCOGRAPHY OR NIRVANA)
  • There needs to be an image in the list to illustrate the topic.(DON'T HAVE A IMAGE)

--S_RX 14:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Headings shouldn't be capitalised per WP:HEAD(DONE)
  • Is VALIS notable? If so it should be linked, if not it probably doesn't belong here.(DONE)
  • No references for the lead at all. Almost all of it needs citation, you can't just say "In 2000, the band broke up due to internal strife over its creative direction." and expect to not reference it.(DONE)
  • "legendary punk record label " - legendary is a peacock term.(DONE)
  • Shouldn't the titles of singles, albums etc in the tables be bold and italic as per all other discogs?(DONE)
  • Remove space between director and ref [4].(DONE)

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments http://www.timeforlight.com/discography.html is a fan site and not WP:RS. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - while you don't need an image to meet the criteria, do not necessarily refer to existing FLCs and say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The FLC criteria have tightened significantly over the past few months and what might have qualified as FL back then certainly doesn't guarantee promotion now. Consider what SRX has said. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments part II
  • Caption for image is fragment so no period required.
  • Why are videos included in the infobox? (DONE)
  • Tripwires links to a UK indie band. Is this the one you meant? (YES)
  • " in 1986.[1] In 1986" 2 x in 1986, reads awkwardly. (DONE)
  • "The band would release two " why not just "band released two..."? (DONE)
  • "The band signed with the independent label Velvetone Records and released the Other Worlds EP in 1985 and their debut album Clairvoyance in 1986.[1] In 1986, the band signed with punk label SST Records and released its second full-length album Even If and Especially When.[1] The band would release two more albums under SST Records. The band subsequently signed with Epic Records in 1990. In 1991, the band released its first album for a major label, Uncle Anesthesia.[1]" read this and see how many times in a row you have a sentence with "the band..." in it. Bland reading. (DONE)
  • You've used ref [1] 9 times in the lead, on almost every sentence. No need.
  • Your ref says Dust was released in 1996 and then re-released in 1997. That's not in your list.
  • Same ref says "Swan and Broken" charted in the same year. This is not mentioned anywhere. You have Sworn and Broken - is this source reliable? (MISS SPELLING BY THE CHART THAT HAPPENS, BILLBOARD HAS ALSO DONE IT)
  • "Sworn and Broken" is not mentioned in ref [5] (BUT REF 6)
  • Where in ref [2] can I find at Bed of Roses making 23? Try this link? (DONE)
  • I'm not checking any more references this time round, you really need to make sure the specific references are just that, specific.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment part III
  • Who's in the image? It needs a caption. (DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support After a few adjustments I think this discography is ready to be a FL. Changed some things on the table, some links, I who also add the current picture of former drummer Mark Pickerel on this edition, So that's it. Cannibaloki 19:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I've copyedited the lead, but there needs to be references for the data in the Extended plays, music videos and compilations sections. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Doing... Cannibaloki 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last EP as it does not appear on the site of Allmusic, and also why I read the site of Discogs that this last is a promo, the reference to the albums is general of Allmusic, then that's it. Regards, Cannibaloki 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A general Allmusic reference is not acceptable in this instance, I think, as the information comes from several pages. Sources should be cited to make it clear where the information comes from. It appears that the exact release date for Nearly Lost You, for example, comes from that album's page on allmusic, not from the page linked in General references. The exact page used should be linked in a specific citation for the information in question. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Though I do have an issue that the main image is of Mark Pickerel, instead of the whole band, or even their most notable drummer (Barrett Martin). Red157(talk • contribs) 10:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:36, 17 July 2008 [15].

---

Denver Broncos seasons

Gave it a perr review have modled it on other season FL. Buc (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks pretty good. Gary King (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 00:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• CommentOppose What makes Sports Encyclopedia, Rauzulu's Street, and "HickokSports.com" reliable?--Crzycheetah 06:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hope these help [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Buc (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Rauzulu's and Sports Encyclopedia are unreliable and should be changed. Rauzulu's doesn't even open.
      • Sports Encyclopedia and Rauzulu's Street removed
    • Very poorly referenced page. National Football League Official website's page shows all 0's; not useful at all.
      • Click the dropdown box at the top of the page. I've added this fact to the ref. Buc (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • nflteamhistory.com's page shows just links to other pages. Not useful as a reference.
      • Fixed
    • None of the footnotes are cited.
      • Fixed
    • The lead is poorly written. Three uneven-sized paragraphs are hard to read. First two are very short while the third one is long.
      • It was four before but I was told that was too many. Any advice on how I can fix the writing? Buc (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Tried to improve it but not much I can do if you don'ttell me what's wrong. Buc (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • --Crzycheetah 06:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • All right, I striked my concerns that I felt were addressed. I have more commens,
        • HickokSports.com's links are sources for awards only, right? Then they should be cited for the awards column.
        • Why is there a "Denver Broncos" row in the table? Should be removed because there were no changes to the name and it's obvious that this is a list of Broncos' seasons and not Bears'.
        • Why is the seasons' column bolded?
          • Same as all other NFL seasons articles. Buc (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Why are they bolded?--Crzycheetah 07:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Also the case in the MOS. Buc (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Fix the citations. hall of fame or Hall of Fame? Date formats are different.
        • --Crzycheetah 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I still think that the NFL.com's page is too complicated to use as a general reference.--Crzycheetah 00:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• What do you suggest?Buc (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A reference or two that lists all the info in their page, so that no one would spend time looking for the info they need.--Crzycheetah 19:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • What division and conference are they from? Put that in the prose.
  • "This is a list of seasons completed by the Denver Broncos American football franchise of the National Football League (NFL)." should be "The Denver Broncos is a American football franchise. They play in the AFC West Division of the American Football Conference of the National Football League."
  • If you did the second bullet, unlink "Broncos".
  • In the prose (introduction), link all the years to the NFL season or Denver Broncos season.
  • "1998.During" should be "1998. During".
  • Currently, I Support.

Annoyomous24 21:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

All done Buc (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Gonzo fan2007
  • First off, please address Annoyomous24's, they are really needed.

• • In all the {{Cite web}} templates, replace the "work" parameter with "publisher" (except the Hickok Sports citations and the second general reference)
  • In ref 2, replace "pro-football-reference.com" with "Sports Reference LLC." (it should say "publisher = Sports Reference LLC.")
  • In ref 6, replace "NFL.com" with "NFL"
  • In ref 8, replace "Denver Broncos.com" with "Denver Broncos"
  • In the first general reference, replace "National Football League Official website" with "NFL"
  • In the third general reference, replace "databasefootball.com" with "databaseSports.com"
    • Would you mind explaining the reason for these six comments. Buc (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Compliance with the {{Cite web}} template, the publisher and work parameters are not interchangeable. A publisher is the company or organization that publishes the "work" (I.e the NFL publishes NFL.com) The publisher parameter is better than the work parameter if the publisher is available, because a citation should include the author of the work. Basically you should include the publisher if it is available, you can use both the work and publisher parameters, but you definitely need to use the publisher parameter. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "1982 was a strike-shortened season so the league was divided up into two conferences instead of its normal divisional alignment." rewrite to something like "Due to the 1982 strike-shortened season, the league was broken up into two conferences instead of its normal divisional alignment."
  • "This game included The Drive where Elway, led the..." move the comma to after "The Drive"
  • "This second period of success is best remembered for John Elway being the team's quarterback." Do you have a direct citation for this sentence?
  • "...where they did not make the playoffs and had only two winning seasons." change to "...where they did not make the playoffs and recorded two winning seasons"
  • "Broncos did not have a losing seasons" seasons -> season
  • "The second began in 1983,and" you need a space after 1983
  • "in Denver as part of the original American Football League (AFL)" was there another American Football League? No need for "original"
  • "From there inaugural season in 1960 till 1975" - "till" -> "until"
  • "all of them in the AFC West and" needs a comma after "West"
  • "the Broncos had played over 750 regular" had -> have

All done Buc (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "During this period the Broncos had only two losing seasons..." remove "only," too much of a weasel word.
  • "winning only two of fourteen games in both 1963 and 1964" again, remove "only"
    • Since when is "only" a WW? Buc (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • "Only" in and of itself is not a weasel word. It is a weasel word in the previous two sentences though. Read it out loud, you are making an opinionated statement out of a factual statement. The team won only two games, or the team only lost two games. The fact is that they either won or lost a certain amount of games. When you say only, you are making an emphasis on that word instead of just stating the fact that they won or lost a certain amount of games. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • That is really the piont being made though. Buc (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Whose point is being made though Buc, yours or the source's? Show me a source that states that they only won that amount of games or only lost that amount of games, then I will withdraw my comment, but until I see a source that says that, it screams of WP:OR and your own opinion, thus not WP:NPOV. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
            • They only won/lost a few games/seasons therefore it was a periods of success/decline. Buc (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Holy crap, Buc. Whose opinion are you stating right there??? Maybe to me winning 2 games in a great success, maybe losing two games in really bad. Everyone has opinions on what is good/bad. The whole point is that you need a source from a reliable site that states that winning or losing that amount of games is good or bad. If not it is your dang opinion and WP:OR! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose My colleagues have said it all. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Article needs to be copy edit. I see too many grammar and spelling problems ("there season-by-season" → "their season-by-season", "over there" → "over their", "and endded in", etc). -- Reorion (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Done Buc (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comments

• "The second began in 1983 , and ended in 1998." - Why is there a random comma in there?
• "there inaugural season in" → "their inaugural season in"
• In "they did not make the playoffs", wikilink playoffs to the NFL playoffs
• In "the Broncos did not make the playoffs prior to the merger", wikilink playoffs to the AFL playoffs
• Change "played their first season in 1960, in Denver as part of the original American Football League (AFL)" to "played their first season in 1960 as part of the American Football League (AFL)". Adding the "in Denver" part sounds like the Broncos had previously played somewhere else or have moved to another location and no need for "original".
  • "Original" is to indercate it was the first season. Buc (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Add a comma after however in "However the Broncos did not make the".
• In "American Football Conference of the National Football League (NFL)", add "(AFC)" after American Football Conference. Then just use the abbreviated form in "champions twice and American Football Conference (AFC) champions once."

--Reorion (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:36, 17 July 2008 [21].

---

List of Toronto Blue Jays managers

I am nominating this article since I think it should be promoted to a featured list status. Annoyomous24 (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Stars are missing for #10–12 in the table. DONE! Gary King (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE!

• Comments
  • Lead image should be bigger per WP:MOS#Images - it recommends 300px if I recall correctly. Best to check. DONE!
  • Baseball linked twice within four words. DONE!
  • The lead is reference-less. Some claims should be referenced, e.g. "fastest AL expansion franchise to win a World Series". DONE!
  • "2 championship rings." DONE!
    • 2->two
    • what's a "championship ring"?
  • World Series linked twice in lead. Avoid this overlinking. DONE!
  • "Thus any coach who has two separate terms as head coach is only counted once." - try "who has had two or more..." as only Gaston meets this and he's had three goes. DONE!
  • Blue Jays timeline general link only goes up to 1981. What is used from this in the article? If something specific then use specific references, if general then it probably needs to be even more general than the specific 76-81 page you've linked to. DONE!
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think the lead is way too short. With the two related pages I've worked on that are currently nominated, the lead is three paragraphs. While it is a long paragraph, the lead is short. I also overall think 8000 bytes is not long enough. Again, my articles are about 14000 and 11000 bytes. Please expand.--LAAFan 15:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Strike that. Who am I to say that an article needs to be a certain length? Support--LAAFan 00:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I made two minor edits hoping you understood them.--Crzycheetah 06:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Object. Looks good but there should be a couple of corrections:
  • "Bobby Cox 648 355 292" - that doesn't add up.
  • "Jimy Williams 523 281 241" - neither does that
  • Which reference is Gaston's playoff record coming from? Those 1992–1997 playoff numbers don't look right.
  • The intro wanders off topic, for example The "Blue Jays" name originates from the bird of the same name. They are nicknamed "the Jays", which is featured on the team's logo and on the front of the home uniform.--maclean 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Some of the sentences in the Lede, including the two quoted by Maclean are stubby. Needs a copy edit. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:36, 17 July 2008 [22].

---

List of Brigham Young University alumni

List has undergone a rigorous peer review [23] and has been modeled after FLs List of Dartmouth College alumni and List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. Only one red-linked article is listed (Julie Stoffer)—it remaining red linked due to its recreation being disabled by an admin—this can be addressed later but should not interfere with FLC right now. Thank you for your consideration! --Eustress (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom: Wrad (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is short and should be expanded.
  • Lead size is comparable to other alumni FLCs listed above... What exactly needs to be added? Wrad (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Some background on the school. Look at List of University of Waterloo people. The argument that another list, and one that was promoted a year ago, has or does not have something is not the best argument. Gary King (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec) Okay, sounds reasonable. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Fixed. (Please don't bite me, I'm new to FLC.) Wrad (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• A lot of the references are missing publishers.
  • I tried fixing them but my computer reloaded on me and I lost everything :( . Some of the refs are missing author and date information as well. Wrad (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your eagle eyes. I think I've added the missing publishers, dates, and authors. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Wow, loads of references, sadly several dead for me according to this.
    • That Checklinks tool is pretty nifty—I have fixed all dead links. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the lead could be expanded for a list which covers such a diverse range of alumni.
    • I expanded the lead accordingly. --Eustress (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there no images of any of the alumni available?
    • Images are available for some but not for all. Article is already 103kb and several other alumni FLs exclude individual pictures, so I don't think they are necessary. --Eustress (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but adding an image to the page won't increase its size by more than a couple of hundred bytes. It's just a little dry at the moment. But that, once again, is my opnion! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • After expanding the lead, I added a few pictures of household-name alumni. --Eustress (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Co-inventor of the television"? With Baird? Don't think so. He invented a specific type of television according to his article.
    • Done—clarified electronic television. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A key for the degrees wouldn't go amiss. I've got no idea what a DRE is...
    • I have instead linked the less common degrees (e.g., honorary degrees, DRE, MAcc, M.O.B.)--would you like all degrees linked as well? --Eustress (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Since all tables are sortable then all degrees should be linked because it is undefined which one may appear first if the table is resorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. (whew) --Eustress (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Julie Stoffer has no article - could you make a stub at least for her if she's notable enough to be on this list? Same for Warner.
    • I re-created an article for Warner. Regarding Stoffer, please read the nominating text above. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • If you believe you can create an article which demonstrates sufficient notability then I will unprotect it. Otherwise she should be removed from this list. Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I created a tentative article at User:Eustress/Julie Stoffer. Please make any changes and either move to Julie Stoffer or unblock. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "2002 - 2005" use en-dash for year range separation.
    • Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Key for (R) and (D) too for us non-US political experts.
    • Added clarifying note under heading Members of the United States Congress. --Eustress (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm confused over the blank cells, and some which say (did not graduate), (never graduated) etc.
    • Blank cells just mean the information is not currently available—this is common practice on several other alumni FLs. If it says "never graduated" then the alumnus attended BYU but never received a degree, which is still considered an alumnus as far as this list is concerned; see also alumni. --Eustress (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Blank cells are ambiguous. They should be explained. As for "common practice", sounds a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You don't have to act on my comments, after all they're just my opinion, and I do not support or oppose, but merely wish to bring my concerns to the attention of the community. On another note, does "did not graduate" = "never graduated"? If yes then make them the same, if no, then just say "did not graduate from BYU" (or similar) - if they graduated from somewhere else, it's entirely irrelevant to this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, "did not graduate" = "never graduated", so I fixed it so only "never graduated" appears and added a clarifying Notes section that explains what blanks and em-dashes signify. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Prolific" - peacock.
    • I removed all instances of "prolific". Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Be consistent with repeated linking - these tables are sortable so if you link something once within a table you should link all instances of it (e.g. LDS).
    • Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Where are the rest of the NFL players? Which ones "made it" to this list, in other words, what criteria have you used to downselect from the 146?
    • We objectively listed all professional football players that BYU lists (see [24]). --Eustress (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, but it's still confusing because you say 146 players made it to NFL (thus making them all notable) but only include a non-specified subset in the list. Again, you may know what you've done to downselect but by virtue of the fact I've asked the question, others won't. It needs clarification. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I see your point and now find the leading text to the subsection unparallel with the rest of the lists, so removing it should concurrently resolve the issue. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I was going to say that it just needs the redlink creating, but then I checked your Sandbox version with the last version which was deleted, and the content is pretty much the same. The article was deleted and salted because of BLP issues and the fact that Julie herself had complained and requested it to be deleted. I think that if it was unsalted and your sandbox moved there, we would find ourselves in the same position. So I think it sould be left red.
  Otherwise it looks good. Gary's and TRM's comments seem to have been addressed and I can't find anything else to comment on, but I'm not comfortable enough to support yet based on just 2 reviews. Neutral for now, leaning on the side of support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:07, 16 July 2008 [25].

---

List of U.S. Routes in Washington

I am nominating this list because it has many references (63) and is very factual. This list has already been on WP:DYK and is currently being peer reviewed. --CG was here. 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Close the Peer Review, per FLC instructions. Gary King (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done --CG was here. 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Just a few for now

• You should write what U.S. Routes are in the lead, and why they are different to Interstates and State Routes.
• What is an "Auxiliary route"?
• Why is US 12's shield in the infobox?
• Sorting needs fixing in the first column on both tables. 97 -> 2 -> 12 -> 101 and 10 -> 295 -> 410 -> 830 -> 95 -> 99
• Why are the US 30's and 90's auxiliary tables sortable, with only one entry in each?
• In firefox, the 2 reference columns are squashed because of {{Washington highways}}. Can it be moved above or below?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are my responses to your comments:

• I will add a new paragraph about U.S. routes using the United States Numbered Highways article as a base.
• An auxiliary route is a spur or connecting route, for example, US 197 connects US 97 in Oregon to SR 14 east.
• US 12's shield is in the infobox because it is the longest U.S. route in Washington.
• I will sort the route numbers in the tables.
• Are you refering to US 30 and US 95? I do not know why there are sortable.
• I am moving the template to the top of the page. --CG was here. 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I am finished with all of the items and I fixed the sorting on the tables. --CG was here. 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Highways of Washington" is not a reliable source. --NE2 23:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll find some other sources that are more reliable like... a state map made by WSDOT. --CG was here. 15:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I replaced the current routes with the WSDOT map lowering the number of references to 56. I am looking for a website that will replace the deleted routes, and I don't think there is another website or WSDOT PDF document that will tell about former U.S. Routes. --CG was here. 15:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Any reason why km has one decimal places and miles have two?
  • The opening sentence should be reworded - articles don't start "This is an article about ..." so why should lists start that way?
  • "Washington actually began" actually is redundant.
  • "2-laned" two-laned?
  • "at least 2 states" two states.
  • "Six U.S. Routes have been moved or deleted" you can "delete" a route? Reads odd, I think I know what you mean but it's unclear.
  • "US 97 continuies north " typo
  • Shame Megler is a redlink, consider a stub?
  • Highway column doesn't sort correctly. Try {{sort}} here.
  • Length column doesn't either. Try {{nts}} here.
  • Avoid links in section headings. Write a line or two of prose so that you can link to the relevant route.
  • Can you fix the col widths of the last three tables so they're the consistent?

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have fixed some of the problems and here are the answers to your questions and the other problems that can't be fixed.
  • I do not know why the km has one decimal and the miles has two. Check {{convert}}.
  • I am currently developing a stub about Megler, Washington.
  • When I sorted the auxiliary routes, the images and links would not show. the same with all the lengths.
  • I don't know how to fix the col width.

--CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: You want me to support don't you. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 11:49, 15 July 2008 [26].

---

List of Australians who have led the Tour de France general classification

This topic was all the buzz over the last 12 hours in Australia with Cadel Evans taking the lead in the 2008 TdF GC. I hope you all like it :) Daniel (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • A little short, only seven entries in the list, could be an issue, and a little unstable right now too as you have the leader of the current Tour in the list! Just observations mind you.
    • Thank goodness it can only change at the end of the stage - I made sure there was no "leaders on the road" silliness :) I hope the fact it's only seven entries doesn't cause any issues; it will hopefully swell over the next couple of years. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You link Stage (bicycle race) three times in the lead.
    • I do too. I've removed one, the other two are at opposite ends of the body so I think they should be OK. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No real need to link the date (July 1, 1981) - it's being discouraged at the moment.
    • I did it for the date preferences - has this changed? Daniel (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • General Classification article seems to capitalise the phrase - consider that here. Also, could you put (GC) after the first use so we understand the abbreviation?
    • All of the other classifications use "c", and most usage seems to be "c", so I've moved the GC article. Re: "(GC)", done, thanks. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "have been the wearers of the" - try "have worn the"?
    • Thanks. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The table isn't sortable so avoid the overlinking (e.g. Anderson, Peugeot etc are linked at least twice).
    • Done. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Unlink those dates in the table.
    • I'm still not sure about this. MOS:SYL is pretty clear that we should be linking them for preferences reasons. If this is going out of vogue, could you please have the policy changed so unlinking is no longer explicitly contrary to the Manual of Style? Daniel (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there a need to captitalise Final in the GC Final heading?
    • I've changed it to "Final GC", because headings look neater with all caps. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of adding the Category:Cycling lists category.
    • Thanks. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Per criterion 7: Stability, which says "content does not change significantly from day to day". I understand entirely why recent events have encouraged the creation of this list, but while it's being updated to follow Mr Evans' successes in the current Tour, it fails criterion 7, so I have to oppose.
  • Though I'll add some comments as well...
  • Opening sentences reading "This is a list of repeat-the-article-title-here..." are now actively discouraged. See here. You may want to try going straight into your description of the Tour (moving its date of establishment from your opening sentence into that description), and then in the second paragraph add anything you need about the scope of the list. Also, the plural of Tour de France is Tours de France, not Tour de Frances.
  • "One of the three Grand Tours" Ref #1 doesn't mention three Grand Tours (I don't think)
  • "predominantly in the month of July". Ref #1 just says "each July".
  • "most well known" would "best known" be better?
  • Ref #4 takes me to a page inviting me to register. I don't doubt its reliability, but are there no public sources which cover the information you source to CyclingFever? The Tour de France website itself, perhaps?
  • What makes AMB Cote d'Azur a reliable source?
  • Re O'Grady and McEwen, does "were successful in the points classification" mean "won", or "did well in", because (to me at least) it isn't obvious.
  • Could "which gave them lead of the GC for a small number of days" be better phrased?
  • In {{Cite news}}, the newspaper's name goes in the 'work' parameter, not the publisher.
  • Ref #9 doesn't cite McGee being reigning pursuit world champion when he won the 2003 prologue. Though at least CyclingFever lets me read that page without registering!
  • I'd prefer the year column to be headed Year, not Edition.
  • For me on a 1024-width screen, some columns wrap alarmingly, for instance both date columns wrap to 3 lines. Consider breaking the stage details with a spaced endash to allow those to wrap, and maybe in the Notes column have references to a notes section rather than the notes themselves? Or, consider dispensing with the dates, as the exact date of the stage adds little valuable information, and having the stage numbers in their own column unentangled with the stage description, so that it's clearer what the numbers are meant to be. Also, stage number P needs explaining. And whatever you do with the notes, they need sources.
  • McGee didn't win the points classification in 2003.
  • If you aren't using the Tour official site for referencing, consider adding it to External links.
• Hope some of this lot helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hrm, I forgot lists had a stability criterion, and on that ground there's no chance of this passing :) I'm going to copy your comments to the talk page and deal with them there, and have TRM close this as withdrawn. Thanks much for your comments. Daniel (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Withdrawn - sent to Failed Log so it can be archived correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:38, 14 July 2008 [27].

---

List of Vancouver Canucks head coaches

I'm nominating this article because I think it's ready to be promoted to featured list status. Annoyomous24 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Annoyomous24 (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Link "expansion team" DONE!
  • ...twice to the Stanley Cup Finals twice but... - needs rewording DONE!
  • Terms should be linked to the seasons DONE!
    • Can they be linked to the pages with endashes?--Crzycheetah 23:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No need for the see also section. That link is in the main template anyway. DONE!
  • The "b" note needs sourcing. DONE!
  • Hockey-Reference.com should not be the only source. Add some info that Hockey-Reference.com does not have, so that Wikipedia's list became the best possible on the web.
  • Why not just color one cell(name column) in green instead of the whole row. I mean you put the asterisk next to the name only, right? So why not just color the name only.

--Crzycheetah 08:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Crawford either "coached" the team or "was the head coach". (in the caption)

--Crzycheetah 23:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• "18,630 capacity" → "18,630-capacity" DONE!
• "2006-07 season " → "2006–07 season " – en dash per WP:DASH DONE!
• Otherwise, looks good.

Gary King (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

• How is Win–Loss percentage calculated? For example, Mike Keenan at 36 won and 54 lost is 36/90=0.400 - what am I missing? maclean 01:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to points since the win-loss percentage doesn't matter in the NHL. Annoyomous24 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Milk's Favorite Cookie told me it is ${\frac {Wins+{\frac {1}{2}}Ties}{Games}}$ (complicated by OTLs of course). Perhaps they should be included since all the other related FLs have included the stat. Also, in the Awards list it states "2007 Jack Adams Award Winner", have there ever been any 2007 Jack Adams Award Nominee? maclean 01:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not know anything you just wrote in the first sentence. Second of all, of course there were 2007 Jack Adams Award nominees. Annoyomous24 03:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • WP:MOS#Images recommends a lead image of at least 300px. DONE!
  • Prose is quite choppy, lots of short sentences, almost like a list of trivia turned into stilted prose.
  • "Overtime/Shootout Losses" - "Overtime/shootout losses" DONE!
  • Note [b] needs an en-dash. DONE!
  • "...any coach who has two separate terms..." - two or more. DONE!
  • "5 minute overtime" - "five-minute overtime"? DONE!

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What's a prose? Annoyomous24 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that when I read the lead, it's not quite as smooth and engaging as it could be. Prose is simply a word which relates to ordinary written text. As opposed to poetry, for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:38, 14 July 2008 [28].

---

List of Boston Bruins head coaches

Okay, I just got this up to standard, (thanks Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) for the referencing and AndonicO (talk · contribs) for copyediting) and it seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Boston Bruins are a professional" → "It is a professional" – since Boston Bruins begins the previous sentence already.
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• "coach[2]) Cy" → "coach)[2] Cy"
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gman124 ^talk 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

'Comments - Oppose until fixed'

• Use em dashes for empty cells not en dash.
• Link all years for term to the season the term began or ended and link years in awards columns.
  • Why are the term columns linked to pages that don't exist, link to the NHL season pages instead, or remove the red links. --Gman124 ^talk 01:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Un-italicize present in the term column.
• You have a W–L % for the regular season, so how about putting W–L % for playoffs as well?

--Gman124 ^talk 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose Until fixed Split up Harry Sinden's playoff record for his terms just like his regular season record, also for other coaches that had multiple terms. --Gman124 ^talk 12:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done with everything above. I didn't add the W-L% for the playoffs, as it would not follow the same basic format of other head coaches lists. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support All of my comments have been answered. --Gman124 ^talk 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In the sentence, "The Boston Bruins, a professional ice hockey team based in Boston, Massachusetts, have had 27 head coaches in team history.", the last words should be "in their team history".
• "organization" should be "franchise".
• "The team was founded in 1924, and entered the league as the first American-based expansion franchise." should be "The franchise was founded in 1924 and entered the NHL as the first American-based expansion team."
• Make this sentence, "Their home arena is the 17,565-person capacity TD Banknorth Garden, where it has played since 1995, after leaving the Boston Garden—which had been their home since the team was established in 1924." a little bit shorter.
• "Art Ross, (who served four stints as the Bruins head coach) Cy Denneny, Lynn Patrick, Milt Schmidt, and Mike Milbury have all been inducted to the Hockey Hall of Fame." should be "Art Ross, Cy Denneny, Lynn Patrick, Milt Schmidt, and Mike Milbury have all been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.".
• "coaching the Bruins" should be "with the Bruins".
• "the Bruins only" should be "only for the Bruins".
• "stints" shouls be "terms".
• You should put a "*" beside everyone with a orange background, a "†" beside everyone with a green background and a "††" beside everyone with a purple background. Also, in the key, put the purple background with the "††".
• why are some terms linked and some terms aren't linked? Read MOS:UNLINKYEARS.
• change "Reference" to "Note" or "Ref"
• Why are you putting player awards on the Awards column. This list is about NHL coaches. Also only put the awards that has a wikipedia link with it.
• All the dashes in the term column should be en dashes and all the dashes everyone else on the list should be em dashes. Read WP:DASH
• "Frank Patrick spent his entire career coaching the Bruins, and led them to the playoffs each year he coached the team." should be "Frank Patrick never missed the playoffs while he spent his entire coaching career with the Bruins."
• If all that is done, I'll support. Annoyomous24 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done with everything above. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • One more thing, all the terms should look like this, ####-##. e.g. "1924–1928" to "1924–28". Annoyomous24 (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Done by AndonicO (talk · contribs) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 04:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I meant both the link and what it shows. Annoyomous24 (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Annoyomous24 20:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:CS. Place references after, not before punctuation
  • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• ""The franchise was founded in 1924" Unnecessary " at the beginning of the sentence
  • Removed. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• "The Boston Bruins … have had 27 head coaches in their team history.[1] The franchise is a member" Singular/plural number. From American and British English differences, In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction. It is one team, and so the Boston Bruins has had 27 head coaches in its team history.
  • Replaced - thanks for writing it out. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• "They are also an Original Six team" → "It is also an Original Siz team"
  • "Siz"? I always thought it was "Six";) - Replaced. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Their home arena" → "Its home arena"
  • Replaced. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Claude Julien, the current coach of the Bruins, took over after Dave Lewis was fired in 2007." → "The current Bruins coach, Claude Julien, began his tenure in 2007 after Dave Lewis was fired"
  • Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Be consistent with dashes. The first column uses mdashes, but the playoffs columns use ndashes
  • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• In the key, there is an orange square with an asterisk, and a green square with a dagger to identify certain things. In the table, only the colours are used, but not the asterisks and daggers.
  • Added. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• There is also a †† thing, with no colour, yet there are purple rows in the table.
  • Added. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Because a asterisk is used, and a dagger, to identify both, you should do *†, rather than ††
  • Replaced. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Working on this. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Support' everything looks good. But didn't you get the memo about "six" becoming "siz"? :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question Could you tell me how Win–Loss percentage is calculated? For example, Pat Burns has won 105 and lost 109 = 105/214=.490 - what am I missing? (the article says .444) --maclean 00:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hockey is different. The formula for hockey is Wins + 0.5(ties)/total games. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • wow OTLs are confusing. From what I see OTLs are listed as ties from 06-07 onwards, but as losses beforehand while being counted as ties in the W/L percentage. I went through the list from PB to CJ and PB is the only one not adding up:

(105 wins) + 0.5(46 Ties) / 254 games = 128/254 = .504

• • • Why not include Claude Julien 07-08 season?
    • Mike Sullivan is missing a playoff record.
    • Also, perhaps Harry Sinden's playoff records should be split up like his regular season records. -maclean 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Done with everything. Mike Sullivan never made it to the playoffs (with the Bruins) - that's why he doesn't have a playoff record. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Who coached the Bruins during their (7 game) fist round playoff loss to Montreal during the 2003–04 NHL season playoffs?
        • Why specify "Winner" in the Awards column if nominees are not included? Should Jack Adams nominees, like Robbie Ftorek in the 2001-02 season, be listed here as well? maclean 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please justify the figures in the GC, W, L and T columns, or do something to make them appear neater. In the key, why is "Loss" not "loss"? Read MOS on not using upper case initials just because an abbreviation is shown.
• Why is "Hockey Hall of Fame" linked twice in the key?
• Red links are a problem. See criteria.
• Use either en dashes (my preference) or em dashes in blank squares; not both.
• "Also" is unnecessary in the first para. Remove comma after 1995? Two alsos in consecutive sentences in the second para; work out how to remove one, please.
• Is "fired" on the informal side for WP? "dismissed"? TONY (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done with Tony's comments. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "Dismissed" works, but I don't see any problems with "fired". It's used to identify all dismissals in sports. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• CommentsOppose There are still links to disamg. pages.
  • Fix redirects to avoid future double redirect issue.
    • Julien and Lewis(in the caption); Johnson(in the lead, it's a disamg. page), Sullivan(in the lead, it's a disamg. page), and Lewis in the table.
    • I think it's time that seasonal pages be linked to the pages with endashes in their names. These redirects can stay, of course, but why?
  • What's the purpose of the see also section? None of the links are related to this page. Why do I need to know who the current captains or players are when I am looking at the Bruins' coaches? Plus, there is already a template with related links at the bottom.
  • Why do we color the whole row just to indicate that the coach has done something when we can color the cell with the name only? This way the lists will be less colorful.

--Crzycheetah 23:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Object due to incomplete fields. The source for the article Hockey-Reference.com does not list a playoff record for Mike Sullivan but the team went to the playoffs in the middle of his tenure (2003–04 NHL season). So who was the head coach during the playoff games? I see that Hockey-Reference.com has been accepted as a reliable source in past FLs like List of Buffalo Sabres head coaches and List of Detroit Red Wings head coaches (Red Wings didn't go the playoffs in 2003 or 2004? wtf?) but there does appear to be a hole here. --maclean 20:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Added playoff record. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Can we get a reference that lists his complete records? --maclean 23:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I replaced the previous reference. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Why specify "Winner" in the Awards column if nominees are not included? Should Jack Adams nominees, like Robbie Ftorek in the 2001-02 season, be listed here as well? maclean 19:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 15:37, 13 July 2008 [29].

---

List of Rome episodes

Nominating it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image is lacking a caption and a fair use rationale for inclusion in this article.
  • Lead is weak and lacks reference.
  • Don't link individual years.
  • When did season 2 air?

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Aside from what The Rambling Man mentioned, there are no references to verify the list of episodes of each season, not even a general ref.
  • There are no references to the plot either.

--S_RX 14:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose The prose is quite woeful. Find somebody to copy-edit the article for you please. The following sentence is one of the longest I've ever come across, please chop it down:

At the opening, Caesar, at the head of his still advancing army, is sending Vorenus and Pullo, along with the Ubian cavalry for re-enforcement, ahead to Rome on a scouting mission for Pompey's defenses with the strict mandate to advance only until resistance is met and, if civilians are met along the way, they are to give Caesar's proclamation to them and to instruct them to return to Rome and have it read in the forum.

The summaries seem to be of uneven length; since all the episodes were of the same length, so should the plot summaries. Further the summaries themselves don't seem to be complete (for example the last episode summary doesn't reveal Antony and Cleopatra's suicide). Per Wikipedia:Plot summaries we shouldn't be concerned about revealing spoilers.

Since you've deemed it necessary to nominate three (mostly unready) lists at once, I suggest you withdraw this nomination to conserve FLC resources. indopug (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - fair point indopug. Be Black Hole Sun, have a look at another FLC which is taking place now for some ideas - Lost (season 4). I haven't fully reviewed it but it's the sort of quality we're looking for. Feel free to bring this back once you've reworked it, taken it through peer review and are sure it meets the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 15:03, 11 July 2008 [30].

---

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)

I'm nominating this article for featured list because I think it passes all of the FL criteria and the information it provides is not easy to find on catalogs or in the internet (it is staggered in several sites, incomplete and in different languages). I believe it is well written, well-sourced, properly formatted and the information it contains is complete (all Austrian euro commemorative coins from 2002 until today).

As a background, the Euro is currently being used in 15 countries of the European Union. Each country can mint circulating coins and 2 euro commemorative coins that are legal tender in the entire Eurozone. But as a legacy of the practice of minting silver and gold coins, very high value in precious metals like silver, gold, titanium, niobium, etc are still minted. These coins only have a legal tender in the issuing country. Collecting these coins and seeing how difficult is to find information about them was the main reason why a set of Wikipedians decided to start a Euro gold and silver commemorative coins set of articles, one for each of the countries.

This article already have all suggested changes to promote the sister article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) to FL, that can be seen here. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Some refs are missing publishers. Gary King (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What an eye! There were exactly three references out of 70+ without publisher, is fixed now.  Done Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Has nothing to do with the list, but it would be nice if you could sign your posts, or all the comments may get lost. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reminder, I always do, do not know what happened these two times. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am not comfortable with the Market value information. I feel that this violates something to do with WP:NOT but I can't seem to find any actual guidance on price guide type information. Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Rmhermen, we have discussed before while promoting a similar article for Belgium (discussion here). The following is a portion of that conversation.
    • • Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, so the market value has to be removed.
        • We have a catch22 here, and I do need your guidance. Attached to collectors' coins there are three values: face value (the value written in the coin, which is meaningless, just used to identify the coin), the issue value (this is the value given by the mint or the bank when the coin is released, very difficult to obtain for some old coins) and the market value (the value that the current coin has today). This last value is maybe one of the most important attributes of a coin in the area of numismatics. We have discussed about this in the past, and we have agreed that this particular value is very important and should be kept. So in this case it not to be used as a sales catalogue, but as an attribute of the coin. Does that make sense? Do you have any other suggestion in this particular topic? Maybe explaining the terms would help...
          • You've made a convincing point here, but who is the "we" that decided this?
            • Hi there, the last discussions about this topic are here and here. We are mainly three editors building the set of articles, one article per country (I was the one building Belgium, but you can see in Euro gold and silver commemorative coins the list of other articles being built). We have in very good shape Belgium, Austria, Ireland and Finland - the last three need to be polished to meet the FL criteria. We have also get a lot of information for France, Spain, Luxembourg, San Marino, Vatican City, Malta and Slovenia (as you see we still have countries to cover). The other two editors are Kevin hipwell and Melitikus.

• • I am also quoting a sentence of WP:NOTCATALOG

... (Wikipedia is not a) Sales catalogs, therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war...

• • I hope this clarifies the situation. Thanks for reviewing the article. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not convinced that this is a correct interpretation. The section also says "On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices." I think the "rare collectors items" and sourcing was meant to cover a situation like that in List of most expensive paintings. Rmhermen (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Rmhermen, after the explanation given before for the nomination of Belgium (already a FL), with all the discussions about this topic in the talk page mentioned before ... still you are not convinced? Can you please provide any suggestions? You need to understand that this is not just price, it is indeed one of the most important attributes for a collectors' coin (which IMHO I think is a rare collector item). Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • That fact that you include multiple "market prices" for some coins and that I can google them and find yet other prices; the fact that you have "market prices" for coins currently on sale, and for coins not yet on sale leads me to believe that this is exactly the kind of sales catalog material that the guideline is taling about. Perhaps an entry on the original issue price is justified but not their current selling price which appears to vary by whatever coin dealer is selling them. Rmhermen (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. "A beautiful design of musical instruments representing...". Doesn't "beautiful" sounds too subjective? Eklipse (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Bottom of the summary table doesn't go far enough - two columns short..
  • "The 2008 Europe Taler" heading - lose the "The" per WP:HEAD
  • "although it finishes almost always in hands of collectors" this sounds like WP:OR unless you can reference it.
  • "world wide" - either one word or hyphenated I should think.
  • "beautiful design" - yes, lose the "beautiful", purely subjective.
  • Coin in the heading should just be coin.
  • "this coin is being also minted in Silver" - "coin has been minted in silver" - better English and don't capitalised gold or silver. Check other instances of this.
  • "„1,50 Euro“ gives the silver piece a different nature, different from the Gold representations of the coin." - just use regular quotation marks use a decimal point rather than a comma, and reword the sentence, "gives the silver piece a different nature" reads very strangely. And in what sense are they different, just the value?
  • "1.25 to 100 euros." - perhaps i'm confused but it looks like 1.50 to 100,000 euros to me?
  • "best selling" - hyphenate
  • "By many, St. Benedict is the patron saint of Western Europe and the father of western monasticism." - By many? Do you mean St B is considered by many to be...? Reword, and this kind of assertion probably needs a reference.
  • "he founded also" switch also and founded.
  • "middle ages" I suspect this is intended to be capitalised, as in Middle Ages?
  • "general view" - just view is fine.
  • "of what it seems to be three" - "what appears to be". Surely this can be clarified one way or another?
  • "250 Years Vienna Zoo" - 250th anniversary of Vienna Zoo?
  • "1752-2002" en-dash.
  • " of course, " - remove this.
  • "in the zoon" - typo.
• Okay, I'm probably about 15% of the way through and almost all of my comments are typos or grammar or things that would be picked up at a peer review. I strongly recommend you withdraw this (although it's entirely your choice as other editors have gone to the trouble of making comments here) and take it to peer review when these simple things can be fixed. Then return to FLC when you've updated the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:56, 10 July 2008 [31].

---

List of Macedonian submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

And here's another one. A bit short, but that's the way it is. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • In the first sentence if the third paragraph, include the 's in the link for the director's name.
  • Please explain why there are no submissions for a few years in the table.--Dem393 (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I think any added punctuation isn't included, and makes the link look awkward. As for why there are no submissions, countries simply don't have to submit every given year. It isn't unheard of or unusual. It simply means that they didn't have a film they wanted to submit. As a list of the submissions, the list is comprehensive - non-submissions are rarely commented on by third party sources in any case unless there's major controversy. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good. Gary King (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments I'm unconvinced it is FL worthy at the moment with only 6 entries. While it may meet the criteria by being comprehensive, stable, engaging, well written, etc etc, does a list of 6 entries really "exemplify our very best work"? See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3#Nominations of lists with small scopes. Meanwhile:

• The opening sentence is in passive voice. Put the date at the end of the sentence instead, so " Macedonia has submitted films for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film since 1994"
• Actually, the opening paragraph is one sentence, so it needs expanding, merging, or splitting into a few sentences
• I'm not convinced the second paragraph is necessary here. If Macedonia didn't submit anything before 1994, what relevance does 1956 have? I understand the need to present some background and history about the award, but not this much. At least remove the 1947-1955 stuff.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Made the necessary fixes. As to the length of the list, I dunno, I had a six-item list (List of FLCL episodes) previously pass FLC, so I assumed that this was fine, although it's smaller. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:30, 9 July 2008 [32].

---

List of anthems by country

I am nominating this list. Only anthems of countries are found on this list; anthems of other things, including constituent countries, are found at List of anthems. Gary King (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Please get someone new to copyedit the article. The prose is very choppy; the sentences are short and the paragraphs do not flow. Maxim_(talk) 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  It should be better now. Gary King (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be named "List of national anthems"? --Golbez (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not all national anthems are listed here. For instance, England is at List of anthems. The only countries that are listed here are the ones that are also at List of countries, hence the {{About lists of countries and territories}} to prevent further confusion. Gary King (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - might it not be better to transliterate titles in languages that do not use the Latin alphabet? Or conversely, why are the anthems of Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burma [the name we use, by the way], Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, India, Laos, Qatar, Tajikistan, Thailand and Yemen [where the Arabic title is not even given] not rendered in their languages' alphabet, but in Latin? In other words, let's be consistent - I'd say Latin alphabet throughout. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  They have now been converted to Latin, and Myanmar is now Burma. Gary King (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Good - that was my main issue. I now Support promoting this list. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Have you considered using a footnote (in place of the numerous individual entries in the Notes column) to indicate that the UK anthem "God Save the Queen" is also the royal anthem of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Canada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Tuvalu? --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am using Footnotes instead of a Notes column now. Gary King (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I fear, though, that this has become a case of two steps forward and one step back. It is confusing that both the footnotes and the references use numbers -- could you change the footnotes to letters? Also, I find it odd that the footnote callout is attached to the country name; I'd expect to find this information in the National Anthem column. Finally, the current note for God Save the Queen is cryptic; I'd like to see more information, such as "The UK national anthem "God Save the Queen" is also the royal anthem of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Canada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Tuvalu." --Orlady (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the footnotes, I am using WP:REFGROUP, and it does not allow letters – only numbers. It is used in some FAs so I believe it is acceptable to be used. I have also moved all of the notes to the national anthem column. I have also expanded that footnote. Gary King (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The new footnote for "God the Save the Queen" looks good, as does the repositioning. Regarding note format, my first thought on reading your response was "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, eh?". I am not reviewing anything other than this particular article, and in this article I found the two sets of numbered notes confusing. I suggest that you reformat the table notes using Template:Ref label, which is used in a bunch of FLs to help distinguish the notes. For example, it is used in List of cities and towns in Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment: The introductory block on "The terms country, state, and nation can have various meanings..." is confusing (because it is not obvious to the reader why this extensive information is provided there) and misleading (because it mentions entities, such as dependent territories and subnational divisions, whose anthems are not included). I would prefer to see a more focused declaration of the scope of this list, along the general lines of the following: "Listed items are anthems of independent states. Anthems for subnational divisions and dependent territories are not included." --Orlady (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Why isn't national anthem linked in the lead?
  • Provision links to a dab page.
  • A bit heavy on the linkage in the lead, e.g. does law really need linking?
  • I would try to work the lead to suggest that there are different types of anthem, and then discuss each one, rather than just launch into what a national anthem is. It seems to be confusing readers.
  • Opening sentence is verbatim repeat of title with "This is a " in front - can we not be more imaginative here?
  • "The usage of anthems increased among European countries during the 18th and 19th centuries.[4] " is out of chronological order as far as I'm concerned.
  • Column heading is "National anthem" - I thought they weren't all national anthems?
  • Some countries have blanks for Date adopted.
  • An awful lot of red links for lyrics/music writer.
• Overall I'm still confused as to whether this is all types of anthem, national anthems or something else. The title implies all anthems, the actual list contains, seemingly, just national anthems. Perhaps this could be clarified in the lead/table?

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Are there any issues raised in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of anthems by country/archive1 that are still "live"? --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think showing a picture of the Star Spangled Banner (rather than any other) constitutes bias. indopug (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that's down to the availability of relevant free images rather than any bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Chiming in, I'd reply that nonetheless, it does give an appearance of bias. There are plenty of images in articles on other anthems, e.g. Il Canto degli Italiani has a couple of portraits. Either scatter a few, or have none, I'd say. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm, you're right; I see that there are plenty of images in articles on anthems. I like Image:Marseillaisenoframe.jpg (used in La Marseillaise) because it's more colorful than an image of sheet music and (unlike head-and-shoulders portraits of composers) it illustrates the anthem as music. I also note that it illustrates one of the oldest anthems, which is a logical basis for a selection. Other good choices exist, though. --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
        • And Poland Is Not Yet Lost has some corking images too. NB Why does Poland's entry in the list not include "Poland Is Not Yet Lost" as translation of the Polish name? --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are many blank cells in the table (in addition to the redlinks noted by The Rambling Man). I recognize that it can be very difficult to get information on details such as the years that Sudan and Swaziland adopted their official anthems, but the blank entries detract from the quality of the list. How can this be a featured list if it looks incomplete? --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You should unlink the red links.
  • If done, I'll support. Annoyomous24 (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • In the lead, Dutch links to Dutch people which redirects to Dutch (ethnic group); surely it should link to Netherlands. Romansh is a disamb page.
  • Not sure what the coloured box above the table is for? It doesn't appear relevant to this list.
  • There are missing music writer cells on Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland which break the sorting.
  • What do the emdashes in the date column mean? if, as I assume, they mean "unknown", wouldn't it be better to say so. I tend to interpret a dash in a table as meaning either "none" or "not applicable", not "unknown".
  • Also, the date column doesn't sort properly (try pressing its sort button several times).
  • Is it sensible to sort columns of people's full names alphabetically?
  • Footnotes. Having both footnotes and references numbered is confusing for the reader. Suggest you give the footnotes letters instead.
  • Footnotes 3 and 5 could be combined to read something like "Hymn to Liberty" is the national anthem both of Greece and of Cyprus.
  • In footnote 9, what's neo-modal?
  • In the cite-web for reference #1, Reference.com is the work, and the publisher is Lexico Publishing Group. In ref#2, which year/edition of the Britannica?
  • Reference #13 is more of a footnote than a reference (seeing as you have both).
  • There are a lot of redlinks. Perhaps they'd be better unlinked.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:23, 8 July 2008 [33].

---

Bryan Adams discography

I'm nominating the page. All the music videos and film albums are on the Bryan Adams videography page. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Might as well link Bryan Adams in the lead if there is going to be no bold formatting. (DONE)
• Italicize album titles (DONE)
• Disambiguate the following links: On a Day Like Today, BPI, Only the Strong Survive, Sting, 101 Dalmatians, and Behind the Sun.(DONE) Something else Gary. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is my first discography list to review, but I'll try my best here:

• "Sixteen" is spelled incorrectly in the lead. Even though this is true, you must change it to "16" per MOS guidelines, I think. (DONE)
• When you say "Britain" in the lead, are you referring to the UK? Please link that word as well.(DONE)

This is all I have for now. (DONE)--Dem393 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Please don't strike out other people's comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "For a catalogue of Bryan Adams Film albums and music videos, " why "Film" not "film" and I guess you're missing an possessive apostrophe. Actually, what is a film album? You mean a soundtrack?(DONE)
  • State Kingston is in Ontario.(DONE)
  • "he's sound incorporates" his sound.(DONE)
  • "Adult Contemporary, Rock & Roll, Arena Rock" why are these all capitalised?(DONE)
  • Numbers below 10 should be written as text.(DONE)
  • "Cuts Like a Knife'," spare apostrophe there.(DONE)
  • "He's fifth " His...(DONE)
  • "in 1987, despite favorable reviews, the " grammar here, you need a new sentence somewhere here.
• There are more problems like this... there are too many spelling and grammar errors in this list. I would strongly recommend get it copyedited.(DONE) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Discographies on Wikipedia are not comprehensive unless music videos, video albums etc are included. See any other featured discography. I see absolutely no reason—other than perhaps to evade opposes for uncited music directors—why they should be branched off to a separate videography article.(DONE) indopug (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• More comments
  • Remove the extra apostrophe after "Cuts Like a Knife" in the lead.(DONE)
  • Link to "United States" in the lead as well.(DONE)
  • Put a comma after "In a Day Like Today" in the lead.(DONE)
  • Italicize "You Want It You Got It" in the lead.(DONE)
  • Also in the lead, change all occurences of "he's" to "his".(DONE)
  • Remove the comma between "March" and "2008".(DONE)--Dem393 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Tenacious D Fan

• • "Bryan's work" should be "Adams' work". Try not to have a personally invested tone.(DONE)
  • "(sales thresholds)" and "Certifications" link to the same thing. Is "(sales thresholds)" needed?. (DONE)
  • I am sure Bryan Adams has scored some UK certifications. Include these. What about Australia?(DONE)
  • For songs which are non-album singles: give some explanation as to which releases these songs 'originate from'. I.e. are they B-sides?(DONE)
  • Did any BA singles achieve certifications?(DONE)
  • Where the video albums and music videos?? I don't think the idea of Bryan Adams videography has been set in stone. I would prefer this page to be merged back to discography and properly cited!(DONE)
  • Your intro paras have no cites and are woefully short for an artist who has released so much.(DONE) You need to discuss at least each studio album release, reflecting on its chart performance etc.(DONE)

You don't discuss "Into the Fire" in your paras. There are no cites. Cites for assertions like "The album went platinum in the United States." are not required as this is later substantiated in the article.(DONE)

• • Album titles need to italic.(DONE)
  • "Waking Up the Neighbours is his best-selling album in the UK Adams' next album was to be the last album to get a american certification." Numerous errors. Punctuation missing and caps as well as "a american". If you are having difficulty with basic prose perhaps you should withdraw this and resubmit once these basic errors have been ironed out.(DONE)
  • "Although widely associated with rock, he's sound incorporates pop rock, Adult Contemporary, Rock & Roll, Arena Rock and hard rock elements." Is this necessary? Is this cited?(DONE)
  • You don't discuss his first album at all.
  • "Since the 1980s, Bryan Adams has released 10 studio albums, 2 live albums, 3 compilations and 60 singles." What about music vidoes/video albums? Why is "Since the 1980s" required?(DONE)
  • Any Australian certifications?(DONE)
  • "Canada.[3][1]" Cites should be in numeric order.(DONE)
  • "Adams' has sold over 15 million records and singles alone in the United States.[2]" This one sentence makes up a whole paragraph. Not FA standard.(DONE)
  • "was the firts singles ever released" Not FA standard.(DONE)
  • "The singles got little attention which has lead to that these song has never come on another album or a single." Not necessary.(DONE)
  • Live albums, compilations, soundtracks and videos need catalog numbers.(DONE)
  • "Besides his music career..." This whole para is not necessary.(DONE)
  • "I'm ready" Caps?(DONE)

Strong oppose - recommend withdrawal for proper grammer/language/spelling clean-up. This article has basic flaws and should never have been nominated with them. The FA nom should not be used as a peer review!

• Music videos needs to be reliable cited.

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments I won't repeat anything that anybody has already mentioned. I've found four more to add though.

• Kingston, Ontario, not just Kingston(DONE)
• Does the UK really need two references in the albums?(YES)
• studio albums, live albums and compilation albums should all use the same charts, ideally.(DONE)

I'm afraid it's an oppose for me, too. This just isn't ready at the moment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:21, 8 July 2008 [34].

---

Lostprophets discography

I'm nominating it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Remove the bold in the lead because the article is the discography, not the article about the band itself.(DONE) Gary King (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Music video directors aren't cited reliably. Para one needs cites. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Lostprophets videography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really support the move. I think you should restore it, then cite it. Also, "Collaborations, Rare Releases, and Covers" is not FA quality. Make this into a table. If these are B-sides, then this is not appropriate for a FA discog article. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you merged this. I have started you off with some cites for the first two directors. (THANKS)Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I made some minor changes, hope have helped. Cannibaloki 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Discographies on Wikipedia are not comprehensive unless music videos, video albums etc are included. See any other featured discography. I see absolutely no reason—other than perhaps to evade opposes for uncited music directors—why they should be branched off to a separate videography article. indopug (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:09, 7 July 2008 [35].

---

List of cities in Arizona

My first time nominating a featured anything, so let's not be too rough :) I've worked on revamping this list over the last few weeks and feel that it's up to a pretty good standard. As a note, I am still in the process of locating appropriately licensed photos of a few more cities to include, as well as better ones for a few of the entries I'm not thrilled with. Also, for the sake of full disclosure, the whole list will change (in terms of population figures) when the Census releases new estimates (likely in the next week or so) but the structure of the article will remain unchanged. Shereth 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Economic Development. City of Maricopa." – is missing an accessdate
• For the footnotes, they appear to be "d[›]"; change them to "[d]" instead.
• Remove the "Click on the double triangles at the top of a column to sort the table by that column.", primarily because this feature is not available on all devices that this content is seen on – such as when you print it :)
• Dashes in "1 - Phoenix, capital of Arizona" need to be em dashes, per WP:DASH.
• The years in "Municipal incorporation in Arizona" should be unlinked per MOS:UNLINKYEARS.

Gary King (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Requested changes completed. Shereth 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I have no concerns about this list. Good work on the article!--Dem393 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Could you provide a more engaging first sentence instead of "The following table is a list of incorporated places in Arizona". Articles don't begin with "The following is an article about blue iguanas" and lists shouldn't either. See WP:LS
• Lead needs expanding; it's not big enough in relation to the rest of the page
• "in spite of being" → "despite being"
• Check spacing between words and footnote links in the table. "Yuma^[d]" vs "Yavapai ^[b]"
• Sort order for Area needs addressing: 106.7 sq mi follows 10.7 sq mi, and many many more
• Note D should be before the table in a "Key" section. Note also that you will need a text marker for those with black/white screens. See List of Indianapolis Colts head coaches as an example
• "CDP" should be written in full on its first use, with "(CDP)" immediately after
• You should include the article in the navboxes that are used on the page
• Why no mention in the lead that Pheonix is the fifth most populated city in the country, or that it's the most populated state capital in the US? Or that Arizona is the 16th most populated state, or that as of 2007, the Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was the thirteenth largest in the United States, with an estimated population of 4,179,427? Or that Arizona has nine cities amongst the most populous incorporated places in the United States?
• The images don't identify the cities very well. Skyline pictures would work well here, such as Image:PhoenixDowntown.jpg or "Image:Phoenix.skyline.750pix.jpg, rather than an image of a building which could be anywhere.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I will address these issues as soon as I get a chance. One issue that I have with some of the images is either the city does not have much of an identifying skyline and the best that can be done is to pick something of a local landmark. There's also an issue of availability in terms of photos with acceptable licenses - I am doing my best to provide photos that work well, but with some cities (newer Phoenix suburbs in particular) there is just a lack of a skyline to begin with - they're kind of boring cities :) Shereth 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done All of the above issues (except for the last) have been taken care of. The most sensible way to get the article included in the navboxes was to move it over the redirect that used to be at List of cities in Arizona - which is more consistent with other such articles, anyway. I hope that's not too bothersome in terms of disrupting the nomination page here. As far as the image issue is concerned, I still hope to modify some of the images to something a little more interesting, but again, a number of these cities will have no "skyline" to speak of and finding something more identifying than a local landmark building may prove difficult. Shereth 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Skylines was just one idea. Pictures shouldn't be there just to picture-fy the article, they should be there to add extra information. A skyline for instance would show how populated a place might be because if there's a lot of buildings, there's more than likely a lot of people. Any images, not necessarily skylines, which would be able to show something to do with population would work, instead of a random building. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is going to be short and sweet. Too many pictures, and the See also section is useless. There is a huge amount of white space that isn't needed. I would suggest removing photos that add little to the article, and either adding more to the see also section or just getting rid of it and placing the portal box somewhere else. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done I spent a while trying to find more relevant photos but came up empty, particularly in terms of ones that are free. I've gone ahead and removed all of the non-skyline type pictures. Shereth 16:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The images should not have defined widths such as "|width=200px" except for the first image, which should be 300px or larger. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not ready for FL status yet. Partial comments:

• Although the title is now simply "list of cities" (a good change, IMHO), the focus of the article is still population. Since this is a list of cities, I'd expect the default sort to be alphabetical order, not population at the 2006 estimate. Also, I'd expect the text in the lead to place less emphasis on population than it currently does.
• WP:MOS says that in article text, numbers less than ten should be rendered as words, not as numerals.
• That lead section currently starts out as follows (emphasis added -- see below): "The state of Arizona, the 16th most populous state in the United States, is home to 90 incorporated cities and towns, which include 9 of the most populated places in the country. Phoenix, the largest city in the state, is also the primary city in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, the 13th largest metropolitan area in the US with an estimated population of 4,179,427 as of 2007. Arizona is also home to 2 of the top 10 fastest growing large cities in the country according to 2006 Census estimates." I've used italics to emphasize two things that are overdone: (1) the locution "is home to" and (2) population statistics. Why not start the article off with "There are 90 incorporated cities and towns in the U.S. state of Arizona"?

--Orlady (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- Now the scope is all about population, but is not indicated in the title. As Orlady says, there is too much emphasis on population now that the article isn't titled that, and absolutely nothing in the lead about area. Why is it titled only "List of cities in Arizona", when towns are also included. We have a Featured list titled "List of cities and towns in Tennessee" - this should do the same. WP:FL says any bold text should appear in the opening sentence in the first paragraph, not the second. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "9"—MOS breach. Spell out. There are other one-digit figures, too.
• "are not included despite being significant communities in their own right as they do not have official populations"—not good prose.
• En dashes for ranges in the piped external links.
• I agree with Matthew about the scope/title. TONY (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:15, 6 July 2008 [36].

---

List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.

previous FLC (15:22, 26 April 2008)

I am re-nominating this list (after, what, two months?!) because I have worked on it and believe that it meets the criteria now. I haven't submitted an FAC or FLC in a month and a bit, so I nearly broke a sweat submitting this. A major change I made in this list is that now, all of the acquisitions are sourced to the SEC, an extremely reliable source. Gary King (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good! Drewcifer (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments A few super-quick comments. More to come soon:

• You should only wikilink full-dates.

  If you are talking about "February 2002", then that is generated with {{dts}}, which I use to make that column sortable. Gary King (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The right-alignment in the Value column is nice, but the citations kind of screw it up. Just put them in the column reserved for citations.

  I moved them to the Company column instead, as they are only related to the Value column. Gary King (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some external links would be nice.

  Done Gary King (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since they're an American company, shouldn't the dates be in American format? (Month DD, YYYY)

  Actually, they are in that format since that's what I typically use for dates. Perhaps you're user settings are overwriting the article's? :) Gary King (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "US$" in the lead is too informal

  Agreed; I have changed it to "US dollars". Gary King (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "If the value of an acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed." But all of the acquisitions are listed... ?

  Good point; that was there when there were some without values. Removed. Gary King (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The citations are moved, but the right-align is still a little funky. At least for me.

  Fixed Gary King (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why the citations in the Company column? Can't that just go in the reference column too?
  • Just noticed the footnote. I think those should be a note rather than an in-line citation.

    Done Gary King (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• SEC should be spelled out in the lead.

  SEC is "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission"; it's already spelt out. Gary King (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, not lead, in the citations.

  Already resolved Gary King (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't force the bolded title.

  It was originally unbolded with the same text, and I just bolded it. I don't think the sentence loses any meaning by having the article's title in the first sentence. Gary King (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  Ok, you're right, let me rephrase. A straight repetition of the list's title in the first sentence gives a poor read. So I guess it's not the bold that I have a problem with, it's the unnecessary repetition and the poor writing it imposes on the first sentence of the list.

  Done Gary King (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It's up to you, but consider beginning with "Apple Inc. have made ## aquisitions" (but better), to appease the bold-intro fans, as well as those of us who hate "This is a list of.."

  I prefer how it is now, especially since a lot of recently promoted lists appear to be like this one way or another (i.e. introducing the topic first, then the last paragraph really talks about the list). Gary King (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's fine. I'm one of the ones who has been pushing for more engaging starts, but I'm unsure of the balance for keeping both camps happy. Anyway, I'm happy to defer to you on this. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 1 appears mid-sentence

  That's because it is sourcing the information before it; more importantly, the second reference sources the incorporation date, specifically. Gary King (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I thought it was an MOS thing, to be honest, but WP:REFPUNC says you're right. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Fails criteria 3 for comprehensiveness. This list is incomplete and I have left further comments at its Talk page. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The list originally had more, but some were using references that merely used statements such as "Apple is thought to have acquired", etc. That's why I have changed the list and am only referencing SEC reports, because those are pretty reliable. Gary King (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

<moved to talk page> Gary King (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's content has not changed and is still lacking information-my Oppose stands. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think that the acquisitions mentioned by Wackymacs on the talk page should be included (I've done one but cannot find the value).
• Footnote ^[A] about the shared value is put after the company names. Should it be put after the value of each company instead/as well, as this seems more appropriate.

  It was originally in the Value column but then moved because someone mentioned it did not make the Value items align well (since they were then bumped to the left a bit.) I am inclined to somewhat agree, and so I have moved it. Gary King (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  Ok, if that's what people think that's OK. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise this is a good list. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:09, 5 July 2008 [37].

---

U2 discography

Previous FLC

I'm nominating it. --U2 is alternative rock (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• old nomination Previous FLC

comment Use Em dashes for the blank boxes in table per WP:DASH --Gman124 ^talk 13:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The nominator is a sockpuppet of User:Wellwater Conspiracy. — H92 (t · c · no) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Tenacious D Fan

Oppose Lots of issues. These are my comments:

• "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by U2" Comprehensive listing is implied by FA status.
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Second para is incredibly short considering the number of albums that band has released. How about expanding it, to discuss all the albums, videos etc.
  •  Done. Borrowed from U2 under GFDL :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Remove the "Comment" column from Theatrically released films.
• I think the see also recommendation is a bit unnecessary.
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• What's a "full-length collaboration", and why does it warrant special note on the intro para?
  • No idea. I was wondering the same thing. Removed it.Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• "U2 have sold more than 170 million albums worldwide" This is a whole para on its own. Not FA quality.
  •  Done
• Inconsistancy: You say "US: Platinum" then "RIAA: 3× Multi-Platinum".
  •  Done
• Add in the ""—" denotes albums that did not chart." row in the table per Foo Fighters discography.
  •  Done

Music video directors are not shown.

Remove notes column from music videos, and replace with music video directors.

•  Doing...

The "Comment" column under video releases is unneccessary

Why aren't certifications included in the video releases?

• I'll look into this. Do you know of any sites that offer the information? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC

• The RIAA site lists at least one award for a U2 video last time I checked. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Video releases" should be "Videos". These are all releases anyway.
  •  Doing... Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• I see a lot of "non-album single" These need notes explaining where they originate from etc.
  • Wouldn't it simply mean they don't appear on an album? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's true, but then there should be an explanation about where the song 'comes from'.

• Certifications for albums need more countries. What about Canadian certifications? Irish certifications?
  •  Doing... Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• "more than 79 videos" is not precise.

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Remove the bold formatting in the lead or the link from it, per WP:BOLDTITLE. Gary King (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE Another indef-blocked sock-puppet nomination. indopug (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Really? Then I'll take over this nom if no-one minds. I've been looking for something to do something in namespace. Maybe this'll help me with my mental block. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Lots of factual errors. For example, a few iTunes Store exclusive digital only albums are listed as having been released on CD and cassette. Theatrically released films should not have "record labels" as they are not albums, but should have movie studios instead. There are also too many redirected links, and I also think that the order of the sections should be consistent with the order listed in the infobox. Needs a decent amount of work before it can get FL status. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific with which release details are incorrect? Feature films have had the label info removed. I'm looking into studio info instead. Which links are redirected? Will work on the order last, once all the other concerns are addressed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Hmm... I always thought that this was already featured.

• Lead sentence needs work. "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by U2," Numerous issues: comprehensive is implied if it's featured -- the word is redundant. "official releases", yet "discography" in the title. US is wikilinked bold text. Read WP:LS
• wikilinks needed for studio albums, singles, extended plays, compilations, videos
• How about opening with: "The discography of U2 consists of 12 studio albums, 58 singles, 3 extended plays (EPs), 3 compilations, more than 79 music videos, and 1 full-length collaboration. // U2 are an Irish alternative rock band. They formed in 1976 when the members were teenagers..." (// signifies a new paragraph)
• Don't wikilink single years such as 1976
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• "noted for their anthemic sound, Bono's impassioned vocals, and The Edge's textural guitar playing." Noted by who? "Anthemic", "impassioned" and perhaps "textural" sound POV to me. Sentence needs neutralising
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Wikilink Bono and The Edge
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 3 needs placing after punctuation
• Final lead paragraph is a stub. And it doesn't have any punctuation.
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• LP, cassette and CD only need wikilinking once in the album table
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• As does Island Records
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The Best of 1980-1990" and "The Best of 1990-2000" — ndash for year spans. Numerous times throught the article
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sentence for "Music videos" is unnecessary
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Are there any music videos that aren't related to a single? If so, keep those and get rid of the rest. Music videos are generally just an extention of a single
• I suggest removing the content of the Videography section, and making a new U2 videography article, wikilink to it under the Videography section, and providing a small over-view table or prose.

Agree with Dream out Loud. And there's a lot of MOS breaches at the moment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:09, 5 July 2008 [38].

---

Linkin Park discography

I've been working on this article for a while now. --Linkins Parkl (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove the bold formatting from the lead if you are going to include a link in it, per WP:BOLDTITLE.
• The reference accessdates should not be linked like however it is done here, because they are showing up as just a bunch of red links; please take a look at Template:Cite web for the template's documentation.
• Formatting is completely askew in some areas; for instance, "U.S.:Diamond" needs a space (and I think you can just use US to refer to the United States, without the periods)
• "UK:4x platinum" also needs a space
• You have "platinum" and "gold" as lowercase but "Diamond" as uppercase?
• I'm not too familiar with Discography standards, but I fear that list is not meeting a few of them.

Gary King (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• As another editor has pointed out, this is likely a re-incarnation of another editor which was blocked indefinitely quite recently. They had similar trends in the context that they too provided premature nominations for consideration at FLC/FAC. I don't know what the next step from here will be (i.e. closure of nomination, etc.) so I leave that up for the more experienced in this particular process. Rudget (logs) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll "take over" the nomination, and see what further comments I could possibly resolve. Since Linkin Park is one of my favorite bands, I'm sure I could be of assistance here. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If you wish. I am sure you are more than capable. :) Rudget (logs) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It'll be a shame if the sock is to get credit for it on the WP:WBFLN, though. indopug (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes it would, haha... Gary King (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My comments:

• Remove "Song appearances in media"
• Music videos needs to be reliable cited.

Moved the Videography section to the page Linkin Park videography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Film album" should be changed to "Videos"

Moved the Videography section to the page Linkin Park videography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Demo should not be piped.

What do you mean

• "Hybrid Theory EP" is actually "Hybrid Theory". This is backed up by AllMusic and the album artwork.

The band has this as a album on their official homepage. Allmusic is wrong.

Good luck with this Milk's Favorite Cookie. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, for now. Great start, but I have too may suggestions and complaints to support at the moment. Not quite ready to support just yet, but the list is definitely not oppose-worthy at the moment. Drewcifer (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• The chart columns are a little out-of-whack. They should be home country first (check), then with the option of list all other countries in alphabetical order, or listing all english-speaking countries first then all other countries in alphabetical. It appears you've taken the latter route, but that still means the English-speaking countries should be in alphabetical order (ie Australia, New Zealand, UK).
• I recommend changing U.S. to US, not because it's wrong (both are right), but because the periods are inconsistent with the other abbreviations (which don't have periods).
  • That's actually in the MOS guidelines. WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I did not know that. Nevermind. Drewcifer (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Linkin Park is an American band, so American-style dates (Month DD, YYYY) should be used.
• Please include a # in catalog numbers to make it clearer.
• Consider bolding the album titles in the tables. And at least be consistent (Xero is bolded the others aren't).
• The EPs section should be spelled out to Extended plays.
• How does one define an "Underground album"? Needs to be explained. See this for an example of explaining an odd/unique section.

Something else i should fix. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Citations for certifications should be dispersed into the individual cells. Having six citations in the header is very vague.

  And they should be taken out of the header as well. So we only need them in the individual cells, but not the header.

• More certifications stuff: 3× not 3x. Platinum should be capitalized. Multi-platinum certifications should have a non-breaking space between the words. so either do {{nowrap|3× Platinum}} or 3×&nbsp;Platinum. Include a link to List of music recording sales certifications in the column header (take a look at Nine Inch Nails discography or The Prodigy discography to see an example of what I mean.

  Please take another look at this one, specifically the examples I provided. Drewcifer (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Xero doesn't link to anything important.

Should i remove it.

No, just unlink it. Drewcifer (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Underground albums names all link to the same page. I'd just leave the one link in the explanation, and leave the individual names in the table unlinked.
• I'm not sure "It's Goin' Down" should be included. It includes two members of Linkin Park, but not Linkin Park themselves.
• Some external links are needed.
• The third paragraph of the lead could go. It doesn't really say mucha bout their discography, and is a little POV-ish. Drewcifer (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• The citations need alot of work format-wise. I'd recommend using citation templates throughout. Many feature redlinks, and #18 is just broken.

  Also concerning citation formatting, publishers like RIAA/ARIA/etc, should be spelled out and wikilinked.

• All of the text needs a thorough copy edit. There's poor grammar and misspellings throughout.
• What makes this a reliable source?

New source Allmusicguide. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Looking much better. Two more things I've noticed: the labels are over-linked. They only need to be linked the first time they are mentioned. Also, similar columns between tables should be kept to a similar width. Drewcifer (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't get that last one. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd recommend putting an   between the country and its corresponding certification. Drewcifer (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The column widths are still inconsistent. The coding for this should be done in the header section of the table. Something along these lines: {|class="wikitable" !rowspan="2" width="33"|Year !rowspan="2" with="200"|Title !colspan="17"|Peak chart positions !rowspan="2" width="100"|[[List of music recording sales certifications|Certifications]]<br><small>([[List of music recording sales certifications|sales thresholds]])</small> |-

And then make sure similar tables use the same width. Those widths are just guestimations though, you'll have to play around with what looks best. Also, you dont need to do the chart column, since that's defined by the number of charts. Also, I noticed that there's no general references citing the discography as a whole. Using Linkin Park's Allmusic discog page would be a good idea. Check out the references seciton of The Prodigy discography for an example of a general references section. Drewcifer (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

comments

• "This is a comprehensive discography of Linkin Park," Yuck. "The discography of Linkin Park consists of three studio albums, nine-teen singles, four EP, one Demo and two remix and collaboration albums. Linkin Park are an alternative metal band from Agoura Hills, California. Their discography does not include solo material performed by Mike Shinoda's side project Fort Minor or Chester Bennington's side project Dead By Sunrise." Wikilink where necessary
• "a Agoura Hills, California based alternative metal band." An Agoura Hills.
• Mike Shinodas and Chester Benningtons need apostrophies.
• Who are these two guys? You need to say who the band are, which if you follow my suggestion for an introduction, would go after the Agoura Hills sentence, and before the "Their discog does not include..."
• "the band has sold more than fifty million albums and won two Grammy Awards and nominated two times." too many ands
• "Billboars 200" typo and needs wikilinking
• Wikilink to Billboard Charts
• Collision Course needs itallicising
• "second grammy award and the album was certified platinum in the U.S. and the hit single "Numb/Encore" was certified gold in the U.S." Numerous proper name casing issues
• "Linkin Park is also known for their Underground albums which is only available if you are a member of the Linkin Park Underground." second person tone. Wrong tense. Who knows them for this?
• The Peak chart position countries header isn't unified. Some use superscript while others do not

What do you mean? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The code for Finland is: !style="width:2em;font-size:80%"|<small>[[Finland|FIN]]<small> <ref name="Finland">{{cite web | url=http://finnishcharts.com/search.asp?cat=a&search=Linkin+Park | title=Finnish Album Chart | publisher=finnishcharts.com | accessdate=2008-06-24 }}</ref>

The code for Flanders is: !style="width:2em;font-size:80%"|<small>[[Flanders|FLA]]<small> <ref name="Belgia FLA">{{cite web | url=http://www.ultratop.be/en/search.asp?cat=a&lang=fr&search=Linkin+Park | title=Flanders Album Chart | publisher=ultratop.be | accessdate=2008-06-24 }}</ref>

Yet the code for France and Germany is: !style="width:2em;font-size:80%"|<sup>[[France|FRA]]</sup> <ref name="Frankrike">{{cite web | url=http://lescharts.com/search.asp?cat=a&search=Linkin+Park | title=French Album Chart | publisher=lescharts.com | accessdate=2008-06-24 }}</ref> !style="width:2em;font-size:80%"|<sup>[[Germany|GER]]</sup> <ref name="Tyskland">{{cite web | url=http://www.charts-surfer.de/musiksearch.php | title=German Album Chart | publisher=Charts-Surfer | accessdate=2008-06-24 }}</ref>

Some county code names are in superscript, but others are not Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• What format is CS? CD, CS and LP all need wikilinking. Don't we usually use "CD, cassette, vinyl"?
• Xero needs a reference
• What the heck is an "underground album"? Are these unofficial releases? Bootlegs? MOS:DISCOG, while in its infancy and proposal stage says "no thanks".
• Refs for DVDs please

Moved the videography section to Linkin Park videography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be unhappy to see the music videos gone. A music video is an extension of a single, used to promote. They should be mentioned there and that's it. It's like a radio-friendly version of a single release that the company provides to radio stations. We don't list those. Unless any of the music videos do not coincide with a single release, I say get rid. If not, "Given Up" needs a director.
• "Song appearances in media" -- Change to "Soundtrack/compilation appearances", and only include anything that was on an actual release, not what was used as background music on CSI. Note that MOS:DISCOG says only list original releases, so anything already found on a Linkin Park album shouldn't be listed here.

It's Gone --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck taking this over. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Working on it.... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Discographies on Wikipedia are not comprehensive unless music videos, video albums etc are included. See any other featured discography. I see absolutely no reason—other than perhaps to evade opposes for uncited music directors—why they should be branched off to a separate videography article. indopug (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Per above. This has been a growing problem amongst noms and I think a stand has to be taken. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness to the nominator, this is something that is currently still be discussed at the WP:DISCOG talk page. I don't aim to negate your oppose votes, but I would like to point everyone to the larger discussion. Drewcifer (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can see both advantages and disadvantages in moving the video albums and stuff to a videography in some lists, but not this one because it doesn't make the size of the list offensively large. I did comment that music videos should be removed if they match up with a released single and only list music vids which didn't come with a released single, but I appear to be in the minority with this suggestion! So I'll sit on the fence and go neutral. :-/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:08, 4 July 2008 [39].

---

DragonForce discography

I'm submitting the discography for DragonForce, I'm pretty sure its all there and done. Any issues will be speedily resolved. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Use double quotes; so "of 'DragonHeart' in" → "of "DragonHeart" in"; same goes for the other ones. Gary King (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions:

• Inline citations need to be added for the US Heatseekers and Indy charts
  • Y Done. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• As DragonForce is an English band the dates should be arranged in the European style (example [[1 January]] [[2008]])
  • Y Done, but I was under the impression that this was unnecessary as its always displayed as "25 February 2003", for me at least, no matter what the code layout is. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• The lead should be expanded. See: The Strokes discography or Sonic Youth discography -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Expand the lead somewhat
  • Expanded ever-so-slightly, there isn't that much that can be said about 4 albums and 3 singles, I could still add a part on "Fury of the Storm" and specific chartings for Inhuman Rampage and "Through the Fire and Flames" but that's about it. Would that be enough? — Balthazar ^(T|C) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is waay too long.
  • Y Split in half. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Refs needed for US Heat and Indie (which I'm pretty sure is the correct abbreviation, rather than "Indy")
  • Y Done. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'd not be unhappy to see the Billboard Comprehensive Album Chart gone, because the only way to see it is through a paid subscription to the website.
  • Thats just too see its full listing in one page the list I referenced has all the same info but spread across its weekly entries. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'd also remove the three digital charts from the singles information.
• If you do keep them though, the size of their names in the table headers needs to be bigger, per WP:ACCESS. You've got <small>, then <sup> which is really hard to read for those with good vision
  • Y Done. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm little perplexed as to how little information is contained in the tables. Look at all of the blanks, and the one-item table. This looks like a topic that's awkwardly forced into list format just to get a bronze star. TONY (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not blanks, they just didn't chart, and Valley of the Damned – Remixed & Remastered and Ultra Beatdown have yet to be released. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If they're yet to be released, they shouldn't be in a discography. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They have been hidden. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Short and sweet. Job well done! Drewcifer (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Reluctant oppose Didn't realize it was only nine items, so I guess I have to undo my support. I've supported the 10-item rule of thumb in the past, so I should stick to my word. However, I do hope to see the list resubmitted once that 10th item is released. Drewcifer (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks pretty good so far. I only have a few suggestions:

• Since there's only on certification in the Studio albums table, I'd recommend putting the citation along side the certification itself, not in the header. Also, BPI should be changed to UK (but should still link to the BPI).
  • That's annoying [40], Y redone. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• The infobox specifies that Valley of the Damned is a demo, but the actual table does not. I suggest adding a note in the table. Also, I think the note about Dragonheart should be in the same not (and therefore not in small font). Also, to differentiate between the demo and the album, it might be good to have "(Demo)" after the demo's title (where the dragonheart note currently is).
  • Y Done, I think. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• This is kind of a new addition to MOS:DISCOG (this is the first FLC I've suggested it at, but the certification column header should also link to List of music recording sales certifications. See The Prodigy discography for an example of what I mean.
  • Y Done. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Billboard" is not consistently italicized in the citations. Drewcifer (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Reluctant Oppose. Recent discussion at The FLC talk page suggested a List with so few entries be merged into the main article, or at least wouldn't become Featured. I tend to agree, even though it satisfies the rest of the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it be long enough when the fourth album is added to it, in August? as it would be 10 items then. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that would work. I'd prefer to see it higher than ten myself, but that's the agreed-upon base limit. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • What happens until that time then? — Balthazar ^(T|C) 10:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • If the community believe that's required for FL status then this FLC should be withdrawn and resubmitted at the appropriate time when the next album is released. Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Gimmetrow 00:20, 4 July 2008 [41].

---

List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks

previous FLC

I am renominating this article since I think I resolved all the criterias in order for this article to become featured list material. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Much improved since the last nomination.
  • I believe the last page move was unnecessary and violates WP:TITLE.
  • Where are the trade notes with their references? PARTIALLY DONE!
  • Why are the territorial picks listed at List of the Los Angeles Lakers' first and second round draft picks?
  • Double check the college links. The same college is linked to different articles. Example:Cincinnati.

--Crzycheetah 01:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• The territorial picks are on the list because teams who forfeit their first round draft picks usually pick a territorial pick for a replacement. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Trade notes are the ones where you say Lakers traded player X to Team Y for player Z. Take a closer look at all Cincinnati links and you'll notice that they are linked to different articles.--Crzycheetah 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry for misunderstanding your question. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Oppose All years, positions, and colleges should be linked because this is a sortable table. The trade notes are still incomplete.--Crzycheetah 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Crzycheetah, Gman124 told me to remove the overlinking from the table so I thought it would be the right choice. I'll undo the unlinking right now. Annoyomous24 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(→) I have added several trade notes, but there's still missing many more. Just take a look at how many picks the Lakers had in one round. By the NBA rules, each team is allowed to have one pick in one round, but the Lakers had 2 or more in one round in several years; therefore, we should mention where the additional picks came from.--Crzycheetah 01:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In the second paragraph, last sentence, I wrote "Teams can also trade their picks, so some years a team could have more than or less than two picks." Annoyomous24 (talk) 3:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, where did you get the trade notes. I want to know the reference. Annoyomous24 (talk) 3:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do mention that they may have more than one, but you also have to mention which ones they traded for. The reference I use mostly is the Lakers Media Guide, but it's in a flash format, so I m not sure whether we can put it as a reference here on Wikipedia.--Crzycheetah 03:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks or Los Angeles Lakers draft history would be a better title. Buc (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I would suggest that perhaps a Table of Contents be forced on the page with Help:TOC, as it would take a lot of scrolling to get to the bottom of the page if one wanted to see the references. Gary King (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Opening sentence is blah.. Can a more engaging one be used instead of repeating the article title?
• Is "of those in the sport of basketball." necessary? It mentions NBA and WNBA, so it's sort of obvious.
• "got its official name" → "took its official name" perhaps?
• It also needs explaining why the team from the most south-western state in America takes its name from a state over 2000 miles away in the north of the country
• "The Lakers are generally regarded as one of the NBA's most successful franchises." Who does? It needs referencing
• "Then in 1989," poor word to start a sentence. Passive voice going on here, too.
• "Many notable first round draft picks from the Lakers include Jerry West, Gail Goodrich, Norm Nixon, James Worthy, and A.C. Green." Surely every player picked is notable?
• Split the key into four columns so it's not as long
• You need something other than green cells to denote a Hall of Famer, per WP:ACCESS. Asterisk, daggers or carets will do the trick.
• n or mdash, not hyphens in the cells to denote "nothing"
• What does T mean in Round?
• F/C, G, C/F etc all need explaining in the key so that the reader doesn't have to navigate away
• Why does "Retired Lakers' Number" need pointing out. What's the notability behind it?
• Refs 21 to 25 should be rendered as footnotes

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• • People who are not familiar with the NBA or WNBA don't know what's the NBA or WNBA so it's not obvious to them. Every pick is notable put I just put the ones that are more notable. Comments 11 and 12 are on the key. Retired number should be pointed out because they are the players who did something special for the Lakers and I think they should need pointing out. Also, the Orlando Magic draft history also repeated the article title so I don't think repeating the article title would be a problem for this article to become featured list status. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • But you give the full meaning of NBA and WNBA (which includes the word basketball), so it is unnecessary Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What makes them "more notable". According to who? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What did they do that was special? Why were the numbers retired? If you're going to point something like that out, you have to explain why. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Orlando Magic draft history was promoted a little whiles ago, and things change. See WP:LS#Bold title: "the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". From WP:LS#Establish context: "Where an article title is of the type "List of ...", the repetition of the title in the first line should generally be avoided in favour of providing readers with useful information about the context of the list." This is a recent change to the MOS. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • So how come some other featured lists related to basketball include the Hall of Famers? Those lists don't even explain why the Hall of Famers are on this list. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Huh? I wasn't talking about Hall of Famers. I don't get your question Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I think retired numbers are more of a honor than the Hall of Fame so I think the retired numbers should be on this list. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Well it's this list being reviewed at the moment. You should explain the importance of retired shirt numbers. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Gman124 ^talk 22:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why are the position and college names Overlinked, in my opinion they should only be linked the first time they appear. --Gman124 ^talk 22:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How come most recently, the Toronto Raptors draft history was a featured list but it also was overlinking? (Annoyomous24) (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Whether something is overlinked is rather subjective. You can't seriously expect every same-genre article to have the same number of wikilinks. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • So should this article be overlinked or should it not? (Annoyomous24) (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, remove the overlinking from the table. --Gman124 ^talk 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:12, 3 July 2008 [42].

---

List of South American countries

I believe this list meets the FL criteria. My only concern is that it may contain too much information (most other articles have separate articles for population, area, GDP (PPP), etc.). I felt that a comprehensive list of countries should incorporate the basic facts of each country. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't think the text in the table should have a smaller font size than everything else. Perhaps the images, especially the flags, could be smaller to give the text more room.
  • Heh, hadn't even noticed the reduced size. Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Other lists" → "See also"? That would conform with WP:LAYOUT better (and place it before References).
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks good now. Gary King (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Name:
    • I say separate the common name from the official name, and also include the names in the native languages.
      • Well, given how some of these countries have multiple native, or official, languages, it seems best to not to include the native name. I have separated the common name from the official name, though. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Hm, I suppose I can let that slide. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Right now, to someone who doesn't know they are dependencies, it looks like "UK" is the official name of the Falklands, and "France" is the official name of French Guiana. So that's another reason these should be separated.
      • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • French Guiana is not a "dependency" of France; it IS France. No one would ever say that Alaska or Hawaii are dependencies of the United States, and French Guiana's status within France is identical; it is a fundamental part of the republic. So really, the table should include one dependency, and instead of saying "French Guiana", it should say "France", with perhaps "French Guiana" in parentheses (once you get rid of the 'official name in parentheses' bit. Or maybe the other way around. But either way, French Guiana is not a dependency.
      • Oh, I briefly glanced at Dependent territory—missed the entire "French Guiana is not a dependency" thing. French Guiana is still considered a part of South America, so do you think I should move this article to List of South American countries and just make a note of FG's current status? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
        • No, it should stay like this, since the Falklands are politically and geologically linked with South America. But even more so, France IS a South American country (and an African country, and an Oceanian country, and a North American country... the French got around), so it should definitely be included, just as the United States and Chile are Oceanian countries, and Turkey is both European and Asian. So I suppose it should include just French Guiana, but make it very clear that it is part of France, and the statistics given apply only to the South American portion of France. (Such a distinction isn't needed for Easter Island, since it's politically linked with the mainland as part of a mainland region, I guess) --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You need to say somewhere in the table that it is a dependency; you cannot rely on coloring alone, due to accessibility reason.
      • Added. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The table header doesn't need to say 'area in km2 (sq mi)' when the data itself says km2 and sq mi.
    • Alright. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For the GDP per capita column, move US$ into the header, and just say $ in the column itself, without repeating the link every time.
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting one, but in a list of countries of Oceania, would we put the United States' GDP for Hawaii, or Hawaii's gross state product? Likewise, should we put France's GDP, or French Guiana's gross regional product? I suppose we should make it clear that the table is including only the South American portions of France.
    • Note added. Is this clear enough? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, though you still have French Guiana noted and shaded as a dependency. :) I don't know what Wikipedia common law on this is, but I don't think it should be counted as one, and more than Hawaii is a dependency of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Which brings up another fundamental question - are we only listing information for the portions of the countries in South America? In that case, we would only include French Guiana, but we would have to also exclude Easter Island (an Oceanic part of Chile). I see that you are including Easter Island (courtesy of a footnote), so either you should include the whole of France, or make it very clear that it's being left out. (It makes sense to include one but not the other, since Easter Island is politically part of a mainland Chilean region, but French Guiana is its own department)
  • These are my issues so far. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Minor note added. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Most of my suggestions were already mentioned by Golbez above, but I do have a few more:

• Do you have any websites that could potentially form an "External links" section? If yes, then please make that section.
  • Besides the CIA World Factbook (which is used as a ref repeatedly), there's no single source of info for all countries. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• The "See also" section goes before the "Notes" section.
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Could you please separate the footnotes from the references? It makes it very confusing on the list as to whether I'm about to read a footnote or a citation.
  • Never been a supporter of this designation, but I guess I could do it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You could wait for a consensus first, if you want to.--Dem393 (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Or not...nevermind! I like the notes and references now.--Dem393 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why are the map perspectives different? Why do Argentina and Brazil have a world map while others have portions of the South American map? I think you should be consistent with the perspectives of all of the maps.
  • I was wondering the same thing. I looked on Commons, but had no success in finding more appropriate images. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, that's fine.--Dem393 (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• "South America has an area of approximately 17,840,000 square kilometers (6,890,000 sq mi), or almost 3.5% of the Earth's surface. Its population is more than 380 million, according to estimates of country populations in the The World Factbook." Please cite all of these statements.

I hope that these suggestions will help. Good luck! --Dem393 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the way the list looks now! Support --Dem393 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Abbreviating GDP per capita to PPP is confusing - can you say "GDP per capita, also called Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)"?
  • GDP per capita is not PPP. This statistic is "GDP at PPP per capita". I've clarified this. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Question - you say French Guiana is an " overseas department and region" of France - is that the same as a dependency? You explicitly state the Falklands to be a dependency, but not French Guiana.
  • French Guiana is not a dependency. See my correspondence with Golbez above. I'm still waiting on his reply regarding my proposal to move this page to just "List of South American countries". Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • But I did reply, several days ago. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well then, ignore what I said above. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
        • And actually, rereading it, I have no problem with moving it to "List of South American countries" (though I would prefer 'List of countries in South America'), as long as the Falklands is kept. =p --Golbez (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Alright, moved. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Its population is more than 380 million" can you put a timeframe on this, say "As of x 2008..."?
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• "South America ranks fourth in area " just make it clear you're talking about continents here.
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Official language in the table should be language(s).
  • These are official languages, not just languages. I didn't want to include languages because some countries have dozens of widely spoken languages. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, not clear was I? I meant the col heading should be "Offical language(s)" because there's more than one in some instances. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, okay. Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Right align population col.
  • It's currently left-aligned like every otherr column (except flag and map). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, so right align it so the commas align properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• You have a (July 2008 est.) in the heading and then in the same column a single (January 2007 est.) for population. You could do the same with the PPP col since only two aren't 2007 est.
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• No MOS requirement but I'd prefer to see references centrally aligned.
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• "kilometer" in the lead, "kilometre" in the notes. And presumably note E means "square" kilometres?
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Fix the template so it points directly to this page and not via a redirect.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I plan to move this article. Also, see the template code. I don't think I could get it to directly link to this title. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the template code was a little more complex than I first imagined... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per cr. 6 of WP:WIAFL. The table has too many columns and it is too widened and messy. Flags should be smaller than they are now.--Crzycheetah 22:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What resolution are you using? Flags and map sizes have been reduced and I have reduced column widths. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • My res. is 1024 x 768. It looks fine now. The only minor concern is that the GDP column heading is too long(for a heading that is), but I don't see how it can be improved. Maybe move the contents of the parentheses to the footnote? --Crzycheetah 23:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A more engaging first sentence is needed, rather than a straight repetition of the article title
• I'd prefer to see the table header for area state km/sq miles, and remove it from each cell
• No need for the dollar sign in the GDP column, cos you already say it's in US dollars.
• How come two different style maps are used? One beige and red, the other grey and green?
• Perhaps you could include a footnote to say that the Population is an estimate from 2008, except where stated otherwise, and also put all that extra GDP info in a footnote, which would shorten the height of the table headers

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You should add a key explaining what the rows highlighted in light blue mean. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is mentioned in the lead, but I guess people might miss that. Key added. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless I'm howled down by more experienced reviewers. My chief concern is that it's kinda workaday, too easy, and sacrifices a lot of usefulness, to put together this info: constructing the table was probably 30 minutes' work. What would add value to this list is the provision of another one or two tables that give more information for comparison. Like notional GDP, which will show how undervalued or overvalued a currency it; like form of government; like Quality of Life index; like demographic profile (um ... isn't there a single ratio of below and above 25 years of age in the UN database? You could have a basic info table first, then a demographic one, then an economic one? But your choice. Therefore, I have to say that I think it doesn't yet meet our primary requirement, that "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." I see other nominations that are much more useful.
• GDP PPP is the way you'd say it, as opposed to GDP notional value. Overlinked (I've removed some culprits).
• Cr 2, inadequate lead. I mean, what about the larger context of how so many languages came to be spoken there? A sense of the chronological span of its invasion by Europeans, and its independence in the 20th century. Why it's so fragmented into little nation states (Columbia used to be three countries until the mid-1800s, I think). For an ordinary list, it's fine; for a featured list, I want more. TONY (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The list didn't take me 30 minutes to create (see the article history). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, it was a throwaway line, not well-chosen. I still think the scope is too small and wastes potential to be a really interesting collection of data. TONY (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Heh, I actually thought I covered too many things in this list. There are other lists (e.g. List of South American countries by GDP (PPP) per capita) that cover the data from this list. In any case, do you propose I make separate sections with a table including economic statistics and another with demographics? Also, given your feelings about the data in this list, you might want to nominate List of countries, which contains no data, for FL removal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

←List of countries does contain lots of info, and is partly excused because it has corralled a huge number of items into a list. It's still a pity that it chooses flags (pretty meaningless) above more useful, interesting info. South America is much smaller, and to be "among our best work" begs for an interesting combination of data criteria that allows readers to compare the countries in useful ways (even unique ways, but that would be a stroke of luck if you came upon a combination of data that isn't out there already). I guess I'd like to encourage WPians to nominate for high status lists that are deeper in terms of data mining. Frankly, the List of South American countries by GDP (PPP) per capita needs to be merged into this one and combined with fascinating comparative data, nominal GDP of course, but housing, telephone and car ownership, size of public sector in the economy—I don't know, but that's one of the enjoyable tasks of creating a list, I think: skimming around for combinations of data that show the expected and unexpected associations. OECD and CIA Factbook should give a good foundation, and there's so much to select from that the very filtering of the criteria is a valuable contribution in a WP list. And the lead! TONY (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony has made some interesting suggestions. In my opinion, one way of thinking of the list is a summary of the information found in the infoboxes of each country's article. Also, I think that the list has grown beyond simply a table by now; I suggest using a separate level 3 heading for each country and then listing the information below it. Something like what I have posted on this FLC's talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_South_American_countries#Example_of_an_entry. Gary King (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I know it's bordering on pedantry, but I'm still not entirely happy with the labelling of French Guiana as "not a country." France is a country; French Guiana is part of it. If this were a list of the countries in Europe, would you equally say Metropolitan France was not a country, because France extends beyond Europe? Perhaps a better terminology would be "French Guiana is part of a predominantly European country." It's a delicate thing which appears to have not been dealt with yet on Wikipedia...? And likewise, maybe "France" should be listed first in the table, with "French Guiana" in parentheses... since this is a list of countries, then France is the country, and French Guiana is the part of that country actually within the scope of the list... --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Aruba doesn't mention being South American. In fact it appears in Template:Countries of North America. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I undid the user who just added Aruba and two other "countries" to the list. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Just a note to the FL directors, I'm going to handle the concerns raised above in Tony1's oppose shortly. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Fine, please let me (and Tony) know when you're done. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question: what should I list under "type of government" for the Falkland Islands and French Guiana? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now (not yet ready for FL status) and response to Nishkid64's last question:
  • Please get rid of the sentence that says "The Falkland Islands and French Guiana, which are not countries themselves, are highlighted with a cyan background and marked with an asterisk in the table." That's much too self-referential for a lead section; save that kind of information for a table footnote or table legend.
  • Regarding that cyan background and asterisk... You explain the cyan background in the legend, so the text explanation is not needed. As for the asterisks, I find them off-putting because the asterisk doesn't point to a footnote. I suggest deleting the asterisks.
    • Just a comment, but there has to be some indicator in actual text; for accessibility reasons we can't rely on color alone to convey information. --Golbez (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • You're right. When I made the comment above, I was assuming that the following item would take care of that need, in that the table would clearly indicate that these places are not sovereign countries. --Orlady (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As for what to put under "Form of government", for the Falkland Islands say "UK overseas territory and dependency, also claimed by Argentina" and for French Guiana say "overseas department and region of France".
  • I'd like to see a separate "Notes" section at the bottom of each table that has lettered notes, instead of clumping them all at the end of the article.
  • The note letters should be sequential. That is, the first note in the first table should be "A", the second note should be "B," the last note in the last table should be "H", etc.
  • To minimize confusion, please don't use the same word "Notes" for the lettered notes and the right-hand column headings which link to numbered references. I suggest that you either (1) call the lettered notes "Footnotes" or (2) change the right-hand column title to "References", but there might be an even better solution.
  • I suggest that you use a lettered note (or footnote) to indicate that Argentina calls the Falkland Islands "Islas Malvinas." When that is done, I think you could delete the sentence "The Falkland Islands is a British overseas territory and dependency, which is also claimed by Argentina as the Islas Malvinas,[2] while French Guiana is an overseas department and region of France" from the lead section.
  • The abbreviated titles in the "See also" list are odd. Spell out the full names of the other articles.
  • Also, now that most of the contents of these other articles are included here, why not add population density to the "Demographics and geography" table and add a "GDP PPP" column to the "Economic statistics" table?

--Orlady (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • A general note: The article is currently being revamped to address Tony1's concerns. I still have to add a number of columns before I can call this table complete. I'll fix the kinks out within the next day or two. Thank you for your patience. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The list is unstable, as there is question whether Aruba, Trinidad and Tobago, et.al. should be on the list. I've done some work on the France issue, still not entirely happy with it but it's there to work with. --Golbez (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue was already resolved. Aruba, TT and Netherland Antilles were on the list before I started working on it. These sovereign states are sometimes considered part of South America, so I think it's appropriate to include them in the table, with a note indicating their status. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • But they aren't in the table... And if they are put there, then the intro needs to be changed to reflect just whose definition of South America is being used. --Golbez (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The article is being revamped anyway. See the article history. It's changed signficantly since the start of this FAC. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Which is precisely why it needs to be refined and stabilized before the FLC can continue. --Golbez (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, I'm in the process of doing that. By the way, the FLC's closed now. TRM archived it hours ago, apparently. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Er... oh. Well then, carry on. :) ... Shouldn't this have been moved to an archive then? --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
              • GimmeBot will be here to archive shortly. I'll renominate the article once I've made all the appropriate changes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:50, 2 July 2008 [43].

---

List of Interstate Highways in New York

As part of the FL contest and the need for a better list, I've spent hours working on this, and now that it's complete, I feel it meets the criteria. Comments are appreciated, as always. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Doncram

• Hey, the intro paragraph statement about saving $2,000 is bizarre and strikes me as non-encyclopedic. The statement is "New York's Interstate Highway system saves the average state resident $2,170 per year in reduced accident cost, lowered gasoline use, among other factors." It is supported by a reference. But the statement is so bizarre, i don't believe the reference. What it appears to be is someone's weird calculation, to many significant digits of accuracy, of how much each New York State resident saves relative to some unspecified alternative, such as having no highway at all. Or what is the alternative: having use of just canals, or railways, or travel by balloon? I would rather expect the state population would be different if there were no highways. Why would there be no highways? It appears to be a ridiculous self-serving promotional calculation, perhaps used to justify getting a certain budget or something. It is just bizarre, to repeat myself, it is just bizarre! A wikipedia article simply cannot state something like this as a fact.
• And, i don't think the description of 690 is complete and accurate. It does not describe the extensions of 690 off in various directions, to Fairmount and to Camillus. It is not a single route that you can travel from one end to another. The inadequacy of description is not limited to this list article; I believe it is a problem in the separate article on 690 itself.
• Sorry these quick comments are not more positive, but I hope they are nonetheless helpful. Good luck with the article! doncram (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So I take it you don't like that lead sentence? ;) I agree about that, so it's gone. I also tried to clarify the I-690 description. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Lvklock I live in the Syracuse area, so I looked at those descriptions pretty closely. At first, I thought the same as Doncram, that the 690 description wasn't wrong. I also thought 695 was here, not in the Bronx. Upon checking a map, I realized that 690 changes from Interstate to a State Route at I-90, then continues to the N of Baldwinsville. Similarly, the 695 that branches off I690 is also a NYS Route. Maybe some mention of these would make the description less confusing. Also, I'd like to see some mention that I690 is the access road for and passes by the New York State Fair Grounds, which are significant to residents all across the state. Lvklock (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I tried to clarify the I-690 description some. Let me know if it's any better. Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Much clearer, thanks. I like the State Fair mention. :) Lvklock (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Can you see anything else that needs to be fixed? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps give the gallery a caption and center align it. Gary King (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: Good job on this list! It's very comprehensive and detailed. One suggestion, however.

• "Unlike in some other states, Interstates in New York are not referenced by NYSDOT with their number." Then how does NYSDOT refer to these interstates?--Dem393 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thanks! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Good job! One more problem arose due to your edit: In "U.S. and Interstate highways are classified as state routes in New York," please link "state routes" to List of State Routes in New York.--Dem393 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed again. Thanks for the suggestion! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
        • No problem!--Dem393 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disambiguation, people. I can't believe nobody commented on it. Come on, here are four undisambiguated links just for the highways, and many more in the "locations" columns!
  • And if I'm going to comment, I might as well say several of the descriptions are unfortunate in wording. For example, more often then not it's unclear that an Interstate continues or not from/to another state. Also, stuff like "I-87 is an intrastate Interstate Highway located entirely within the state of New York." is kind of redundant, and the one for I-86 is hardly better. Circeus (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Done, although I fail to see the undisambiguated location links. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed by anon. Tonawanda, New York is th eonly one left. Circeus (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that I took the time to review most of it, I might as well wrap up and then support: Why was the sortability removed from the Length and Dates columns? Seemed perfectly legit to me (what's the point to have sortability on only one, already sorted column??). Putting the reference on the header cell of "Length" would be simpler than in each cell, btw. Also, have any NY Interstate been decommissioned? Circeus (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm working on it (sorting isn't my strong point). Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorting's done. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Several descriptions are still less than ideal. Circeus (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Could you please specify which ones? Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
            • I-86and -87 start with "I-86 located in the U.S. states of New York and Pennsylvania." (syntax plz) and "I-87 is located entirely within the state of New York." (given context and the usual wp style distinguishing New York from New York City, there's redundant stuff here, also, why say it for this Interstate, but not I-88?). Circeus (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
              •  Done, thanks. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (Outdent) Just on last thing: Has any Interstate been decommissioned in NY? Other than addressing that, I'll happily Support the list. That map is nifty, by the way. Circeus (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • There have been a number of Interstates decommissioned in NY, but since the list focuses on current designations, I didn't think it was necessary to add them. However, if you think they're needed, I'll look into it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestions: (a) clarification on routes that are also part of the Thruway system with regards to maintenance as well as tolls; (b) inclusion of legislative route numbers; (c) addition of unbuilt routes that are listed in state law; (d) peak traffic data would be an interesting addition. --Polaron | Talk 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I tried to keep the descriptions short and concise, but I'll look for that info. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Thruway info added to the lead. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• List of Interstate Highways in Texas, already featured, has a Notes column
• mi and km is over-wikilinked
• Change the opening sentence to "The Interstate Highways in New York" instead of "List of..."
• Might be interesting to add who polices the interstates? Local PDs, Highway Patrol, or State Troopers, whatever
• Can you request a map be made showing the interstates, such as the one at the Texas list?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking and opening sentence fixed. Working on the other comments, although I prefer the current note formatting better. I could request a map, but as the most active member of WP:USRD/MTF has retired, I doubt I'll be able to get one before the FLC ends. Thanks for the comments, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on getting the map done. I think the gallery should be sectioned ==Gallery== though, rather than just plotzed there. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose; one of the main sources - Gribblenation's "New York Routes" - is not a reliable source. Neither is Interstate-Guide or Kurumi. In some cases, they are incorrect; I-87 was part of the initial Interstate numbering approved in 1958. It also lacks former designations, of which there are a fair number of in the NYC area (I-478 on the Manhattan Bridge, for example). --NE2 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe I replaced all of the unreliable references. Just a question, though. As the opening sentence clarifies that the list documents current Interstate Highways, are former designations necessary? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes; a list should not be limited to the present. Wikipedia is not bound to the present. --NE2 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd noticed recently that there is no centralized "former Interstate" list (although there is a tentative category). This is quite surprising given the amount of Highway buffs around on WP. Circeus (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 12:13, 2 July 2008 [44].

---

List of 2008 National Hockey League all-stars

I have recently written and published this list and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this page even necessary? The 56th National Hockey League All-Star Game page also includes a roster, and that one also includes positions, starters and numbers. A lot of the information in this article just duplicates that one, and I think it would be much more useful if this table was merged back there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is notable enough to be a list; you could merge any list that relates to something within another article into it. But I feel this list is just as useful as any other list, featured or not, that relates to another article. Hello32020 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but in most cases the list is moved to its own article. In this case, the main article still has the same table, and this one has more information. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You could add more information to an article for every list comparable to this and then delete the list. However, this list is still as useful as any other list that could be merged into an article, which is probably at least half of featured lists. Hello32020 (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, there is a difference. There is a List of Stanley Cup champions and a Stanley Cup article. However, the two both have original content, don't overlap and combining the two would make the article too long. In this case, everything said in this article is already at the main one, including a more informative table, which makes me think this one is not necessary at all. Why not merge the two and work on getting it to GA status? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps force a Table of Contents (Help:TOC) as generally I think it makes sense to have one if readers are required to scroll to reach the bottom of the page, to see, say, the references. Gary King (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Hello32020 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Any navboxes and external links suitable for this page? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added one navbox and external link. Hello32020 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I am with Scorpion here. I don't feel that this list is necessary. If this list remains separate, then the main article will lose its comprehensiveness.--Crzycheetah 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Remove the overlinking of Teams from Team columns, link the teams the first time they appear in the table. --Gman124 ^talk 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 2 July 2008 [45].

---

List of 2006 Major League Baseball all-stars

This seems o meet all FL criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think there needs to be some sort of divide between the National and American league tables. You could turn it into two seperate tables, or add some sort of thick line/narrow blank column between columns 2 and 3. Drewcifer (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also, what about including their positions? Players are added to the roster based on position, correct? Drewcifer (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I do have most of the positions in the lead. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well I actually haven't read the lead yet. Busted! =) But technically speaking the lead should summarize the rest of the article/list, but not introduce anything new. So that info should be in the table in some way, right? Drewcifer (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay. Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • How are the rows organized? For instance, why is Alfonso Soriano on the same row as B.J. Ryan? The fact that everything is in one table necessitates a bit more structure. Table-wise, I'm honestly more akin to the style of 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. Which leads me to a related question: why do we need this list anyways? It's already done in the other article, and in my opinion better. Drewcifer (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Due to my comments above and (so far) a lack of resolution to them. To recap, I have three over-arching issues:

• This list is made redundant by 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. This list contributes nothing the article does not, and is in fact inferior (IMHO) to the list contained in the larger article which is formatted more carefully and logically, aesthetically more pleasing and readable, and contains more information. The only thing this list does that the article does not is add a bunch of pictures on the side, which isn't particularly compelling to me.
• The formatting and structure of the tables is arbitrary and seemingly haphazard. This is mainly due to the fact the both leagues occupy the same horizontal space in the same table.
• Lastly (and this is a new one), the sorting does not work at all. I believe this is due to the common row at the bottom with the source, but I'm not too sure about that. Drewcifer (talk)

• Comment Can the table in Key be fixed so the color fills the entire cell? Gary King (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ya - done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The main article for this list still has a table. Why can't the one here be moved there? Then, that article would be a lot more useful. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now. I usually don't oppose right off the bat (no pun intended), but I see a lot of issues and incorrect grammar.
• The contest was the fifth hosted by the city of Pittsburgh -- tying the Indians for the record of most times hosted by a single franchise. Oh noes! Not the double hyphen!
  • Oh no! Replaced. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• The game resulted in the American League defeating the National League 3-2, thus awarding the AL champion (which was eventually the Detroit Tigers) home-field advantage in the 2006 World Series. Change "3-2" to "3–2".
  • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ivan Rodriguez made his eleventh all-star appearance, while Alex Rodriguez made his ninth. Why is Alex in italics?
  • I have no clue (removed) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the American League, Catcher Ivan Rodriguez making his 13th all-star appearance, received 1,826,720 votes, the most for the catcher position. Something funky there.
  • Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• New York Yankees players Alex Rodriguez Derek Jeter, both making multiple all-star appearances, received over two million votes to play third base or shortstop, respectively. "Alex Rodriguez Derek Jeter" is not one person. Also, that sentence is very pooly worded.
  • Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Albert Pujols, received 3,418,555, the most that year for any position.. Why the commans?
  • Fixed. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Chase Utley, making his first world series appearance, received 1,971,920 votes. I thought we were talking about the All-stars game, not the world series.
  • Yep, just as I thought - I've lost my mind. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• The key confuses me. It says the color green and a bullet point indicates that a player ppeared more than once in an all-star game, but some of the entries in the table are only colored green and don't have a bullet point. Do they signify different things?
  • Not any more I hope. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'd like to see more references. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a little blunt Julian. The question is: where? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Er, I guess that was a bit blunt. For example, what source does the entire table rely on? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • This - okay - I'll add a source at the bottom of the table. That fine? Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yea, that should be fine. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Yep done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• More comments Starting to look better. I struck my oppose, so just a few more comments.
• The game resulted in the American League defeating the National League 3$ndash;2, thus awarding the AL champion (which was eventually the Detroit Tigers) home-field advantage in the 2006 World Series. Funky non-breaking space.
  • Added. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Albert Pujols, received 3,418,555 votes, the most that year for any position[3], to play first base in the world series.[3] Because you're using the same ref, kill the one in the middle of the sentence.
  • Killed... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Albert Pujols, received 3,418,555 votes, the most that year for any position... Still too many commas.
  • • Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the outfield, Vladimir Guerrero topped the list with 2,833,601 votes. Maybe becaues I'm going crazy, this says to me that he topped the entire All-star list.
  • By spelling because wrong, it seems you are :P - Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Jason Bay was voted to play outfield 2,635,930 times, the most in that position that year. Gah! Jason Bay played outfield 2,635,930 times?! :P
  • Uh... not really. It says: "Jason Bay was voted to play outfield 2,635,930..." - I don't see anything wrong. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, OK, but I still think it's slightly confusing. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Image layout looks fine on Firefox, but poor on Internet Explorer. I can't imagine there's a way to fix that, so it's no big deal.
  • Ya, asked too many people how to fix that. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I fixed it. :) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks - « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• As the entire chart isn't a key, it might be best to eliminate the "key" subheader or move it to the bottom.
  • I did something else - check it out. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another comment Why is {{2007 MLB season by team}} at the bottom? Shouldn't it be 2006? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ya, I've definitely lost my mind. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also, what is the organization for the table? It appears to be done alphabetically, but in that order, wouldn't Barry come before B.J. in the NL column? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No - the B.J. - Symbols are before words when it comes to alphabetical order. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Dang, I forgot about that. That was stupid... I'll give the list a a last full look-over tonight. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Heh, that's OK. I assume you copy and pasted from the 2007 list and forgot to change it?;) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose If we're listing the all-stars separately, then what should we have at 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game?--Crzycheetah 07:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As I've already said, I don't think this page is necessary. 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game should have these tables.--Crzycheetah 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The source at the bottom of the table should be in a "references" section, like Wikipedia instead of the seemingly misplaced [5] as it is now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Remove the overlinking of Teams from Team columns, link the teams the first time they appear in the table. --Gman124 ^talk 00:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:59, 1 July 2008 [46].

---

List of 2007 Major League Baseball all-stars

Seems to meet all criteria. Well illustrated, referenced, and informative lead. Comments are (of course) welcome. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Use en-dash for score separator i.e. not 5-4 but 5–4.
  • Done.
• Is it All-Star or all-star?
  • Its "all-star" - replaced. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Russell Martin received over 600,000 votes, the most that year, to play as catcher in the 2007 all-star game" vs " Carlos Beltran led the outfield postion ballots with 1,017,795 votes.[5]" - doesn't make sense to me - "the most that year" except for the following sentence?
  • Clarified. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• WP:MOS#Color says not to use just colour to indicate a property, so include an asterisk, dagger etc... for those guys as well as modifying the colour of the cells.
  • Added an asterisk (*) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Carlos Beltrán a 4-time all-star (2004-07) appeared in the 2007 All-star game" - caption could use work - a comma after his name, that weird 2004-07 needs to be tuned into English, is it All-star, all-star or All-Star, and if it's a complete sentence, add a period.
  • "Renovated" caption. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Albert Pujols, first basemen for the St. Louis Cardinals appeared in an all-star game for the 6th time." - when?
  • Added. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why NL had one more all-star than AL? If so state it. Looks odd at the moment.
• mlb.com or MLB.com - be consistent.
  • No actually there isn't. I was looking through other years and NL seems to often have more all stars. I looked around on the web, couldn't find anything. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if it's just me, but the color in the Key table is messed up. There's a bullet in there... Gary King (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No its not you - I just added the <nowiki's> - should be all set now. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment please see my comments at the 2006 FLC, all of which apply here as well. Drewcifer (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (almost verbatim from my oppose at the similar 2007 FLC) Due to my comments above and (so far) a lack of resolution to them. To recap, I have three over-arching issues:

• This list is made redundant by 2007 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. This list contributes nothing the article does not, and is in fact inferior (IMHO) to the list contained in the larger article which is formatted more carefully and logically, aesthetically more pleasing and readable, and contains more information. The only thing this list does that the article does not is add a bunch of pictures on the side, which isn't particularly compelling to me.
• The formatting and structure of the tables is arbitrary and seemingly haphazard. This is mainly due to the fact the both leagues occupy the same horizontal space in the same table.
• Lastly (and this is a new one), the sorting does not work at all. I believe this is due to the common row at the bottom with the source, but I'm not too sure about that. Drewcifer (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The American League defeated the National League by a score of 5–4. – That's an MoS breach, unless there's some exception that I don't know about. I'll have more commemts later; just wanted to give it a quick glance. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the second point under En-dashes at WP:DASH. – is correct. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This list should be merged with 2007 Major League Baseball All-Star Game because they both basically talk about the same thing.--Crzycheetah 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the overlinking of Teams from Team columns. --Gman124 ^talk 00:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:07, 1 July 2008 [47].

---

List of Maryland state highways

A list of all the state highways in Maryland, with a sortable table of their lengths, endpoints and the counties they pass through. The table may need to be split, but it may help to see what people here think of it. Otherwise, I think it may meet the requirements for featured list. Of course, any concerns will be addressed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Remove bold formatting or the link from the bold text, per WP:LEAD.
• Add a section to the table, perhaps named "Maryland state highways"
• "External links" section goes after "References" section.

Gary King (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Some more comments:

• Format the references per WP:CITE/ES, preferably with {{cite web}}. Be sure to include accessdates as well.

Gary King (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

SRX^--LatinoHeat 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• It looks good. One thing though, how can the western/eastern terminus be verified? Is there a main reference for that, if not, one should be provided to verify it.SRX^--LatinoHeat 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For most of the termini, I simply took them from the Wikipedia article (these can be verified using the MDSHA Highway Location Reference), and for the ones that don't have Wikipedia articles, I simply used the HLR. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the reference tag to the column header to make it clear that that's the reference for the termini. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are using the same ref for all of the table, you should make a row just for the source at the bottom of the table, like it is in this table.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• What happened to the Interstates and U.S. Routes? These are state highways, since the state maintains them. The title should probably be "list of state highways in Maryland". The capitalization in the headers is a bit off. --NE2 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Interstate and U.S. highways already have their own page. "State highways" in this sense refers to highways that are part of the state-numbered system, so U.S./Interstate highways are not included in this list. There really isn't anything wrong with the title, several other lists are titled this way (List of Maryland state parks, List of Maryland state symbols, List of Maryland state prisons, and List of Maryland state forests to name a few), the title is just a matter of preference. As for the capitalization of the headers, do you mean that the column headers are supposed to be lower case like section headers? If that's the case I'll go ahead and fix that.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're not going to include Interstates or U.S. Routes, the title and text should be changed to make it clear that it's state-numbered highways. --NE2 04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I initially added the Interstates to the list with the intent to also add the U.S. Routes, but removed the Interstates after seeing Jeff's post. I can add them back, but for now I'll wait to get more input. One possibility, though, could be to put the Interstate and U.S. Routes tables on the List of numbered highways in Maryland (which might be a better solution, considering the List of Maryland state highways is already very large.) - Algorerhythms (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why is only one former state highway listed? Never mind - why does only one have the date it was deleted, and how did you determine which were "notable"? Also, what did you do for routes like MD 765 that are (a) unsigned and (b) don't have only two termini? --NE2 04:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, whether a highway is signed isn't marked in the table (tracking down that information would take some work, though it is possible). For routes that have many segments, the longest segment was used. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So some of the lengths, such as for MD 18, are shorter than the actual signed length? --NE2 04:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to check them, but as far as I know, the lengths are correct except for MD 648, for which the length of the longest section is used. For the termini, though, I used the longest section for each of the segmented routes. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

MD 18 doesn't use the longest section, which appears to be 18B from Castle Marina Road to US 50. --NE2 04:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been changed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the length agree with the termini listed? --NE2 02:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, now you might see where I was going; the route listed is shorter than what is actually signed. This does not seem to be useful to the reader. --NE2 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the signed multisegment highways (MD 7, MD 18, MD 144, and MD 648) now all have the total signed length in the length column, the western terminus of the westernmost segment in the west terminus column, and the eastern terminus of the easternmost segment in the east terminus column. - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the dates that the former routes were deleted, Jeff has taken care of that - the dates are left out on all of them, making the former routes consistent. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unable to sort by any columns but the first because of the "source" row. --NE2 04:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I was unable to find a way to get sorting to work with that row (class=sortbottom and class=unsortable both didn't work), so I took the row out. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Three comments:

• IMHO, the end of the second paragraph seems to make some claims that probably need to be referenced, but that could just be me. I'm wavering back and forth as to whether it's common sense or not. If you're seeking featured status, it's probably better to be safe than sorry though.
• Also, the third paragraph doesn't seem to be applicable. Is it a holdover from an old format? For example, it says that the higher numbered unsigned highways are listed only if they're notable. What makes MD 963 – a 0.01-mile section of pavement that doesn't intersect any other highways – notable?
• Speaking of 0.01-mile highways, at the end of the list, you appear to have added an extra digit of precision to the kilometer conversion for the "baby" routes. Any particular reason why? I notice that the source listed gives the mileposts to 3 digits, although I suppose this is questionable since 99% of the time, the thousandths digit is 0.

-- Kéiryn (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph is a holdover from an earlier format and can be removed. As for the extra digits in the kilometer figures, the convert template seems to be adding those for the numbers that are less than 0.10 km. I'm not sure how to fix that. In addition, I've added a couple references to the first paragraph. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Convert/doc#Rounding. Basically you can force it to two decimal places by adding another unnamed parameter, i.e. {{convert|0.03|mi|km|2}} → 0.03 miles (0.05 km). -- Kéiryn (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Can a map of the state highways be made, as is in List of Interstate Highways in Texas, a Featured List passed not long ago?

• This can be done, though it might take a while since the State Highway Administration doesn't (as far as I know) provide GIS data for the state highways.

• Needs a more engaging opening sentence, rather than "Below is a list of Maryland state highways...", which is simply a copy of the article's title

• How does it look now? (I seem to remember copying the original wording from List of Interstate Highways in Texas.)

• There's no need to sort the counties, as where more than one county is listed, only the first county sorts

• Done.

• Inconsistencies with capitalisation: "Road end near Potomac River", "road end near Berlin". "End of state maintenance at Love Point", "end of state maintenance at Assateague State Park". "Dead End", "Dead end". "DC Border", "DC border"

• I've fixed some of the ones I've found; if there are any I missed I can fix those, too.

• "Baltimore County", and "Garrett", "Allegany", "Somerset"

• This was done to avoid confusion between Baltimore County, Maryland, and the city of Baltimore, Maryland, which is separate from the county. I suppose I could add "County" after "Garrett," etc. to make it consistent.
• Changed for consistency. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Navbox templates should be at the very end of the article, after external links

• Done.

• Too many redlinks

• The redlinks to villages that don't have articles can be removed, though a lot of the redlinks are state highways that don't yet have articles.

• "Source:Maryland State Highway Administration, Highway Location Reference, 2005" should be listed in the references

• Done.

• Take a look at Texas Interstate Highways. It may not be suitable for a list of this size, but it has a description column instead of just a terminus

• I had considered this, but decided that doing this for several hundred highways seemed impractical. - Algorerhythms (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• In the Western/Southern terminus column: "Old Marlboro Pike", "Colebrooke Drive", "Hill Road", "Rousby Road", "Dead end", "Beginning of state maintenance in Grays Inn Creek"
• Eastern/Northern terminus column: "End of state maintenance", "Middlebrook Road", "Chase", "End of Road", "Granny Branch Road", "Dead end".
  • None of these are helpful to the reader. None, expect for Chase say which town/city, and Chase doesn't give any cross-streets.

• I've fixed the ones that I've found. If I missed any, point them out.

• I suggest this is looked over by the folks at WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads, and taken to WP:PR.

• Well, two of the reviewers here are ediors at USRD, in any event. - Algorerhythms (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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