Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2009

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [1].

---

List of QI episodes

Nominator(s): ISD (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list covers every single episode of QI, including who was on each episode, who won each episode, names and dates. The introduction to the episode is comprehensive and there are no problems with the image as far fair-use rationale are concerned. If promoted, then this will be the first FL to cover a quiz show/panel game. ISD (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"This is a list of episodes of QI" Featured lists don't start like this, see List of 24 episodes for a good example of an opening sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to comments: I've changed the opening sentence. ISD (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) General Please fix the disambiguation links as found with the toolbox checker tool. Lead Conversely, points are deducted from a panellist who gives, "answers which are not only wrong, but pathetically obvious":[1] normally ones in which answers generally accepted as true are actually false. -->...normally, answers which are generally accepted as true are actually false. Clarify in the lead that after the second series it remained on BBC two until 2008, its not that clear. Footnotes The broadcast of this episode was delayed because it clashed with the Comic Relief telethon. -- clashed isn't really a good word to use, how about ran simultaneously? References The main reference and notes should be formatted into a format like it is in this FL.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Response to review: I've carried out all of the changes that you asked for. ISD (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• 23 December 2003 -- don't partially link dates in this way, or use easter eggs. You could say in the lead, that "QI premiered in 2003" or something, not perfect, but better
• Has Series G been made yet? If so "N/A" is incorrect in the producer column. Someone produced it, you just don't know who. Because it hasn't actually aired on TV yet, I would remove that row.
• The "for example" you give about a chameleon; it's unclear whether you're saying that statement is accepted as true but is false, or if it is wrong and pathetically obvious. The colon should be a semicolon, too. Really, from "Conversely" onwards, the paragraph needs rewriting.
• "following the success of a non-broadcast pilot." in what way was it successful?
• "For example, the first series covered" this shouldn't start a sentence. The previous sentence should "end" with a semicolon, and this sentence should run on from that one
• "The first series was first broadcast on September 11, 2003 on BBC Two" ref please
• "From the second series, BBC Four broadcast the following episode immediately, with the episode being broadcast on BBC Two the following week in its usual slot." This doesn't make sense straight away. What does "immediately" mean? As soon as it was filmed? Something like:From season two onwards, the first episode premiered on BBC Two; the following episode was broadcast immediately after on BBC Four, which then re-aired the following week on BBC Two. Each subsequent episode premiered on BBC Four immediately after the BBC Two rebroadcast of the previous week's episode.
• "broadcast the following day on BBC Two, replacing the early broadcasts." What early broadcasts? These are previously undiscussed.
• "extended repeat called QI XL" -- "titled"
• Again, what does "Early broadcast or extended repeat" mean in the main series table?
• I wouldn't put the "home channel" column, because you've already said that the majority of episodes premiered on BBC 4, and it's just too much info to stick in a single column
• Why not name the producer in the prose, and get rid of that column too?
• Make sure the guests first and last names don't get put on separate lines
• Being picky, but does "Clip show featuring deleted and extended scenes from Series E." belong in the "guests" column?
• "The broadcast of this episode was delayed because it ran simultaneously with the Comic Relief telethon." the original scheduled airdate did? Or the actual airdate?
• Can you confirm that the Original airdates are for BBC 4 where applicable, and not the airdates for the BBC2 airing?
• What makes http://www.comedy.org.uk/guide/tv/qi/episodes/ a WP:RS? I've tried to use it before and was told it isn't
• date formats in references should be in dd mmmm yyyy, the same as in the body of the article, and not ISO format
• Same link in EL and references

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to comments: I have carried out all the changes you asked for. Concerning the use of the BCG as a reliable source, I should first point out that I have used it in other featured lists (see List of Peep Show episodes) and they were accepted. Before an article is created for the site, it must first go through an editor who will check everything is OK. ISD (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I know you've already discussed it on the talk page, but I don't think you should list the pilot with Series A; for one thing, it messes up the numbering (Ep 1, Series A is listed as overall ep 2, when it is actually ep 1), and for another the pilot isn't a part of Series A, it was just released on the DVD. They really ought to be separated (or have the pilot removed from the table altogether and just mention it in the lead). Bradley0110 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to comment: I personally believe that the pilot should be included with the first series. For starters, I've seen other episode lists which have put the pilot along with the first series/season, such as the List of Seinfeld episodes. Also, I believe that the pilot does count as ep 1, as it was the first episode made - it just wasn't the first one broadcast. ISD (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you're just using that as one example, but Seinfeld's pilot was retroactively renumbered S1E1.Bradley0110 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, there are no other examples of an FL which includes a non-broadcast pilot. Therefore there is nothing to really compare it with. I still think I am right, but no doubt you will differ. Maybe it is best to mention this on the WP:FLC talk page. ISD (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you, as the primary editor, believe that that is the best format to use, then OK. As for "no doubt you will differ", don't worry, I'm not out to 'get you'! Bradley0110 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to offend. I've started a converstion about this on the WP:FLC talk page if you want to go into it further. ISD (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More comments

• Is the unaired pilot episode a part of the official first series? If so, I think it would be fine to keep it where it is, otherwise it should be listed separately. Also, was it included on the DVD? If not, the first table should be edited
• "The broadcast of this episode was delayed because it ran simultaneously with the Comic Relief telethon." This is confusing. Does "was delayed" mean the originally scheduled airdate was changed and it aired at a later week, or that it aired in a later timeslot? Does "ran simultaneously" mean it actually aired at the same time as Comic Relief? If so, how is that possible? Only one programme can air on a channel at a time, unless they do some split-screen dual broadcasting weirdness
• "This episode was a clip show contained deleted and extended scenes from other episodes in Series E." should probably be an "and" after "clip show"
• "the first series was first broadcast on September 11, 2003 on BBC Two." This sounds like the entire first series aired on the same day
• "As a result, the broadcasting of episodes immediately afterwards on BBC Four was replaced. Instead, an extended repeated titled QI XL was broadcast on BBC Two and was shownthe day after the episode was originally shown on BBC One." --> "As a result, the scheduling of episodes on BBC Four was dropped in favour of an extended repeat broadcast on BBC Two the following day titled QI XL"

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to comments: I've carried out your comments. The pilot was released as an extra on the Series A DVD and therefore I believe it to be officially part of the series. ISD (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "which are believe to be obvious" - believed
• "A non-broadcast pilot was first made and well received..." - what is the meaning of "first made" it doesn't really work, maybe you are trying to say that the show was picked up after the BBC responded well to a pilot or something like that.
• "As a result, the broadcasting of episodes immediately afterwards on BBC Four was replaced. As a result, the scheduling" - repetitive "as a result", in fact the first sentence could probably be scrapped.
• Because you have a section for it, I would possibly add another row to the Series box, which says Series G; 16; TBA; N/A
• "This episode was an clip show contained deleted and extended scenes from other episodes in Series E." - an clip show? also missing word between "show contained"
• "replaced in the television schedules" - isn't is just one schedule

Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to comments: I've carried out most of the changes you asked for. The only one I did not to was add another row for Series G. There was a row, but another user, who is also one of the FL directors, told me to remove the row. ISD (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm haven't supported this yet because the prose still needs some work to meet criteria 1 – "professional standards of writing"

• "Between the second and fifth series, the first episode premiered on BBC Two" - so is that just S3 & S4??
• "the following episode was broadcast immediately afterward on BBC Four" - afterwards is BrEng
• Repetition of "immediately afterward on BBC Four" in two sentences that are very close to each other
• "the first episode premiered on BBC Two; the following episode was broadcast immediately afterward on BBC Four, which then re-aired " feels clunky and only strictly mentions the second episode. I'm not a prose expert but something like the episodes were aired each week on BBC Two; the second and subsequent episodes were first shown on BBC Four in time-slot immediately following the previous episodes BBC Two broadcast would probably be better.

Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 10:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to comments: I've carried out the improvements you asked for. ISD (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues (includes resolved fair-use image discussion), Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "QI is a BBC comedy panel game television show which began in 2003." "which"-->that "but also for interesting ones" I don't think italics are necessary here. ", "answers which are not only wrong, but pathetically obvious":[1] in other words" Semicolon (before footnote), not colon should be used. "answers which are "-->answers that are "QI is a 26-year-long commission, with each series covering topics beginning with a different letter of the alphabe" 1)What does "commission" mean here (link would be helpful); 2) "QI is a 26-year-long commission, with each series covering topics beginning with a different letter of the alphabe"-->"QI is a 26-year-long commission; each series covers topics with a different letter of the alphabet"; 3)Do we really need to link "alphabet", even if it is to Latin alphabet? "for example, the first series covered topics beginning with "A" and is referred to as "Series A" instead of "Series One"" Make this a separate sentence. "QI was picked up after" What does "picked up" mean? "immediately after on "-->immediately afterward on Per WP:CAPTION, image captions that are sentence fragments should not have periods at the end. "A seventh series is to be made in 2009 lasting 16 episodes, which will bring the total number of episodes to 91."-->A seventh series, made of 16 episodes, is to be made in 2009, which will bring the total number of episodes to 91. One dab link needs to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Response to comments: I've made the said improvements. ISD (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Comment on image I don't think the FU image (File:Quite Interesting logo.png is necessary here; this is only the episode list and the logo is not really needed for identification. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Response to image comment: I have changed the image to one of the DVD covers, as I believe this is more fitting to the article. ISD (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC) You'll have a hard time justifying the WP:NFCC for that too. Your probably best not having an image at all (like any other recent FL episode lists, 1, 2, ...) Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 10:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC) I've removed the image. There is now no image in the article. ISD (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support although I'd still rather see the pilot separated from Series A, if not from the table (which, I concede, would add an unnecessary extra line to the TOC) then at least from the numbering system. Regarding the image problems, I get the impression that you, ISD, have attended some recordings of QI. If you attend any this year, then I'm sure you could arrange to take a photo of at least the empty studio! Bradley0110 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to support: Thanks for supporting. If you want to talk about the tables, there is a thread about it on WT:FLC. As regards to getting a photo of the studio, it would be difficult because the studio prohibits photos taken inside. ISD (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky cameraphone pic? Bradley0110 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a cameraphone. ISD (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [2].

---

List of Silver Slugger Award winners at first base

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the article criteria. This is article 2 toward a featured topic; for more details on the FT, see my sandbox and scroll to the bottom. I will certainly address any and all concerns. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Jeff Bagwell, formerly of the National League's Houston Astros, has also won the award three times (1994, 1997, 1999). - formerly of -> formerly with Both are grammatically correct. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Symbol should be accompanied by color; in this case, Member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum only has symbol Symbols do not have to be accompanied by color; WP:ACCESS only suggests that colors be accompanied by symbols to alleviate problems with color blindness. A color-blind person has no problem seeing the dagger. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Um, I don't follow. A color-blind person has problem seeing the asterisk but has no problem for the dagger??—Chris! ct 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I believe what KV5 is saying is that the guideline says that colour must be accompanied by a symbol but that there is no requirement for a symbol to be accompanied by colour. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC) That is indeed what I meant. The color is the primary indicator for a positional leader; the asterisk is there to fulfill the requirements of WP:ACCESS in regards to the color. The dagger doesm't need a color, and I find it unnecessary to create a third color category throughout this set of lists, which I hope will eventually be featured, for someone who leads at their position and is in the Hall of Fame. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I see—Chris! ct 18:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Fixed the edit bunching There was no edit bunching on either of the resolutions that I viewed this on; what are you using? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC) It is in the references section and File:Ryan Howard3.jpg. I am using Firefox.—Chris! ct 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Interesting. I viewed this in both 1024x768 and 1152x864 regular resolutions in IE and in 1280x800 widescreen in Firefox and had no problems. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Weird. For some reasons when I look at this now, the edit bunching is gone. I guess this isn't a problem anymore.—Chris! ct 18:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Ref column does not need to be sortable —Chris! ct 00:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comment - Very good overall, but I do have one important question right away, particularly in light of recent FLC developments: Why is a seperate list necessary when all of the winners are given at Silver Slugger Award? Is it for the statistics, or is there something else I'm missing? Separate lists have always been available (they are currently split into AL and NL lists, if you care to search for them). However, until now, they have provided little information beyond winners' names. This expansion and merger is to give the reader an in-depth look at the players' statistics in the years that they won the award. Also, it's going to be part of a featured topic. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. I'll ask Scorpion0422 about this, since he is the editor behind potential changes to the process and I want to see his opinion before supporting. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC) I think this list is fine because the table contains more information than what it is at the main page. The ones I object to are the ones where pretty much the exact same tables are duplicated and nothing is added (for example, the List of Universities in Canada). There is also precedent: List of Nobel laureates. -- Scorpion0422 01:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC) National League doesn't need the link in the second paragraph. Good catch. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Is Todd Helton's batting average record only for first basemen? George Brett and Tony Gwynn had higher averages in the Silver Slugger era, and those are only off the top of my head. First basemen only, since they are the subject of this article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC) In that case, would you mind clarifying that in the article? I'm thinking something like "Helton holds the record for the highest batting average by a first baseman in a Silver Slugger-winning season with the .372 mark he set in 2000." Giants2008 (17-14) 00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC) The Mattingly caption could use a reference for the six grand slams. This photo is also causing edit bunching. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I will check out the edit bunching, though as I said above, I have checked this on three resolutions in two different browsers and have not seen a problem. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Attempted to fix bunching. Ref added. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC) The bunching templates made things all screwy, so I removed them and cut down on the number of pictures instead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Scorp has convinced me that the subject is viable, and the list meets all FL standards as I see them. Looks good to go, at least from my vantage point. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead looks fine. Tables The references should not be sortable. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC) References The MLB references should have MLB Advanced Media, L.P as the publisher if you are going to have the work as MLB.com The Brewers ref should also have MLB Advanced Media, L.P as the publisher.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC) These above two comments are absolutely contrary to a comment you made and marked as resolved on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Silver Slugger Award. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC) They can work both ways, so you can do this or the other way.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Done per the above link. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Also fix the disambiguation links, as found with the toolbox checker tool.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Good work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Something that I didn't pick up on the previous FLC, but is there any way to link "offensive" to a related baseball article? "three players have won the award three times" One of my pet peeves, word repetition in the same sentence. Maybe "three players have won the award thrice"? "Only one player has won the award " "One father-son combination has also won the award" "though it is only the third-best in the overall history of the award." This can be shortened and rephrased to take away some of the negative spin ("only"); also, I can't think for the life of me how "overall" is necessary for meaning: "and is the third-best in the history of the award." "achieved by both Mattingly (1985)[6] and Delgado (2003).[5]" Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I am looking for an article to link offensive too. Additionally, I hate the word thrice. Furthermore, why are we removing all modifiers? It sounds like robot prose. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I'll concede on thrice, I suppose. On your last point: crisper prose. "also" is an overused additive term, "both" is redundant in those cases, and "only" is usually POV, let the facts/stats speak for themselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC) On the link, the best I could find for now was Baseball rules#Batting team. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC) On the link: Offense (sports) provides no context either. What about Batting (baseball)? On the prose: it still sounds robotic. I know that WP:BRILLIANT prose is no longer a "requirement" for FL, but it is still an WP:FA? requirement. I don't see why our prose is just "professional standard" (from WP:FL?) while FA prose is supposed to be "engaging". To me, there really is a difference. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Batting (baseball) works. On the prose: Look at it from a different point of view; adding those words back in don't help the prose or make it flow better, they just make it wordier, or redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I disagree, regarding flow. Without modifiers, prose doesn't flow at all. Maybe it's just the German speaker in me but prose without modifiers sounds like a textbook exercise. I will remove them but I think it's something we should discuss if the criteria discussion is still going on. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - nice list. Dincher (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [3].

---

Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year

Nominator(s): Grsz¹¹

I came across this article in a very simple form and thought it had potential for featured status. I organized the list, wrote the prose and gathered references and now feel it meets the FL criteria. Grsz¹¹ 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead Acronyms need to be spelled out on their first occurrence This was not done: Ewing, who shared the award in 1984 and 1985 with Mullin, was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2008 after playing 17 years in the NBA between 1985 and 2002.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC) This is still not done.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Oops, missed that one. Done now. Grsz11 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to state who was the first recipient(s) of the award Three players have also been awarded a major national Player of the Year awards. -- awards should not be plural Connecticut and Georgetown have had the most winners with seven each. -- comma before with As of 2009, eight of the conference's current teams have had a winner, while eight have not. Providence is the only 1979 charter member to not have a winner, while Rutgers and West Virginia are the only others to join before the 2005 expansion without a winner. -- don't you mean after? Just one quick comment, and I'll do the rest tomorrow. I do mean before, as they joined before 2005 and do not have a winner. Will reword to try and clarify. Grsz11 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC) In total, the award has been given 36 times after 30 seasons (six ties). --> The award has been given 36 times in a total of 30 seasons. 30 different players from ten schools have recieved the award. Of the winners, 16 have been seniors, 12 juniors, and eight sophomores. As of 2009, no freshman has won. --> As of 2009, 30 different players have received the award: 16 have been seniors, 12 juniors, eight sophomores, and no freshmen. Table All linkable content needs to be linked on all occurrences, because the table is sortable. Images Alonzo Mourning was the third center, all from Georgetown, to win. -- what does all from Georgetown mean? Patrick Ewing (#33 jersey) won a share of the award twice in 1984 and 1985. -- twice implies that he won it 4 times in total Footnotes Remove the full stops from the first footnote. References There is an inconsistency with the formatting of the ACC.com ref. One is in the work field while the other is in the publisher field (the latter is correct). In addition, the publisher is not the URL of the site. Same thing for the NBA.com ref.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC) I have made these corrections. Grsz11 21:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Followup comments The previous tie was in 2002 between Brandin Knight and Caron Butler, also of Pittsburgh and Connecticut. -- previous tie -->most recent The next year in 1986, Walter Berry recieved the Wooden Award. -- its either The following year or In 1986, not both Connecticut and Georgetown have had the most winners with seven each. -- Comma before with In total, the award has been given 36 times after a total of 30 seasons. -- after isn't really a good word choice, in replaces it better The last 3 paragraphs are too small and can be merged.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks, and done. Grsz11 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
Comment Why is the year italic? Only need to color the player Add a space between the dagger and the year in Winners by school table Please write complete sentence for footnote Why is the first note even needed? Just clarify that in the key. —Chris! ct 02:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks Chris, I have make these fixes. Grsz11 21:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Support—Chris! _ct 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "playing 17 years" Needs a non-breaking space between 17 and years. "Connecticut and Georgetown have had the most winners" "eight of the conference's current teams have had a winner, while eight have not." Wouldn't it be easier to say "half of the conference's current teams (8) have had a winner"? "In total, the award has been given 36 times in a total of 30 seasons." "including 16 seniors, 12 juniors, eight sophomores, and no freshman." "freshman"-->freshmen Also, comparable quantities should be written out the same way, so make all the numbers numerals or all of the numerals spelled out in words (no need to change "no" to 0 or zero). "Alonzo Mourning was the third Georgetown center to win." Add "the award" after this. Ditto for the Ray Allen caption. Also, it is possible to find free images of Allen and Mourning in college jerseys? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Sources Ref 22 needs format=PDF added to its template. Ref 2, the title should have BIG EAST-->Big East Can you add an ISBN and page number(s) to the book ref? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC) I have made these fixes. As far as Allen and Mourning college pictures, I'm not sure. Do you have a site that you could recommend? Flickr doesn't help in this case. Grsz11 01:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Missing a cell in the key table (last row is unclosed) If you mean the class key, I'm not sure how to fix it, because it's combined with the postion and doesn't take up as much space. It wasn't showing wrong in IE, but Firefox displayed incorrectly. I added a colspan parameter to make that last cell span two columns. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Don't separate symbols from their entries (no space between daggers and years; if it's cramped, superscript the dagger) I was asked to fix this above. I'll defer to let you two decide which way it is. I'd also prefer for there to be no separation. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Cincinnati is spelled wrong in the "Winners by school" table. In that table, blank cells should have an em-dash. Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Other than those two, I've gone and made this fixes. Grsz11 01:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC) I really feel that the class column should sort in order (sophomore, junior, senior) rather than alphabetical order. The easiest way to do that is with a sortkey (sort sophomore as 1, junior as 2, senior as 3) so that they sort by "age", if you will. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC) That's a good idea KV, and I've done that. Grsz11 16:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC) KV, I've made a stub for Dan Callandrillo. Grsz11 23:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, though I would still like this stub to be created before promotion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The symbols should be in the same cells as their corresponding color. Also, can you center the em dashes? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Have my comments (the ones right above this comment) been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Done now. Grsz¹¹ 22:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Only a couple nit-picks, and I look forward to supporting soon.

• "Connecticut and Georgetown have had most winners". Add "the".
• "30 different players from ten schools have received the award". Consider changing ten to 10. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Done by Dabomb. Grsz¹¹ 03:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] It would be nice if you could tell which ones actually played in an NBA game. Why do you have to abbreviate the positions and classes? The list is barely 50% of the page. Done—Chris! ct 20:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Why won't you link the seasons on the list? Because they don't have articles. Grsz11 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Winners by school Where is the source for the members of the Big East Conference? Done—Chris! ct 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Instead of "Boston College (1979)[a]", couldn't you do "Boston College (1979–2005)"? No - because heading says "School (year joined)"—Chris! ct 20:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC) I meant with renaming the column to "School[note]", instead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris! ct 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Keith, I've reverted the year to the original format. I think the changed style needlessly clutter the table, and didn't eliminate any notes as was your initial suggestion. Grsz¹¹ 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - good list... some things...
  • I know we probably don't have a MOS statement or anything but I much prefer to see citations in numerical order, so would prefer [3][12] over [12][3]...
  • "....first given following the conference's first..." repetition of first, can we reword it to be more engaging?
  • "Three players have also been awarded a major national Player of the Year award." do you mean three winners of this particular award have also won a national award?
  • "...1979 charter member..." unclear exactly what this means to a non-Big East Conf reader.
  • "In total, the award has been given 36 times in 30 seasons. As of 2009, 30 different players from 10 schools have received the award, including sixteen seniors, twelve juniors, eight sophomores, and no freshmen." - the "In total" is also "As of 2009" so rework these two sentences so they're both related to the current year.
  • "...including sixteen seniors, twelve juniors, eight sophomores, and no freshmen...." - "including.. no freshmen" reads a little odd to me. I'd just say "made up of sixteen seniors, twelve juniors and eight sophomores."
• Otherwise, it's there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I have made these fixes. Grsz¹¹ 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [4].

---

Disturbed discography

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki

I am nominating this for featured list because... my concerns with the text (regarding the grammar) were corrected at the peer review. Then, I feel that this discography is more prepared to receive your comments. Thanks in advance. Cannibaloki 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) General Fix the dab (based on the checker tool at the right in the toolbox) Lead In June 2002, Disturbed released the documentary M.O.L., which showed some of the band's more personal moments in the studio and during tours, as well as featuring several music videos and live performances. -- is the the needed before documentary? I don't see it proper there Disturbed then, released their second studio album, Believe, in September 2002. -- Remove the comma after then Believe was certified double platinum by the RIAA, and platinum by ARIA and CRIA. -- CRIA acronym is not spelled out before this mention The album's first single, "Prayer" peaked at #14 on the Canadian Singles Chart, and #31 on the UK Singles Chart. -- Comma after "Prayer" It was released in February 2004, and reached only the #148 position on the US Billboard 200. -- -->and only reached #148 on the US Billboard 2000. [too wordy] Three years after the release of Believe, Disturbed released their third studio album, titled Ten Thousand Fists, in September 2005. -- no need for titled The album reached the same positions that its predecessor had; topping the US Billboard 200 and New Zealand RIANZ charts, and peaked at #2 in the Canadian Albums Charts. -- (1)Remain consistent with the tenses, peaked --> peaking (2)in -->on Later, "Stricken" was certified gold by the RIAA. --> "Stricken" was later certified gold by the RIAA. Like its predecessor, it peaked at #1 on US, and New Zealand; in addition, it also reached the top position of the Canadian and Australian charts. --> Like its predecessor, it peaked at #1 on the US and New Zealand charts; in addition, it also reached the top position of the Canadian and Australian charts. Tables and references check out fine from my view.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Doing... Cannibaloki 01:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC) All done. Cannibaloki 02:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Great work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Disturbed is an American rock band formed"-->Disturbed is an American rock band that formed "and Australian ARIA Charts"-->and the Australian ARIA Charts "as well as featuring several"-->and featured several "platinum in Australia by Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)."-->platinum in Australia by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA). "reached only the #148 position "-->peaked at the #148 position "Ten Thousand Fists produced singles"-->Ten Thousand Fists spawned singles "in addition, it also reached" "The band has released three consecutive number-one albums on the Billboard 200, a feat that has only been accomplished by Van Halen, U2, Metallica, Dave Matthews Band, Staind and System of a Down."-->The band has released three consecutive number-one albums that have charted on the Billboard 200, a feat that also has been accomplished by Van Halen, U2, Metallica, Dave Matthews Band, Staind and System of a Down. When using slashes, if the items separated by the slash have spaces, then the slash should also be spaced. For example, "Nathan Cox/Hank Lena"-->Nathan Cox / Hank Lena. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Doing... Cannibaloki 01:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC) All done. Cannibaloki 02:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Everything looks good, my only concern is the last sentence. Is it really needed to mention other bands who have reached #1 three times or more? If so, then what about Beatles, MJ, Led Zeppelin, etc. That's unnecessary (genre doesn't count here).  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course! I can only use what is written in the text of the news in which we are using as reference. Hmm? Cannibaloki 04:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Very nice work. One minor concern, does MTV and MTV Networks really need to be linked a dozen times in the references section? You should link it the first time, then not again. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Done. Cannibaloki 17:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• "The band has released three consecutive number-one albums that have charted on the Billboard 200, a feat that also has been accomplished by Van Halen, U2, Metallica, Dave Matthews Band, Staind and System of a Down."—I don't understand this sentence, haven't artist such as The Beatles, Madonna and Michael Jackson (among any number of very popular artistes) done the same? Why have only these specific bands mentioned in the article? indopug (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I can not create unpublished syntheses of sourced material, right?
• In the lead #1 should be "number one" and #21 should be "number 21". Per WP:MOSNUM "in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words".
  • Interesting... Done.
• "which also featured the bands Taproot, Chevelle, and Ünloco" how is this relevant to a discography?
  • Disturbed not recorded this live album alone.
• I think you can remove all the refs for the chart positions and certifications from the lead, since everything is there in the tables.
  • Better not.
• Why are Allmusic, iTunes Store and MTV italicised in the references? Websites and TV channels aren't supposed to be.
  • {{Cite web}}
    • Because the "publisher" parameters are used for the publication companies (e.g. Macrovision for Allmusic), the "work" parameter has to be used for these websites and TV channels. Hence, the italics. Having said that, I don't think "MTV Networks" is necessary in the MTV references. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• What makes zobbel.de a reliable source? indopug (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Bibliography of Chartography Cannibaloki 18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [5].

---

List of members of the Gregorian mission

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I am nominating this for featured list because... I would like to take the topic to Featured Topic, and I feel this list is as well researched as possible given the obscurity of the time period. All comments welcomed! But I'm not a big "list coder" so if you want me to do something fancy with the code of the list, be prepared to help me through it. I'm much more comfortable with FAC and prose and sources than I am with wikimarkup for tables...Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Review by Truco (talk · contribs) -- mainly due to the formatting Lead The Gregorian mission was a group of Italian monks and priests sent by Pope Gregory the Great to Britain in the late 6th and early 7th century AD to convert the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. -- You may as well link to Christianity After a long trip, during which they almost gave up and returned to Rome, they arrived in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Kent in 597. -- I thought dates from AD and BC included AD/BC in the date like "597 AD"? We don't have to say AD after every one, or so I thought. The Wiki article says it more common to do so, if I read right.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC) So what was your thought on this?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I took out the first AD ... I cheat. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to be substantially expanded to give more of a summary of the list itself and more about the members. That would be what the individual articles on the members is for, right? I'm genuinely asking here, I don't fiddle much with FLs. The only one I'm involved much with is the List of Archbishops of Canterbury which is pretty simple at the top. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Not necessarily, all FLs are required to have a summary prose of the list itself, like who were the most (blah) what did the most (blah) who was the first to (blah) who is the most recent to (blah). [Stuff like that.]--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Bulked it up some (I feel like I'm back writing term papers... need to make that page count!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Table Needs to be separated into a new section apart from the lead. done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) the "unknown" and "either"'s This one? What did you mean? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, sorry, that you need to capitalize them.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Okies. done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Capitalize "deacon" done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Did "John" not die? Presumably he did, we don't know a date. Gave him a big "unknown" What does "c. 607" mean? circa. Fancy historian way to say "around" Just spelled it out rather than abbreviate. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) c 624 -- be consistent with the formatting (with or without that period) See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Make a key to explain the column headers and what information is included in that column Does that work? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Yeah it does ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC) References Well of course Ealdgyth would have up to shape ref section ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Those are some quick replies, I'll get to the rest of them tomorrow when I'm less groggy. Thanks for the suggestions! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Among the archbishops were the first five Archbishops of Canterbury: Augustine, Laurence, Mellitus, Justus, and Honorius,[1] all of them later canonized as saints. -- I feel that the comma after Honroius should be a semi-colon fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Hmm, in the lead I would give an overall count of the members, like Overall there were....(so and so) members of (so and so). We don't know how many exactly, but I've put in a bit that explains that. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC) The entries in the last column which have no specific refs are unverified or sourced with the general reference? Not to the general ref, no. If they aren't named as saints in the works, it's assumed that they aren't saints. I can source this to the actual biography for Romanus, but the other three aren't named as saints in the general ref (and I have no biographies of them, they are too obscure to rate that.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Oh okay, I see. I guess its fine since they aren't literally state as such.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Since the first note is used over 27 times to source the list, I would split the section into a general and specific reference section, like it is in this FL ref section.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Compromised with removing the general ref stuff from the table, but keeping it in the text, that way folks know where I got info from in the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC) That's fine, but there are still some comments above that I replied too, but you haven't readdressed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Interesting list btw ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is it really necessary to have a separate List of members of the Gregorian mission? Why not just include the table in the main article when it is such a short one? --Skizzik ^talk 10:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm trying for a nice featured topic and it's suggested that there be a list article. Also, I find it helpful to have all the information in one spot, as well as the fact that the main article is reasonably lenghty (well into the "split if needed" length). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, where do you got that suggestion from? I think the topic would be a nice one even without the list as a separate article. Including it in the main article seems to be the case in many featured topics when the list is not to long (see for example [6], [7], [8], [9]). Splitting it just to include it in a topic looks a little strange to me, and I don't think the main article is too big. But I guess this is a personal view so do what you think is the best, good job so far anyway! --Skizzik ^talk 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it separate, as I think it clutters the main article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I look forward to see it on WP:FTC. --Skizzik ^talk 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Minor things, really, because I looked at the article beforehand. It's good stuff, and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm Catholic!

• I made minor prose tweaks rather than comment here, I hope you don't mind.

Heck, no. My prose needs all the help it can get. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "circa" (c) is a Latin abbreviation, so per MOS:ABBR, it and its abbreviated form should be in italics.

fixed.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Canonized?" I don't think the question mark is necessary.

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Of the non-archbishops, three were regarded as saints: Peter, James the Deacon, and Paulinus." Correct me if I'm wrong, but one becomes a saint if they are canonized, yes? You say "regarded", which puts doubt into the reader's mind of whether they were actually 100% real deal saints or not. Is there no definite answer? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior to about 1050 or so, there was no formal process for canonization. Saints prior to that were just sorta "acclaimed". If enough folks claimed you were a saint, you were a saint. Since all of these guys died before then, most of their "sainthoods" don't have formal processes. The only one that's gone through paperwork is Peter of Canterbury, who went through a process in 1915 that "confirmed" he was a saint. I can throw in a wikilink to the relevant part of canonization that's linked to "regarded". I also changed the verb tense, as they still are regarded as saints. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. The link and verb tense change are good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good (not that I expected them to be any other way). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - You might want to fix the odd sorting on some of those columns - Date of arrival in England and Death date specifically. You can use text with a display:none style to achieve that. — neuro^(talk) 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

HOw do you mean odd sorting? We're dealing with approximate dates here for some of them, someone kindly went through and put in some code that makes them sort close to the approximate date. They now sort the columns correctly according to the dates to my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oop, sorry, mindgoof. For some reason I didn't realise that they had been made to sort independently of what was visible, which was what I was asking for. Ignore me ;) — neuro^(talk) 01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NO worries. I was just afraid there was something I wasn't seeing that was horribly wrong... it wouldn't be the first time I was oblivious. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bencherlite

Comments from Bencherlite Just a few minor suggestions: How about an image to brighten things up? File:Augustine of Canterbury.jpg is a possibility. I"ve added a sculpture of Augie boy. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Two other missionaries, Paulinus and Romanus, became bishops, which doesn't include the archbishops who were bishops before being nominated to Canterbury. A little clunky, and shouldn't have a "doesn't" in it. How about "Two other missionaries, Paulinus and Romanus, also became bishops."? Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Of the non-archbishops, three are regarded as saints:... Not too keen on "non-archbishops" - how about "As well as the five archbishops, three other members of the mission are regarded as saints:..." fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC) In the table, you should link Archbishop of Canterbury, St Augustine's, Canterbury, Bishop of York and Bishop of Rochester on each occasion. FLs generally overlink in this way, as the table can be sorted in many different ways and the idea is that the reader should never have to hunt for the link. fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC) In the table, what's the difference between "Either 597 or 601" and "Unknown"? Did others arrive at other times? I think that's what you say in the lead, but the heading to the table makes it sound as if there were only two arrival dates. A couple of the members don't have any speculation on a date when they arrived. Although I don't know of any other groups that came, it's always possilbe there were. The ones that say "either" a source has speculated that. When it says unknown, the information is that they were probably in the mission, but no one has speculated on a date. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Otherwise, looking good. BencherliteTalk 13:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. I wonder whether the use of "we" and "us" in the second para of the lead is appropriate, but the alternative may be the passive voice (gasp!) which also has its critics. Anyway, if you can think of another way of phrasing it, please do, but I'm happy to support. (I like the picture you found in particular). Bencherlite^Talk 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I rephrased it. Using personal prounouns is an MOS breach, and more generally, is unencyclopedic. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [10].

---

List of Houston Rockets statistics and records

Nominator(s): Noble Story (talk • contributions)

As a push to get Houston Rockets to be a WP:FT, I am nominating this for FL. I have worked on it to meet, to the best of my knowledge, all criteria of WP:WIAFL.

Also, please note that this article is the first of its kind for the NBA, so I had nothing to base it on, and had to think of everything as I went along. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) General comment Fix the dab (found using the checker tool in the toolbox at the right) Lead The team plays in the Southwest Division of the Western Conference in National Basketball Association (NBA). -- Add "the" before the NBA They have made the playoffs in 25 of their 42 seasons, and won their division and conference four time each; they also won back-to-back championships in 1994 and 1995. -- (1)time should be plural (2)Aren't the division/conference championships represented when a team wins it? (3)It should be noted that these are "NBA Championships" Of the Rockets' current players, Yao Ming and Shane Battier both hold records for shooting percentage records in a single game. -- Isn't this suppose to be Of the Rockets' current players, Yao Ming and Shane Battier both hold records for shooting percentage in a single game. (its a repetition of the word records when it isn't needed to be repeated) Image Caption: I see no purpose of having a source here since its in the prose and is pretty uncommon to do so Career leaders and Single-season records tables I don't know if its the best idea to have the totals section sortable because there are different values in each cell (decimals/integers). What does it mean when a player is not in a category? As that is not explained in the key. Streaks I don't think having the length column sortable is very representative because there are different date formats and some cells have more than one entries. Image: The caption should have a full stop Single-game records What do the empty cells mean? The totals section should be made non-sortable per my comment above Image: Captions need full stops. General comment The totals section should not be sortable since different values are inserted and is not representative of the data. Individual Single-game records What do the empty cells mean? Images need full stops References Please format the basketball-references correctly as seen in this Houston FL ref section Also, NBA.com is not the publisher the National Basketball Association is the publisher.--₮RUCӨ 23:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Just wondering, you said that the totals section should not be sortable. Then you said it should be (for "Single-game records"). Which do you mean? Also, what do you mean by "What does it mean when a player is not in a category?". And, the empty cells means that they are tied with the player above them in that category. I wanted to do rowspan, but that messed up sorting. Should I re-insert the category and number for each cell, even if there is a repeat? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I mean non-sortable. Oh, I see. Either that or add a footnote stating that thats what the blank spaces do. In addition, and by my question, you sort of answered it with the last part of your comment.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC) OK, I ended up putting the numbers back in. Having all the same numbers should make it clear which category they belong in. Let me know if it needs more refinement. Also, I put the ref in the image caption because no ref in the main article supported the fact. But I can remove it if you want. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 05:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC) The totals column of the first tables shouldn't be sortable either per the same reasons. Yeah the image ref for that one can stay. I would add the categories into the blank cells because the row divider (line) implies different content, unlike a rowspan. So yeah, even if there is a repeat since this is a sortable table.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Was this done?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Right, sorry. I've got it now. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Okay great. But some of the totals columns have errors in the coding, which are noticeable. They appear as width=48%|Total.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Sigh. I guess I should use the preview button more often. Fixed. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Great work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice job, especially for doing it without any model. You may want to add something about it to WP:NBAG. "for four years, before being moved to Houston, Texas."-->for four years before relocating to Houston, Texas. "Hakeem Olajuwon, who was the NBA Finals Most Valuable Player in both of the Rockets' championship seasons" "9 different categories" Full date ranges should use spaced en dashes. For example, "November 4, 1972–April 18, 1982"-->November 4, 1972 – April 18, 1982 Note b doesn't work. "Table Key"-->Table key, per WP:MSH. Unrelated comment, but have you created an accomplishments and records list, such as Portland Trail Blazers accomplishments and records? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I think I've got it all. About accomplishments and records: This article is the "records" part, and the "accomplishments" are in the main article. Also, about having space in between full dates: I can't find that in the MOS; could you find it for me? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC) WP:DASH. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, duh. OK, I've got that, too. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment I can't find the 22 games winning streak. I think this worth mentioning in the list.—Chris! ct 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Well, I think it's a bit hard to place it in a good category. Do you suggest putting in the lead, or somewhere in one of the tables? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Adding it to the lead is fine—Chris! ct 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Got it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Um, I think this list is missing something. I think it need to include awards that Rocket player won and various NBA record the team accumulated.—Chris! ct 02:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC) The awards and such are covered in the main article, which I think was already mentioned. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Ok, but what about NBA records.—Chris! ct 03:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Well, about the NBA records: I thought about it, but in the end I wasn't really sure. All that information is already in NBA records. And the question is, how many records to include. Regular season? Playoffs? NBA Finals? All of them? And what about records set against the Rockets? Those were questions I could not answer, and so I left them out. But if I need to do so to be comprehensive, I'll add it in. Since the article is about Houston Rockets statistics and records, any records pertaining to Houston Rockets should logically be included. But you are right that it is a bit redundant to NBA records. I don't know. I would say adding them will be a good idea to satisfy the comprehensiveness criteria. I think only records set by Rockets are needed, not those set against the Rockets.—Chris! ct 18:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC) OK,I'll get to it in the next few days. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 13:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from KV5

• I would really like to see some more expansion in the lead. I know it's baseball, not basketball, but you might get some ideas from List of Philadelphia Phillies team records and List of Nashville Sounds team records. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to add as much as I think is relevant. I've also finished adding the NBA records section. Hope it satisfies. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Above is completed. Additional comments:

• En-dash in "Best undefeated start (15–0)
• In the key, pipelink overtime (sports) like this: Overtime
• Lowest FG% - 23 out of 78 is a lower percentage than 26 out of 88. Also, it's unclear what (23–78) means. I thought that it meant 23 baskets and 78 misses, which is how I originally tried to do the math. Clarify.

Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How to calculate field goal percentage is actually explained in Note A. But I've added an extra note to give an exaomple. And also fixed the other issues. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 06:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Make that lead image bigger, up to 300px is cool (I think) by the MOS.
• You don't mention franchise until the start of para 2 of the lead. For non-US readers this concept is a little unclear so perhaps mention it earlier (like when they moved cities perhaps?) and link suitably?
• Pehaps I've forgotten but typically numbers like 3200 are written with a comma separating the thousands, 3,200 say. Your numbers don't do this.
• Apostrophe question - lead has "Of the Rockets' current players...", Yao Ming's caption has "Yao Ming holds Rockets records..." aren't Rockets being used in the same way here? My grammar isn't top notch so perhaps that's nonsense.
  • Looks right to me, in the first instance "Rockets" is being used as a possessive and in the second as an adjective. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Tracy McGrady made 6 of the ..." six?
  • Per MOS:NUM, comparative quantities (6 out of 19 seasons) should be spelled the same. It's something that I've cracked down on ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The Rockets only scored 66..."... scored only, not only scored...
• Not sure why the list is categorised under "National Basketball Association templates"... possibly need a noinclude in the template? Not sure...

Fixed last point—Chris! _ct 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed them all, I think. I just piped franchise to professional sports organization in the first sentence, so hopefully that will cover that issue. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 06:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [11].

---

List of Mexican National Heavyweight Champions

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk)

I nominate this list for Featured List status as I believe it fullfills all the FL requirements. Several problems have been addressed after review from several helpful Wikipedians MPJ-DK (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

General comment

• Fix the dabs (using the first tool in the toolbox at the right)

• FixedMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• The Mexican National Heavyweight Championship (called the Campeonato Nacional Completo in Spanish) is a Mexican Mexican professional wrestling championship created and sanctioned by Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F. (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission). -- (1)The English name of the title should not be in italics (2)Do not link anything in the name (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission) its WP:OVERLINK and does not redirect to any relevant articles (3)Remove the second Mexican

• 1) done, 2) Removed the wrestling link - but a definition of what "Mexico City", "Boxing" and a what a sports related "Commission" is isn't relevant? 3) doneMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• No because its overlinking of common terms that a reader should be aware of already. The only link relevant would be an actual link to the commission itself--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'll remove "Mexico City" & Boxing links. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• From 1933 until the mid-1990s, Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) had control of the championship; however, the Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA) has controlled the championship since 1996, after the commission granted them the right. -- (1)In what ways does CMLL have control over that title? (2)..granted them the right to...?

• 1) as stated the Commission endorses it, they say "yes this is a national mexican title" and they approve champions. Everything else CMLL (and later AAA) had control over - so they have control of who wins, who challenges, which storylines it's used it, how it's promoted (in a PR sense) and everything else. They do everything but the two aspects that are explained that the COmmission did. 2) the right to control the title.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• (1)Since its unknown really what the control the promotion has since the control is controversial, I would add that as a footnote.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Controversial? I'll add a footnote. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

*As it is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won or lost competitively but instead by the decision of the bookers of a wrestling promotion. -- Comma before but

• Apparently not after all.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• The title is awarded after the chosen champion "wins" a match to maintain the illusion that professional wrestling is a competitive sport. -- (1)I would pipelink sports entertainment to "illusion"

• DoneMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Being created in 1926 means that the Mexican National Heavyweight Championship is the oldest continuously promoted wrestling title in the world. -- Well you don't know that it is created in 1926, just its documented use, so it should be restated as such.

• Well considering you yourself objected to a phrase indicating that it may be older than from 1926 on the grounds that it was Original Research I am a bit surprised at this comment. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't need accusations sir. I'm stating that that in the previous sentence you say the first documented use was in 1926 (with the possibility of being older) and in this sentence you state that it was created in 1926, which contradicts the previous sentence that states its first documented use.

• Accusations? what the? WP:AGF and all, changed to "being created no later than". MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• When Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre (EMLL, later renamed CMLL) was founded in 1933, it was given the promotional control of the title, with the Commission only being asked to approve the champions. -- Does the Mexican commission have an acronym? If it does, the Commission should be replaced with that

• It does not have an acronym as far as I've been able to find out.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

*"The current Champion, Charly Manson, is the longest reigning champion, although, there is some uncertainty over his championship status, and as a result, the longest documented reign belongs to El Médico Asesino, who held the title for 2074 days. -- Remove the quotation mark in the beginning

• DoneMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mr. Águila holds the distinction of being the champion for the shortest amount of time with 42 days. -- Comma before with

• doneMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Title history

• I would make sure that the days held is correct.

• Do you just want me to confirm I checked or do you see a problem? I didn't once calculate any days, I used the "time in days" template do it with start & end dates where I've reviewed it a few times to ensure I put the correct start & end dates. As far as I can see this is fine.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, because sometimes reigns that last one day or vacated reigns are not counted properly sometimes with the template.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Vacant titles don't have legth and the shortest reign is 42 days, I think I'm on the safe side here. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Championship reigns by combined length

• The key should not have the Name in italics because that's not how it appears in the table itself

• I put that so the cell wouldn't be just narrow, but I changed it.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

References

• Wrestling-titles.com is not a reliable source--₮RUCӨ 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're right it's not deemed a reliable source according to WP:RS, which is why I've restricted it to one simple thing - the minimum weightlimit for the term "Heavyweight" in regards to Mexican weightdivisions, not really controversial or problematic, it's certainly been used for less sources than a lot of existing FLs on wrestling. I guess I could look for another source for this detail.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• You need to stop comparing to old FLs, they were passed when the sourcing and FL criteria was not as strict as it is today. Wrestling-Titles.com is not reliable for weight divisions either because that information is controversial since weight divisions are scarce in pro wrestling today, and that is not verified by other reliable sources (unless you can find one). --₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Failing to see the "controversy", but I'll remove the citation until I can find a reliable one. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• If the general ref or an official page from the promotions can verify that the title is for those weighting at least the certain weight limit can challenge for it, then that can be used instead of finding a source for the weight divisions in pro-wrestling.--₮RUCӨ 22:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• That is a very good point, I've not read the preface sections of the book in a real long time, maybe it has a comment in there - thank you for that idea. 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• So was this done?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I looked but didn't find it specified in the book, I haven't found any weightlimit mentioned on Heavyweight titles in wrestling as they're generally "no weight restrictions" unlike the lower weight divisions that are only open for a narrow weight range. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• So how did you come up with the weight limit listed in the article?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• You know perfectly well how but the source was deemed "unreliable" even for something as uncontroversial that the Heavyweight division theoretically has a lower limit.MPJ-DK (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• (Break) Problem solved, the statement isn't there any more. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• But wait, if there is a limit, then thats substantial to the article. Is there a Spanish ref that states this?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• "But wait"?? That's no more "substantial" to this article than any other list of heavyweight wrestling titles on Wikipedia

For point number 3, a comma isn't needed before but because the subject of the sentence does not change. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Eh, its either or, I've seen variations of this in other FLC's that are in Brit English.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Charly Manson, is the longest reigning champion, although, there is some uncertainty over his championship status" - this is not elaborated on anywhere in the article. What is the nature of this "uncertainty"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• D'oh - it was in the article before I split it, it's explained at Mexican National Heavyweight Championship but of course it should be menetioned here in some way. I'll figure out a good way to work that into it.
• I think I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "it does not promote the events at which" "at"-->in "Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) had control of the championship;" Why not "Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) controlled the championship; "however, the Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA)" Not really a contradiction, just a change in ownership. "Being designated as a heavyweight title"-->Because it is designated as a heavyweight title "it can only be competed" Can you replace "it" with the noun you are referring to here? "As it is a professional wrestling championship, it" Same "it" comment as above. "As"-->Because "The earliest documented use of the Mexican National Heavyweight Title is in 1926." "is"-->was "Being created no later than 1926 means that the Mexican National Heavyweight Championship is the oldest continuously promoted wrestling title in the world."-->Because it was created no later than 1926, the Mexican National Heavyweight Championship is the oldest continuously promoted wrestling title in the world. "it was officially acknowledged" Who acknowledged this? "Mr. Águila holds the distinction of being the champion for the shortest amount of time, with 42 days." Trim some of the peacock language: "Mr. Águila has been champion for the shortest amount of time, for 42 days." Dates should not have leading 0s. For example, "September 07, 1956"-->September 7, 1956 Same with the numbering. 03-->3, etc. The table in "List of Championship reigns by combined length" needs a symbol (e.g. *, ^, #) to accompany the color. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC) In the "List of Championship reigns by combined length" table, the "Wrestler" column does not sort properly. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC) You're right I didn't even notice when I checked first time. I added a hidden text so that it sorts on the "significant" name, so last name for guys using real names and ignoring the "El" for those that have that in their names. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I believe I've addressed all the problems. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I found a different way to do notes so that it's clear what is a footnote and what is a reference, I think it works out better.MPJ-DK (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

• "The Championship is currently vacant, possibly inactive as it has been vacant since September 13, 2006" - so is it inactive, vacant, both or neither? This sentence is extremely confusing. Also, shouldn't a line indicating its current status be added to the bottom of the list? Currently if a reader skips or skim-reads the lead and jumps straight to the list, they will think the last guy on the list is the reigning champ.

• Well all we knew for sure when I wrote that was that it was vacant but there has been no clear cut announcement that it was inactive. I now have a source that says "it's inactive" and I changed the wording and everything to reflect this fact. Should be more clear now. And looking at it I had the source all along but forgot to fix the text! MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't view reference no 1 at work, as my firewall doesn't like it, but our own article on the AAA World Heavyweight title specifically states that Manson's National title was not on the line when he lost to Mesias in the semi-final of the tournament to crown the first AAA champion,w hich would suggest that he left the tourney with it intact. Can you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes I can clarify, the other article is technically wrong. He didn't officially lose it to his opponent but it was unified in the tournament and thus inactive from the second Manson got knocked out of the tournament. the AAA Title replaced this title (and 3 others). When I get time I need to actually update the other article. The AAA source talks about the AAA HEavyweight title stating the titles it replaced. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Numbered refs against the last champion on the list are the wrong way round, should come in numerical order

• You're right, I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good otherwise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support now that my points have been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Sorry if I repeat anyhing that's been discussed already, if I do, feel free to slap me down. Anyhoo...

• The title is ambiguous. When I loaded the list up I expected to see a boxing list. I got a wrestling list. Because of this I would consider renaming it to include wrestling somewhere.

• The thing is, that's the name of the championship - nowhere in the title is the word "wrestling" mentioned so it can't really be included in the name. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not keen on the fact that Mexican links to Lucha Libra in the lead. This isn't terribly clear as I would expect it to have linked to Mexico instead...
• "...Title was in 1926. Because it was created no later than 1926,..." not keen again, a little repetitive, perhaps "in 1926 and as such is the oldest.."?
• "... the promotional full control of the title,.." reads odd to me, would "...the full promotional control..." be better perhaps?
• You have "the commission" and "the Commission" in the lead. Be consistent.
• If the championship is now inactive, ought the lead to say "was a ... championship" rather than "is a... championship"?
• 2074->2,074. Check the Days held column for more of this...

• I actually don't control that, there is a template that calculates the number of days and gives the number, not sure if I can get that format to come out using that template or not but I'll have a look. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Mr. Águila has been champion for the shortest amount of time.." - "amount of" is redundant, and again, ought this be "Mr Aguila was champion for the shortest time,..."?
• Full stops or no full stops in the table. Be consistent either way.
• I would include a statement about the deactivation and vacation of the title in the lead as a final word.
• "Title vacated when Dantés retires" written in present tense seems a little odd - perhaps "retired" is better. Same for "dies...".
• For Firpo Segura, you have a note as to who he defeated. Surely this information is available for a number of the more recent titles?

• It's only mentioned when the person defeated for the title wasn't the previous champion, no note = beat the previous guy on the list. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Which is fine until you reorder the list....! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Which is true, but no other championship title list includes this and would be redundant in the format 99% of the readers se it - sorting is for when you want to look at different aspects like length or place or so on, not general comprehension. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Championship vacated for unknown reasons" don't you mean "Title vacated..."?

• The term is used interchangeably "Title" or "Championship" isn't any difference. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that so few of the more notable wrestlers have no articles. Just a comment really.

• it really is a shame, Lucha Libre is not a great focus area on the English wiki pages, hopefully I'll get to make a lot of the articles in the future. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, apologies for any repeats and more so for being late to the review. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've answered the question that are quickly answered, I'll go through your notes and fix anything I haven't commented on yet.

Okay I've done the edits, I think it turned out well. I even removed the only unsourced statement on the page. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [12].

---

List of National Monuments of the United States

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk

After getting a peer review to address some of the proofreading concerns brought up before, I think this list is ready for FL. Reywas92^Talk 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Much improved. Check the toolbox, two dab links need to be fixed. Fixed dm (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "The United States has 100 protected areas known as national monuments." Comma after "areas". That would imply there are altogether 100 protected areas and all are known as national monuments. "this former burial ground containing"-->this former burial ground that contains Done "and also includes the ruins" Done Are all the images from NPS employees? Knowing this would save much time on my part. The images are from a variety of sources dm (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Images are copies from the article or commons. Some may be from NPS. "One of the most diverse ecosystems found in the Cascade Range also has more than 100 dwelling and root-gathering sites belonging to the Modoc, Klamath, and Shasta tribes."-->One of the most diverse ecosystems found in the Cascade Range, it has more than 100 dwelling and root-gathering sites that belong to the Modoc, Klamath, and Shasta tribes. Done "caves stretching "-->caves that stretch Done "2 million-year"-->2-million-year Done "set-aside"-->set aside Done "second and third largest natural bridges"-->second- and third-largest natural bridges Done No need to link United States more than once, especially in the tables. Done "as 7 times lager" I that you are referring to size, not beer :) Done "his monument protects a variety of cultural and natural resources " Comma after here. Done "site dating from between 1650 and 700 BC"-->site that dates from between 1650 and 700 BC Done "an inland sea covering the region."-->an inland sea that covers the region. Done "federally-listed " -ly adverbs don't need hyphens Sometimes they do. We discussed this in my last FLC. OK, I see, this is one of those dual-functioning words. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC) "is also included in the monument." Done "belt surrounding St John, VI"-->belt that surrounds St John, VI Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Done. Sources Ref 102, http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/lewistown_field_office/UM.html, is dead. This still needs to be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Done Reywas92Talk 17:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Refs 68 and 69 need format=PDF added to them. Done L.A. Times needs to be italicized, as well as any other newspapers, magazines and journals. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks for all your help, Dabomb! Reywas92Talk 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Doncram About the counting of national monuments, I began to question about this in the last peer review, but i didn't get back to it promptly, sorry for not doing so, hence need to continue here. I see an issue in the fact that the article asserts that there are 100 National Monuments, but that is neither sourced nor made self-evident in the article. It is unclear, I think, whether 100 is a rounded off number, an approximate number, or what. It would be a feasible and good accomplishment of the wikipedia list-article to establish how many national monuments currently exist (and/or how many previously existed). The table looks fine at first glance, and it is explained. But there are problems (this discussion was garbled by later edits, i think). doncram (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a numbers column to the table, since it helps editing specific rows in the table. dm (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, i see. I would prefer the numbers were small (like 78 rather than 78), so that it would be more clear they are not official numbers. doncram (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Numbering was in, but now is gone, so my preference about number size is moot. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying this is the only way to document the 100 number, but in state lists of National Historic Landmarks and many other NRHP lists, the use of a numbering column makes it self-evidently observable in the list-article how many items are in the list. (Of these only List of NHLs in AL is a featured article.) I believe that small-sized row numbers can be used in this way like the numbering that appears for row numbers in Excel, without causing undue confusion that the numbers are official numbers or have any other meaning.

Honestly, I really don't like those numbers. They mean absolutely nothing. It does no good to arbitrarily number the monuments because they're alphabetical. And when a new monument is created we'll just have to redo the whole thing. The NPS site numbers them, but that's by date created and includes past NMs. In my opinion we don't have to prove to the reader that there are 100 by counting them one by one. It's not rounded, there just happens to be exactly 100, and I don't think numbering each one alphabetically is the best way to prove that. This article does not need to conform to the NHL lists, a completely separate topic, and I disagree with their use there.

I think that your stated concern about maintenance issues is completely bogusoid; wp:NRHP is not very much taxed with renumbering list-tables spanning about 50,000 U.S. NRHP sites that get about 25 updates every week. It is Friday night now, the update came out a few hours ago, all the NRHP lists have been updated already. There are new National Monuments every few years. You could deal with that. But, I can accept nonetheless you don't like the numbering; i think it is a matter of personal taste. For the NRHP list-articles, it is more important that every one of them make a self-evident total, so that nation-wide we can contribute a nation-wide total. In this article, the first table also provides an opportunity to support the exactness of the 100 total. So, okay by me. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In this article, the leading table "Breakdown by federal agency and department" provides another opportunity to establish the 100 it is not a standard type of table (I know of no examples like this, although if there are in some other FL articles i might not like those either). It includes triple entries of some of the national monuments. The table is actually confusing as to how many national monuments there are. The table's diagonal entries total to 105, if you add them up yourself. The total of all entries in the table is 115. There is no column or row of totals involving each agency and overall. I think a revised table is needed, which would provide in a row or in a column the total number of national monuments associated with each agency, and a deduction for duplications, and an overall total of 100.

Also about the leading table, the order of agencies within the table shows no obvious order. It is neither in alphabetical order nor in order of frequency. doncram (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues: Table of agencies dm (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Table of Agencies Do you like this better? dm (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Agency Department Managed Co-Managed Total Managed Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) Veterans Affairs 1 0 1 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Interior 12 3 15 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Interior 4 2 6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Commerce 0 1 1 National Park Service (NPS) Interior 73 3 76 United States Forest Service (USFS) Agriculture 5 1 6 Total 95 5 (10) 100 (105) Ah, okay, i also developed some alternatives, linked from the article Talk page. Copying your version there too, as version 4. Currently I personally prefer freq order as in version 3b at Talk:List of national monuments of the United States/AgencyTable. Discuss at article Talk page or here? doncram (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC) We could discuss that there. I agree with your points about the table, and some of the alternatives look pretty good and are less confusing. I'm fine with 3C, it seems to solve all problems. One slight tweak is to make the columns sortable dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC) I guess 3C or whatever was adapted into the article, and i think it is better. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues: Name Sort Issue dm (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Name Sort Issue from dm (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC) A question raised at the Talk page of the article, at List of National Monuments of the United States#Ordering of peoples names, is about the ordering of entries involving persons' names. Should "Booker T. Washington" appear at B or at W in the order. The question was raised by dmadeo with whom i work on NHL and NRHP lists. Reywas92 prefers showing Booker at B, and gives two examples where it is given that way in lists elsewhere. I personally think it could go either way, leaning towards Reywas92 preference, and am happy to defer to Reywas92 judgment. I bring it up here because these FLC discussions seem to be used for setting precedent for judgements about NHL lists and other NRHP lists. There are currently over 1,000 NHL and other NRHP list-articles in development, all hopefully coming towards FLC, where the choice by wp:NRHP so far has been to put the place names in order at the last name of persons. I want to avoid future problems which this FLC plus Reywas92's comment in the discussion could pose. Reywas92 commented there that "That's not right for this list, and I would consider it wrong for the NHL list". I want to point out that there is justification for different practices in different types of lists. In lists of NRHPs, there are many cases where putting in lastname order groups together related places, e.g. in a list of NRHPs in Arkansas, it would put together William H. Smith House, Atlanta, AR, listed on the NRHP in Arkansas Smith House (Bentonville, Arkansas), listed on the NRHP in Arkansas Rowland B. Smith House, Camden, AR, listed on the NRHP in Arkansas S. G. Smith House, Conway AR, listed on the NRHP in Arkansas and that seems good and appropriate, rather than having them scattered due to random differences in how the names are entered into the NRHP's database system. In this list of national monuments there are proportionally fewer person names involved, and no situations where it would be better to put any pair of them together. Anyhow, I don't have a problem with how the list ordering is done here, but if someone wanted to make a general FLC rule that places named after a person needed to be at first name first, always, I would oppose that. If there must be a rule one way or the other, I would argue the opposite for its more general applicability (thousands of NRHP lists in pipeline, vs. just a few national monument list-articles). Thanks. I'd rather keep it this way because that's the official name of the monument and it's how the other sites do it. I do see how NPS sorts by last name for NHLs, but that is separate from NMs. There should not be any rule because there is variability. I'm fine with leaving this the way it is. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Okay this fine then. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to this national monuments list, I think it would add to the article to identify how many of the monuments are historic sites listed on the NRHP. Which ones those are might best be listed in a footnote. Some national monuments, such as the African Burial Ground one in NYC, are historic sites primarily, actually listed on the NRHP and possibly also further designated as NHLs before being further designated as National Monuments. Other national monuments are primarily natural areas. One source for this is the official PDF list of National Historic Landmarks (available here), which includes at the end mention of all the national monuments which are NRHP-listed. I could help with this, don't think including this or not should change the FL decision here. Overall, I do support this list-article for FL. doncram (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am happy with you denoting NRHPs/NHLs in this list, but I'm not as interested in them as much as you. Again, that is a separate system of recognition for places that is not directly relevant to NMs so I don't think it is urgently needed, but you are welcome to note it.

It's worth noting in the description, there are only a few of them. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, i am not sure how many there are or not. The analysis started at a subpage of the article Talk page may lead to a sentence being added to the article "___ of the 100 sites are listed on the NRHP, and ___ are further designated NHLs." This would be somewhat helpful to characterize how many National Monuments are declared by presidents for their historical importance, relative to the already stated number of ones listed for their environmental importance (alone or in addition to historic importance). This is taking some time to develop, is not a high priority. I support FL status for this list without that addition. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

About the African Burial Ground one, the description needs some rewording. It links to the National Historic Landmark program, which is probably good and appropriate, but it suggests that that the place is "now landmarked" as if the NHL designation came recently, after NM designation. In fact it was an NHL first. Perhaps the link to the National Historic Landmark program should come in, also, in some intro paragraph text about how many of these are NHLs. doncram (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, though I'm not what what is the best way to rewrite it. Thanks for all of your comments! Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another crack at it. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the agency table to version 3C. Thanks for helping with that! Reywas92^Talk 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good, i thinks it be better. As I said elsewhere I do recognize it not being easy to create clear tables like this, hence my taking on the task of trying to develop alternatives, rather than simply criticizing yours. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Support for FL listing now, all my concerns addressed. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from dm (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I hate to bring this up, but it's not clear to me that Fort Moultrie is a national monument of its own. It appears to be part of Fort Sumter. dm (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the exact details, but they are both National Monuments. Moultrie is considered a unit of Sumter because they are nearby and administered together, but they count as two. [13][14] Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what those webpages are, or how official they are. I figured, cut to the chase and called the number on the official web page. She very patiently explained that Fort Moultrie, Fort Sumter and Charleston harbor are three separate locations, all considered part of Fort Sumter National Monument. The NPS never does us any favors not having one official list like with the NHLs, with the different names and categories, etc. It's possible they were separate at one point and are not any longer. We'll probably have to dig up the declarations, but until we do, I dont believe I've seen a reliable source saying that Moultrie is a separate National Monument? dm (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I probably should have caught this back in September when I turned the list into the table. There were other entries which needed to be removed at the time. dm (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a big thing to do by actually calling them - Thanks! So shall I go ahead and remove it and note it in the Sumter description? I'll have to update all the numbers at the top, too, then. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's give it a day for other comments to show up, but yes, I believe we should remove its row and mention it in the Fort Sumter line. The articles should be modified to state this as well. dm (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fort Moultrie is removed and the numbers are updated. Reywas92^Talk 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Newberry is a National Volcanic Monument. Is that the same thing as a National Monument? dm (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Same thing, just a more specific name. Mount St. Helens is also a National Volcanic Monument, and a few are Marine National Monuments. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's a possibility we'll be able to add a photo of Hohokam Pima, dealing with license issues right now. dm (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• And its added, BruceandLetty really came through. dm (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Great Sand Dunes National Park was a National Monument according to its page, but is not on the link we offer in the intro which if I understand correctly are only the NPS ones which are no longer National Monuments. dm (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[[List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System#Decommissioned_National_Monuments|That list] has all the former NMs that are no longer under NPS control, but it's lacking in those that were given a different designation because they're somewhere else on that page; there are at least 50 former NMs according to this site, which lists all of them. I could work on adding more to that list later. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [15].

---

Veronica Mars (season 1)

Nominator(s): Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) The first season garnered an average of 2.5 million viewers per all 22 episodes in the U.S.. -- Remove the final period, its not needed when using acronyms as such Done. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The pilot was watched by 2.49 million viewers,[5] while the final was watched 2.99 million viewers. -- add "by" before 2.99 Done. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Critical reception I'm guessing there was no negative?--₮RUCӨ 04:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Hardly, but I'll try to find one or two. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Okay, notify me when this is addressed.--₮RUCӨ 23:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I finally managed to find some negative aspects, as well as a criticism. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Great work. It looks fine.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Good work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs): Few edits made, including an image rename (manual reupload; I'm unsure if even administrators can move files). Please check if the new picture meets the Fair Use criteria; I'm not sure if I did it correctly. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, looks great. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm not doing a full review here, but shouldn't this be nominated for GA, since the third season article is.--Music26/11 19:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the season three page is more like a season article, rather than a season list, if you get what I mean. I am going to remove some information from that page and nominate it for FL later. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Done "When Veronica discovers new evidence which suggests that Lilly's convicted killer"-->When Veronica discovers new evidence that suggests Lilly's convicted killer "a number of"-->several an update to the "classic California film noir."-->an update to the "classic California film noir". "this season's most interesting character creation."-->"this season's most interesting character creation". "and noted the supporting characters were more than just plot devices, and the guest stars were well-utilized." "and ... and"; not a well-stuctured sentence. "Robert Abele of LA Weekly said " Add "that" after this. "just the sort of satisfying capper you look for in a series that, week after week, keeps you asking questions."-->"just the sort of satisfying capper you look for in a series that, week after week, keeps you asking questions". "Michael Abernethy of PopMatters said that "intrigue, drama, and humor, Veronica Mars is also a lesson book for the disenfranchised. Few TV series aim so high; even fewer succeed so well."" The prose doesn't flow into the quote well here. "Srikamswaren pointed that despite" Insert "out" after "pointed". "Veronica stakes out a seedy motel" Comma after here. "Meanwhile" Idle word, audit throughout for it. "Duncan temporarily goes off his antidepressants" "goes off" is colloquial. Why not "stops taking"? "and hallucinates his dead sister" Wouldn't it be "hallucinates about"? "Veronica and company " Once again, too informal. "Veronica suspects the election"-->Veronica suspects that the election "finds out"-->discovers (multiple occurences) "Sarah disappears, she tries to find" Who is "she"? "which "09er" Casey joined"-->that "09er" Casey joined "by the former lover" What do you mean by "the"; do you mean "his"? "who is revealed to be Duncan" "Veronica also has to contend " "Veronica takes the case" Another example of potentially ambiguous colloquial language; some might think that "case" is referring to a suitcase. Remember that we have to cater to all English-speaking audiences, not just Americans. "Keith secretly takes hair samples from Veronica and sends them in for a DNA test, and Veronica and Logan begin secretly dating. " The DNA test phrase and the dating phrase are unrelated; split them apart. "and that he got it from Logan"-->and that he received it from Logan "and her investigation comes to a conclusion"-->and her investigation concludes "which leads to an uncomfortable car ride with Veronica's ex-boyfriend Duncan. " Can you elaborate? I'm sure that being put in a class didn't directly lead to this. Not done On an unrelated note, I looked at a couple of the episode articles and saw that they had proposed merge tags. When looking at the linked discussions, however, they were about 5 months old. Are the merges still being discussed? I am going to be working on the articles in the near future. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "Thomas did not receive the same level of actors." What do you mean by "level"? Better? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Much. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Why are the episode summaries repeated on List of Veronica Mars episodes? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Once the season two page is created, the episode list will be changed to a different format, like List of Lost episodes and List of Smallville episodes. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review. :) I moved to the comments to "done" and "not done" for simplicity's sake. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Marsinvestigations is a fan site. The first page says "marsinvestigations.net is an unofficial, nonprofit, unauthorized, unprofessional site done by a bunch of fans."
    • That's true, and I have a hard time arguing my case in respect to these sites, but many users have told me that since the info is coming "straight from the horse's mouth", or whatever, it is slightly more accepted. It's not unusual for fansites to host interviews with their targeted series, and Daggs is saying the info himself, not some fan. Is the issue here that we fear the site may have made this stuff up? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I think the no fansite policy is more of a general thing, for every reliable fansite there are a dozen non-reliable ones (I agree with you though, I edit a lot of Simpsons pages and we can't use The Simpsons Archive, which really hurts sometimes). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay. Well, I have not removed the information yet, but I guess I will have to when the time comes. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is Yahoo useable? I've seen some FACs like this one where users said it wasn't allowed.
    • Well, it's not the most reliable ref, but it is the most reliable ref I could find. It seems no other sources bothered to explain why she left. I could just remove the budget issues section, but I think an explanation of why she left is needed. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Did you try searching NewsBank (if you don't have access, I can do it for you)? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
        • That would be very appreciated. Thank you. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Are we really allowed to link to pirated DVD commentaries like this? After all, we usually aren't allowed to link to YouTube because of copyright concerns (I'm not saying the commentary itself can't be used, I just don't think you should link to it).
    • I have no idea. The thing is, SlaveRats is Rob Thomas' official site, so if he put it up, I'm guessing it's fine? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Overlinking in the refs section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you mean the repeated linking of "ABC Medianet"? I'm slightly confused when it comes to these things because I see it all the time. Should refs be linked only in the first instance like prose, or is there a different style? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is what I mean. I don't know if there's a policy against it, but I think it's just a necessity thing. Does ABC need to be linked a dozen times in a row like that? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This is what I get for rushing through an FLC review... Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, at least you were kind enough to actually do a review. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I took a look in Newsbank and I couldn't find anything. The article itself says its a rumour, and I think it needs a stonger source than Yahoo. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, well it has been removed. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The Marsinvestigations ref has also been removed. :( Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I always think that to prevent {{Globalize/North America}} you should make a mention, if possible, of other international channels/dates/reception . e.g. Living TV in the UK where it averaged 50k viewers, CTV Television Network in Canada, Network Ten in Australia etc.
  • Okay; the info has been added from the main page. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Might be worth adding a mention in the Critical reception section of the awards received as a result of season 1.
  • It is worth it, but I have no idea which awards correlate to this season. Just because the award was awarded in the same year, does that mean it was for this very season? Because of my confusion, I think I'll just leave the award info on the main page. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree some are difficult, e.g. the AFI award whose criteria is First-run programs airing for American audiences on network or cable television between January 1 and December 31[16] and would apply to S1 and S2. However some of the others are much more obvious. The 2004 Saturn is clearly for S1 as no other season had aired then. The 2005 TCA awards are for S1 as one of the noms is "Outstanding New Program of the Year". Similarly for Teen Choice. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, I added them all. Hopefully they are correct. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Consistency in the date format in the references, change the "accessdate" from ISO to the format used in the "date" parameter (i.e. Month DD, YYYY)
  • Done. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that it looks good. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff I forgot. I know the episodes themselves provide the director/writers/prod code info, and I will assume they are correct. However a general reference would be nice if it can be found. The episodes don't provide the airdate info and (usually) don't provide the name either. So I think you need an general ref for these (e.g. something like this) Also I have checked and S1 (unlike S3) is not available as video on demand from Amazon Unbox, iTunes and the like. However I think that http://www.thewb.com/shows/veronica-mars/ might show some episodes as video on demand. Might be worth mentioning if it is true. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I added the general refs. I can't access TheWB website because I don't live in the US, but I don't think it's that necessary anyways. Thanks for the idea though. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Looks pretty good, but one last comment. Some of these season pages have DVD release information (and the ones that don't probably should). It might not hurt to add one for this page. If you decide to, here are some examples that you can base it on: The Simpsons (season 5), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2), Lost (season 3), The O.C. (season 1). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Scorpion it does have some DVD release info. already. It is just located here in prose form. Best, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did notice that. I meant a section with a table, etc. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the prose has all of that info anyways. Is there anything in particular from the table that you would like me to add to the prose? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 01:20, 25 March 2009 [17].

---

Silver Slugger Award

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria. This is also the inaugural list in my attempt at a featured topic, for which this will be the lead article. (For those who have expressed interest in the FT itself, see my sandbox for more details - scroll all of the way to the bottom.) Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) General comment Fix the dabs (as found with the checker tool in the toolbox) Oh God, I hate dabs, I thought I had them all. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Lead The Silver Slugger was first awarded in 1980 and is given by Hillerich & Bradsby, the manufacturer of Louisville Slugger bats. -- Comma before and (2 different subjects) You don't use a comma before a coordinating conjunction ("and"). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Well actually you do, but I just noticed that these are not 2 different subjects, so no comma is needed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC) This means that it is possible for three left fielders, or any other combination of outfielders, to win the award in the same year, rather than one left fielder, one center fielder, and one right fielder. -- The comma before to win the award in is not necessary and the one before rather since they are on the same topic/subject The phrase "or any other combination of outfielders" is an appositive phrase and is appropriately set off by commas; the phrase "rather than one left fielder, one center fielder, and one right fielder." is a dependent clause and must be preceded by a comma. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) You're right, eh. I keep reading these sentences in different ways.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Rodriguez' awards are split between two positions; he won seven Silver Sluggers as a shortstop for the Texas Rangers, and three with the Yankees as a third baseman. -- the semi colon should be a colon Not correct. These are two independent clauses (complete sentences), so using a colon here would be incorrect. A semicolon is used "between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a co-ordinating conjunction." KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Three players are tied for the most wins among designated hitters; Edgar Martínez,[14] Paul Molitor,[15] and David Ortiz[16] all have four wins at the position, though Martínez also won one award at third base. -- semi-colon->colon Same as above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Well this is a "syntactical-descriptive" type, in which you give a description and then list the series, which requires a colon. From my understanding of colon.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Oy, guess you're right on that count. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC) References General: MLB.com is no different than the MLB, and its their official website so the work and publisher is the same Actually, it's not, because the website is MLB.com, but the publisher is disambiguated as Major League Baseball. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Not exactly. MLB.com is written by who? The Major League Baseball association. MLB.com is their official website, which is not owned or publisher by any other company. If the website were a subpage of the MLB, then the work field would be from whatever the name of the page is and the publisher would be the MLB. From my FA's, I was told and understood that World Wrestling Entertainment (the company) was the publisher of WWE.com because it is their official website. However, their corporate website differs from their official website, so the work field for a source like that would state "WWE Corporate" and the publisher still being WWE. Same thing with the MLB.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC) What if a reader doesn't know that MLB.com is Major League Baseball's website? It could be the website for anything listed at MLB (disambiguation). That's why it's written this way. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC) That's what the publisher field does, MLB.com is the URL, while the publisher dabs it automatically. That's why it should be as such.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC) And that's what I already have written. The publisher field isn't automatic; it's filled in with Major League Baseball when the website is MLB.com. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but I'm trying to tell you that work and publisher of MLB is not different, the internet is much different from WP with dabs. The work and publisher is the same for all company official websites (unless otherwise stated), like the NHL.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC) And I'm trying to explain to you that the disambiguation is necessary, for the reason outlined above. There are several FLs that use this format and I haven't seen anything around here that would indicate that this has changed or that this format is incorrect. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Okay, let me ask you. What are you disambiguating by adding "MLB.Com"? When the publisher explicitly state the same thing?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, that's where we've been having the disconnect. I was considering the publisher to disambiguate the work, not the other way round. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Now that I've made the mental connection, this is Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Yeah, sorry for the confusion.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC) In-text citations Any reason why its not called "Specific" (just wondering) WP:CITE says that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." That's why I call them in-text (meaning the same as inline) citations, rather than specific references, which is a term that Wikipedia doesn't use. They use "general reference", but not the other. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Refs about teams should have it as the publisher being the MLB and the work coming from the team--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I don't quite understand what you expect from this last comment. If you want me to change the publisher on team-specific refs to Major League Baseball, I can do that, but I'm not sure. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) In accordance to my comment above, you should have the team name or the name of the subpage as the "work" and the MLB as the "publisher".--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Understood. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I also noticed that you state the acronym for the American League (AL) and National League (NL), but you don't use them later in the lead, you spell out the name, either mention it by the acronyms or remove the acronyms since they aren't in use.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Great work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Out of curiosity, what is the featured topic going to be? The Silver Slugger Award itself is going to be the featured topic; I'm going to be merging the lists of NL winners at each position and AL winners at each position (with the blessing of WP:BASEBALL) into lists of Silver Slugger Award winners at each position. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "who do receive an award" Is "do" necessary here? I don't know that it's essential; I was trying to explicitly clarify that AL pitchers don't receive one without explicitly writing that. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "Embattled home run record-holder Barry Bonds" Do we really need "Embattled"? At the very least, put it in quotes. I would rather take it (and him) out all together, because I am very anti-Bonds, but I won't let that influence my work. The reason it's there (and referenced, of course) is because there is always the possibility that baseball could strip the awards at some point. I'm indifferent, really. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Well see, (and I don't blame you for your feelings toward him) Bonds was called "Embattled" by just one source. Using a source to classify him as generally "Embattled" is a bit much I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, there were several sources (see [18], [19], [20], [21] for more details); that just happened to be the one I chose because Google News doesn't usually disappear over time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "He also won the award in five consecutive seasons two different times in his career"-->He won the award in five consecutive seasons twice times in his career I assume you meant "twice" rather than "twice times". Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I did; good catch. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "Wade Boggs leads all third basemen" Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "while Barry Larkin leads shortstops with nine." "while"-->and Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I still don't agree with this, but I won't fight it. Removed and replaced with semicolon. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support looks good. But I am curious what featured topic you had in mind.—Chris! _ct 23:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• See the DB87 capped comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• After reading it, I am still not sure what the topic is. But, oh well. Good luck.—Chris! _ct 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK, see above link. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

• "Major League leader at his position (** indicates tie)" Since I'm not that much of a baseball fan, I don't get this, and neither will some other readers. Just clarify the statement.

• Clarified. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• The title for the general reference should be "Awards and Honors - Silver Slugger winners", since I believe it is more clear as a title. "MLB Awards: History" won't really make sense.

• The "title" of a reference is supposed to be the title of the website. This is the HTML title, minus the boilerplate text from all MLB sites. I could add the subtitle if that would help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• That will definitely help. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 22:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize this will be a huge pain, but would it be possible to make both tables of even width (including the columns)? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Likely possible, but also likely to impede quite a few readers. This table is already cramped on a 1024x768 in Firefox and MSIE, and fixing column widths is likely to make it more so. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 01:20, 25 March 2009 [22].

---

List of Megadeth band members

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki

I am nominating this for featured list because after a peer review, I found the negative points to be improved, then resolved all to meet at least the FLC criteria. Cannibaloki 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved review by Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead Slayer guitarist Kerry King covered a handful of live dates while a permanent replacement was sought. -- IDK, but in my eyes, handful is a bit pov-ish. Removed. This lineup was extremely short-lived and after just a few shows in 1984, Lee Rausch was replaced by jazz fusion drummer Gar Samuelson, and also added second guitarist Chris Poland. -- now extremely is just straight-forward POV, if you remove it it will still keep the sentence meaning Removed too. After years of problems stemming from substance abuse, Mustaine fired both Poland and Samuelson before the recording of the band's third album; they were replaced by Jeff Young and Chuck Behler, respectively. -- what was their third album? Added; So Far, So Good... So What! Members I just find it odd that there are no citations in this section, although they are in the lead, I'm guessing there should be some citations here to verify the info.--₮RUCӨ 03:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Done. Cannibaloki 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 14:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Support My concerns have been addressed. Looks good. Drewcifer (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Looks really good. Only one question: what makes hardradio.com and bravewords.com reliable sources? Drewcifer (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

They are reliable since they are interviews, the publishers may not be reliable, but the work (which is the actual band members) is reliable.--₮RUCӨ 14:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles, and HardRadio is just used for an interview that I found only in this site. Cannibaloki 15:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "Lee Rausch was replaced....and also added...." - Lee Rausch did not add Poland, so this sentence is gramatically incorrect
  • Reworded.
• "October that same year" - doesn't read right to me (I'd say "October of the same year") but might be an ENGVAR thing - can you confirm if this wording is a valid American English usage....?
  • Reworded.
• "who officially joined Megadeth in February 1990" - think you could dispense with the second "Megadeth", as it was only used in the previous clause and it's pretty obvious that's the band he joined
  • Done.
• "Megadeth enlisted guitarist Al Pitrelli, as Friedman's replacement" - no need for comma after Pitrelli
  • Done.
• The two sentences beginning "Following nearly a year of recovery" are unsourced
  • Added.
• "brother to new guitarist" - again, is this a valid American English usage? In the UK we'd say "brother of"
  • Reworded.
• Why are the titles of two of the refs in italics?
  • {{Cite press release}} Cannibaloki 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

All looks good other than this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Made one tiny punctuation tweak, but all seems alright now. I'd never come across the press release tl, but I guess it must be OK. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "After guitarist/vocalist Dave Mustaine was fired from Metallica, he formed Megadeth in 1983, along with bassist David Ellefson, guitarist Greg Handevidt, and drummer Dijon Carruthers." A bit abrupt for the opening sentence. Why not start with the more contextual "Megadeth is an American heavy metal band..."? "demo featuring "-->demo that featured "and after just a few shows in 1984" "along with second guitarist Chris Poland." So did Poland replace somebody or was he replaced? Not clear. "1985 tour promoting Megadeth's debut," Would "Megadeth's 1985 debut" work? "musical differences."-->"musical differences". "replaced just five days before" "MacDonough parted ways" Can you use a different phrase than "parted ways", you already used it once. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Doing... Cannibaloki 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC) All done. Cannibaloki 00:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• HardRadio should not be italicized.
• Can you link the publishers on their first occurence? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think these members list pages would look more organized and easier to read if they used a table. Maybe something like:

Member	Years active	Instruments	# of releases	Release contributions
Dave Mustaine	1983–2002 2004–present	guitar, vocals		All Megadeth releases
Shawn Drover	2004–present	drums, percussion	2	That One Night: Live in Buenos Aires (2007), United Abominations (2007)
James LoMenzo	2006–present	bass, backing vocals	1	United Abominations (2007)
Chris Broderick	2008–present	guitar, backing vocals	0	None

The # of releases column is optional. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Cannibaloki 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cannibaloki 01:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: It looks way different to other FL of band members, but I must accept is one of the most complete as well. The style used in this list is the most proper one, due to the high number of members.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 04:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Excellent. My only concern is the stacking of images in the lead and the second table should be sortable by last name. In regards to the first issue, you could do the current images table like this:

Name		Years active	Instruments	Release contributions
	Dave Mustaine	1983–2002, 2004 onward	guitar, vocals	All Megadeth releases
	Shawn Drover	2004 onward	drums, percussion	That One Night: Live in Buenos Aires (2007), United Abominations (2007)
	James LoMenzo	2006 onward	bass, backing vocals	United Abominations (2007)
	Chris Broderick	2008 onward	guitar, backing vocals	none

If you decide to do it, you may want to make the images less tall. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem with the "stacking" of images? Cannibaloki 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It collides with the table, leaving unnecessary whitespace. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See again, please. Cannibaloki 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"...the second table should be sortable by last name." Done. Cannibaloki 15:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless someone has a very, very wide screen, there's no blank space now.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, that will work with the images. Has there been any negative response to the new table format? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What format? Overall or the last one with images? Cannibaloki 17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I was just wondering if anyone has complained about the table format or not. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay with the tables. "See yourself!" ;) Cannibaloki 20:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Try finding a Shawn Drover picture with the same format as theother three.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 23:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:57, 21 March 2009 [23].

---

List of United States Naval Academy alumni

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk •

This is the main US Naval Academy alumni list and LAST almost last one for FLC submission I'm planning from USNA ;-) It had to have three sublists split from it due to size. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts) and List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Chiefs of Naval Operations) are already Featured lists. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Legislators) is currently listed at FLC. I've tried to give them a common look as it's one topic. In WikiCup. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comment -- I'm concerned about the tag given This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it. Is this incomplete?--₮RUCӨ 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC) There are other FLs with that tag, example at List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. It's no big deal. There are tens of thousands of service academy grads. Trying to list just the notable ones would be a never ending task. This is exactly the sort of case that tag is meant for. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Oh okay, the prose looks fine as do the tables. Just make sure there are no periods where they aren't necessary. I also suggest removing images from sections where the extra images causes the section to stretch.--₮RUCӨ 04:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I'd already removed some. Are you talking about any sections in particular? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Most notably the "Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", "World War II MOH", and "World War II" sections. OK, I cut one more pic from each of those. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to wait for other reviews before I support because I am so used to seeing these types of lists, so once more reviews are given, I'll come back.--₮RUCӨ 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from JKBrooks85

Comments — It's an absolutely beautiful list, but I do have a few minor quibbles. How about a semicolon after "Admiral" in the William Sims listing, per the Mahan and Eberle ones? I'd suggest adding "MOH" after the Vera Cruz subhead to make it consistent with the other Medal of Honor listings. Oops, fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC) And the biggest one -- your headings switch from people to phrases. You've got astronauts, lawyers, nobel laureates, then it switches to non-title things like "academia" or "business". For consistency's sake, I'd strongly suggest switching these latter examples to things like "academics", "businesspeople", "government officials", "literary figures", etc. It's a minor thing, but it read oddly to me as I was going through the list. Wow, how'd I miss that? Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I don't see the changes you've made. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I'm also confused about your criteria for inclusion in the list. I know we'll never be able to include every person who ever graduated from the Naval Academy, but there are 644 people in the category of Naval Academy graduates -- how did you pick? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I did not use the wiki USNA cat for this at all. I mostly used the USNA official site listing (item B in general refs). You're right, we could never even include all the notable ones since there are so many. So what I did was start getting the existing wiki list up to snuff based on that Notables list. It quickly became too big (it'd take minutes to save a simple change), so I forked off Astronauts, CNOs, and Legislators (3 of the bigger sections) (Astros and CNOs are already FLs and Legislators is at FLC too, then I plan to make this a Featured Topic) leaving 5 people each as samples on this main list. Scholars is so huge making it a single sublist is out of the question (over 900 of them). Most of the people on the USNA list meet wiki criteria and have an article already. People who need an article are on the list talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Wait a tick ... do you intend to add the folks on the talk page to this list? JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Only after they have an article (or fixed whatever issue there is with them, like lack of a ref), then to the main list or sublist as appropriate. Eventually I may even make more sublists, esp an MOH one, but right now I'm working on the USAFA alumni list. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Okay, I think I can see where you're going with this. Would it be possible to start child lists for the categories that are too big to fit on this page (academics, etc.) My specific concern is about item No. 3 (everything else is absolutely awesome) on the list of criteria: comprehensiveness. This is a great parent article, but I don't think it can be completely comprehensive until all the child lists are at least started. We can't include all the academics who graduated from the Naval Academy because this list would be too long -- but you can still do what you did with the astronauts list and start a child list, linking to it from this one. As it is now, with no child list for the relevant categories, it makes it seem as if the academics, etc. in this list are the only notable ones when that isn't the case. Do you see where I'm coming from? JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Astronaut, CNO, and Legislators are complete lists per the USNA website. The only ones that may warrant child lists beyond those three are academics (many, many of whom don't have articles btw but still prob enough for an article) and the MOH group. If you want to help create them, feel free. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Reset indent. Okie dokie; take a look at what I've done, and after you're done recoiling in horror, let me know what you agree/disagree with. The way I look at it, this is the keystone article for any other list of Naval Academy alumni that might come after it. If someone wants to create a full list of notable literary figures who graduated from the Naval Academy, this style will already have a link to it. The way I look at it, this one should be a list of heavy hitters and let someone else tackle the big lists. Do you see where I'm coming from? JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Agree to a point. The main list is the starting point. Sublists are warranted for when there are enough notable people in a category. MOH warrants one so I will now change my stmt that this is the last USNA alum FLC and make an MOH sublist. Academics--I have to see if there are enough for a sublist. NO RED LINKS, so I have removed them all. Attorneys-prob many alum are, but how many are wiki notable and have an article? Just one doesn't warrant a sublist. When there are sublists, 5 is a good number to leave on the main list with a link to the subarticle. Some topics will never have a sub article --Nobel laureates are defacto notable but there are not enough for a sublist. Let's only create the link in the main list when a sublist is both warranted and actually created. As for title changes like "Sports/Athletes", "Business/Businesspeople", I followed the pattern of List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni but I think it does not matter as long as the pattern is consistent within a list or close group of lists like these. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Also, if you look at the Georgia Tech alum list, it has NO SUBLISTS of alum at all and yet there are bound to be many more notable GT alum than they've listed. So, I'm not so sure that holding up a main list simply because sublists could be created is a valid objection. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Frankly, I don't care when the sub-lists are created, just that the structure of this article give a foundation for their creations. Look at it this way: It's possible for someone to create these sub-lists, and links will have to be inserted to them. Why not just put the links in now? I can't respond to the Georgia Tech comment — I didn't review that article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Because it'd be a red link now and red links in featured content are not good, unless you want to create it yourself. I really don't see your point about the structure as the structure does not stop a new sublist from being created--there are already four; so the foundation you mention already exists. Also keep in mind that we're trying to make a featured topic here so unless you're willing to put in the effort to make that sublist a FL-which would probably be very hard given the paucity of data on that sub group-it'd undermine that effort as in an Featured Topic all parts must be of highest quality. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC) See, that's where our opinions differ. I encourage red links; they're a great way to encourage authors to start new articles. I try to include more than one in every featured article (not featured list, because I know how anal people here are about that), but I can understand that viewpoints differ. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I am assuming good faith that the image uploaders correctly tagged the images. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Canoe U." Logical punctuation, quotes should be inside the period. Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC) For the categories with sublists, how did you choose which alumni to list on the main list? I chose ones that were well-known or especially noteworthy. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I requested an image check at WT:FLC. I cannot support until an independent editor can verify that all images check out. I hope you understand. There are just too many, and I am not experienced enough to check them myself. OK, commented there, they're all PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "Henry Procter"-->Henry Proctor Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• " National Law Journal "-->The National Law Journal, and it should be in italics because it is a publication.

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Washington Post"-->The Washington Post, and same comment about the italics.

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.blackmilitaryworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=291 a reliable source?

For one thing, everything in that article is accurate, but it already has one ref and I've added a third, so if you want to delete that one, we'd still have two. New one from Armed Forces Press Service. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If it has a backup source then it's fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out abbreviations in the publishers such as NASA, USAA, and SM&A.

Done, except SM&A doesn't break out to anything. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer if every instance were spelled out (readers might not catch the first instance), but no big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 60, web titles in all caps should be converted to title case.

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Refs 5 and 16 need format=PDF added to them.

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved image issues and extraneous discussion

* File:Navyacademylogo.jpg has no source or date information File:Albert Abraham Michelson2.jpg has no source or date information, yet claims to be {{PD-US}}. It is probably from before 1923. I cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim File:WilliamHParkerCSN.jpg is tagged with {{PD-old}}, which is for for images where the author died more than 100 years ago; however, there is no author given, so this cannot be verified. There is also no date or source information to show it's in the PD by any other means. It appears to be an engraving, so {{PD-art-life-50}} is probably the best option, but the author, date and sources need to be given to be sure File:Dennis Blair.jpg claims {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, but the USPACOM from which the image is source [24] isn't just a Navy outfit. Either the more generalised {{PD-USGov-Military}} should be used, or preferably the actual author should be found, showing he was a Naval employee. File:James_Lovell.jpg - source link [25] deadlinks; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim. Image information would be desirable File:Admiral Frank Kelso, official military photo.JPEG - source link [26] deadlinks; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim File:CharlieWilson.jpg should be tagged with {{PD-USGov-Congress}} File:Admiral John Poindexter, official Navy photo, 1985.JPEG source link [27] deadlinks; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim I followed the link (it was not dead) on the Commons description page to the U.S. Defense Department's Imagery site — it contains exactly the Commons description. Author=WHITE HOUSE — which means it is a U.S. Government image and thus public domain. What further proof is required? — ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC) ERcheck is right, that link is not dead, besides, where's the requirement that all sources be online sources? What if the source was an 1895 book that is now out of print? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC) File:Adm William Crowe Jr.JPG source link [28] deadlinks; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim Again, as above for Poindexter, the link on Commons is not dead. This image can also be found on another U.S. Government site — here; it clearly says this is a U.S. Navy photo and is released. This exercise of reverifying what is clearly documented in the Commons files should not be necessary. Please Assume Good Faith. The details are already there. — ERcheck (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC) File:Peter Pace official portrait.jpg source link [29] deadlinks; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim. Image information claims N/A on date and author, which doesn't sit well for me This is his official U.S. Military photo, which is c.2000-2007, after his promotion to 4-star rank. Not all official photos carry the name of the photographer. This is not a requirement; nor that links remain active forever. His official biography, with photo is still available here. 00:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Addendum — the date and photographer information is available from the original photo. — ERcheck (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC) File:William Leahy cropped.jpg has no source infomation; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim Following the links on the Commons page gets you to this original upload page, which has full source information; including the public domain information. From Navy historic site - http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/k14000/k14447.jpg<br? Photo # 80-G-K-14447 Circa: 1945 "License: All information on this site is in the public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. - http://www.history.navy.mil/warning.htm — ERcheck (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC) File:Chester Nimitz-fleet-admiral.jpg source link [30] deadlinks; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim Updated information on Image file page on Commons, with live link to NHC. Full public domain licensing information provided. — ERcheck (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC) File:Pedro del Valle.jpg is from a National Parks Service webpage [31], but I am unsure whether that automatically puts the image into public domain. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look at this one. The National Parks Service is a Federal Agency and thereby it's photos should be PD, however the series which the NPS has posted and from where this image came from is the "Commemorative Series produced by the Marine Corps History and Museums Division" which would also make it PD. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC) This is over the top, for example, I didn't upload these but one or two of these for one thing, two where is the requirement they be PD, three, most of them are on commons, four - just one example, the Staubach one is his official Academy yearbook photo and clearly PD-Navy. I thought I was on FLC, not IFD page. The Waddell photo is well over 100 years old and PD for that, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Matthew asked me on my talk page to give my input on this. I don't think that the review was nitpicky at all; public domain images should be scrutinized as much as fair use ones, especially if the whole point of the public domain's description page is to prove that it is indeed in the public domain. Gary King (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC) As I said on IRC, if an image is not free, it needs a FUR adding to the image page for its use on this article. If the copyright cannot be determined, we can't know if it is GFDL or Creative Commons licenced, or in the public domain. Trying to assume from the age or career of the subject is bordering on Original Research, and I feel that the copyright status of each image must be as verifiable as the claims made in an article. I conducted this review based on others I have seen and received, such as at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of First Ladies of the United States. I have asked User:Elcobbola, a Commons admin and frequent FAC image reviewer to comment, as well as two highly active FLC nominators, User: Gary King and User:Sephiroth BCR to comment. Hopefully others will see this too and decide to comment. If it's agreed that I have been too strict, I will strike my concerns and see where they are appropriate. I'm sorry that this has annoyed you, and I hope it doesn't put you off FLC in the future. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Looks fine. I mean, Elcobbola is the godfather (godmother?) of image reviewing and what Matthew did was no more strict than what he does. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of female Nobel Laureates for an example. Simply because the images are PD doesn't mean that we take a break from following WP:IUP. Proving that images are public domain with sufficient proof and rationales shown is just as important as writing good rationales for fair use images. This is what you're going to find at FAC and FLC nowadays. If you can't find the proper proof that the image is PD, then just cut it. The list isn't going to fail without all those images. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for replying so quickly, Gary and Sephiroth. Is this the right forum for discussing the images though? Should the image policy pages be the best place to discuss the public domain-dom of the images, or is a review of the article they're used in an okay place to discuss it too? I think that's what Rlevse is concerned with -- that this is the wrong place for an image discussion. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC) If the images are such a problem, then this is what I think should happen: the images with questionable status should be commented out until after promotion (promotion assumed unless there is another issue that pops up). After the list is promoted, continue the image review on the talk page of the list. There, you all can work one-by-one one images without having to worry about time limits or any of that. Also, we won't take up space on this FLC with image issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) I don't see why it shouldn't be discussed here. We can ask for a second opinion from the image policy talk pages, but otherwise, it should be discussed here. Images are covered by criteria six of WIAFL, so they definitely need to be addressed for the nomination to be successful. That said, per my comments above and per Dabomb, simply removing the images with bad rationales at the moment and addressing them at the talk page after the nomination concludes successfully (assuming there are no other outstanding issues) is fine too. Lack of images isn't a failure of criteria six. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Let's look at just one: Does anyone REALLY think the Waddell image is NOT PD? It was taken about 140 years ago for pete's sake. Most of these are official government photos and clearly PD--like Staubach's image is his senior yearbook photo and also clearly PD. FLC is not the plae to quibble over which tag or source or to fix a dead link. That's what we have image pages like IFD for. The uploader should have the responsiblity to fix quibbles not someone that uses them. This is FLC, not IFD page. These issues should be on IFD or the image page, not the FLC page. This FL nom has lost all focus. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC) FLC is the place for this, just as it is at FAC. Featured content is supposed to follow all of our content policies and guidelines, including WP:IUP. If we can't confirm that the image is PD, then the image shouldn't be used. As I said above, doing so is just as important as writing fair use rationales for fair use images is. Doesn't matter how blatantly obvious it is. Really, this has an easy solution: remove all the images with bad rationales and go through them at the talk page after the nomination passes. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Even easier, delete the nomination and the article. Civil War pics are copyrighted, ugh. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Can we do without the drama? If this is such a big deal, I can do most of this when I return from my vacation. If the images are the only things keeping the article from promotion, I'd rather just fix them myself. My gosh. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Sure, if people would stop trying to claim things like Civil War pics are not PD and can't be used. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Surely a lot of these images can be found in government image databases then? Gary King (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Feel free to look. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The onus is usually on the nominator, or at least someone else closely affiliated with the scope... Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC) But I don't care anymore. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

• File:Horacio Rivero Jr.jpg claims {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, but has no author or source information; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim.

I have replaced said image with one which I took in the State Capital of Puerto Rico. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He means the one now in the article, clearly PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Samuelwilderking.jpg claims to be from Hawaii State Archives, but has no source link. No author or date information either to verify public domain status. Image is also tagged with a depreciated public domain template

Deleted from article, Hawaii is a non free state/site, see [32], could be used under FUR but I'm not messing with that. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:David McCampbell.jpg has no source, date or author infomation; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim

Dupe of commons file, which has info, deleted en wiki version. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Carlisle Trost.jpg source link [33] deadlinks; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim

There are two sources there, the defense imagery one still works. This is PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Full PD information now posted on Commons:

{{PD-USGov-Military-DVIC}}

• File:John A. Lejeune.jpg, File:Robert E. Cushman.jpg, File:John Mercer Brooke.jpg-- if date or author information could be found, that'd be nice

Info found and added to all. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:JamesIredellWaddellCSA.jpg claims to be from Naval Historical Center, but has no source link. No author or date information eiter to verify public domain status.

NHC link and source information added to image description page for c.1864-1865 photo. — ERcheck (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the NHC as shown on image description page: — ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

File information

Description	Commander James Iredell Waddell (1824-1886), CSN; photographed in Confederate Navy uniform.
Source	"Commander James Iredell Waddell, Confederate States Navy, (1824-1886)", Online Library of Selected Images, Naval Historical Center, Department of the Navy. Photo #: NH 66710
Date	circa 1864-1865.
Author	U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.
Permission (Reusing this file)	From the public domain U.S. Naval Historical Center.

• File:CharlesSigsbee.jpg is tagged with {{PD-old}}, but no author information can be found, so it may be possible that he died after 1939, and so the "life of the author plus 70 years" has not occurred yet

Info you seek is below in a comment by ERcheck, online info shows it's PD and that the Bohemia mentioned was a book in 1904, not the country. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, retagged with {{PD-US}} — published in 1904. Comment about Sigsbee source below. — ERcheck (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:BrinkleyBass.jpg gives [34] as the source, and states "Charles Lewis gave permission for this image from http://ussbrinkleybass.com/hbbass.htm to be used in the Harry Brinkley Bass article on 28 Sep 2006." The image is tagged as CC-by-SA-2.5. Permission cannot be verified due to deadlink and no OTRS ticket.

Website moved here but I can't find where they moved photo. I'll ask the webmaster about the photo's status. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:John Ripley.jpg has no source, date or author infomation; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim

Removed from the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Zembiec-fallujah.jpg source links deadlink; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim

FOund new link, same site, but new address, added to image page, see [35] — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Joeweberphysicist2.jpg is from http://www.usna.com, but I have found nothing to show that images there are automatically in the public domain. Image information states "This is a US Naval photo of Weber in Naval uniform, and thus is a US Governmental photo in the public domain." Yes, he's in uniform, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a Naval photo, and with no other image information, there is nothing to verify the copyright status/public domain claim

It's his academy yearbook photo, see comment to Staubach for more on this. Updated image info, see [36] — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:WWBehrensJr.jpg "Source: Family photo", tagged with {{PD-release}}. No other image information is given, so copyright status/public domain claim cannot be verified

See this I doubt Arlington Cemetery would use a copyrighted image — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Napoleon McCallum (cropped).jpg needs image information, otherwise, PD-status is fine

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:RogerStaubachUSNA.jpg is sourced from USNA, but there is nothing to verify public domain claim

It's his academy yearbook photo. They are taken by Navy photogs for official gov pub, the yearbook. I can show you hundreds more like it. See this and this. The yearbook is called the "Lucky Bag" and they call these "Lucky Bag photos". HOpe this helps — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Admiral Harris Laning.png has no source, date or author infomation; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim

Found source book and added: " Scanned from a Naval Historical [Center] photo in:

Laning, Harris (1999).Admiral's Yarn, Newport, Rhode Island: U.S. Naval War College Press. This is U.S. Naval War College Historical Monograph Series, No. 14 This book is the "Memoirs of Admiral Harris Laning, who was Pres. of the Naval War College (NWC) circa 1930. Also note...includes Laning's opening address delivered before the NWC staff & classes of 1931; & Laning's thesis written while a student in 1921."...which is fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• All other image files have been checked and verified as good.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't said they're not PD. I've said their status cannot be verified. Yes, common sense tells us they are PD, but that is original research. The deadlinked source links cannot help us verify that. Claims that they are PD because they are 70 years older than the death of the author cannot be verified because we don't know who the author is. I like Dabomb's suggestion of commenting them out and working on them one-by-one. There's no need to throw any toys out of the crib and delete stuff. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is like lawyers with legal minds carried to the extreme. Take the most obivous ones, Civil War, let's say the author was 15 in 1865, now he'd be 159, but we can't use it. right. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at WP:MILHIST, maybe some kind soul will come to help. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to File:CharlesSigsbee.jpg. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Support: WP:AGF on images. Even if the links are "dead" now on some of the sources, they were provided at the time, and looking at their source (.mil), these are U.S. Military/DoD sources = public domain. Commons images, if not acceptable, should be tagged and discussed on Commons; else, they are in Commons so that they can be used anywhere, including Wikipedia Featured Lists. This is a well-written list and deserves featured status. — ERcheck (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are .mil links, but because they doesn't work we don't know if the images was ever sourced from that page. It's easy to say it is, but it has to be verified. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on File:CharlesSigsbee.jpg — the Commons description clearly says it "Photograph published in Bohemia, 1904, by the International League of Press Clubs" [37] — this is 105 years ago - which is {{PD-US}} (seems to be published by the International League of Press Clubs in Philadelphia [38] [39]. — ERcheck (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That could easily be edited to say it was first published in 1931. It also says "Courtesy of Larry Franklin, 1983". Without a reliable, working source link to verify when it was published, we don't know if it is PD, and we don't know if Larry Franklin is the current copyright owner, if he's released it under a GFDL or Creative Commons licence, or what. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

GEEZ. Talk about a complete lack of AGF, accusing things of being falsified without any justification. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer Matthewedwards response above — 2 points:

1. I did provide a link above (right after the words the Commons description clearly says it "Photograph published in Bohemia, 1904, by the International League of Press Clubs") — directly to the U.S. Department of the Navy's Naval Historical Center (NHC) page from which the information posted on Commons is taken. It is exactly as in the Commons source comment. Here it is again: www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/maine.htm. As for the "Courtesy of Larry Franklin 1983", I took that to mean that Larry Franklin provided 1904 book to the NHC from which the image was taken— which can still be found from a few antique book dealers. Nonetheless, it is clear that the U.S. Government is saying it was from a source published in 1904.
2. Again, I ask you to Assume Good Faith. Your note above reads as if you are accusing the uploader of lying about his source.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quick note: I replaced File:Dennis Blair.jpg with File:Dennis C. Blair.JPEG, the latter of which is from a non-forum source. I don't know anything about insignia, but Blair appears to have fewer bands on his sleeves in the replacement. If this means it is depicting a different rank than before and/or a different rank than that which "needs" to be depicted, feel free to revert. Эlcobbola _talk 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In the JPG one he is a 4-star admiral, in the JPEG one he is a 1-star admiral (lower rank) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I apologize if someone has already asked this, but how did you choose who to include in this page? The astronauts list has five people, but List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts) has over 50. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • See the capped discussion from JKBrooks. Dabomb87 (talk)
    • Yep, already answered; in fact it was a suggestion from Dabomb87 to do it that way since a single list is hopelessly undoable for this topic, which I plan to FT this set of lists and later the USMA alum I'm going to create. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:57, 21 March 2009 [40].

---

List of Yukon Quest competitors

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)

Hi there! It's been a while since I've submitted a FLC, but I figured it was time to do it again in order to stay in practice. This list includes every participant of the annual Yukon Quest 1,000-mile sled dog race, with champions and award winners color-coded for clarity. There's not as many musher-specific pictures as I'd like, but there are a handful. The list comes from the Yukon Quest's databases of finishers and participants, bolstered by several tables and lists in secondary publications. I feel the prose is clean and clear, and explains enough about the subject without being too overwhelming. As always, if you have a question outside of this review, don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks for your time and your review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"The list of Yukon Quest competitors" FLs don't start like this anymore. See recently promoted FLs for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank God. I always hated that insistence in starting it with the name of the article. I've reworked the lede, so feel free to take another look. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Much better. Watch the logical punctuation (I fixed it), ""toughest race in the world."-->"toughest race in the world". I will return for a full review later. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead Its length is equivalent to the distance between England and Africa, and the distance between some checkpoints is equivalent to the breadth of Ireland. -- Unlink Africa and Ireland per WP:LINK, they are common geographical locations. Unlinked. The correct guideline is WP:LINK, btw. WP:LINKS refers to external links only. Typo ;)--₮RUCӨ 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The racers come from various walks of life. There have been taxicab drivers, a swim instructor, a coal miner, a tax assessor, a lawyer, many fur trappers, several journalists, a car salesman, and more. -- This would be better stated as "The racers have come from various professions: taxicab drivers, a swimming instructor, a coal miner, a tax assessor, a lawyer, fur trappers, journalists, and a car salesman, among others." Agreed. Reworded. The next most-important award is the Veterinarians Choice Award, which is voted by race veterinarians and given to the musher who maintains the best care of his or her dogs during the course of the race. -- Most-important would be sound better in this context if it were replaced with "significant" Good word! I'd struggled with finding the right impartial wording, and I think that's it. Reworded. Following this are the Challenge of the North Award—given to the musher who "exemplifies the spirit of the Yukon Quest—and the sportsmanship award, given to the most sportsmanlike competitor, as chosen by a vote of the mushers. -> "Other supporting awards include the Challenge of the North Award—given to the musher who "exemplifies the spirit of the Yukon Quest—and the sportsmanship award, given to the most sportsmanlike competitor, as chosen by a vote of the mushers." I don't think "supporting" is quite right, so I excised that, but I've reworded the sentence. That's fine.--₮RUCӨ 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Michelle Phillips won the Veterinarian's Choice Award, Jamaican musher Newton Marshall won the Challenge of the North Award, Brent Sass won the sportsmanship award, William Kleedehn won the Dawson Award, and four-time Iditarod champion Martin Buser won the Rookie of the Year Award. -- Unlink Jamaican, it's a common geographical location. Done. Because of this, the first-place finisher had his prize reduced from $35,000 to $30,000. -- Since the previous sentence began with Because, this should begin with "As a result,". Done. Key Scratched is WP:JARGON, what does this mean? Transwiki link added to Wiktionary. I believe that's a better course than linking to the disambiguation page at scrach, which also has the definition way down at the bottom. That's good enough.--₮RUCӨ 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Competitors Unlink Japan, unless you can give a specific location as to where specifically it is located. Done. I've also removed the links to Switzerland, France, Germany, etc. Do you think I should keep the links to Alaska, or are those narrow enough? Alaska is a state of a country, so its best to link it.--₮RUCӨ 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) This table would be great if it were sortable Unfortunately, the rowspans make that impossible -- or so I've been told. Is there a way to do it? There is, but it requires more coding. I don't know if you're up to that, but you could also get rid of the row spans as well and replace them with emdashes, but that's if you want, if not its fine how it is.--₮RUCӨ 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I guess you didn't want to ;)--₮RUCӨ 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Notes There is an inconsistency with the italicizing of the "Fairbanks Daily News-Miner" publisher. Was this done?--₮RUCӨ 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC) You betcha. It was just dropping in italics, right? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Yep.--₮RUCӨ 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Categories Is it necessary to have uncreated categories?--₮RUCӨ 03:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Deleted one, created another. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support --- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• One of the competitors is shown as "Nash, John" - is his name Nash John and the comma shouldn't be there, or (more likely) is it John Nash and his names are the wrong way round? Either way, it needs fixing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good catch. I had to convert the listing from last name first, and I guess I missed that one. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Can't see any other issues so support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Yukon Quest International 1,000-mile Sled Dog Race has been called the "most difficult sled dog race in the world"[1] and the "toughest race in the world"." Starting out with two quotes like this is not very helpful (insufficient context) and sounds almost promotional with these fantastic quotes. I suggest splitting the sentences and adding info, like this: "The Yukon Quest International 1,000-mile Sled Dog Race is a is an annual sled dog race between Fairbanks, Alaska, and Whitehorse, Yukon. It has been called the "most difficult sled dog race in the world"[1] and the "toughest race in the world"."
• "to be the first to race via dog sled" The first to race, or the first to finish in the race?
• "Only 352 people have participated in the race since its inception in 1984, and even fewer have finished it." "Only" is a bit POV. You may need to reword so that you don't have a number starting a sentence.
• Link "scratch" in the lead, too.
• "which is voted by" "voted on".
• "during the course of the race" Redundancy.
• Numbers and corresponding units need non-breaking spaces, such as "9 days, 23 hours, and 20 minutes".
• "by taking 13 days, 23 hours, and 17 minutes to finish"-->by finishing in 13 days, 23 hours, and 17 minutes
• "Jeff King won the 1989 Yukon Quest and finished twice two times." Spot the redundancy, it's quite glaring.
• "but has only raced in the Quest once."
• Is there any way to center the info in the table? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've made the changes except for the Jeff King item -- he did finish second twice -- and the centering, which will take a little more time than I've got right now. I'd prefer not to do it, but if it really bothers you, it'll take me a while to put all the center style tags on the items. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Take your time on the centering. However, wouldn't you say "Jeff King won the 1989 Yukon Quest and finished second two times"? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It's nice to see a sports FLC for something different. I'm wondering if you could through in a EL or reference that has an easy list of the winners? If you address this within the next 2 1/2 hours let me know and I'll promote it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what "EL" is referring to, but both the final two references in the article contain similar lists. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• External link. Could you link directly to one just for simplicity? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:57, 21 March 2009 [41].

---

List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Legislators)

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk •

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is a full list of all US Naval Academy graduates who became legislators. It is the third in a set of four lists of USNA alumni. All images are free licensed. All entries have refs. I'm in WikiCup. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Excellent work. Well-cited, the images appear to have correct copyright information, and the topic appears to be complete. My only concern is that the title of the article gave me the impression that state legislators also would be included. Since this only includes U.S. federal legislators, might I suggest a title change to List of United States Naval Academy alumni (U.S. Legislators)? JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed Roilo Golez who is listed. He's one of the foreign USNA alums and was a legislator in his native Philippines. I thought that something like (national level legislators) was awkard so just went with (Legislators). I've added "or its equivalent in their native country" to the first sentence of the second paragraph. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The Naval Academy is an undergraduate college in Annapolis, Maryland that educates and commissions officers of the Navy and Marine Corps. -- Why isn't the Navy linked? Oops, fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC) The Academy is often is referred to as Annapolis. Sports media refer to the Academy as Navy and the students as Midshipmen; this usage is officially endorsed.[ -- How about, "The Academy is often is referred to as Annapolis, while sports media refer to the Academy as Navy and the students as Midshipmen; this usage is officially endorsed." Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC) The curricula emphasizes engineering fields. -- what does this mean? and why is it relevant to this list about Legislators? Not trying to be facetious but it means it's heavy in engineering, as all the service academies are. It is relevant as it shows the nature of the school and the curricula that all students must take. IE, the academies are not liberal arts schools. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC) It would be better worded as "emphasizes in engineering fields" or "emphasizes in the field of engineering"--₮RUCӨ 03:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I have to disagree "emphasizes in engineering fields" is awkward and "emphasizes in the field of engineering" is inaccurate because there is more than one type of engineering. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Also note that List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts) has already been promoted to FL with that exact wording so I really feel the wording is quite fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I guess I must have missed that when I reviewed it =P.--₮RUCӨ 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Currently three alumni are members of Congress: Senator John McCain, Class of 1958, Senator James H. Webb, Jr., Class of 1968, and Representative Joe Sestak, Class of 1974. Roilo Golez, Class of 1970, served as a Congressman in his native country, the Philippines. -- instead of listing the classes after comma after comma, it would be best to have them in parenthesis like "John McCain (Class of 1958). Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC) An overall count of legislators should be given in the lead. See first three words of lead. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Legislators Why aren't the name columns and year class sortable? Good question, something must have happened to the template. I asked the writer. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC) An "oops" by the code writer. He fixed already. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Ok.--₮RUCӨ 03:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC) The "year" column should be renamed to "Year of grad." or a footnote should be given that it explains as to what year they graduated. It is not always year of graduation. In time of war classes graduate early. For example, the "Class of 1943" actually graduated in 1942. The service academies always refer to their Class year, not the year of graduation, though that's usually the same year. I'll add a footnote on this to each article in this topic to explain this. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Gotcha, but how about naming it "Class year" or something like that.--₮RUCӨ 03:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Because the template is used for more than just service academies. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Oh okay.--₮RUCӨ 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Note: Admiral; Senator from Connecticut (1945–1946); veteran on the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II; commander of United States Asiatic Fleet at the outbreak of World War II; instructor at the Academy; -- remove the final semi-colon done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Remove one of the images, it stretches the section and gives it more unneeded white space. done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC) References General ref A needs a publisher caused by a typo, fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC) --₮RUCӨ 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues found in review have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I feel like I've reviewed this list before :); I am finding less to fix. "The Naval Academy is an undergraduate college in Annapolis, Maryland that educates and commissions officers of the Navy and Marine Corps." I don't think this sentence is as precise as it could be. The Academy itself cannot educate the officers themselves, can they? It looks like your comment got chopped off, can you complete it? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC) So I did. Sorry! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Check now, made a tweak (you missed that the first two lists ;-) ) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC) "Currently three alumni" "Currently" is a dated word, and is already implied through use of the present tense. If you really want to, you can use {{as of}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC) General comment Is there some kind of navbox that you can make for the four USNA lists? It would be better to have than to list the other USNA lists in the See also section. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I'm sure I can fix something up. Give me a few hours. -MBK004 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I'll ask my template buddy. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC) {{USNALists}} -MBK004 00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Very nice! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• The web title in ref 32 needs to be converted to title case, even if the original title was in all caps. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm wondering if the references for specific statements should go in the notability section after the corresponding sentence. It might be more useful because if you want the source that confirms that Jeremiah Denton was a Rear Admiral, there are four to choose from. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the other USNA alum lists are done like that and wouldn't it be defeating the purpose of a refs column? I guess it's not a huge deal but for me I like the format and consistency of all refs in the refs column. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that the refs column was more for when the entire row was covered by once source and there was nowhere else to put it. I suppose you are right though. This is unrelated (so you can reply on my talk page if you prefer), but I was wondering what you thought about my recent comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009 [42].

---

List of St. Louis Blues head coaches

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]], « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie »

Though MFC is retired, I still want to give him credit for his work on this article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Excellent list Laugh out loud. It's the same as the rest. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Lead Barclay Plager and Bob Plager are the only pair of brothers[5] to have coached the Blues; Barclay coached for four seasons, and Bob coached for eleven games, respectively. -- there is no need for the respectively since you state (literally respectively) the distinction between Bob and Barclay. Yeah...I thought so. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Coaches The achievement 1980–81 Jack Adams Award winner should be consistent with other FL formatting as "Jack Adams Award (1980–81)" Most of my featured lists with Jack Adams Award winners have that format. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but be consistent with the formatting of other awards not just that specific one.--₮RUCӨ 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC) If it makes you feel better SRE.K.A.L.24, I can fix the other articles later :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Which ever one you guys prefer... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) References Does the NHL have other subwebsites (beside the teams) that is different from its main website? If not, the work does not need to be "NHL.Com" since its their official website.--₮RUCӨ 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC) It should. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I think what Truco's trying to say is that having NHL.com and then NHL Enterprises is redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's what I meant.--₮RUCӨ 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I knew what you meant...and I was answering your question. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Well excuse me. I just don't think "It should" is a reasonable answer.--₮RUCӨ 00:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I think the NHL.com website has more sub-pages besides the NHL team ones. I'm no tsure, but I don't know how to check. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I've gotten three pro wrestling articles to FA status. When I sourced to the official company website for those events, I did not write World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) as the publisher and the work from WWE.com because it is its official website. Now WWE has a website just for their corporate business, which is called WWE Corporate. The work is from WWE Corporate whilst the publisher is still World Wrestling Entertainment. Just like for the NHL, they state NHL.com is the official Web site of the National Hockey League., so there is no need for the redundancy. I would also replace the work field with content that states it is the Blue's official website.--₮RUCӨ 00:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Now I understand what you mean. Thanks for the clarification (though the first sentence you said wasn't needed in your statement). I'll let you edit the article, just in case if I make a mistake. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) What do you mean it wasn't needed? I was just stating that they were promoted to FA so what I said after that wouldn't sound incorrect or inaccurate. Sorry, if it offended you. --₮RUCӨ 01:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC) It didn't offend me at all. It was just that it felt like you were shoving the FAs in my face, and I think it would've still made sense. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, it just didn't seem like that since pro wrestling isn't really fond on WP. I guess just drop a line here when you've done this.--₮RUCӨ 02:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I think I did it right... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The only this is that for pages that are subpages of the Blues (like the main Blues website on NHL.com) is the work (which goes in the work field, like WWE Corporate did in the World Wrestling Entertainment citation.--₮RUCӨ 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I really don't know what you're saying. I hope you could just fix the references for me, which will be greatly appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't the publisher be the St Louis Blues Hockey Club? I noticed that none of the references make note of the Blues, even though the material is "Copyright © 2009 St Louis Blues Hockey Club and the National Hockey League". Just a thought... – Nurmsook! talk... 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC) No the work is from the "St Louis Blues Hockey Club". I did it for you, but you should link the NHL publisher to NHL and to the Blues main article since you link to the hall of fame, or vise versa, unlink the hall of fame.--₮RUCӨ 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 00:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Having first played at the St. Louis Arena, the Blues have played their home games at the Scottrade Center, first named the Kiel Center, since 1994"-->The Blues played their home games at the St. Louis Arena until 1993/1994 (I don't know which year); they have played their home games at the Scottrade Center, first named the Kiel Center, since then. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "The majority of the Blues" Do you mean the majority of the Blues franchise? Added franchise. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Why are you using the image of the arena when there are two head coach images? Because I believe those coaches aren't well known enough as a Blues coach. If I had an image of Quenneville or Murray, then it'll be different. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC) But it doesn't make sense to use an arena image (blurry, at that) as the lead image when you have two perfectly fine head coach images. It doesn't matter that the coaches aren't well known; those images are simply more relevant. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009 [43].

---

BBC Sports Personality Team of the Year Award

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk)

This is my 6th award in a SPOTY topic. WikiCup entry. Thanks in advance for any comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The award is given to the British team that "has achieved the most notable performance in British sport". -- Its really irrelevant IMO to link team, its very common. -Uninked If this is also a tie the award is shared. -- Comma after "tie" -Done In the past the winner of the Team of the Year Award has been chosen by public vote[3] and picked by listeners of Radio 5 Live.[ -- Comma after past -Done The England national rugby union team and the Ryder Cup team has won the award on five occasions, each sharing the award with another team on one of those occasions.[6] Liverpool F.C. have won the award three times. -- Clarify that these are the most wins -Done The largest winning team was in 2000; Team GB consisted of all the British representatives at the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games. -- what does TB mean? It was "Team GB" and I have just linked the term as it redirects to the correct place. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Image Remove the full stop from the caption of the first image. -Done Notes You should make a sub-notes section for all the entries, or just one section for notes, its inconsistent having a main section and 1 subsection for notes. -Done By nation The number of wins column does not sort properly. -Sorted :x References 35 - The URL is not the "work", the site is published by both publishers and the work is from both of them, which is in the publishers, so its not necessary to state the "work" because its the same as the publisher -Done --₮RUCӨ 21:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The award is decided by a panel of over 30 sporting journalists, with each panelist voting for their top two choices."-->The award's recipient is decided by a panel of over 30 sporting journalists, each of whom vote for their top two choices. -Done "points total"-->point total -Done "Since then, the award has been presented 50 more times. " Since it is an annual award, can't this be inferred? Also, including this would introduce the burden of having to update the count. -Removed "the figure skating duo of Torvill and Dean who won in 1982 and 1983, and the Olympic men's coxless rowing pair of Steve Redgrave and Matthew Pinsent who won in 1992 and 1996. " "who won" is unnecessary in both instances. -Done "Six different nations have been represented" -Done "Team GB" Can you spell this out (define) on its first appearance? Team GB isn't an abbreviation as such, it is the teams official name.[44]. Does it still need an additional summary? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I suppose not, although a footnote would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I have removed it by rewording. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC) "one of which shared the award" "which"-->whom Question. The winners are teams, isn't "whom" just for individuals? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, I was confused. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC) "which had competitors"-->which fielded competitors -Done "fifteen different sporting disciplines" -Done There are couple instances where numbers should be converted to numeric form: "the remainder of the winning teams have represented fifteen" and "with twelve recipients" -Done In the "By year" section, the legend has a grey background, but the table does not have any items with it. I was trying to get a grey similar to the wikitable's grey as when they were white it looked like the cells needed to be white if they contained the symbol. I tried to find out the wikitable's default colour but couldn't find it. Do you know what it is? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I think I have now found one much closer. Is it good enough? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I still can't see it, but the issue isn't important. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Can you input fractions with {{frac}} instead of the unicode entities? The former are easier to read. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Not done. They are too big for the table and the denominator gets partially cut off when you do (in my browser at least). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC) No problem, this was an issue with a few other users too. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] "The award is given to the British team" Canada isn't British (I should know), and so isn't the European Union. just remove British. Done. The rules say "To the (British only) team that has achieved the most notable performance in British sport.",[45] so I have added the word "currently" to clarify. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Isn't Auto racing the sport instead of Formula One? -Done Couldn't you note which league were the football, rugby union, rugby league, etc. teams in? I could but I don't think it is particularly relevent. For example, some teams may have finished low in the domestic league that year, but won some other European title. In fact, all but one of those teams were competing in their respective top flight at the time. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC) But why do you link motor racing to Formula One? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Same reason I had linked "Equestrianism" to Eventing in 1972, but Showjuping in 1979. It provides the more information about the specific type of sport if the reader is interested. The summary tables below use the general links for "Motor racing" and "Equestrianism" though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support looks good—Chris! _ct 23:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Why the table of the section "By year", is so shrunken? (width=50%) Cannibaloki 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The table didn't shrink with the width=50%, but actually got larger for better visualization. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 04:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically what SRE.K.A.L.24 says, the forced width is actually stretching the table. As for why 50%, if you try and stretch it across to the images there becomes an accessibility issue, as for other resolutions or smaller un-maximised windows, the table can get forced to start after the images which frankly looks awful. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 08:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Looks good, but there is some over-linking in the references section. Do BBC and BBC Sport really need to be linked dozens of times? You should just link the first use. (If you address this within the next three hours, let me know and I'll promote it today). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009 [46].

---

List of Scotland international footballers

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk), Jmorrison230582 (talk)

Yesterday I noticed that the first FLC for this article had seemingly stagnated and that outstanding issues weren't being addressed. I therefore decided to get involved and fix up all the outstanding issues, which I believe I did, only to then find out that the FLC had in fact already dropped into the failed log before I'd started! After obtaining Matthew's blessing, however, I have re-nom'd the article myself, as I believe all the outstanding problems from the first FLC had been addressed. Hope that all makes sense :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. All of the problems which i had found in the article that were added to the previous FLC have all been dealt with as Chris has mentioned above. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues from old FLC are resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards in my eyes.--₮RUCӨ 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• In the opening sentence, "the first official international match" needs a reference: the match in question has its own article, Scotland v England (1872), so you might well find one there :-)
• Denis Law being joint-top scorer made me ask "who with": could you work Dalglish's name into that sentence somehow?
• Key. Not sure the as-of date should be in with the definition of pink(?)/asterisk;
• and, the positions key looks really awkward, with the centred heading miles to the right of the position names.
• Should the Mac/Mc names sort together? like we use {{DEFAULTSORT:Mackay, ...}} to get all the Mackay/MacKay/McKays sorted together in category lists.
• John Wark's caption needs a full stop.

Stuff I raised at the previous FLC has been satisfactorily resolved. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• • All done. All the Macs/Mcs now sort as "Mac", which means that Lou Macari gets sorted in with them as well, but I don't think there's any way round that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support All issues resolved, list satisfies criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Unrelated to the article, do you think you should put Jmorrison's username in the nominator line? Done, he has replied to state that, although he doesn't plan to do any more work on the article, he is happy with the renomination UEFA European Championship redirects to UEFA European Football Championship. Changed "maintains a roll of honour for all players" Changed "including the players who were selected but" Add "for" after "selected". Changed Image caption: "Darren Fletcher became Scotland's youngest captain for nearly 120 years when he led the team against Estonia in 2004." I think you mean "in", not "for". No, I mean "for". In British English, to use "in" in that sentence would render it grammatically incorrect. Is this list not redundant? Probably. Until you mentioned it, I wasn't aware that article existed. Its existence doesn't affect whether or not this one meets FL requirements, though, surely....? Not at all redundant: List of Scotland international footballers (alphabetical) is a complete list of Scotland internationals, this list covers only those with 20+ appearances or 10+ goals. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes these pictures below, relevant to this list? Someone has analyzed the quality of these images itself? Cannibaloki 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Andy Gray 2004-10-23.jpg
  • File:Coisty.jpg
  • File:John Wark.jpg
    • erm, they're all players on the list, not sure what the issue is. Is it simply that the images depict the players in an "off-the-pitch" situation? If that's a major issue I can remove them, I'm not especially fussed either way. I note, though, that some existing sports FLs use images of players not actually on the pitch - List of York City F.C. statistics and records has an image of one of the players in his late 70s.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is over-linking in the references section. Does Scottish Football Association really need to be linked almost 200 times? (If you address this within the next three hours, let me know and I'll promote it). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If someone who had AWB could do it, it would make life much easier. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I've just done it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [47].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): Efe (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because it was peer reviewed and I feel it meets the criteria. Regards, Efe (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Can you hold off on your nominations until at least one of your other FLCs are promoted, their is a current backlog and lack of reviewers, and multiple noms by the same user contributes to it. Although, it would be grateful if you would be able to review other nominations. I'll review this one later.--₮RUCӨ 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry. I didn't notice. I felt it was safe to nom again because 2006 already got three supports. --Efe (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Lead Stefani earned her first number-one single in the United States this year, although she had been with band No Doubt since 1986. -- add "the" before band Fixed as suggested. --Efe (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Hip hop artist Kanye West gained his first number-one single, "Gold Digger", as lead artist; West previously had a number-one single with "Slow Jamz", a 2004 song by rapper Twista. -- this would be better worded as "Hip hop artist Kanye West gained his first number-one single as lead artist, with "Gold Digger"; West previously had a number-one single as a guest with "Slow Jamz", a 2004 song by rapper Twista I think the comma before with is a misuse. IMO, its better to leave it as is because "Gold Digger" has to be near with "single". Unless there is grammatical error there, I would change it. Any other suggestion on the phrasing? --Efe (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, you are right. Remove the comma.--₮RUCӨ 21:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "Don't Forget About Us" is the 17th number-one single of Carey, placing her second in the list of acts with most number ones in the United States,[3] tying Elvis Presley. -- add with before Elvis' name. Fixed as suggested. --Efe (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Images The Mariah pic (mostly its caption) needs to be resized some how, it rolls over into another section.--₮RUCӨ 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) I have used "upright" already. If I will resize it again, it will look awful in other resolution settings. Perhaps trim the caption. I'll try. --Efe (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC) I'm awaiting a followup on this.--₮RUCӨ 21:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC) I guess this couldn't be done?--₮RUCӨ 15:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I am afraid not. It will also look awful in computers with different screen resolution settings. --Efe (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I mean, it looks horrible how it is now with my screen resolution, which is pretty wide, but I guess its fine for now.--₮RUCӨ 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Commments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Only two artists, Underwood and Brown, scored a number-one debut single this year." Removed. Made a slight reword. --Efe (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "second longest-running"-->second-longest-running this entire phrase is a compound adjective I think it should only be "longest-running". Per a lot of sources. --Efe (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "include R&B singer Mario's "Let Me Love You", which is his best-performing song to date" Not needed in this construction, makes the sentence crisper. Tightened. --Efe (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "is the 17th number-one single of Carey"-->is Carey's 17th number-one single Done. --Efe (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "It is the best-performing single of the calendar year" Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Chart year. --Efe (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is the page the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars? I notice it is semi-protected from editing. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• There were some IPs who feel that the current formatting of the tables look awful. What they did was restore the list form and remove the lead. They were invited to discuss the matter, but they did not. They persisted so Eric protected them. --Efe (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, I had to revert another IP yesterday who was quietly tampering with the navbox at the bottom. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [48].

---

Houston Rockets seasons

Nominator(s): Noble Story (talk • contributions)

This is modeled after similar lists for the Lakers, Bulls, and so on. I believe it passes the criteria. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lookng at the lists for the Bulls and Lakers, the lead for this article is quite short. Expand it to include more on the team's history. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Before I review, I would also like to see the lead expanded like the sister FLs.--₮RUCӨ 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded it as best I could. But keep in mind the Bulls and Lakers have been around a lot longer than Houston. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comment, Gman124 (talk)

:Comments Could the font size for the table be made bigger. It's kind of hard to see the letters in the tables. Why does the text size need to be 90% anyway? Could that be left as how it would look with regular text size. --Gman124 talk 04:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Under the "Rockets season" column why are some of the season numbers missing? Add em. --Gman124 talk 05:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC) I've resized the fonts (which were originally 100% anyway). As for the the Rockets season: some of them have not been made, so I just leave out what hasn't been made (similar to what was done with the other NBA seasons lists). Noble Story (talk • contributions) 05:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) I think it is not visual appealing to set font size to 100% since all items in cells are forced into two rows. I strongly suggest you changing it back to 90% per FL criteria #6. (This is my suggestion, though I think it needs further discussion if you or Gman124 disagree with it)—Chris! ct 05:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC) I don't think it looks any more "appealing" with smaller font, since I either can't see the text properly or have to zoom in on my browser every time. --Gman124 talk 23:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC) The only alternative is to resize the font back to 100% and set the width longer than the page. Readers would have to use scroll bar to see all column, though.—Chris! ct 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I think there might be more obejections to doing that then the text size. the following line is from the table "Won NBA Western Conference First Round vs. Portland Trail Blazers, 3–1" (which is almost half the size of the table in normal text, at least on my computer). Surely you can't really expect that to lay out on a single line, in a table as big as on this list. Surely it will get split into two lines. --Gman124 talk 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Take a look now. I removed a column and was able to fix that.—Chris! ct 00:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Looks good now. Gman124 talk 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support --Gman124 ^talk 05:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "in National Basketball Association" - the National Basketball Association "In the Rockets debut season" - Rockets' "But after drafting Elvin Hayes first overall in the 1969 NBA Draft," - Sentences do NOT start with BUT. Also, Hayes was drafted first in the 1968 draft. What do Hayes, Malone, etc. have to do with the team's season records? There needs to be more correlation made. Also, discuss more about best/worst seasons, etc. "After Hayes was traded, Moses Malone was acquired to replace him." - "After Hayes was traded, Moses Malone replaced him." - remove redundant wording "MVPs" - you must state explicitly what an acronym means before using "in his first year" - remove Easter Egg link per WP:PIPE "They did not win their first championship until 1994, when Olajuwon led them to the championship, and 1995." - you have a linked year and an unlinked year; also, the last part of this sentence makes no sense. "And 1995" isn't a clause. "from 1999–2003" - remove dash, replace with "to" Many of the things in the key would be better explained using footnotes (see Philadelphia Phillies seasons for an example). "4th *" - all symbols should be next to their number, not separated Per WP:BOLDFACE, do not use bold text as an indicator in the table. Replace with a symbol or italics. "adding the absolute difference in wins" - Explain or link absolute difference "50 game" - 50-game "The Western Division was renamed to Western Conference" - the Western Conference You use W-L% in some tables and Win% in others. Be consistent. References: use the same format for all dates, and the publisher of all Basketball-Reference.com links must be Sports Reference LLC. Also, one BB-Ref link is not capitalized like the others. I'm not a big fan of the table being split up into so many pieces. I would rather see one cohesive unit instead of three small tables. I will return to review further once these concerns are addressed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I've changed most of the trouble spots, which should be obvious. However, there are a couple of things I left: "Many of the things in the key would be better explained using footnotes" Personally, I think it is neater to keep it in a table key. My personal preference, but I'll change it if you insist. "I'm not a big fan of the table being split up into so many pieces. I would rather see one cohesive unit instead of three small tables." I've combined 2 tables, but the all-time record table I left separate. I think it looks better without tacking on to the main table. "What do Hayes, Malone, etc. have to do with the team's season records? There needs to be more correlation made. Also, discuss more about best/worst seasons, etc." I've added in the lead about their best/worst seasons. Also, I think the correlation of Hayes, Malone, Olajuwon to their record is made clearly ("Malone won 2 MVPs, they advanced to the Finals", "He led them to...", "He took them...", etc). "before being moved to" - before moving to Table headers that are in the key should be bolded to show that they are headers. Re-alphabetize your key. Since the alphabetizing in the footnotes starts over, you need to have a header delineating the section changes (lead, table, etc.). Navbox: "San Diego/Houston Rockets seasons" box does not currently link to this article. Change the title to link here or remove navbox. Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Noble Story (talk • contributions) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I have restored back to two tables format because the colspans affect the sorting. I don't think it is possible to combine the tables without taking away the sorting function.—Chris! ct 19:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, there is. Remove the colspans; they aren't necessary. The move is delineated in the lead. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Well, readers who only read the table will be confused by that. Also, I don't see why we need to combine the tables. The current layout looks good to me.—Chris! ct 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Because it's one team, one franchise, with one set of records. Splitting it up makes the sorting incorrect, because you aren't looking at a complete data set. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Have all your comments been addressed? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Resolved comments are under the cap. If they are still out, they aren't resolved yet, unless further changes have been made per the above notes. I don't have time to re-review right now, because I'm on my way to work now, but I will take a look later today if these were completed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I think I have your other points, although I'm not exactly sure about your last point: "Since the alphabetizing in the footnotes starts over, you need to have a header delineating the section changes (lead, table, etc.)" But I think I've got it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead He also took the Rockets to the NBA Finals in 1981, but they were defeated in six games by the Boston Celtics. However, only two years later, the Rockets won a franchise-low 14 games. -- The however doesn't cope well here because when however is used it, it is used to transition to two opposing statements or views, and these both have negative views. I would like to see in the lead state how many seasons overall there have been for Houston, and the most recent season (even though it may be bad, it still has to be mentioned to keep the prose up to date) After Hayes was traded, Moses Malone replaced him. -- this was when? Malone won two Most Valuable Player awards during his time in Houston, and he led the Rockets to the 1978 conference finals in his first year with the Rockets. -- the last mention of the Rockets can just be "them" Seasons I don't know, but since the lead has the seasons formatted in a single yr format like "1996", I feel that the column in the table should have it formatted like that, or vise versa for consistency purposes. Most year in the lead are link to finals and drafts, which are usually not written in year-year format.—Chris! ct 01:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Why aren't the conference and division columns sortable? Since there are only 2 conferences and 4 divisions, I don't see how the sorting function will be useful to readers.—Chris! ct 01:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Notes Due to a lockout, the season did not start until February 5, 1999 and all 29 teams played a shortened 50-game regular season schedule. -- comma before and External links Maybe to their official website?--₮RUCӨ 23:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I disagree. That belongs to the main Houston Rockets article, not here.—Chris! ct 23:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed.--₮RUCӨ 00:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)--₮RUCӨ 00:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I think I've got your comments corrected. However, regarding years: I do single years in the lead, because the things they mention happen i only one year. In other words, the draft is only in 1968, the finals only in 1994, and so on. The whole seasons, however, go over two years. Hence, two years in the table. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 03:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The lead looks much better. "The team plays"-->They play "and he led the Rockets to the 1978 conference finals" "where they lost again-->in which they lost again "The Rockets repeated the feat in 1995, but in the following seasons, they did not advance to the finals again."-->The Rockets repeated the feat in 1995, but have not advanced to the finals since. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Again, thanks for comments. I think I've gotten them all. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] "...they won only 15 games." I think "only" violates WP:POV. Em, I think that having a .183 winning % (assuming .500 is average), then saying "only" is really POV. It's pretty much generall accepted. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Let the stats speak for themselves. Readers will easily come to the conclusion that .183 is not good, you don't have to tell them. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC) OK, I've reworded. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC) "After Hayes was traded, Moses Malone replaced him." Some readers won't get what you mean. A previous reviewer said to shorten "was acquired to replace him" because of redundancy. I've re-inserted. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC) "After Hayes was traded, Moses Malone was replaced him." Read it carefully. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I removed the second was. It makes the sentence sounds awkward. The sentence is clear already.—Chris! ct 01:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC) "conference finals" --> "Western Conference Finals"? "He also took..." --> "He also led". "the Rockets won a franchise-low 14 games." the Rockets won? Re-phrase it please. I'm just wondering what is wrong with saying "won"? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I don't see what's wrong here either. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Nor me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Nothing is wrong, it just sounds weird. Bad excuse, but won is usually used for a victory, that's all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Well, those 14 games won were still victory.—Chris! ct 01:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) "won" is the past tense of the verb "to win". Sorry for stating the obvious, but I still fail to see what is wrong or even "weird" about this sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Lets just all say I'm an idiot for not reading the sentence carefully. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC) "did not reach the playoffs again". "In their most recent season" 2008–09 is now the most recent season, so add "completed" or something similar to the sentence. "Their overall record is 1723–1669." Readers may not know what this means. Use the words "wins" and "losses". Couldn't you link "Games behind" in the key so that you won't have to note how the stat works? No need to have Category:Houston Rockets, as you already have Category:Houston Rockets seasons. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Other than my replies above, I've fixed all your comments. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Hope you'll nominate more featured lists. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [49].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): Efe (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been peer reviewed and I feel it now meets the criteria. Regards, Efe (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead In 2006, 18 acts achieved their first U.S. number-one single, either as a lead artist or featured guest, including, James Blunt, Ne-Yo, Daniel Powter, Rihanna, Shakira, Taylor Hicks, Nelly Furtado, Timbaland, Fergie, Justin Timberlake, T.I., and Akon. -- (1)Remove the comma after including (2)Akon should be listed first Done. --Efe (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Knowles' "Irreplaceable" is the longest-running single of 2006, beginning its run atop the chart for 10 consecutive weeks in late December. -- It should be clarified that her run extended to 2007, no? Added. --Efe (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Other singles with extended chart run include Timberlake's "SexyBack",[7] which stayed at number one for seven straight weeks, and Nelly Furtado's "Promiscuous" for six weeks. -- chart run should be "chart runs" Added s. --Efe (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Knowles "Check on It" and pop singer Daniel Powter's "Bad Day" both topped the chart for five weeks. -- Add an apostrophe after Knowles' name. Added apostrophe. --Efe (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Powter's "Bad Day" is the best-performing single this year, topping the Billboard Top Hot 100 Hits of 2006. -- What makes it in the best performing single this year in terms of this chart? Same as my comment below. --Efe (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) In 2006, Powter and Furtado were the only Canadian recording acts to have reached the summit to the chart -- Do you mean "of the chart"? Oops. Fixed. --Efe (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Images Decreased the size of the Beyonce image, it runs over the lead limit (section). "*Images should not be forced, per MoS, but I used "upright" so that it will fit in any screen resolution. Mine is fine, though. --Efe (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Decrease some of the sizes of the rest of the images because the Shakira image runs over its section limits. "*Same as above. --Efe (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Singer Daniel Powter's "Bad Day" is the best-performing single of this year, topping the Billboard Top Hot 100 Hits of 2006. -- What makes it the best single in terms of this chart? "*Because Hot 100 is determined by combining digital and physical sales, and airplay. So cannot just say best-selling or well-played. --Efe (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Well that should be made aware in the text, in a similar location like I mentioned above in the lead section. Images are fine now.--₮RUCӨ 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I think its too much/detailed for a list article, IMO. --Efe (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Then that (those) statement(s) should be removed or reworded because its questionable as to how they are the best in terms of this chart and its relevancy to this chart article.--₮RUCӨ 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Do you have a suggestion how to phrase it? Because almost all article use that, without any further ado. Just say its the best-performing single, topping the year-end chart, topping the Top Hot 100, etc. --Efe (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I'm not really a fan of it, but if other FLs use it, than its fine by me.--₮RUCӨ 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC) See also Remove Top Hot 100 Hits of 2006, its already linked and mentioned more than once in the text.--₮RUCӨ 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Only used one in the lead, once in the caption. --Efe (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Per SEEALSO, its generally not correct since its already linked, but its more based on editorial judgment, so if you want to keep it, fine by me.--₮RUCӨ 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I'll remove Powter's image. --Efe (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Looks good. Well done! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Knowles' "Irreplaceable" is the longest-running single of 2006...."Irreplaceable" became...." - why the jump in tense? "Bad Day" is also referred to in the present tense - is it really appropriate to state that something "is" the most successful thing of the year when the year was three years ago? Maybe it's variant American usage, but to my British eyes it reads very oddly. It would be like saying "Otho is the shortest-reigning Roman emperor of AD 69"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Its really odd English in music articles. I am using "is" because the single remains the longest-running single of 2006. It does not change. That's how I understand grammar, unless I missed some. --Efe (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I understand what you're saying, but it still reads strangely to me. I've noticed similar usage in other US articles, though, so I guess it must be an ENGVAR issue and therefore acceptable. So I guess I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, really strange. This style has attracted attention from those who have better grasp in English. Anyway, thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "in a calendar year" Redundant, I think this came up in a previous FLC also. Changed to chart year, according to billboard. Because billboard publishes a particular week's sales info with an issue date a week in advance, they normally don't start counting sales for the 2006 issues in January 2006. It starts with December 2007, and ends with December 2006. It its calendar year, its Jan 1 to Dec 31. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. You might need to fix this on previously promoted FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) "and T.I.. R&B singer Beyoncé Knowles and pop singer Timberlake had two number-one singles in this year. " Are there supposed to be double periods in "T.I.."? "this year" is too strong a back reference, just say the actual year. I think this should be a separate sentence. I don't know how to deal with such case, until now. Since you brought it up, I removed the period. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Whatever you did, it's much better now. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) "breaking the record set in 2003 and 2004, both with seven-->breaking the record set in 2003 and 2004, both of which had seven Fixed. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC) ""Irreplaceable" became the 20th single to have scored at" Simplify to ""Irreplaceable" became the 20th single to score at" I presume its the "to have scored"? --Efe (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC) No, but I finished my thought, sorry for the confusion. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Is there any grammatical difference between the two? I see "to have scored" better than "to score". --Efe (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Both are technically correct, but the latter is concise and less convoluted. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I'm worried of the tense. Anyway, I fixed it. --Efe (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC) "since the era of longer-running singles " Is there an explanation or link that explains this "era"? No. Buts its in the source. They are referring to singles that have reached at least 10 weeks. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Could you somehow explain this through a footnote? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I don't know how to make the link appear in letters. I tried but its in numbers, and it will mix with the refs. How do you do it? --Efe (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks to today's featured article. --Efe (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC) "Singer Shakira earned her first U.S. number-one single with "Hips Don't Lie" since she began her recording career in 1990." Really, everything after "Hips Don't Lie" is redundant or unnecessary info. Its like trivial but its kind of integral, IMO. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I see what you mean. In that case, move the nonessential clause and rephrase some: ""Hips Don't Lie" was singer Shakira's first U.S. number-one single since she began her recording career in 1990." Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Revised. --Efe (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) "The feat made her the first Colombian recording artist in history to have topped" Logically, when else could it have been, the future? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Good point. Redundancy. I don't know why journalists kept on using that. Perhaps a mere emphasis. --Efe (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [50].

---

List of Calgary Flames draft picks

Nominator(s): Resolute

Well, here we go again with this list. Third time lucky? I can only hope as this has easily been the most frustrating article I have worked on! The last FLC fell down mainly on sorting issues, and after a great deal of trial and error - mainly error - I have resolved the problems. There is, however, one exception. The Matt Keetley entry breaks the entire sorting function if I do anything to it. Even removing his entry breaks it. Don't ask me why, but I've spent hours trying to solve it, and have ultimately decided it is a flaw in the sorting functionality itself. Otherwise, this list is complete, statistics are accurate to the end of last season, and is stated as such, plenty of images, and I believe should meet WP:WIAFL. Looking forward to all comments. Resolute 16:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The NHL holds a draft lottery for the 14 non-playoff teams, allowing the winner to move up a maximum of four positions in the draft. -- (1)Link to draft lottery (2)Make it clear that it is the entry draft (at the end of the sentence) One player, Al MacInnis, has been elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame. -- Just mention the player by his last name since he has been already mentioned before. With the 25th pick, the Flames selected Greg Nemisz from the Ontario Hockey League's Windsor Spitfires. -- Was their 25th pick their final pick? See also Remove the first entry, its already mentioned in the article. References The TSN acronym needs to spelled out in the publishers.--₮RUCӨ 03:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Done, done, done, done and done. Thanks! Resolute 04:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what was the problem (other than sorting) in the table, but IMO it looks fine, but I want other reviewers inputs before I can make my decision. But overall, you've done a great job fixing it up. You may notify me when another reviewer has reviewed the list.--₮RUCӨ 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- --₮RUCӨ 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

• Could the first table in the key be arranged differently so there isn't a blank section in the bottom right?
• Humour me on this one, as I know nothing about ice hockey....what does W/L/T/OTL/GAA signify (not as in what does it stand for, but what does it actually mean?) and why do only some players have stats in those columns?
• Shouldn't the columns with numbers in be centred?

All looks good otherwise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• The latter stats are goaltender stats, so would apply only to players at that position. Wins, losses, ties, overtime losses are the results of the game they played in, while goals against average is how many goals they gave up per 60 minutes of play. I'll add a clarification statement for that. Reworking the key as well. As far as centring the numbers goes, I'm not certain the overhead is worth it. I'd have to centre align the entire table, then left align the country and name cells individually... some 750 additional entries. I'll do it if it is deemed necessary, however. Resolute 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've re-aligned the table for you, but you might want to check I haven't accidentally messed anything up :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, looks good. Thanks for doing that. Resolute 05:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak support. The em dash issue that is being discussed on the FLC talk page is not a dealbreaker, but I'd like to see it fixed. I wouldn't impede promotion over it though; we can resolve it afterward. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "and until 1979, it drafted as the Atlanta Flames." This is a bit forced, especially since it is understood that while the team was in Atlanta it would be drafting under said name. This is what I think you should do: Add a {{seealso}} link that takes users to the Atlanta Flames list, and rephrase to something along the lines of "The franchise was founded in 1972 as the Atlanta Flames, and relocated to Calgary in 1980. Moved it down to the see also section. "the Flames have selected a total of 306 players" Fixed "The NHL Entry Draft is held each June as teams select players" "as" is clumsy here; maybe "The NHL Entry Draft is held each June; teams select players Fixed "players in American colleges that were otherwise ineligible for the Entry Draft." Ambiguous, were the players otherwise ineligible or the colleges? Simplified "The highest Calgary"-->The highest that Calgary Fixed The color needs accompanying symbols. Also, why does the color extend all the way across the row? Just use it to highlight the players' names. I disagree on that, since the very existence of stats beside the players acts as the symbols. However, given the use of shading has been questioned in the past as well, I've decided simply to remove it. Add a note that says the years link to articles about NHL drafts for that year. Alternatively, you could rename the column header to "Draft". Done List of NHL players—Isn't especially relevant, not even for the See also section. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed and removed. Thanks! Resolute 05:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about sorting moved to talk page Resolute 03:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment is there a reason there's no mdash in the blank spaces? Maxim_(talk) 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • See the discussion on the talk page of this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with DB87 above on both points of the sorting issue. I will not withhold my weak support as well for this list; the sorting issue can be resolved outside of this review period, but the content is featured material. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose This is really nothing, but involves the Gary Roberts caption. As of last week, he's no longer active. Other than that minor detail, which obviously wasn't an issue when the list was nominated, and you've got my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, if you want to get technical, he hasn't formally announced his retirement yet, so the caption was still accurate on one level.  ;) I've changed it regardless. It was fitting that his last NHL game was in Calgary though. Resolute 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Considering he stated he won't play after this year or in the AHL, and the Lightning aren't going to call him up again, what he says doesn't really matter anymore. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] "...the Flames have selected 306 players." selected --> drafted. Changed, though I do become concerned about overusing the word "draft/drafted" "The Flames have never won the lottery." You didn't tell the readers how you win the lottery. I tried to add a bit more, but I didn't think it was unclear. Have my changes helped? On the table, why aren't the "S"es not center aligned? I have no idea, changed. Just wondering, why didn't you add which team/high school/college that they came from? And if so, why did you want images over this? I did have the info initially, however removed it due to size limitations on the chart. The junior/college teams a player played with is not really a defining characteristic of a hockey player like it seems to be for football and basketball players. In the Draft picks section, tell the readers that this does not include Atlanta Flames draft picks, just in case. It is mentioned in the lead, however a second note has been added. There's no need in abbreviating Round and Nationality. I've tried, and it could fit (though won't if you put the team/highschool/college column). Changed OTL --> OT, as the NHL now uses OT. Changed Why couldn't you link Overtime on the key? Umm, I simply didn't? lol. fixed. Fix the disambiguation. There is no article to dab draft lottery to. I've simply delinked it for now. Though I could also convert to a redlink and write something later. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Resolute 14:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] (continued) "The Flames have never won the lottery." Didn't you already tell the readers the Flames' highest draft picks were sixth overall? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, but the reader is also told that the most the team winning the lottery can move up is four positions in the draft. Thus, if Calgary were to finish 10th last and win the lottery, they would only move up to 6th. Resolute 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Though I still would like to have trades note about the draft picks that were first on another team, but since WP:NHL doesn't care, ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't like the fact that the images pushes the list down at 1024x768 resolution. Some of the players depicted never even played for the Flames, and many of them never made any big impact, do you think you could limit the number of images and perhaps put them in a gallery? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• The table appears fine for me at 1024x768 on my laptop screen. However, I will try to shrink them a little further. Not every player who is drafted by a team plays for them, so I personally believe their inclusion is appropriate. Resolute 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've tried upright all the pictures with 1024x768 resolution, and it works just like 125px (in fact it probably is, but not sure). So why not upright it? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I did just change it to 125px, so yes, converting to upright would probably work at this point. Resolute 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [51].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Dexter

Nominator(s): --Music26/11

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. It is my first FLC, so I'm a bit on shaky ground. The list is very much based on the List of Lost awards and nominations FL, which is were a lot of the layout ideas come from.

Thanks very much. --Music26/11 13:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead Michael C. Hall, who portrays the title character, is the most nominated cast member with a total of fourteen nominations, second is Lauren Vélez, with four nominations. -- Comma before with a total of fourteen done.--Music26/11 15:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Besides the show's cast members, the writers and producers of the show have also been nominated for various awards, writer, producer and showrunner Clyde Phillips has gained six nominations for his work on the show. -- Add a semi-colon after various awards (so replace the comma) done.--Music26/11 15:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The lead needs more expansion in terms of summarizing the list more. So add some text about more significant awards. In the lead is information about almost every award the show has been nominated for, the awards that are not mentioned have either a lesser significance or are less known to the public.--Music26/11 15:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC) List Some entries have the purpose of the award written, like the Satelite awards, others, however, do not. The other awards need the purpose written and sourced.--₮RUCӨ 14:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Done, except for the "other awards" section, where this isn't possible.--Music26/11 15:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The Emmy Awards are awarded annualy since 1949 by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, to honour excellence in television, they are considered to be the television equivalent to the Academy Awards. -- (1)Replace are with "have been" (2)Typo on the word annually (3)Replace the comma before they are with a semi-colon Dexter has been nominated for Primetime Emmy Awards,[3] which are awarded to honour acting and writing in primetime television,[4] as well as Creative Arts Emmys,[5] which are presented in recognition of technical and other similar achievements in American television programming. -- (1)I feel the word "excellence" could be added before acting and writing (2)The of technical and other similar achievements makes no sense, do you mean "of technical and other related areas"? The Satellite Awards, formerly known as the Golden Satellite Awards, are presented yearly, by the International Press Academy, both for cinema and television. -- Remove the comma before by the International In 2007, the show received four nominations, in the categories Best Actor - TV Drama Series (Hall), Best TV Series - Drama, Outstanding DVD Release of a Television Show (season one), Best Supporting Actor in a TV Series (David Zayas) and won all, making Dexter the most winning show of that year's ceremony. -- (1)Add "of" after categories (2)Add a full stop after the last category and start a new sentence with "The show won all of its nominations, making ..." The Saturn Awards are presented by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films and honor science fiction and fantasy films and television shows. -- Comma before and honor science fiction There needs to be consistency with what type of English is being used, since I see the word honor also spelled as honour Dexter has been nominated for four, Michael C. Hall has received nominations for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Drama Series in 2007, 2008 and 2009, but has not won any. -- The comma before Michael's name should be a semi-colon or a full stop The notes in the Writers Guild of America Awards section need a colon after the bolded link.--₮RUCӨ 16:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Done on all counts.--Music26/11 17:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Remove the image of Julie Benz, it passes over its section limits. Done, also removed the Jimmy Smits image, because otherwise, you got a lot of empty space left, and that looks awful.--Music26/11 17:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Decrease the image size of the James Remar pic. In addition, why is his name linked in the caption, but the others dont have the names linked? (consistency is needed).--₮RUCӨ 19:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Unlinked name, decreasing the image is no longer neccessary, because, aside from the infobox image, there are no other images.--Music26/11 17:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 21:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Lots of glitches; this article would have benefitted from a proofread by an independent editor. I feel like opposing on principle. That's indeed stupid of me. You did a great job by fixing various minor errors, thanks.--Music26/11 14:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "It has been nominated for a variety of different awards including eight"-->It has been nominated for a variety of awards, including eight "years top ten best television programs." "years"-->year's "with a total of fourteen nominations, second is Lauren Vélez, with four nominations."-->with fourteen nominations; Lauren Vélez is second, with four nominations. "The Emmy Awards have been awarded annually since 1949 by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, to honour excellence in television" Comma not necessary. "There are various types of emmys" This is understood, delete the phrase. "shows opening titles"-->show's opening titles "losing the award for Outstanding Drama Series to Mad Men, and the award for Outstanding Lead Actor – Drama Series to Bryan Cranston for Breaking Bad.[8]" Comma not necessary. "which are awarded annualy by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, to honour film and television." Misspelled word and the comma is not necessary. "are presented yearly"-->are presented annually "The won all of it's"—"it's"-->its "most winning show"-->winningest "including Best TV Series – Drama, in 2007 and 2008." Comma not needed. "The Screen Actors Guild Awards (SAG awards) are presented annually by the Screen Actors Guild, to honour acting in film and television." Comma not needed. "The Writers Guild of America Awards are presented annually by the Writers Guild of America, and are awarded to film and television writers."-->The Writers Guild of America Awards are presented annually to film and television writers by the Writers Guild of America. "Timothy Schlattmann and Scott Reynolds have both gained individual nominations."-->Timothy Schlattmann and Scott Reynolds have received nominations. "Dexter has had success at various Guild and society awards, having been nominated for awards at various ceremonies and winning six awards." Redundancies abound here, please trim the sentence. "When the show was in the official AFI Award selection as one of 2007's top ten television programs." Not a complete sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Fixed all of your concerns but one; changing "Timothy Schlattmann and Scott Reynolds have both gained individual nominations" to "Timothy Schlattmann and Scott Reynolds have received nominations" makes no sense. The only reason their names are in the wikitable introduction is because they have gained induvidual nominations.--Music26/11 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I see, I must have misread that. Good catch. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Only publications should be linked in italics; websites (such as BBC News) and associations (such as Academy of Television Arts & Sciences) should not be. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.--Music26/11 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I am extremely stupid, I meant that "italics", not linked'. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)'
      • No problem, I've relinked the unlinked links (what a sentence), and the publishers are not in italics anymore.--Music26/11 14:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments I really think this page needs moving to List of awards and nominations received by Dexter. I've heard of the Grammy Awards, the BAFTA Awards, the Saturn Awards, the Brit Awards, but never the Dexter Awards. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I had never thought about it, but now you say it, it does make the wrong impression. The page has been moved.--Music26/11 19:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments The opening paragraph differentiates between Primetime and Creative Emmys, but the Did You Know specifically says "Dexter has won two Primetime Emmy Awards." Since there are only two listings under Primetime and both are nominations, I thought the List was out of date at first. Maybe that's a Did You Know problem rather than the list article itself.

Yep, that's my fault entirily. You see, the creative arts emmys are awarded to excellence primetime television, but differ in categories from the primetime emmys. That's why there are seperate tables. The DYK hook is not wrong, but it's not complete, and I'm terribly sorry for that.--Music26/11 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, James Remar's page doesn't mention his SAG Award nomination at all -- was he only nominated as part of the Ensemble? That seems strange to highlight in the article. The Cut of Your Jib (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not really to highlight the fact that he was co-nominated, it's more to image the article. I could have placed an image of Michael C. Hall there, but since his name was already in the infobox I wanted some variety. As I stated in the lead, the article is based on the Lost award list, which passed with similiar images.--Music26/11 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [52].

---

List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk

Restarted, 23:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In August 2007, "List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford" (as it was then called) was given its FL star (see how it looked then). The list kept growing as more names were added, and some other FLs were spun out of it to keep it at a manageable size, making the initial list eventually one that listed alumni only, not academics. However, the main list has kept growing as I keep going through my "to do" list, and it was well inside the 30 longest pages on Wikipedia. To try and keep the main list (still over 200,000 bytes) at a readable size, I've taken out the lawyers, politicians and civil servants to make this list, which I present for your approval. In terms of comprehensiveness, I've exhausted the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, as well as histories of the college and other sources, and so I'm confident that this is comprehensive. BencherliteTalk 16:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "There are still strong links with Wales"-->It (The college?) still has strong links with Wales "with about 15% of students being from Wales"-->as about 15% of students are Welsh "A number of Welsh"-->Several Welsh "such as D. J. Williams who was a co-founder of the Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru."-->such as D. J. Williams, a co-founder of the Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru. "A number of prominent judges"-->Several prominent judges All done. BencherliteTalk 11:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) File:HEA Cotton.jpg needs a source and author. File:Ed Davey 01.jpg ditto. File:Thomas Johnes of Hafod portrait.jpg Forgive my ignorance, but what is "Peacocks in Paradise"? A pamphlet? Readers need to theoretically have enough information to be able to verify the licensing themselves. All removed from the article for now and I will contact the original uploaders for the missing information. BencherliteTalk 11:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) The Cotton contributor has retired, I've left a question for the Davey contributor and added the missing details about Johnes from the article about him ("Peacocks in Paradise" is a book, it appears). BencherliteTalk 11:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) WP:LAYOUT, external links should come after references. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Done. BencherliteTalk 11:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Sources Ref 7 only says "Foster". We need a page number at least. Refs 11 and 12 need page numbers and authors for consistency with other inline book refs. Spell out all abbreviations in the ref publishers. Examples only: WBO, ODNB and JCR, but it isn't necessary to spell out BBC. Also, website names shouldn't be in italics. Put these under the "publisher" parameter in the cite templates. Every ODNB reference needs a note that a subscription is required. Denote this by putting this in the citation template: format=Subscription required What makes http://www.britannia.com/wales/lit/lit16.html a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Here I've taken the liberty of numbering your points to make it easier to reply to them. 1(a) I respectfully disagree that page numbers are needed for Alumni Oxonienses (ref 7) or the Oxford Honours book (was ref 12, now ref 13). The entries in each work are arranged in alphabetical order, so the page number is superfluous to the name of the individual. It would increase the page byte length for no added value. What I have done, though, is make it even clearer whether the individual can be found in the 1500-1714 or 1715-1886 volumes of Alumni Oxonienses by referencing them separately, and added "sub nom." to the reference. Of course, if consensus is against me on this, I will happily waste my time turning 2 references into 18 references when I next have access to the hard copies of Alumni Oxonienses, in about a fortnight's time... 1(b) As for ref 11, Oxford Men, I have added a page number to the general reference (only 2 pages are used) and a url to the archive.org copy. 1(c) Author's name for Oxford Men is given in the general reference; there is no named author of Oxford Honours. 2(a) I have said in the "general references" section what ODNB, WBO and JCR stand for, and said "Cited in references as: WBO" (for example). What's wrong with this, please? 2(b) Where is there a website name in italics? I'm not sure what you mean. 3. Again, this is mentioned in the "general references" section. I do not think that it needs to be repeated nearly twenty times. 4. Removed; better ODNB reference added for his degree details. I'd point out that the main featured list, List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, has 437 different references at present. There are about 50 references to Foster and about another 30 to Oxford Honours, and at the moment these are grouped as 2 references used multiple times. There are nearly 100 references to the ODNB and more than 100 from the WBO. Changing all these references as you suggest (individual page references to Foster, spelling out every time what ODNB and WBO mean etc) would add about another 80 references and bloat 200 more, for no additional benefit. BencherliteTalk 11:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your patience and detailed explanations. The problem is that when a reader clicks on a specific inline citation, they will not see the general reference and its corresponding information. Readers will have no idea where to look for such information. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC) So – just to be clear – you'd rather I did away with the general references section altogether? Even though it's a format used in all of the articles/lists in the Featured Topic about Jesus College without previous complaint? In addition, which of the numbered points are still problems for you? BencherliteTalk 08:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. I don't want to make a big deal about minor issues. Before I support, can I have clarification on the image statuses? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Of course. The contributor of the Cotton photo has retired and, whilst I can find online that there is a book called "Calcutta Old and New", as the image page says, I can't find the name of the photographer, so will have to leave the image out. I've added back the Davey photograph, having added more information to the image page following a discussion with the uploader (who confirmed it was his own photo). And I added some more details about "Peacocks in Paradise" to the image page for the Johnes image, so I added that back to the list as well. As I'm no image guru, please let me know if more is needed. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Comment. Why are there so many missing years and degrees? Surely this information exists? I would tend to oppose due to lack of comprehensivness.Yobmod (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC) In theory, the missing information exists, but most probably only in unpublished college and university records to which the public does not have access. The possible accessible and reliable sources are these: From the foundation of the college to 1886: university records as noted in Alumni Oxonienses, but these are not always entirely accurate or complete, particularly for earlier years. 1886 to 1894: Oxford Men and their Colleges and / or Oxford Honours; this may only give the year of graduation, or the year of matriculation, or the subject studied, rather than all three 1895 onwards: unless the details were recorded in "Who's Who" at the time, or were mentioned in their obituary in The Times, or in their profile for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (or the Dictionary of Welsh Biography), then getting the details will be virtually impossible - there is no central university or college publication listing all graduates since 1886. Some names get mentioned in college publications, such as JNL Baker's History (but that was written in 1971 and so won't include anyone coming to prominence since then), or the annual College Record (which is a "hit and miss" affair, in that somebody's matriculation year may be mentioned, but not their graduation year (or vice versa), and no mention ever made of their subject!) I have done my best to find the missing information using "Google Books", but in most cases the people aren't the types who would have biographies written about them, or such comparatively minor pieces of biographical information mentioned in other contexts. In each and every case, the basic fact of the individual's connection to the college – which is the main purpose of the list, after all – is reliably sourced. Whilst the rest of the information would be lovely, I do not think that it makes the list lacking in comprehensiveness. BencherliteTalk 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Support My issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Can't see any faults—Chris! _ct 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Geez Dabomb, you got all our comments =P I also support, meets WP:WIAFL.--₮RUCӨ 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [53].

---

List of Puerto Rican boxing world champions

Nominator(s): - Caribbean~H.Q.

I am nominating this for featured list based on the progress presented during the last months. Since its creation, the list has been expanded, sourced and even verified for accuracy by a boxing writer (Antonio Martin). After undergoing peer review, I applied a few tweaks, but most of the review's concern were of technical nature and they have been fixed or clarified by now. This is the next logical step, I will work with this nomination on behalf of WP:PUR and WP:BOXING. Please note that my work rate will be significantly higher on weekends due to college, so if it goes unattended for a couple of days, rest assured that I will pick it up then. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Looks pretty good to me, just some minor issues group footnotes and references into two columns Applied {{reflist|2}} to the footnotes, but the Boxrec notes are using separate templates, which will probably prevent the use of that format. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I've done it for you.—Chris! ct 00:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC) "† indicates boxer of Puerto Rican heritage that is recognized by the commission due to parent's nationality, residence or other circumstances ." - Move this above the table and remove the extra space in front of the period Both issues corrected. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) for the above, both symbol and color have to be used per WP:ACCESS Added color to the symbol, I'm not sure if that is what you meant. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, I meant coloring the box, like List of Vancouver Canucks captains.—Chris! ct 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I've done it for you.—Chris! ct 00:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) "Successful Defenses" --> "Successful defenses" Corrected. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Chris! ct 01:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review, I am working with it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead These include: Wilfredo Gómez's record for most defenses in the super bantamweight division and for most successive knockouts by a titleholder. -- The colon should be removed because its not proper to use it here. Replaced it with a comma. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) The acronyms WBA and WBO need to be spelled out in their first occurrences. I decided to spell them in their second occurrences, particularly because the first are inside parenthesis, which would lead to an awkward format. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Boxing in Puerto Rico The acronym CMTC needs to be spelled out in its first occurrence. Actually, I'm not sure what "CMTC" stands for, the book only uses this acronym. My guess is that it is similar to the ROTC concept, but that would be OR. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Then it would best to either remove it or research what it means, because its questionable when reading the text.--TRUCO 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, I found its meaning and added it to the article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC) They were surprised to discover that several members of law enforcement agencies and the government were involved, a group of police officers including a colonel, two members of the governor's cabinet, numerous legislators and a judge. -- The comma before a group of should be a colon. Corrected. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) In 1926, a boxing venue was opened in a military facility known as Cuartel de Ballaja, with card being organized weekly. -- Add 'a' before card being Added. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) The first Puerto Rican to win a world championship was Sixto Escobar, who did it on June 26, 1934. -- did should be 'won' Fixed. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) In the 1960s and 1970s there was an improvement in the number of pugilists reaching this recognition. -- Comma after 1970s Added. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Including Wilfred Benítez who on March 6, 1976, became the youngest world champion in history at 17 years old. -- Comma after who and remove the comma after 1976 I believe that this is the widespread format for full dates within a sentence. For example, this is taken from today's Main Page FA: "Caspar David Friedrich was born on September 5, 1774, in Greifswald, Swedish Pomerania". - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Wiki has some weird formats, but okay.--TRUCO 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC) During the following decades the Puerto Rico Boxing Commission took initiative in certain aspects when compared to other entities. -- Comma after decades Added. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) List of world champions I believe its not necessary to have the symbol with color, the default color should be able to suffice. Chris fixed that one. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) The symbol should be placed in a table. There isn't sufficient width left to add another field to the table, we are using 99%, which is already stretching the article. I provided a more detailed example on the list's talk page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Oh okay, but I hope you know that I mean make the symbol in a key table format.--₮RUCӨ 01:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Well, to be honest, I'm lost here. Can you provide an example? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, its fine.--₮RUCӨ 03:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC) References The formatting is a bit awkward, the MOS really doesn't say anything about this system, where did you find this system?TRUCO 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) It is a simplified version of the one used in List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, okay. I've just never seen that format before.--TRUCO 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards]].--₮RUCӨ 03:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

New comments are welcome. Thanks to Chris and Truco for your reviews as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There are many prose glitches; nearly every sentence needs some sort of fixing (I note that the peer reviewer seemed to highlight prose as a major area of improvement). Please find someone to fix it up, it isn't much more than a ten-minute job. Examples: Puerto Rico is such a broad link, can use something more direct, such as a pipe to Sports in Puerto Rico#Boxing? I believe that linking Puerto Rico in the lead is a must. We can't expect every reader to know where Puerto Rico is or the nature of its political status. Perhaps a link to Sports in Puerto Rico can be added elsewhere? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I added it to the see also section. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "Puerto Rico is located in the third place for most boxing world champions per country in the world " "located" is used in the wrong sense here, how about "Puerto Rico has the third-most boxing world champions per country in the world " or something similar? Got it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. Both captions are pretty extensive, but you are right. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "Individually, Puerto Rican world champions have reached numerous achievements." Awkward wording ("[reach] ... achievements"?) Changed it to "earned numerous achievements", how is it now? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "also holds the fifth place in this category"-->is fifth in this category Reworded. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "The sport of boxing was introduced" That boxing is a sport is understood by now. Yup, removed it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "with the objective being to determine the best fighter among the employees-->and the objective was to determine the best fighter among the employees Reworded. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "soldiers that established residence " Why not "soldiers who resided"? I used that wording based on the fact that they arrived with the war, if we say that they only "resided" maybe the reader will interpret that they were Spanish soldiers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "During World War I, a championship known as Campeonato Las Casas as part of the military training of military personnel." Not a complete sentence. Reworded it to "During World War I, a championship known as Campeonato Las Casas was held as training for military personnel." - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "Nero Chen, the first Puerto Rican boxer to gain recognition began in these tournaments." Comma after "recognition". Added. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "followed this example" Comma after here. Added. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "were organized in the rooftops" "in"-->on. Corrected. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "were taught how to box by Gregario Rosa Removed. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "a boxer that had won-->a boxer who had won Reworded. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "Rosa also established Removed. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "a gym where he continued instructing students" A bit confusing, considering that it was never mentioned that he instructed students in the first place? What did he teach? Boxers, "student" was used there as in "dojo" teaching. Anyway, I replaced "students" with "more pugilists". - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "The charges were archived, the decision was justified with a statement saying:" -->The charges were archived; the decision was justified with a statement that said: Reworded. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "with a card being organized weekly." What is a card? Fight card, added a link to that article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) "Legislator Lorenzo Coballes Gandía would redact a proposal to legalize boxing, which was signed by governor Horace Mann Towner on May 1927."-->Legislator Lorenzo Coballes Gandía redacted a proposal to legalize boxing, which was signed by governor Horace Mann Towner in May 1927. Reworded. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC) A nice and detailed review. I worked with most of the points, the others are waiting for feedback. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Those were only examples, there are more problems out there. I will try to return if I have time to finish the review, but it would be nice if you could find someone to do a ten-minute proofreading job. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I asked Tony, one of our project's best writters, to take a look at the prose. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Looks much better. I gave it a copy-edit myself too. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [54].

---

List of Oh My Goddess! episodes

Nominator(s): NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )}

This list is a former featured list that I split into three separate lists. One is now an FL, another is at FLC (which needs comments, by the way), and the final is in progress. Additionally, it has gone through a peer review. Thanks for your consideration. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Oppose Refs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6: The lead relies heavily on these ANN sources which are not a reliable source. The encyclopedic section of ANN is editable by anybody so only the news/releases/reviews sections can be considered reliable. I've switched them up. I don't have citations for the theme songs, but I can cite the episodes themselves if you wish. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, but this has left some things uncited. For example "initially aired on WOWOW in 1998 and 1999" Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) No worries, I know the feeling. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC) I may have missed them, but "Adventures of Mini-Goddess", "Ah! My Goddess: Fighting Wings" and the "OVA series" airdates are uncited. Refs added. They're not from the official sites, but of course, official websites didn't exist in 1993. They are reliable as the information page of Allcinema.net cites them as being a company; not a fansite. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) For the OVA series the ref added only cites the first date, not the other three. For Adventures of Mini-Goddess it only seems to cite the month range of the series, not all the individual air dates. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Other minor fixes ==Notes== should be ==Note== Done. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) WP:OVERLINKING e.g. Anime International Company, Tokyo Broadcasting System etc. in the lead I can unlink the entire page, but I still feel that each section should link to those pages individually as viewers may skip sections when reading the page. I've unlinked the lead, but that's all I've done so far. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) What are your opinions on this? NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) OVA series ep. 3 | Per WP:DASH use spaced ndash or unspaced mdash. Not spaces mdash. I cannot find what you're talking about. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the catch. I need my eyes checked, heh. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 22:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Sources Ref 21 and 40: park2.wakwak.com/~mi-ke is not a reliable source. It is a fan site. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC) It is a direct copy from official sites that are no longer on the internet. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 19:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry but you saying it is a direct copy of an offline reliable source doesn't hold. You would need to prove it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Finally cited with definite reliable sources and clarified for airdates, and theme music ref replaced with episode citations. Don't know why I didn't see the refs for the airdates before... NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 20:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Ref 43 doesn't cite what it claims. It mentions no airdates. Column on the right should. It looks fine on my computer, so I don't know what's going on. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 19:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC) It is fine, I got a different page to that last time, buts have copied the url wrong or something. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Ref 22: The site ANIPO doesn't cite anthing. If you meant the video, you can't do that (copyvio). I think the Japanese messed with the linking... I had linked to a different site with the "ANIPO" logo in the upper left-hand corner, but the current linked site is a bit... different? I've changed the links. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 19:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC) New ref is fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC) "The storyline initially parallels the early parts of the original manga and is similar to early episodes of the later 2005 TV series, but it soon moves off onto a tangent of its own" | more context, can you state what some of the parts it paralleled were, and how or to what it becomes I haven't read the manga, so I don't have a clue. I've clarified the connection to the other TV series though. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) ==Adventures of Mini-Goddess== has overlinking of "Pony Canyon" and "Geneon Entertainment" Removed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "It had only two" Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Ref 36 & 37, the titles should not be all in capitals, even if the webpage is. Decapped. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "With Belldandy and Megumi off shopping, Keiichi decides watch a film that has mysteriously arrived in the mail", so did the Ultimate Force get broken somehow..? To tell the truth, I have no clue. It's an anime; they tend to have plot holes like this. They pretty much inexplicably go shopping, so this plot hole is not covered. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Um for the short prose section in ==Ah! My Goddess: Fighting Wings== it might be worth combining all three one sentence "paragraph" into one paragraph. They were separate paragraphs for the others. I've made it into two paragraphs. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) For the two Ah! My Goodness seasons, they both say "They are based on the manga series Oh My Goddess!," isn't that fairly obvious on an "Oh My Goddess!" episode page. I would suggest either expanding about what parts of the manga it covers or removing. There is more clarification the paragraphs elsewhere, so I've moved stuff around a bit and removed the unnecessary repetition. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC) More Inconsistent naming: Links to List of Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes and The Adventures of Mini-Goddess. Which one is it "Adventures of Mini-Goddess" or "The Adventures of Mini-Goddess". You might need to move some pages/create new redirects for this one. List of the OC episodes redirects to List of OC episodes, so I see no reason why List of Adventures of Mini-Goddess should be moved to "List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess" (the proper title). ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Um no it doesn't. It redirects to List of The O.C. episodes. And regardess, you should be consistent within this list. e.g. It says "Adventures of Mini-Goddess" in the lead. But you claim the official title is The Adventures of Mini-Goddess. Then the section on it is called ==Adventures of Mini-Goddess== but you start that section with the name "The Adventures of Mini-Goddess". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Hmm, musta been superbly tired when I wrote that, as I didn't utter a single proper sentence in that whole post. I have moved the list. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "However, the later episodes of the OVA, episodes four and five, do not follow the manga or any other TV series." | firstly OVA is a singular, so should be OVA series if it stays, but I think you can remove the later episodes of the OVA completely as it is clear from the previous sentence what is being talked about. Removed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) It was also reissued twice Removed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "also known as Ah! My Goddess: Being Small is Convenient[citation needed] That's the literal translation from the original Japanese title. I've changed the wording to reflect this. I don't believe this still needs to be cited. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "It was directed by Hiroko Kazui and Yasuhiro Matsumura and it was produced by Oriental Light and Magic" Removed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "It premiered as a part of the omnibus show Anime Complex on WOWOW and is distributed in North America by Geneon Entertainment, formerly known as Pioneer Entertainment." | these two things seem completely unrelated, split Split and cited. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "A boxed set was released" | I'm guessing it is a DVD boxset from the year, but you have mentioned VHS previously so make explicit Clarified. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "the season was licensed to Geneon Entertainmen]," | typo Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "On January 6, 2005, the season aired in Japan on TBS and ended on July 7, 2005" | The season aired in Japan on TBS from ... to ... Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "Bandai Visual released the episodes in Japan between April and November 2005, as eight DVD compilations each containing three episodes" | repeatitive episodes, something like Bandai Visual released eight DVD compilations in Japan between April and November 2005, each containing three episodes Fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Stopped looking, I'm noticing a lot of prose that still needs tweaking. Suggest getting a copyeditor. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC) This list has already been copyedited by La Pianista (talk · contribs). Are you suggesting that I need yet another? Most of these prose concerns seem very nitpicky (aside from the typo). ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) I disagree that most of my concerns were nitpicky. Stuff like slitting unrelated sentences, reducing redundancy and ambiguity are all valid concerns to meet criteria 1: "professional standards of writing". My only other concern is the image, I realise someone told you to add it at PR, but I don't think it passes WP:NFCC criteria 8 for inclusion - "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Both List of Bleach episodes and List of YuYu Hakusho episodes include a logo. List of Bleach episodes was promoted at the end of January; has consensus changed since then? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Consensus has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with what people want, it is what is allowed by the Foundation to protect Wikipedia from issues with copyrights. If you can justify the non-free criteria then that's okay, but I cannot see how this significantly increases a readers understanding of the topic. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Removed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have capped my oppose, but given the amount of changes I want give it another once-over before supporting. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Right one of my main concerns is that the three Ah! My Goddess were "produced by Tokyo Broadcasting System". Neither of ref 3 or ref 5 comfirm this. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't expect a TV network to be producing a show, just broadcasting it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's common enough for Japanese anime. I've added references which should help. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Honestly I still don't think this "exemplifies our very best work". However, it now seems to meet the criteria. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Can you tell me why this isn't the best work so I can fix it? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I can't see much wrong with list. Seeing that the Amazon site is only being used to reference its release date, it isn't really a problem. Top work. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is the ending theme for the OVA series "コングラチュレイションズ" or "Omedetou"? If the latter, what is the actual Japanese script? —tan³ tx 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, fixed that. Copypasted the wrong thing (slash I don't speak Japanese). Thanks for the catch. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments "FUNimation" - Maybe it's a borderline case, but per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) I'd write it "Funimation". Changed anyway. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Reference titles should be taken directly from the pages, from the rendered page, the title bar, cut together from several lines if need be, but not made up yourself. This applies to references #3, #4, and #51. Done. Took some screwing with the HTML source code though... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) The titles of ref. #47 and #48 should be title-cased. Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Same goes for references #33 and #40: "DVD-BOX" -> "DVD-Box". Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Also in the reference titles, replace "　" with " " and "！" with "!". Replaced. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) In reference titles, you replaced various forms of dashes with spaced em-dashes. Replace them with spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes. Replaced. Stupid script. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Don't superscript ordinal suffixes. Anime is linked a bit often, but in this case that seems fine. I'll unlink it if you wish. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) "uu" -> "ū". Replaced. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) "Koibito Doshi" (恋人同士 ?) - Use nihongo3 when romaji comes first. Also, a literal translation might be nice. Used a Google translator; someone should fix this if it's wrong. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) "Negai" (願) - Same case. Done. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC) The cite episode template has an episodelink field. Use it! ("|episodelink=#ep10" for page internal links and "|episodelink=List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 2)#ep14" for Wikipedia internal links) I'll fiddle with this a bit and will fix it later. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I've done the best I can with this; the link doesn't work precisely, but it's close enough. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I'm not happy with it yet. But I'll look into this myself. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Because of the multiple episodes under the same "number," it is impossible to redirect directly to "ああっ片翼の天使降臨っ." I've tried several different combinations after the #, but none redirect, much less to the episode in question. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Dropping this one, as I have not time to investigate a solution and because it's not that big a deal anyways. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC) "Oh My Goddess!, the manga by Kōsuke Fujishima, has had several anime versions broadcast on television." - I don't like this sentence. (Has the OVA series even been broadcast?) I think the rest of the paragraph should be concatenated with the next paragraph and this sentence expended to give a better introduction to the list and to summarize the rest of the lead. Not sure how to do this. I've tried, so take a look. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) It's explained at MOS:BEGIN. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Hopefully, I actually understood what was being said and the current one is good. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Most of my concerns were addressed during the peer review. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: The list technically meets the criteria. However, there is something about it that just doesn't feel right. In most cases before supporting, I take a last look at the list and find myself thinking: "Yes, that's a featured list! It just hasn't received its star yet." That's not the case here. It's missing that special something more. But since I can't come up with "a specific rationale that can be addressed", I have to support. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Instead of posting all my comments here, I will just copy-edit the seven summaries myself. Watch for the hidden comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I left <!-- please check --> in some places. This is a notice that my copy-editing of that phrase may have changed the meaning of the plot and you may need to ensure that everything is correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Responded to those. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "who all live in a temple home."-->all of whom live in a temple home. Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "ran for twenty-four episodes between" Numbers over nine should be written numerically. Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "who released all 26 episodes on six DVD compilations." Here, comparable quantities should be written the same, so write 26 and 6 or twenty-six and six. (occurs multiple times) This generally confused me, so make sure I fixed this properly please. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "A total of thirteen pieces of" Removed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "Several soundtracks and drama CDs were released as well by the Japanese production companies or the holders of the licenses in Region 1." This can easily be converted to the active voice. Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "In late 1993 through early 1994"-->From late 1993 to early 1994 Done. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "Kosuke Fujishima's popular Oh My Goddess! series." Is there a source for "popular"? It's a very well-known anime series, so I thought that would be "common knowledge," but upon reflection, it sounds kind of POV. I've removed "popular." ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "It is distributed " By the use of the present tense, is it correct to assume that the OVA is still being distributed? Yes. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "The series initially released straight " The series didn't release itself, add "was" after "series". Haha, fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "is a Japanese animated TV series and had 48 episodes during its run between 1998 and 1999."-->is a Japanese animated TV series and that had 48 episodes aired during its run from 1998 to 1999. Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "The series does not follow the manga closely, developing on the adventures of the miniaturized three goddesses and their rat companion Gan-chan, who live in their temple home."-->The series does not follow the manga closely; instead, it describes the adventures of the miniaturized three goddesses and their rat companion Gan-chan, who live in their temple home. Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "Pony Canyon to both DVD and VHS." "to"-->on. Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "It had two pieces of theme music, which were both ending themes."-->The Adventures of Mini-Goddess had two pieces of theme music, both of which were ending themes. Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "utilizes"--uses Changed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) "while episodes twelve through twenty-four were ended"-->and episodes twelve through twenty-four were ended Tweaked. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Is there a source for the note? You could cite the episode itself. Cited. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The dab link tool in the toolbox reveals one self-redirect. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Fixed the dab by changing the redir. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 02:04, 10 March 2009 [55].

---

M.I.A. discography

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk)

The format and sources for this one were cribbed from the recently promoted Dido discography, so hopefully it's OK. Let me know what still needs tweaking. And apologies if you suffer any eye ailments after looking at her outfit in the photo :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks great. All of my concerns have been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments Good start, and most of my comments from the recent peer review have been addressed. But here's a few more nonetheless. Mainly, there's a few inconsistencies between this and the Dido discography you cited as your inspiration. I think Dido's discog is a good target, so I'll point out some ways to mimic it better: For the chart columns, use 3 ems rather than 4. This not only makes it look more consistent with other discogs, it also makes the table slimmer, since right now on my monitor (1024x768) it's being squeezed. "Paper Planes - Homeland Security Remixes EP" should be "Paper Planes – Homeland Security Remixes EP" (the dash should be an en-dash, not a hyphen) We're only concerned with the original home-land release for most data. So, I don't think the US labels are needed here, only the British ones. The Belgian sub-columns are interesting here, but the Wallonia column is empty, so I think there's a better solution here. Such as a single column called BEL (FL), for instance, while keeping the note to explain. Year columns should be centered. Bold the album/ep titles. There's alot of data in these charts, so I find bolding the titles focuses all the data on what it's all about. The table proportions here are still wildly inconsistent. The details columns should ideally be the same width, as should chart columns and year columns. Drewcifer (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Already done, I think, unless there's anything I've missed..... I'm always a little wary when "EP" is put in the title of something. In most cases it's not really in the title at all. How Many Votes Fix Mix looks like one of those examples: I don't see "EP" anywhere on the cover. Double check all three. Changed them on this article, whether or not the articles need re-titling is something that can be addressed outwith this FLC In the iTunes Live sessions, don't capitalize "Download". Changed For the sake of consistency, most discogs use the following country abbreviations: US, NLD, DAN, US DANCE, US R&B. All changed, I think U.S. → US Done I would generally suggest using "#18" rather than "number 18", since it's a statistic you're quoting. Drewcifer (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC) M.I.A. is British, though, so (per my understanding of WP:ENGVAR) British English should be used for the article, and in the UK we don't use the hash mark to signify "number"...... Huh, I didn't know that. Interesting. Nevermind then. Drewcifer (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments and assistance...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General comment Most of my problems are the same as Drew came up with, I will re-review once their comments are resolved.--TRUCO 16:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC) OK, pretty much everything raised above has been sorted, but for the life of me I can't figure out (and I've been trying for the best part of an hour) why, even when I specify the width of the second column in the Mixtapes and EPs tables, it refuses to "force" to that size. What am I doing wrong (bound to be something really obvious that I've missed.....)???!?!?!?! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Figured it out, 30 seconds before I threw the PC out the window. And as it's technically my wife's PC, that would probably have been a bad move..... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Hmmmm, spoke too soon, it still isn't working right, the width of the second column doesn't match across all the tables, even though they're all set to the same width.....anyone.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) It looks fine to me, but there's alot of variables that might be affecting what you're seeing: screen resolution, font size, web browser, etc. I added some forced line breaks to the stuff that is longer than a single line. Did that help? I also made a few other small edits that were easier to do myself than explain. I also added a few more notes above. Drewcifer (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC) It was only out by a couple of pixels on my screen, maybe I was trying too hard to make it perfect :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC) So are Drew's comments resolved? Since not all of them are capped.--TRUCO 00:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I think so..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Lead The band's lead singer, Justine Frischmann, lent her a Roland MC-505 sequencer/drum machine which she used to make a demo tape which secured her a contract with British label XL Recordings. -- The second which should be "that" Although the album had limited commercial success, it was highly regarded by music critics for its blending of such genres as grime, hip hop, ragga and Brazilian baile funk, and for its politicised lyrics. -- Don't you mean "genres such as"? Spell out US and UK in their first occurrences. The album featured the song "Paper Planes", which proved to be M.I.A.'s breakthrough hit and was nominated for Record of the Year at the 51st Grammy Awards. -- Comma before and The song also appeared on the soundtrack of the 2008 film Slumdog Millionaire along with "O...Saya", a new song by M.I.A. and A. R. Rahman, which was nominated for the Oscar for Best Original Song at the 81st Academy Awards. -- a new song is WP:WEASEL wording, specifically state when it was released Please state when it was released.--₮RUCӨ 21:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) It wasn't "released" other than by being on the soundtrack of the film, the date of which is already covered by the phrase "The song also appeared on the soundtrack of the 2008 film Slumdog Millionaire along with......" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Well that should be clarified a bit more, that it was only released on the soundtrack and not in a studio album.--₮RUCӨ 22:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC) I reworded it a bit, however.--₮RUCӨ 21:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Mixtapes Initially only given to the press and distributed at live performances. -- This is not a complete sentence and thus does not need a full stop. Singles Her 2003 and 2007 (Sound of Kuduro) singles need to be verified in some way because they did not rank and have no verification.--₮RUCӨ 17:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) All done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 21:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "but moved into making music after" This is a false contrast, "but"-->and. "which further increased the anticipation for her official debut." "Her second album, Kala, was released in 2007 and was again praised by critics-->Her second album, Kala, was released in 2007 and was also praised by critics "The song also appeared on the soundtrack" "but not on an M.I.A." "an"-->a "O...Saya"-->O... Saya Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Websites (such as Yahoo Music, Allmusic and BBC News) should not be italicized.
• http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/error/?c=y&referURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.eso.workers.dev%2Fwiki%2FM.I.A._discography&errorURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philadelphiaweekly.com%2Fprint_friendly.php%3Fid%3D8794 (ref 28) deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

All addressed now, I think..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 02:04, 10 March 2009 [56].

---

List of Governors of Connecticut

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk)

Another in the long line of featured governor lists, the last couple being List of Governors of Indiana and List of Governors of Arizona. New features in this version of the format: Split terms (i.e. someone served a partial term, then served a partial term) are denoted with +s, as in Indiana, and moving the images down to coincide with the table rather than the text. --Golbez (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent list to the same high quality as your others! My only recommendation would be to use a better word than "stint" in the last paragraph. Though I'm disappointed that Hiram Bingham broke Indiana governor Lane's record :(. Reywas92^Talk 00:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, 'stint' sounds a little informal, but it was preferred to "distinct terms", as that could be ambiguous. As for the record, I believe the permanent record is held by James Peabody of Colorado, who was declared governor on the condition that he immediately resign so that his lieutenant could take the office. --Golbez (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe "timespans"? Stint is really too informal. Reywas92^Talk 14:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • That seems a bit long; how about "spans"? Or is that too contracted? --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General comment There is a self redirect to the article, as found with the dab tool Assuming it was the one in the lead, fixed. --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Lead Can you make the third and fourth paragraphs into one? They are too small to stand alone. 2nd and 3rd, yes; 3rd and 4th, no, as they have little to do with each other. And the 2nd+3rd would probably be too large. (2nd is the term of governor; 3rd deals with the lt. gov; and the 4th is a history paragraph explaining the charter.) Any suggestions? --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Then merge the 2nd and 3rd, the size will still be fine.--₮RUCӨ 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) There have been 67 governors of the state, serving 71 distinct spans in office. -- spans? Shouldn't it be "terms"? It used to say "distinct terms" but that confused someone since the next person then said "the longest terms in office ... were elected to ten one-year terms". We're using at least two, possibly three, definition of 'term' in one paragraph and it got confusing. I'd be happy to put it back to "distinct term" but others would have to agree it's not confusing. --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see. Then span is alright.--₮RUCӨ 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) The longest was the first, Jonathan Trumbull, who served 14+1⁄2 years, but seven of those as colonial governor; the longest-serving entirely state governor was his son, Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., who served over 11+1⁄2 years. -- The first what? Governor. Clarified. --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Like most early states, Connecticut had claims to western areas but, unlike most of the others, did not cede all of its claims during the formation of the country. -- (1)The comma goes before the but (2)Add "it" before did not I originally had it after the but, but then the clause makes no sense. I'll move it later in the sentence, let me know what you think. --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Its perfect.--₮RUCӨ 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Governors What does the "white" color mean in terms of parties? There is no white color; there is a null color, used in one cell, due to the person having no party at all. --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) You should explain that in the key.--₮RUCӨ 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Can the took office and the left office be replaced with "Term began" and "Term ended" or "Term start" and "Term end"? Possibly, except that "term began" implies that it was the official start of the term, where there was at least one situation where a governor stayed on past the end of his official term. But that's a minor instance, I'll make the change. --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) IMO, its fine. Unless any other reviewer states otherwise.--₮RUCӨ 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Is this table capable of being sortable? It would serve the reader better if it were. Sadly, no; some work is being done to make tables with rowspanned columns sortable, but they aren't yet. Oh, okay.--₮RUCӨ 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Other high offices held * denotes those offices which the governor resigned to take. † denotes those offices that the governor resigned to be governor. -- (1)These should be listed instead of being in this format (2)After each symbol, have the first word capitalized. OK, let me know what you think of my attempt. --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Its fine, except that it should be in small font, but the italics should remain.--₮RUCӨ 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) The Gubernatorial term shouldn't be sortable because some entries have more than 2 terms listed in each column. But the default sort is done by first term in office; it's at least useful to that regard to take you back to the default sort, yes? --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) In a way, yes, but also its not representative of all the entries. But I'll let it go for now.--₮RUCӨ 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Blank entries in the US House and US Senate columns should have centered aligned emdashes. Fair enough. --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Living former governors The most recent governor to die was William O'Neill (1980–1991), who died on November 24, 2007. -- It would be best if you state when he took office and when he left. This also needs a source. The took/left office is what's in parentheses. :) As for the source, do you mean one saying he's dead, or one saying he's the most recent to die? --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Notes The first, third, eight, eleventh, and eighteenth through twenty-first need a source to be verified by. The general references act as references for anything that isn't specifically cited. Oh, okay.--₮RUCӨ 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Remove the full stops from notes 6-7, 9-11, 16, and 18-21 Done. --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) References Some of the publishers have respective articles, and should be linked per consistency with linking, like the Connecticut State Library.--₮RUCӨ 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Done. --Golbez (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Done all new things above (though I think the 2nd graf is too big now :)) --Golbez (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Its fine, really ;)--₮RUCӨ 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The longest terms in office were in the state's early years, with three governors being elected to ten or more one-year terms." This sentence structure (noun + -ing) is ungrammatical, try "The longest terms in office were in the state's early years; three governors have been elected to ten or more one-year terms." Rearranged a little bit. --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC) "who served 14+1⁄2 years, but seven of those as colonial governor" Write comparable quantities the same, either use 14+1⁄2 and 7 or use fourteen and a half and seven. Done. "Prior to"--Before Done, though is there a guideline saying this? I tend to look at 'before' as possibly meaning "just before", whereas 'prior to' doesn't have that possible connotation. A guideline would be ludicrous, but "before" is plainer, more understandable and more concise. Remember that we are trying to make Wikipedia well known to all types of people. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Not necessarily ludicrous; we do have lists of "words to avoid", I was just curious if you were referencing something like that. --Golbez (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC) "but it did not" File:Abraham ribicoff.jpg has no information at all to verify its copyright status. Swapped him out for another governor. File:M. Jodi Rell.png needs a more specific URL (see the file page). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Found a free picture on flickr. --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Gimmetrow 03:42, 10 March 2009 [57].

---

List of individual National Basketball Association scoring leaders

Nominator(s): —Chris! _ct

Another NBA list written by me. Comments welcomed.—Chris! _ct 23:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The following list individual players who lead the National Basketball Association (NBA) with the highest point per game average in a given season. -- list --> "lists" Both George Gervin and Allen Iverson have clinched four scoring titles in their career[5] while George Mikan, Neil Johnston and Bob McAdoo have clinched it three times. -- Comma before while List and key Make a section header for the list itself and optionally for the key, if not just place it at the top of the new section. This was not done.--TRUCO 00:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Opps, I missed this one. Now done.—Chris! ct 02:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The 3-point field-goal made column needs to have its content center aligned like the rest of the list the columns. I can remove the center alignment if that is what you mean.—Chris! ct 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry, forget about that, I just found it awkward that the column is stretched like that.--TRUCO 00:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Done.—Chris! ct 02:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC) No no, revert that, the center aligning of the emdashes has nothing to do with the width of the column, in fact its proper to list it in the center. However, maybe the name of the column can be coded with break parameters to decrease the width of it? If not, its still fine.--TRUCO 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I see. I think I did it right this time.—Chris! ct 03:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Remove at least 2 images because they stretch past the notes section, and they should stop beforehand. Notes Remove the commas from notes B, C, and E they are not complete statements. References If you're going to link one of the publishers, you may as well link the rest for consistency. I removed the links. Everything else done.—Chris! ct 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC) --TRUCO 16:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RU₢0 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support excellent list to the same quality as your others! Reywas92^Talk 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 The table, so "by season" in the title is extraneous. Page move needed. - Done Lead sentence "The folowing lists..." - not so much. Reword. Hook me! - I can't think of a better way to say this. Any suggestion? Try "The National Basketball Association's (NBA) scoring title is awarded to the player with the highest points per game in a given season." It says the same thing without starting "This list...", etc. We know what the list is because of the title. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris! ct 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "who lead" - "who led" - Done "point per game average" - make it points per game and link to here - Done "point per game averaged" - you've already established that it's an average, so just "points per game" will suffice here - Done "also the frist player" - first - Done "in history" - excess, you've already said first player, so remove - Done "He is also the frist player in history to lead both categories as a rookie when he scored 2707 points and averaged 37.6 points in the 1959–60 season." - needs ref - I reword the sentence and got a ref for it "Michael Jordan holds the record for having the most scoring titles, with ten." - either "Michael Jordan has won the most scoring titles, with ten." or "Michael Jordan has won ten scoring titles, more than any other player." - Done "to have seven consecutive scoring titles." - to have won - Done "Both George Gervin and Allen Iverson have clinched four scoring titles in their career,[5] while George Mikan, Neil Johnston and Bob McAdoo have clinched it three times." - clinched used twice in quick succession, and I would remove it altogether to facilitate understanding. Use "won" or "achieved" instead. - Done Positions should be linked in the key - Not done because they all link to basketball position and this link is in the key already They should be linked to the appropriate section of that article: Basketball position#Point guard, Basketball position#Center, etc. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris! ct 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Key should be separated from the table by a level 2 header - Done Table headers: Field goal, 3-point field goal, and free throw - the only dash in there should be 3-point, as shown, and all need to be plural - Done Make all footnotes complete sentences - Is this necessary? I suppose it's not necessary per se, but consistency would be nice. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris! ct 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Check out reference 85, I think it should be 1999-2000, not 1990-2000 - Done References need to be formatted consistently. Some access dates are "February 20, 2009", and some are "February 20 2009". Check all. - Done Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC) My replies are in bold. Thanks for reviewing—Chris! ct 19:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "highest points per game" "most", not "highest". Alternatively, you could say "highest points per game average". ", both of which were achieved in the 2005–06 season." Change the comma to a semicolon and rephrase to "both records were achieved in the 2005–06 season." "while George Mikan, Neil Johnston"-->and George Mikan, Neil Johnston "have all won" "Only three players " In the last sentence, I think you should link to the season article rather than the NBA finals articles. Why is this necessary?—Chris! ct 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Fix the edit bunching. "Denotes the number of times the player has been the scoring leader" This is a bit off but I don't know the best way to rephrase. Maybe " Denotes the number of times the player had been the scoring leader up to and including that season". This is something that needs to be amended in your other lists too. Done, will do other lists later—Chris! ct 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC) The George Mikan image is fair use and should be removed, as there are plenty of free alternatives of other players. It is not imperative that Mikan be pictured. Image caption: "Kobe Bryant won the scoring titles twice from 2006 to 2007."-->Kobe Bryant won the scoring titles twice in 2006 to 2007. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC) All done—Chris! ct 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved layout issue

Comment On my screen resolution (1024 x 768), the images in the "Scoring leaders" section push the table down; in other words, they do not go alongside the table, they are above it, right-aligned, and there's a whole lot of white space on the left. Can this be fixed? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I tried to fix it. Does that help?—Chris! ct 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) At the moment, it is still the same. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC) A screen shot would be helpful. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I think the fix bunching template is causing this problem. I remove them and rearrange the images. See if it looks better.—Chris! ct 03:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC) No, it's still the same. I guess it can't be fixed. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Ooh, high five! It's fixed (Don't listen to me talking again). Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] "Wilt Chamberlain holds the all-time records for total points scored (4029) and points per game (50.4)..." that's in a season, right? Also with the Bryant one. Right—Chris! ct 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The readers may be confused whether it is all-time, or just the season. Just clarify it by adding "in a season" or something similar. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Although I think "both were achieved in the 1961–62 season." in the sentence "Wilt Chamberlain holds the all-time records for total points scored (4029) and points per game (50.4); both were achieved in the 1961–62 season." already clarify the meaning. But done anyway. "...and Bryant have won the scoring titles twice." have --> have each; titles --> title. Done—Chris! ct 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC) You could include that O'Neal is the only season scoring leader to have never had a three point field goal in his respective seasons. I think the lead has enough material already.—Chris! ct 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Ehh...you could still add it, since it is kind of a fascinating fact. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The reason I don't want to add is because I probably need a ref for it and I am not sure if I can find one for it.—Chris! ct 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Couldn't the general reference work? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Don't think so, but I added it anyway.—Chris! ct 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Abdul-Jabbar did not change his name until after the 1970–71 season. So I think that he should be named Lew Alcindor for his scoring title in 1970–71. Oh, I forgot that. Now done—Chris! ct 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Added a sentence. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 02:04, 10 March 2009 [58].

---

List of Popotan episodes

Nominator(s): じんない

I believe the last of any signifigant issues have now been resolved. じんない 20:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NocturneNoir

Comments from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs) "The DVD box cover of the Popotan anime." from the caption, is not a sentence. Corrected. Combined the 2 sentances.じんない 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) "The anime, which features character designs by Haruka Sakurai based on the original concept by Akio Watanabe[2][3] under the alias of Poyoyon Rock,[4][5] was developed by Shaft, directed and storyboarded by Shinichiro Kimura, and written by Jukki Hanada." is very convoluted. Try splitting it up into multiple sentences. Done. Semi-colon split the character designs (which was probably the section that made it so convoluted).じんない 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) "They originally aired on TBS's satellite station BS-i from July 17, 2003 through October 2, 2003" needs a comma before and after BS-i. Done.じんない 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) "From August 15, 2003 through August 17, 2003 the first episode of Popotan, "Secret House", was shown for free at Ishimaru Electronics in Japan." needs a comma after the second 2003 and personally, I would use "to" instead of "through" or just exchange the whole intro for "Between August 15 and August 17, 2003,". Done.じんない 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) "At the same time Bandai released DVDs without the figurines at a lower cost." Needs a comma after "time". Done.じんない 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) "The discs also came with a promotional figurine of one of the girls." I assume you mean "Each disc also came with..."? Yes. I changed it to that.じんない 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) "[11]Geneon USA licensed needs a space between the ref and the next sentence. Done.じんない 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) How come only the opening theme is mentioned and not the closing theme? More detail could be given here, including the name of the artist. I added all information on the any release based directly on the anime's songs.じんない 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) EP# should be bolded. Other lists tend to just use # as well, so you may want to consider that. I personally don't care either way. Done...i believe.じんない 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Do "mansion" and "ghosts" really need to be wikilinked? Same with most of the other wikilinks in the episodes; I'd assume most readers know what "Christmas" is. I removed ghosts as it's not that pertinent to the story. Christmas, or rather the idea of Christmas, plays a somewhat more important role in the anime and while most people might be familiar with it, it is also relevant to the topic, especially as it relates to 1 episode in particular. Mansion...well...i could remove that one. While it is a central location not knowing about it would not inpede one's reading of the list as much as Christmas would.じんない 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) On that note, can you wikilink to List of Popotan characters more often? I have never seen this series, so I had no clue who the characters are. I added links to characters mentioned not at the top. That should be enough links to that page.じんない 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) I trust Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) did a good job copyediting, so I won't even look at the episode list for errors I won't find. Good job on the list overall. And why yes, I stole this comment layout from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs). I quite like it. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I really dislike the formatting of some of the citation templates... Anyway, I did a minor c/e and tweaking, so I will support. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: instead of using multiple sources for the Japanese epsiode titles, I believe it would be better to use a single source (perhaps http://www.b-ch.com/cgi-bin/contents/ttl/stry_list.cgi?ttl_c=601) as a general reference, as many other animanga FLs do. —tan³ tx 10:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Another comment: per WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books and other media, "S・U・K・I" is styled inappropriately, and should probably be "Suki". —tan³ tx 10:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Did this myself. —tan³ tx 03:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done...took me a while to figure out what was the actual "title" and was was the "work" it was published under.じんない 10:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No other problems I can see. Support. —tan³ tx 03:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Sourcing It was mainly by concerns with reliable sourcing that held this back on the two previous occasions, and my previous concerns have now been satisfied. My only question is what is Getchu, and what makes it a reliable source, as I couldn't find much info about it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Getchu is a major retailer of adult games in Japan. Sourcing from it would be analogous to sourcing from Amazon, I believe. —tan³ tx 00:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Other Comments Where you have multiple references (e.g. [10][18][19][11]) they should be in numeric order. Done.じんない 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Citations should use consistent templates, I changed one from {{citation}}, but wasn't sure if the Getchu was citing the website ({{cite web}}) or something else. The article cites various pages on Getchu. The article cites either the media itself or the web sites. No real print media beyond the media related to this exists that I know of.じんない 01:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I think you may have misunderstood. Most of the Getchu are {{cite web}} which is fine. However ref 27 and 29 use the form {{citation}}. These two refs need to be changed to a specific citation template – depending on whether you are citing the web page itself: {{cite web}}, or the CD notes: {{Cite album-notes}}. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Done.じんない 16:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The image is missing an fair-use rationale Done.じんない 01:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I fixed any remaining issues I found myself. I wish to congratulate Jinnai for persisting with this, through 3 FLCs and my many opposes/comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Support My concerns were resolved in previous FLCs.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 02:04, 10 March 2009 [59].

---

Ed Chynoweth Cup

Nominator(s): Resolute

So, yet another sports list. Having redesigned the table and added a history, I believe this article on the Western Hockey League's championship trophy now meets WP:WIAFL. Well sourced, appropriate lead image, straightforward table. I look forward to all feedback. Resolute 17:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The WHL champion earns a berth into the Memorial Cup tournament, Canada's Major-Junior championship. -- Major-Junior should be pipedlinked to Junior ice hockey#Major-Junior History In 1971, four years after the league's founding, the CAHA reorganized the top level of junior hockey into two tiers, sanctioning the WHL as the top league in western Canada and one of three leagues, along with the Ontario Hockey Association (OHA) and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL), to form the "Major-Junior" tier. -- (1)IMO there is no need to state that it is 4 years after the league's founding (2) This would be better worded as 'In 1971, four years after the league's founding, the CAHA reorganized the top level of junior hockey into two tiers: the WHL was sanctioned as the top league in western Canada and as one of three leagues that formed the "Major-Junior" tier, the others being the Ontario Hockey Association (OHA) and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL).' The 1971 champion Edmonton Oil Kings thus faced the Quebec Remparts in the 1972 Memorial Cup final, though it nearly failed to materialize as the OHA and QMJHL initially refused to face the western champion. -- Comma after though The Oil Kings ultimately did play Quebec in an abbreviated championship, losing the best-of-3 series in two games. -- (1) No need to word it as such since in the previous sentence its confirmed that they did play. Reword possibly to 'The Oil Kings defeated Quebec in an abbreviated championship, losing the best-of-3 series in two games.' (2)It should be explained as to what the best of 3 series means or how that process functions. A half-dozen years later, the 1981–82 Winter Hawks recorded numerous other firsts, becoming the first American team to win the President's Cup,[3] as well as the first American team to compete for the Memorial Cup. -- A half-dozen is very wordy, how about 'Six years later'? "You've got to perform." -- this just seems like a random quote, remove or integrate it better in the text. The Blazers dominated the WHL in the early 1990s, capturing four league championships between 1990 and 1995 and three Memorial Cups to cap a seven championships in nine year stretch for the WHL between 1987 and 1995. -- ..to cap a seven championships in nine year stretch --> "...to cap seven championships in a nine year stretch" Chynoweth had served as president of both the WHL from 1972 and the CHL from 1975 until leaving both posts in 1995 to form the Edmonton Ice. He remained with the franchise through its transfer to Kootenay until his death in 2008. -- This would be better worded as 'Chynoweth had served as president of both the WHL and CHL from 1972 and from 1975, respectively, until leaving both posts in 1995 to form the Edmonton Ice.' List of winners Bold denotes won Memorial Cup; number in parenthesis denotes total championships won to that point -- This would be better represented as a key in table form located at the top of the table. See also Some of the links located here were already mentioned in the text so they should be removed from this section, like the President's cup. Notes Brandon qualified for the 1995 Memorial Cup the losing finalist as Kamloops was both the host team and won the WHL title. -- The grammar structure of this sentence is unclear, it needs to be revised Portland qualified for the 1986 Memorial Cup as the host team after New Westminster withdrew as host -- From my view point, 'the' should be added before the last host--TRUCO 02:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Some excellent suggestions. I've changed all per your comments except for two: (1) I don't see a huge need for a tabled key to denote the use of bold text and the bracketed numbers, but I did move it to the top of the list. (2) There are no redundant links in the See also section that I could find. Somewhat confusingly, both the QMHJL and WHL used to call their championship trophy the President's Cup. The see also link refers to the QMJHL's trophy. I did remove the CHL awards link, however, as that is contained in the template. Thank you for the excellent review.Resolute The only thing I suggest is that you add "team" before won Memorial Cup in the note.--TRUCO 00:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Interesting idea. done. I also removed the bolding as it becomes redundant to the notes. Resolute 16:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah it does since you mention it in the results column. Now, however, you should re-add the bullet point.--TRUCO 17:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Picky, picky.  ;) done. Resolute 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "trophy that is awarded to" "first team with two victories winning the title,"-->in which the first team with two victories won the title, "American based team"-->American-based team "recorded numerous other firsts" "the first American team to win the President's Cup,[3] as well as the first American team to compete for the Memorial Cup." Comma not needed. "outside of Swift" Dabomb87 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC) All six points addressed. Thanks, Resolute 16:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Oppose for now Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) says that items should be in chronological order, earliest first. Is there a reason for this not to be sortable. I guess "3–0–2" means 3 wins 0 losses 2 draws, otherwise it would be "3–2" if there were no draws, correct? You should make this explicit so idiots like me can figure out what is going on. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reversed the table and added a note explaining the ties. I'm not at all sure that sortability is necessary, however I've added that as well. Resolute 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Good work, I now have no major issues with this. The comments below are all minor/picky things. I realise Junior ice hockey does it, but I don't think Major-Junior should be hyphenated, in fact I'm not sure it should even be capitalised.[60] I began capitalizing it in the past after a FAC commenter thought I was introducing POV by calling a certain league "major", rather than stating that this was the level of hockey. Changed back. "One year later, the Winter Hawks won the 1983 Memorial Cup, becoming? the first American champion" - missing word fixed "The community rallied around the team, ... etc.", firstly is this cited, secondly, meaning no disrespect to the victims of the crash, is the crash particularly relevent to the Ed Chynoweth Cup history? It is cited. The book references cover the entire paragraph. The statement about the crash attempts to set the tone for the team's victory three years later. The Broncos' 1989 championship is virtually always tied in with the crash in the histories I have. I'll attempt to improve the connection between the two. Okay that is fine if you haven't associated these two events yourself. I know it is named/linked in the lead, but for "The Blazers dominated the WHL in ...", it sounds like it is a team that has already been introduced. I'd be tempted to use the full name (and possibly link). I typically do just that. This was an oversight, fixed. "to cap seven championships in a nine year stretch for the WHL between 1987 and 1995", might be being thick but this seems a bit unclear. Clarified See also section. I realise the OHA became the OHL, but you haven't previously used OHL, so it should probably be spelled out. Corrected with a note in the article body. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Resolute 15:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, my issues have been resolved. This looks good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support The prose is very well written (frankly, I was a bit surprised that I couldn't even add a comma or anything like that anywhere), the refs and list look excellent as well. Maxim_(talk) 13:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [61].

---

Ashlee Simpson discography

Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk)

I think this discography about the American singer is comprehensive and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead -- Incomplete lead. The discography of Ashlee Simpson, a American pop singer, consists of three studio albums, eight singles, and seven music videos. -- 'an' not a On the UK albums chart, it reached number thirty-one and was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). -- Spell out the United Kingdom in its first occurrence The album sold 2.9 million copies in the US and produced two top ten singles. -- This is not elaborate enough, all discographies explain some of the artist's most notable singles and how they ranked. It debuted at number one in the US and was certified platinum. -- certified platinum by who? I Am Me sold 900,000 copies in the US and produced two top forty singles. -- same thing here about the elaboration of singles Bittersweet World, Simpson's third album, was released in April 2008. The album reached number four in the US and number fifty-seven in the UK. -- Well what about the singles, which need to be elaborated? Other appearances These songs have not appeared on a studio album released by Simpson. -- (1)Source? or (2)No need for it since the table itself says this. References Why isn't Interscope records linked under "Interscope" [which should be changed to Interscope records]--TRUCO 01:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 17:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Happy to support, very nice work. Only two minor comments: year columns should be centered (they look off to me), and you may want to put a # before the catalog numbers. Great work though! Drewcifer (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support, nice. Without much enthusiasm, please. Cannibaloki 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• No need to link actress, it is a common term and most people know what it is.
• "2.9 million" Needs a non-breaking space.
• "top forty singles"-->top-forty singles I think "spawned" would be a better word here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [62].

---

Rufus Wainwright discography

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all requirements. Despite receiving support from two reviewers, my previous attempt at obtaining FL status was unsuccessful. However, I have made all corrections requested here, so I hope the list satisfies all reviewers this time. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous comments resolved in the first FLC, and I still feel it meets the WP:WIAFL criteria despite changes. Good work.--TRUCO 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from JD554

Comments from JD554 (talk · contribs) "released under [label]" seems a strange choice of wording. Would "released by" or "released through" be better? Done. All "under"s have been changed to "through"s. References for chart positions and certifications aren't needed in the lead as they are cited in the main body. Done. Comment: It was suggested that I add citations for specific chart positions in the header. Since it comes down to a personal preference, I put the references back (only 3 total, so not a big difference). --Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC) "Best New Artist" doesn't need quotes around it. Done. Saying "and more" at the end of what's available on All I Want makes it sound like an advert. This needs re-wording or maybe expanding to say what the "more" is. Done. Removed "and more". The last sentence of the lead isn't necessary. Done. Some of the releases in the lead are referred to in the past tense, these need changing to the present. Eg, "His first music DVD, Live at the Fillmore, accompanied Want Two and featured live concert footage" should be "and features". Done. The actual details of albums are in different orders: Studio, live and compilation albums have released date, label, format; but EPs and video albums have released date, format, label. These should be consistent. Done. Wherever there is more than one format, it should be "Formats:". Done. Remove the word "Records" from the Waiting for a Want EP's details. Done. Move the video albums to follow the singles so they are in the same order as the infobox. Done. References Reference #3 could be used for both American charts. Comment: I'm sorry, but the references were shuffled around in the process of making the above suggestions. Could you please clarify which reference you are referring to? They're now 6 & 7, the Billboard and Allmusic sources. The Allmusic source seems more comprehensive and has everything the Billboard one has as well as including the Heatseaker chart. --JD554 (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Except Allmusic does not have the chart position for Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall, so the source is still needed. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC) References in a foreign language (Nos. 9, 11, 12) need a language tag. Done. ChartStats (used at #20) can be used instead of everyHit (#16). Done. A reference for the UK certification of Release the Stars is needed. Done. That's all for now, --JD554 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Additional comment from JD554 The links to the countries for charts should be links to the relevant chart, these can be found at List of record charts.--JD554 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Thank you so much for your time and assistance. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just one more thing I've spotted: The gold certification for Release the Stars isn't confirmed at the BPI's website[63] (use 'wainwright' as the search term) but it looks like Want Two was awarded silver. It may be possible that the BPI haven't kept their database up to date (but doubtful): Do you have another source for the gold certification that isn't a quote from Wainwright? --JD554 (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have added the silver certification to Want Two on the table. This, this, and this all mention Release the Stars' gold certification in the UK. Does the reference need to be replaced? --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the last source as it's blocked from where I am at the moment, I could check it later, but from the URL it looks like an interview - does the reporter say it's gold or does Wainwright? This is also the problem with the second source as it's simply Wainwright saying it's received gold. The first one may be enough, but it's a bit weak compared to the BPI's site which I would have thought to be the most reliable. --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The reporter, who says: "Congratulations on the success of Release The Stars, which has been at the top of the charts both here in the States and in the U.K., where it went Gold." --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support on the proviso that the two independent sources are used over the current one for the gold certification. --JD554 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support I was pretty tough on this list, so I'm very happy to finally support. It clearly meets all of the standards expected of an FL discography. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments Since you've already gone through my un-ending list of comments already, I'm pretty pleased with the way this list has turned out. There's a few more things that I'm noticing now, but nothing major: The lead needs a few citations, namely for sentences talking about chart positions and certifications. I'm sure you could use references you've already been using. Comment: I had citations, but was asked to remove them (see second suggestion by JD554 above). What to do? As you already know, I'm of the opinion that they aren't needed in the lead as they are simply summarising what's in the article, see WP:LEADCITE. However, there isn't really a hard and fast rule, some FL-class discogs have them, but most don't seem to. I wouldn't consider the issue to be a deal-breaker either way (for me). --JD554 (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC) In a case like this, I'd say just go with whatever you feel is right. It's not a deal breaker for me either. But, my rationale is this: specific statistical information (chart positions) need to cited since they're so specific, whereas more generalized information like who what where when why can be left for the bulk of the article where the prose will inevitably go into more detail. But you can't get any more detailed than #27 on XYZ chart. But like I said I'll leave it up to you. Drewcifer (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC) I prefer the citations, so I put them back and added a comment in the JD554 section above. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC) "Alright, Already: Live in Montréal, was released by Geffen via iTunes in the United States and Canada on March 15, 2005, and later in Germany on March 29." We're usually only concerned with the original release date, so I'm not sure why the German release date is relevant here. Done. May want to wikilink Judy Garland in the notes for Rufus! Does Judy!... Done. The double heading-in the video albums and singles table still bugs me... Done, although I don't prefer the wider column width. "Contributions" sounds a little vague. What about "Other contributions" or "Original contributions"? Done. "Various artists" isn't a proper name, so it shouldn't be capitalized. Done. For some of the song titles, some of the prepositions are capitalized where I don't think they should be. Words like "Are" and "On" should be lower-cased. Unless of course the titles are specifically like that on the recording. Done. I see "What Are You Doing New Year's Eve?" mentioned numerous times in the latter tables. Are these all different renditions/recordings, or are they the same? Same with "Spotlight On Christmas". Done. Removed second occurrence. I think that's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Support My comments were resolved at the previous FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support, "It clearly meets all of the standards expected of an FL discography." Cannibaloki 02:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [64].

---

List of Vancouver Canucks captains

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]

Though I know that I'm going to get some comments, please be civil while you comment. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no clue what's implied with "Term", "Canuck season" or "NHL season". Grsz¹¹ 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sentence starting "Though goaltenders are not permitted..." is a run on that repeats itself.

The last sentence (Luongo is not permitted...) is again redundant. Grsz¹¹ 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Heheh, I said please be civil. Anyways, I really don't know what to do for the last two comments. As for the first one, done, though it needs a copy-edit. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how I was uncivil, I was just really confused. Grsz¹¹ 02:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::::As far as the edit goes, I really don't think NHL season or Canuck seasons add anything. This list is about when they were captains, not when their career was, or how long they were in Vancouver. Grsz¹¹ 02:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It adds additional information to the article. Almost all featured lists have some columns that you may think are "redundant". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The team joined the NHL in the 1970–71 NHL season as an expansion team with the Buffalo Sabres, and have won two Western Conference championships in the 1982 Stanley Cup playoffs and the 1994 Stanley Cup playoffs respectively. -- Comma before respectively. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) The longest-tenured Canucks captain was Stan Smyl, who was appointed for eight seasons. Smyl is also the only captain to have spent his entire NHL playing career with the Canucks. -- It would be best if you state the years. On both? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Trevor Linden, who captained the Canucks from 1991 to 1997, played 16 seasons with the Canucks, a franchise high. -- So who has the longest tenure? Linden or Smyl, these two statements contradict each other. Linden had the most seasons as a Canuck; Smyl had the longest-tenure. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Markus Naslund from Sweden, who captained the Canucks for seven seasons[a], is the only non-Canadian to have captained the Canucks. -- (1)Unlink Sweden, its a common geographical term. (2)The comma goes before the note. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Captains In the key: have should be "has" Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) The NHL and Canucks seasons columns should be made unsortable because some cells have multiple entries and are not representative of all the entries. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) References There is an inconsistency with the publishers for the National Hockey League, some have National Hockey League, others have NHL Enterprises; be consistent. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) --TRUCO 02:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 02:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The word "Canucks" is used 12 times in the lead, and many such uses are redundant. In a lot of cases, the usage of the word can be reduced, given it is obvious what team we are talking about. i.e.: "The longest-tenured Canucks captain was Stan Smyl, who was appointed for eight seasons. Smyl is also the only captain to have spent his entire NHL playing career with the Canucks.[10] Trevor Linden, who captained (was captain) the Canucks from 1990 to 1997, played 16 seasons with the Canucks, a franchise high.[11] Swedish Markus Naslund, who captained the Canucks for seven seasons[a], is the only non-Canadian to serve in the role. to have captained the Canucks" Resolute 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Very well written list. Resolute 22:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Having first played at the Pacific Coliseum, the Canucks have played their home games at General Motors Place since 1995." Hanging participle. Try "The team first played their home games at the Pacific Coliseum until 1994/1995 (you choose the correct year), and have played them at General Motors Place since." Used own re-phrased version. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "sole privilege of discussing with the referee any questions relating to interpretation of rules which may arise during the progress of a game." The quotation marks should be inside the period. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "who captained the team until retiring in 1974."-->who captained the team until his retirement in 1974. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "who was appointed" It sounds kind of awkward, but I rather not argue. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) After re-reading it, you are right (it wasn't grammatically correct either). I changed it back. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "Smyl is also the only captain " The only Canucks captain or out of the whole NHL? Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "NHL rule against goaltender captains" Can you explain this rule in a footnote or something? Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [65].

---

List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Chiefs of Naval Operations)

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk •

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comment -- The lead looks like an exact copy of the Astronauts list. Reword a bit to distinguish it. In addition, the lead really doesn't say much about the Chiefs of Naval Operations program: Elaborate on that. Also, use the comments from the other list's FLC and apply them here, like removing the full stops from the notes. Before nomination another list, wait for at least one of your nominations to be passed/archived.--TRUCO 00:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I did, it's the same topic/school, so of course there'll be similarities - I'm working on a general topic with these lists, and yes I did change the lead, and no, if you look you'll see the full stops are already removed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) There's no rule about only having one nomination. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) (ec)Due to the backlog and lack of reviewers, we are trying to keep noms from 1 specific user to at most 3.--TRUCO 01:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Stifling article production? Hardly the way to build an encyclopedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Stictly speaking it isn't stifling article production (as this is just a gold star), but regardless seeing as we are short of reviewers it would be much appreciated if you could help out by reviewing a few of the other candidates (like how PR operates). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC) And if they're articles/lists that are being built on a topic, like here, sub lists of a main list that would be too big if all in one list, WP:FT requires, commonality. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with users with multiple noms (I do it all the time myself), but it wouldn't hurt to wait a week before submitting any more. -- Scorpion0422 01:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I have lots of work to do on the next one. ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Review from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The CNO reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy for the command, utilization of resources and operating efficiency of the operating forces of the Navy and of the Navy shore activities assigned by the Secretary -- The statement after the comma makes no sense: Revise, in addition to adding a period at the end of it. Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Since the United States is referenced a lot. After the first occurrence of United States use the acronym form for latter references, which means that you will have to pipe some of the links to use the acronym. Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Students do not become astronauts upon graduation, rather those who enter aviation and space-related fields have the opportunity to be selected for astronaut training by NASA. -- This should be reworded because this is not an Astronaut list so it stands out in its current wording, so it would be best to reword it accordingly. Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The first alumni to graduate and go on to become CNO was William S. Benson, Class of 1877. -- (1)Add "a" before CNO (2)I would add "who graduated from the" before Class of 1877. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Over 50 U.S. astronauts have graduated from the Naval Academy, more than from any other undergraduate institution. -- This shouldn't be in this list as this is about CNO's not Astros. Cut. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The lead should summarize the list more, as in stating significant alumni and the most recent. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Alumni The notability sections have many entries with full stops which shouldn't be there, replace them with semi-colons. Like Admiral. Done, Ah, you weren't specific enough the first time, thought you were talking about . at the ends. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah. This also applies to all the full stops, in the middle as well.--TRUCO 02:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC) This still has to be done.--TRUCO 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Like Chief of Naval Operations (1919–1923).--TRUCO 18:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Ah, fixed, I hope. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Decrease the size of the first two columns, there is no reason for them to be that wide and have all that room. Several names already word wrap, so that is not a valid concern for the name column. The class column is mostly taken by the header but I'll the person who made the template to see if class column can be cut some. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The template has been adjusted— the year is now at minimum. I removed "Class" from the header since "Class Year" wrapped and it looked really odd with the sortable icon. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 03:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC) --TRUCO 01:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, I didn't know it was a template. I thought it was a regular wikitable. Okay, I see now.--TRUCO 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Yep. I developed {{tl|mem} for this project as it allows a consistent design across a series of several different types of lists. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think most of my comments on the Astronaut list also apply to this one. Please review those. Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "highest ranking active"-->highest-ranking active "this usage is officially endorsed." Source? My comment on the image captions on the astronaut list applies here. "The curricula is heavy on engineering fields."-->The curricula emphasizes engineering fields. "Four subsequently"-->Four graduates subsequently Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC) All fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• New York Times-->The New York Times
• TIME-->TIME Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [66].

---

List of Olympic medalists in speed skating

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²²

This is one I've had ready for a while now, but I decided to hold off on nominating it. It's a wikicup entry, fully sourced and all concerns will be addressed by moi. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead Speed skating is a sport that is contested at the Winter Olympic Games. Speed skating events have been held since first Winter Olympics in 1924. -- Add "the" before first. Done. Speed skating events have been held since first Winter Olympics in 1924.[1] Speed skating has been on the Olympic programme since the first Winter Olympics held in 1924. -- Thinking about it, aren't these two just repeating the other? Yes. Fixed. An all-round event was also held, combined the points from the results of four distance races. -- I think a word is missing after the comma because its current revision does not make sense. Fixed, and I tried rowording the entire bit about the all-round event. Lidiya Skoblikova, who represented the Soviet Union, is one of only two female Winter Olympians to win six gold medals (cross-country skier Lyubov Yegorova is the other). -- The Soviet Union is a pretty common term considering the Cold War. Done. Andrea Schöne, won won a silver medal in 1976, is the youngest female athlete in an individual event to win a medal. -- The first won should be "who" ;) Yep, I need to start getting a copyeditor to check these over before submitting, because these little errors are somewhat embarrassing. It's okay. It happens to all of us, trust me :)--TRUCO 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Medals per year (key) The least you can do for appearance purposes is make it into a table, or at least capitalize the first word. Did the latter, it doesn't need a table since it's just one item. References Ref #4|The work is from SLAM! Sports and the publisher is Canadian Online Explorer, so the fields should be fixed accordingly.--TRUCO 23:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I don't know if I agree with that, but done anyway. As always, thanks a lot for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 00:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Well its mostly because COE is the publisher and their subsection of SLAM! Sports is the working contributor to the work itself.--TRUCO 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• There is a main article template at the top of the article pointing to Speed skating at the Winter Olympics, but it is also linked to in the first line under "is contested". Since Andrwsc considers these to be companion articles I don't mind if there's the template, but only one should be linked; pick one or the other. This should be consistant with all medalist articles, including List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing and List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing.
• Support Everything else is excellent. Reywas92^Talk 16:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The main templates were stuck in a few days ago by Maxim and I haven't decided if I like that or not. I guess the main template is a much more obvious link to the other article, so perhaps it is best. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Which one are you going to remove? It should not be linked twice. Reywas92^Talk 00:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Left in the seealso, removed the lead link. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the medal sweep section you should say something about Eric Heiden's sweep of all the male medals.
• Should this be separate from short track speed skating? Short track should be mentioned somewhere in the article I think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments - Looks like a great list overall. Just some picky things before I support: "All ten events have been held at every Olympic Games since". I know 10 is the cutoff for many editors in terms of spelling numbers, but should it be given as a numeral? Done. "in 1928, he became the first speed skater to successfully defend their Olympic title." Their is plural, but I know you want to avoid gender-specific language. Therefore, I'd replace it with "an Olympic title." Done. "Claudia Pechstein and American Bonnie Blair...". Don't think Pechstein's first name should be repeated. Done. Couple of requested citations. First, one for Pechstein being one of four athletes to win gold at five straight Winter Games. Second, one for Cindy Klassen being one of five athletes to win five medals at a Winter Games. Considering that they both won gold at the last Winter Olympics, it shouldn't be too hard to find sources for them. I should be able to find sources, but is it really needed? That info is right out of the tables, and the tables are fully sourced. The medals they won are cited fine, but the "one of" parts aren't. There's nothing in the tables about what other athletes did. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, I just realized which part you were talking about. All of that stuff is sourced to this. -- Scorpion0422 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) In the country medals per year table, replace the hyphens with en dashes. I normally use the larger em dashes to fill blank spaces, but I think the smaller dash will work better in this table, where the columns are small. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I'll get someone with a script to do it. Thanks a lot for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - List looks good to go after the changes. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "one of only four " Done. "one of only two " Done. "which is the most that any Winter Olympian has" Done. "one of only five" Done. "A total of 152 gold medals"-->As of the 2006 Winter Olympics, 152 gold medals Done. "Nikolai Gulyayev"-->Nikolay Gulyayev Done. "Catriona LeMay Doan"-->Catriona Ann Le May-Doan Done. "Ireen Wust"-->Ireen Wüst Done. "These are events where athletes from one NOC won all three medals." "where"-->in which Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Done. Done, thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [67].

---

List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters

Nominator(s): KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria. It is fully referenced and contains appropriate images and content. Disclaimer: The list contains only 9 items, but contains notes about each unique no-hitter. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comment -- Before I review, I want other reviewer's input on this list on the 10-item limit rule. Notes are added, but this is a list that can be built upon (since its a list in the present and not a list in the past) and the notes don't really add to the entries to exemplify it from the rule; this from my standpoint. But if other disagree, I would be happy to review.--TRUCO 23:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Well I was convinced that its exempt.--TRUCO 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Review from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead A no-hitter is officially recognized by Major League Baseball only "when a pitcher (or pitchers) retires each batter on the opposing team during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings". -- Since the MLB is spelled out earlier, use the acronym form here while adding it in parenthesis next to the first occurrence. As I've explained before, I don't use acronyms unless completely necessary. Here, I don't deem it necessary. If we are featuring a professional standard of writing, per WP:FL?, we shouldn't be using acronyms anyway. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Well the MOS states that acronyms are acceptable so its a standard of writing per WP:FL?. But its not a hard-rule, so I'll leave it alone.--TRUCO 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The largest margin of victory in a Phillies no-hitter was ten runs, in a 10–0 win by Chick Fraser. -- Add "a" before victory. "Margin of victory" is a distinct term and shouldn't be altered. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) As defined by Major League Baseball, "[in] a perfect game, no batter reaches any base during the course of the game." -- Acronym form. See above. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The longest interval between Phillies no-hitters was between the games pitched by Lush and Bunning, encompassing a total of 58 year, 1 month, and 20 days. -- year --> "years" Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The last paragraph can be merged with the second-to-last paragraph. Merged higher to keep perfect game topic separate. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Key I think just the color or just the symbol suffices to explain the perfect game, I think both don't need to represent it. I would prefer to use only the color, but that's prohibited per WP:ACCESS, so I added the symbol. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Table Why is the umpire listed? The lead doesn't establish any notability for them for "no-hitters". Since the viability of a no-hitter rests on the strike zone set by the umpire, such as it does in high-strikeout games, the umpire is an integral part of the no-hitter being completed. Well explain this in the lead because it leaves the reader (like me) in question as to why they are in the list.--TRUCO 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The notes should have the first word capitalized. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Since you are listing the notes in each column it would be best to add bullets to them. That's definitely doable but I don't quite understand the reasoning behind it. Could you explain further? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Appearance purposes. Since you are listing, a good way to present a list is through numbering or by bullets IMO.--TRUCO 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Understood. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) References In the general reference, why is the work field have ESPN.com and the publisher ESPN, they have no distinct difference so its not necessary to state the work. The same applies to other references from ESPN. As with List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers, the organization ESPN and the website ESPN.com are distinct entities, just like Retrosheet, Inc (the company) and Retrosheet.org (the site). This is similar to the TV network MSNBC and the website msnbc.com. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I understand Retrosheet, but I don't understand ESPN. ESPN is the name of the company and their official website is named after them so there is no need for the work field. I mainly write professional wrestling articles and I've gotten 3 to FA status, and when I source to the official company like World Wrestling Entertainment, I don't write WWE.com in the work field because its their website.--TRUCO 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I'll buy that. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Ref #5|The work is from the Phillies but the publisher is the MLB. So that should be fixed accordingly. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) --TRUCO 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This one is a very hard one to decide whether or not it is an exception. In my opinion, a no-hitter in a season only occurs 1-4 (IMO approx.) times a season. that's around 1-4 times per 30 seasons for a team. According to calculations, the Phillies should get one in 2009 or the 2010s. In my conclusion, I think the user should wait until 2013, OR if more people support, then I will support the community's decision. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaning to oppose I oppose the inclusion of this list as a featured list per the 10-item limit rule. I see no reason whatsoever why this list should be exempt from the rule. That said, I can be persuaded if the nominator can justify his/her reasoning.—Chris! _ct 02:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning behind this is simple: a list of this length is perfectly able to satisfy all of the written FLC requirements. The 10-item rule is an unwritten guideline, however strictly it made be adhered to or not. Admittedly, this is not the format that I originally wanted to use for this list; the format I desired would have made this list itself much longer and more likely to ignore this guideline. However, the list features professional standards of writing (Cr.1), has an engaging lead and a title which clearly defines the scope of the list and explanatory material for those outside the baseball community (Cr.2), comprehensively covers said scope (Cr.3), is easy to navigate and sortable (Cr.4), complies with the MOS (hopefully so far, Cr.5), makes use of appropriate color and images (Cr.6), and is as stable as any other list in the present (Cr.7). I don't know how much more clear I can be. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that any list with 9 entries are allowed for FLC? I'm going to notify WT:FLC about this. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• That is not what I said by any means. I simply think that a 10-item minimum is arbitrary, especially if the content meets the requirements laid out in WP:FL?. As I said, I doubt that we would be having this discussion if I were able to put this list in my intended format. If consensus on this issue goes toward opposing this list, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination at this time until I can locate the proper offline sources to make this list into my preferred format. However, I see no valid reason why it could not at least go through a nomination process. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Dabomb87's comment on WT:FLC really convince me that this list should be exempt from the rule. I no longer oppose the inclusion of this list as a featured list.—Chris! _ct 04:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment What is sourcing the "note" column? I think some items (e.g. Game one of a doubleheader) need a citation. The reference given in the column. If you look at the link for the Bunning game, there is a large (1) after the box score (also in the title of the article) indicating this. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC) So, the reference given in the column can verify everything in the "note" column. Just making sure.—Chris! ct 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Well, are you going to answer my question?—Chris! ct 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I didn't realize it was a question, I thought it was just a statement. The answer is yes. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC) General references --> General (in the "references" section; the heading already tells readers that the section is about references) In-text citations --> Specific (in the "references" section) To the two above: the current style is acceptable; see Philadelphia Phillies seasons. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I guess this is not a big deal.—Chris! ct 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Everything else looks good—Chris! ct 19:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] Please fix the disambiguation links (toolbox). The middle image is not sourced. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Could mention that Jim Bunning is the only one to have been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Check. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Should also be noted on the table. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] (continued) Why not have a background for pitchers who were left-handed? Because it's not necessary, and because there exists the possibility that a player may be both left-handed and throw a perfect game. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Couldn't you also metnion who was the opposing team on the table? I could, but the table is already cramped on a 1024x768 monitor (how I am viewing it now). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well done on the list. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Also known in their early years as the "Philadelphia Quakers",[1] pitchers for the Phillies" The way this is phrased, it sounds like only the pitchers were known as the Quakers.

• I can't think how to rephrase it, but I want to mention the Quakers since Ferguson's no-hitter was thrown during that era. Suggestions are welcome. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• "encompassing a total of 58 years"

• Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• "which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out… [the umpire's judgment on such matters] is final." WP:PUNC logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotes.
• "is defined as that area over homeplate (sic) the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap." Same comment.

• (two above) The periods are both part of the quotes; they are included from the source.

• "a special type of no-hitter" Would "a special subcategory" work better?

• Much, thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• "and stands as a defining moment in National League history" Not really necessary, let the facts stand for themselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Changed, though it makes the paragraph look stubby. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [68].

---

List of winners of the Chicago Marathon

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have finally taken the time to split this off properly. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "The United States has been represented by the most winners (8 men and 12 women).[4][5] After a sixth conecutive win by a Kenyan man in 2008, Kenyan men have won more times (9) than men representing any other country.[4][5] The United Kingdom is in third place among both men (5) and women (3) as well as overall.[4][5]" "conecutive" - "consecutive" O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC) All of the numbers should be written out. Only one number is over ten requiring a numeral per MOSNUM; the majority are below ten and twelve is a one-word number, so these should all be spelled out. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC) In the lead, you link Brazil but no other countries. All or nothing on this front. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Way too many redlinks, both in the lead and in the list. Remove some of these or, better yet, create stubs. Delinked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "Deena Kastor in 2005 is the last victor from the host nation" - consider a re-word, it looks like "Deena Kastor in 2005" is a person in the current format. Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I suggest removing the ampersands from the lead; it creates a higher professional standard of writing. Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "the last American-born male winner was Greg Meyer" - follow by a comma O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "There have been several two-time winers" - "winners" O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "(couting Khannouchi, five men and six women)." - "counting" O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "No one other than Khannouchi has won three races and not even Khannouchi has won three consecutive." - re-word. This makes it sound like an impossible, god-like task. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "There have been two male and two female world records in the race" - change to "set in the race". O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "The most recent world record was by Paula Radcliffe" - was set by, and add comma after Radcliffe. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC) The picture of Evans Cheruiyot does not show up on my system. Try changing browsers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Picture captions should only end in a period if they are complete sentences. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Rather than putting "15 years old" in the table for Laura Michalek, make it a footnote at the end to save space. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I actually meant in a footnote section at the end of the table, but it works in the lead too. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I have a 1152x864 monitor resolution at work and the table is still cramped; I can only imagine what it looks like on a 1024x768. Something needs to be done to fix this, either an adjustment of the table width, an adjustment of the image sizes, or consolidating information. I resized the images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC) The list must be categorized. Also, are there any appropriate external links per WP:EL or navboxes to include in this article? Do you want the same navboxes as are at Chicago Marathon? I thought peer review excluded lists? I added four cats (three copied from Chicago Marathon).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC) The two winners' navboxes would do quite nicely. Peer review doesn't exclude lists; I've taken several through there myself. I will come back later to do another once-over, no time at work right now. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "The following is a list of Chicago Marathon Champions.[4][5]" - remove this. We know from the title. What do I do with the refs?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Make them general references; split the references section into general references and in-text citations using semicolon headers (see current FL Philadelphia Phillies seasons for an example). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Please consider a peer review next time to catch the copyediting issues. Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - all other concerns resolved to my satisfaction. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) -- Prose/Formatting issues Lead The Chicago Marathon, which will next be held on October 11, 2009,[1] is one of the five World Marathon Majors. -- The statement about the 2009 event really stands out, especially being the introductory sentence. I recommend moving it further down the lead. What about this?--TRUCO 23:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Once again, what about this comment?--TRUCO 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Since 1983, it has been held in October every year. -- Reword to Since 1983, it has been held annually in October. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The United States has been represented by the most winners (eight men and twelve women) -- Unlink United States, per WP:LINKS, common geographical terms should not be linked. Do you want to all countries delinked. The respondent comment wanted all or none.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC) After a sixth consecutive win by a Kenyan man in 2008, Kenyan men have won more times (nine) than men representing any other country. -- Like I stated above, Kenya is a common geographical term, remove link O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The United Kingdom is in third place among both men (five) and women (three) as well as overall. -- (1)As state above, unlink United Kingdom (2)Reword to The United Kingdom is in third place overall among both men (five) and women (three). O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I tried a slightly different rewording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) All four of Brazil's victors have been male,[4] and all three of Portugal's winners have been female. -- You have several options here, reword the gender part of the sentence to "have been a male", "have been males", or "have been men" (this applies to the females as well) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Runners representing the United Kingdom swept the race in 1996 (Paul Evans and Marian Sutton). -- For one, unlink United Kingdom per above, second, it shouldn't even be linked twice per WP:OVERLINK. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The first six pairs of races were swept by the United States.[6] Runners representing the United Kingdom swept the race in 1996 (Paul Evans and Marian Sutton).[7] Kenya has swept the race twice (1998 and 2001) and is the most recent country to do so with (Ben Kimondiu and Catherine Ndereba). -- Repetition of swept, please reword accordingly. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Kenya has swept the race twice (1998 and 2001) and is the most recent country to do so with (Ben Kimondiu and Catherine Ndereba). -- (1)Comma before the and (before the parenthesis) (2)the last part should be "to do so with representative Ben Kimondiu and Catherine Ndereba." [the original was grammatically incorrect. Adding a comma would improperly conjoin the phrases. It would indicate that the latter is independent, but the latter has no subject and is thus dependent on the former. As a result no comma.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC) ..who is also the most recent American male to have won the Boston Marathon. -- why is this relevant to this list? Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Merge the second and third paragraphs into one, they are too short to stand alone. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC) There have been several two-time winners (counting Khannouchi, five men and six women) -- Reword to There have been several two-time winners including Khannouchi, five men and six women. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC) No one other than Khannouchi has won three races and no one has won three consecutive. -- Did Khannouchi win these consecutively? If so, the way this is written does not state that, it should then be "No one other than Khannouchi has won three races or three consecutively." It means to say that Khannouchi is the only runner who has won three but not consecutively.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Well consecutive should be "consecutively"--TRUCO 23:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC) 1979 winner Laura Michalek was just 15 years old. -- This statement just stands out in the paragraph about the world records, it should be moved somewhere more suitable. O.K. How do you like the current placement?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I would state what country she is from as it is not clear in its current wording.--TRUCO 23:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC) There have been two male and two female world records set in the race. The United Kingdom has had both a male and a female world record in Chicago. The most recent world record was set by Paula Radcliffe, who succeeded Catherine Ndereba as a world record holder in 2002.[3] Khannouchi set the last male world record in the Chicago Marathon in 1999.[3] After Ndereba set the record in 2001, both the men's and women's current marathon world records had been set in the Chicago Marathon. -- It would help the reader if they actually knew what the records were for. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC) This was only done to one, the latter need to be stated as well.--TRUCO 23:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Winners The following is a list of Chicago Marathon Champions. -- Yeah, I think the reader is aware of that, no need to state that. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) There is an error with the sorting of the date column. There was a partial date that I have fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The blank entries of 1987 should also have emdashes that are centered aligned versus a blank cell. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Country Summary The Summary in the name of the header should not be capitalized. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The following table summarizes victors by country. -- The reader is aware of that, no need to state it. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) No need for the refs, it will be covered by the general references. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Notes Since a footnote will be added and a general reference will be added, this section should be renamed to References This is against MOS. References is for a separate section from the footnotes, which belong in the Notes section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Link to Bank of America since other publishers are linked as well. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Images Caption: The 2007 men's race was extremely close. -- This is WP:POV, rewrite something else. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Caption: 2005 winner Felix Limo in 2007 race -- Reword to 2005 winner Felix Limo in the 2007 event. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Reword this 2006 winner Robert Cheruiyot in 2008 accordingly as well (like stated)TRUCO 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The references, [4] and [5], should be made into general references, see the reference section of this FL on how to complete this. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) This wasn't done. --TRUCO 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC) They are in the external links section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC) That's not the same thing as referencing. See the reference section in this FL. That's how it should be formatted.--TRUCO 16:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC) You need to add an accessdate to the general references.--TRUCO 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The 1987 entry is awkward, can a footnote be added explaining what this means. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC) In addition, the correct wording should be "ran as a half marathon" or "ran as half a marathon". Plus, for my original comment, I meant a add a footnote explaining what this means or why this occurred not add a reference footnote.--TRUCO 16:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Is it as you requested now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I copyedited it a bit, but its fine.--TRUCO 22:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. --TRUCO 22:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The year and date columns of the table need to be combined. You may want to try {{dts}}.
  • I am not sure about this template, but I combined the columns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
    • For 2008-10-12 just make it {{dts|2008|10|12}}, which reads as October 12, 2008 and is sortable.
      • It is sortable on my browser (Firefox) now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Retry the hyphens for 1987 with a footnote and a dash.
  • Can you be more clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Change "-ran as half marathon-" to a dash centered in the cell and move the footnote from the date to next to the dash.
      • I can not figure out how to format footnote next to dash.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Very good to me overall. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Support Great job! Reywas92^Talk 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "by both men and women" O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC) "The next edition of the race will be held on October 11, 2009,[5]" Is this an incomplete thought? O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Use symbols to accompany the colors per WP:COLORS. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC) I'd prefer if you used the US date format instead of ISO in the table. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Note 11 should have a period at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [69].

---

Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography

Nominator(s): Nehrams2020 (talk)

I have been working on this list for the last two weeks and believe that it meets the FL criteria. There currently are not that many actor filmographies that are featured and I plan to expand on this in the future, starting here with Schwarzenegger. I have looked to similar lists for formatting and made some modifications to make it a little different. Let me know if you see any issues and I will get to them as soon as possible. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"This is a list of..." FLs don't start like this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I had referred to this revision of Christopher Walken filmography when it had passed as a featured list. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Strong Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) -- WP:FLC is not a substitute of WP:PR, many problems against WP:WIAFL. I recognize this. I asked two editors to look over the list and had not heard back at all, so I had assumed it was fine. In addition, several of these suggestions were about elements that I had used from other Featured Lists at the time of their passing. Thank you for reviewing the article, I'll work to address your concerns. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Lead This is a complete filmography of Arnold Schwarzenegger. -- (1)This is the same thing as "List of___", reword to something like "Arnold Schwarzenegger is a ______ and so on" (2)Besides, no links should be in boldface in the lead per WP:LINKS. Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Schwarzenegger's beginning career started primarily with small roles in both film and television. -- Bad wording. Should be something like Schwarzenegger's began his acting career primarily with small roles in both film and television. Reworded as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) For his first film role, he was credited as "Arnold Strong", but there-after was credited using his birth name. -- Should be For his first film role, he was credited as "Arnold Strong", but was credited with his birth name there-after. Reworded as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Schwarzenegger began acting in films in 1970, and with a few stints at directing and producing, has acted in over thirty films. -- These clauses are in no way connected and throws off the meaning of the sentence. I reworded the sentence, please take another look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) These are just a few examples of the problems with the prose, and thus not meets criteration A. Before I continue reviewing, please seek a copy-edit, from the first glance I had the lead had all types of problems that could have been resolved at WP:PR. So before I continue reviewing the prose, seek a copy-edit.--TRUCO 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I respect your opinion on the prose of the following paragraphs so I'll have somebody take a look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Once one is completed, notify me so I can review the lead fully.--TRUCO 23:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Tables Colored tables should be avoided in lists like these. Is there somewhere that states this? Looking at List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations, it appears to use the colors which I thought was similar. In addition, per the WP:WIAFL, I followed the "It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and color." I figured that was a requirement for including the color. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) WP:COLOR. But you've removed them already.--TRUCO 23:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, Drewcifer provided the link below so I removed them. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The Additional Information column should be called "Notes" Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) The 'Notes' in this column should start with a capitalized word Capitalized all instances. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Blank entries should have center aligned emdashes not blank spaces. Are you suggesting this for the "Notes" parameter in the tables? I'm not seeing this in some other FL/FLCs, and just want to make sure. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Yes I am because its seems unappealing and dashes confirm that something did not happen/was involved/etc.--TRUCO 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I added the dashes. I saw a few recently passed FLs such as List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine that hadn't used it, so I was unsure. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) You know, I think I must be smoking or something. I have no idea why I just told you to do that, please remove them, I was thinking of something else. Sorry.--TRUCO 23:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Done. I was just starting to get attached to them too. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) What is verifying the awards? There are not inline citations or general references that verify them.--TRUCO 23:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC) As I mentioned above, I had referred to this revision of Christopher Walken filmography when it had passed as a featured list. Many of its awards were not sourced, so I figured it was not required by reviewers. As you can see for the rest of the article, I have sourced everything else, and had thought it strange not to source it. I'll look to adding sources today. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Well they need to be sourced because it is a major part of the list itself. Please, also, mention his awards in the lead, since its part of the list, the awards need to be mentioned in wording as well.--TRUCO 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC) What about this?--TRUCO 23:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Per the suggestion of Drewcifer below, he pointed out that no other featured filmographies include the awards so he suggested that I move them to a separate lists which has been done. He has also raised the question as to whether the awards and box office information should be mentioned in the lead since they are not covered in the list anymore. What do you think? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Well I agree that the awards should go into a separate article, but the box office statistics should have remained in this article. Thus, the statement in the lead about his awards should be removed and the statement about his box office should remain.--TRUCO 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC) There never was any information about his box office career beyond the single sentence in the lead. At the Christopher Walken filmography FLC, reviewers were against adding box office takes for each film since the actor may not have played a vital role in the film to indicate they were responsible for the success/failure at the box office. However, since we are talking about his career in appearing in film and television, would it allowable to include this brief paragraph detailing the fact that he had won awards and the total box office take? Those both seem like important details to mention about an actor over the span of their career. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC) That would be more suitable in his article not in this one since the lead is suppose to summarize the list itself. Unless you can merge some of those statements with others to imply the same meaning and still note the accomplishment, then possibly yes. For example, "Schwarzenegger directed the 1990 (film) film, which he earned a (award) award for.--TRUCO 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I reworded the lead a bit to mention one of the films where he received a Golden Globe and another detailing that the had been nominated for various awards for his work in a list of several films. Hopefully that is a better representation then just listing random awards he had won. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Looks great from my view. I just did a few minor copyedits.--TRUCO 16:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 16:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral I've removed my oppose, since alot of progress has been made. I still have reservations with portions of the lead, which bring up awards and box office gross, which are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. So, per WP:LEAD, I believe they shouldn't be there. But, given the excellent state of the list otherwise, I don't want to hold up its nomination if everyone else is ok with it. So, I'll just refrain from either opposing or support. Drewcifer (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Weak Oppose I guess I'm somewhat to blame for the confusion, given I was the author and nominator of the Christopher Walken filmography. That said, that was the first filmography list promoted to FL, and standards and conventions have improved since then. I've continued to work on that particular list to bring it up to snuff, which I believe it is now, but I feel this list is somewhat lagging behind, still basing itself on an old standard. So, a few suggestions: The colored-header should be avoided, per WP:COLOR. Thanks for the link, removed the colors. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I'm not so hot on the quotes, as some of them don't apply to his filmography as a whole (which the list is about). I'm not 100% against, I guess I'm just not sure how to feel about it. I took out the two that were in the awards section since they wouldn't fit with the size of the filmography table. I still left in the one next to the television roles. If others don't care for it, I won't fight removing it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Year columns should be centered. Sorry, could you clarify? They look centered to me. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) They don't to me. Maybe it's a browser thing or something. But I can tell they're not just by looking at the wikicode. I'm using Firefox and don't see it. However, if other browsers are having issues then it should be fixed. How would I fix that, by adding <center>Year</center>? And do I need to do it just to the heading or each individual year? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) It may also be a resolution/font-size thing. All you do is add "|align="center"| 2008" to the year columns. Drewcifer (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed all of the occurrences. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The list of awards should also be avoided, perhaps moved to a separate awards page (List of awards and nominations received by Arnold Schwarzenegger). I don't think any current FL filmographies still include awards. I created the new list, moving over all of the awards. I still left in the sentence in the lead about the awards, should that remain there as well? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I don't think so. Per WP:LEAD, the lead of an article/list should summarize the content of it, without mentioning stuff that isn't found elsewhere, which the lists aren't anymore. Thinking about it some more, I think it should stay in since the lead is also mentioning his total box office take (which isn't mentioned in the filmography). In addition, it isn't listing every award, and just provides a brief overview of some of the awards he has won in his career. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) That's exactly why I think it should be taken out. If it's not in the list-proper, it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. The lead is meant to summarize, not to address additional information. That goes for the awards and the box office data. Drewcifer (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC) As the awards and box office total cover the details over the span of his film career, I think that should be relevant. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I'm also not sure about the notes section, especially its main content of his salary. I feel this is better suited to the films' pages, but not a list like this. Drewcifer (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I figured that covering the details about all of his films should also mention something as important as his salary for each film. I was going to add a box office take as well, but saw the discussion at the CW nomination that shunned on it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I kind of think the salaries are in the same vein as the box office stuff. But I will defer to other's opinions on this one. Drewcifer (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me. I'm open to others' opinions on the topic. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I have now removed the salary information and moved it to the various film articles instead. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "in both film and television" Should have caught that. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "there-after" No hyphen. Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "Over the span of his career" Redundant phrase, delete it. Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "Throughout his career," Another redundant phrase. Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) WRT the comments above, I don't think the salaries should be there either. However, I don't mind keeping the info about the awards he won, as long they pertain to films he acted him and nothing else. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The salaries have been removed and added to their respective film articles. The details about the awards and box office cover all of his films and do not mention awards of other aspects of his life. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• BusinessWeek is one word (ref 13).

Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Only publications should be italicized. Websites and publishing companies (Canwest News Service, NBC News, Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, CBS News) should not. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all occurrences for the ones that remained in the article (since some were being used to source the salaries). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [70].

---

List of Los Angeles Kings head coaches

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The franchise's first head coach was Red Kelly, who coached for two complete seasons. Andy Murray is the franchise's all-time leader for the most regular-season games coached (480), the most regular-season game wins (215), and the most regular-season points (519); Tom Webster is the franchise's all-time leader for the most playoff games coached (28); Barry Melrose is the franchise's all-time leader for the most playoff-game wins (13), and the highest playoff winning percentage (.542), which is the only one over .500. -- the only one over .500 in what? NHL history or the Kings' history? Kings. Added. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Melrose is the only coach to have won a conference championship in the Kings, which was won in the 1993 Stanley Cup playoffs. -- Don't you mean "with the Kings" and not in the Kings? Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC) References For refs like number 4, wouldn't the publisher be NHL.com and the work would be from Lincoln Hockey and National Hockey League, like SLAM! Sports is the work of the publisher Canadian Online Explorer. Do, it shouldn't, since Lincoln Hockey and National Hockey League are the publishers, and NHL.com is where the work came from. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Gotcha.--TRUCO 00:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Who/what is Lincoln hockey? I don't see it stated anywhere on the sites in the refs that have it. Fixed all the refs. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC) --TRUCO 23:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 00:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support: No concerns here; looks good as usual. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "who coached for two complete seasons. " Some coaches coaches for two season, but may have been fired during the season. also, it's nothing wrong with putting "complete". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC) "complete" is understood unless you specify otherwise. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I just said that some coaches don't complete their last season, or came in when the season started. Also, there's no clear reason why "complete" should be removed. What matters is that the grammar is all right, which it is. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC) It is a unnecessary word. When readers see "coached for two seasons", they will assume "complete" unless otherwise told. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Done, but still believe removed it is not needed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "which was won " Removed "which was won", since it'll sound awkward with the "won" when having "which was" removed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Image caption: "coached the Kings for four complete seasons." Above. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Above. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [71].

---

List of Cincinnati Reds managers

Nominator(s): jj137 (talk)

This is a nomination which I will be a part of, but without a nomination credit. I truly believe that this article should have been promoted if jj137 was still editing. To WikiCup nominators, jj137 will not be answering the comments unless he returns. I have fixed all the comments from the last FLC, and truly hope this list will be promoted. I repeat, I will not be accepting the nomination. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- My issues in the previous FLC were resolved, in addition to me supporting the original nomination. I also was unable to find any flaws in this revision of the list.--TRUCO 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments Some of these were not resolved from the last FLC. File:BuckEwing.jpeg doesn't have a source. Removed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I would prefer to see inline citations for the awards. I think you meant Achievements, and done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC) "history; four during the era"-->history: four during the era Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC) The last image caption should not have a period at the end. Re-phrased. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC) File:BillMcKechnieBaseballHallOfFamer.jpg is incorrectly licensed; ownership of the image means nothing. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Removed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Baseball-Reference sources are still inconsistently formatted. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments - Can we have a citation for the old stadiums? There's a good page on the Reds' website that can handle this. Added citation. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The League Park link goes to the former stadium of the Cleveland Indians. League Park (Cincinnati) is the link you're looking for. Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) "Moran was the manager during the infamous 1919 World Series." To provide context for readers, this should explain why it was infamous. Just add something brief about the Chicago White Sox throwing the Series. The readers could easily click the wikilink on the word "infamous", couldn't they? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) They could, but Easter Egg links are discouraged per WP:PIPE. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Done. By the way, sorry to Giants2008 for calling him iMatthew on the edit summary. Laugh out louds. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Pop Snyder is double-linked in the lead. Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Any chance for a playoff winning percentage column? Added. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The current playoff stat columns aren't sorting properly. When placed on the top of the table, all double-digit numbers are only sorting by their first number. Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (17-14) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Another in the series of fine manager lists that FLC has produced lately. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [72].

---

List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts)

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • and -MBK₀₀₄

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is a full list of all US Naval Academy graduates who became astronauts (over 50 of the them, more than any other university). All images are free licensed. All entries have refs. I'm in WikiCup. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - problems against WP:WIAFL. General comment Is this list complete? Why is the cutoff at 1993? Alumni means former so why aren't any more from further years (except for the present year) not listed? The lead doesn't explain this. Yes it is complete per the official site. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Oh okay, I had doubts since it stopped at 1993.--TRUCO 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I don't like the formatting of the footnotes, [b][>]. The letter suffices enough. That is the way the template does it. Other FLs use this template too. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Lead Over 50 U.S. astronauts have graduated from the Naval Academy, more than from any other undergraduate institution. -- U.S. needs to be spelled out in its first occurrence in the lead. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) The United States Naval Academy is an undergraduate college in Annapolis, Maryland, United States, that educates and commissions officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps. -- No need to state that MD is in the U.S., we are aware that it is a U.S. state done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC) The Academy often is referred to simply as "Annapolis." It is also called "The Academy," "The Boat School," or "Canoe U." -- Remove the bold per MOS:BOLD, the quotation marks are enough emphasis. done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Sports media refer to the Academy as Navy; this usage is officially endorsed. The students are called Midshipmen. -- (1)My comment above about the bold applies here as well, except add quotation marks for emphasis (2)Merge these two sentences with a semicolon or through rewording. done — Rlevse • Talk • During the latter half of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, the United States Naval Academy was the primary source of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officers. -- WP:OVERLINK of United States Naval Academy Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC) The list is drawn from graduates, non-graduate former students, current students, and faculty of the Naval Academy. -- The --> "This" Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC) The summary prose (the last paragraph) should note the first class (or first graduate) and the most recent class (or recent graduates). Done — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) That's not what I meant, names of the people should be mentioned in summary. For example, "In 2008, so and so graduated as the first so and so" [this is a example for a significant entry. "The first alumni to graduate and go on into a field of so and so". What I mean is that the lead should give a summary of the table, that's basically what I mean.--TRUCO 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The lead doesn't explain much about the astronaut program at the Academy. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Table Remove all full stops from the notes, they are not complete clauses. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Do words such as "Pilot" and "Commanded" need to be capitalized? done — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The notability column should not be sortable. fixed by Gadget850. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Remove 2 images, it stretches the section. Done but I don't understand what you're talking about. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC) It makes a lot of white space go under the table ;)--TRUCO 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC) References My main concern is the use of primary sources, at least one secondary/tertiary source should be used.--TRUCO 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Was this done?--TRUCO 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC) >I don't like the formatting of the footnotes, [b][>]. The letter suffices enough. That is a function of templates {{cnote}} and {{cref}}, which have been used on other FLs. They are used for a reference that is reused many times and where the standard <ref>...</ref> tags would result in an unacceptable number of backlinks. >The notability column should not be sortable. Fixed. (I thought about that the other day and forgot) --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Sources-both USNA and NASA, are official sites. I don't consider NASA primary here, here it's secondary because the article is about USNA graduates. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) It's primary because its an official government owned website that published that information.--TRUCO 00:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Are you saying NASA isn't reliable? Or that we can never use a government source on a government program and that we need some 50+ more refs so each person would now have 3-4 refs each? Seems like overkill to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC) No, I'm saying that at least one secondary/tertiary sourced should be used, such as a reliable third party website, a newspaper or magazine among others.--TRUCO 00:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Basically, that's what you are saying, that NASA can't be used as a ref here because you consider it primary (though I don't), but okay, I'll add another ref on each person, so they'll all have at least three. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) No no that's not what I meant. Primary sources can be used as long as there are some secondary and tertiary sources as well. This can be accomplished by just adding one to one entry if possible, not all of them.--TRUCO 00:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I just added Shephard, Schirra, Irwin refs, all non NASA non USNA. I'll keep going til you say there are enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 02:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, regarding the above comments, NASA isn't a primary source; even if it was, it wouldn't be a problem as the information is highly uncontroversial. This seems to be addressed, however. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Why are all the other Naval Academy alumini links listed in the General references. They should be removed, escept for the astronauts.

I meant to do this but forgot. I've cut the unused ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• This list of alumni is a not a college or university, so the template at the bottom should be removed. That one especially, but none of the navboxes link to this list. I generally believe that navboxes should only be on the article if the article is in the navbox.

Cut it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• "This list is drawn from graduates, non-graduate former students, current students, and faculty of the Naval Academy." None of the astronauts are current students, and I don't think they're faculty either, and surely all of them graduated.

Fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe a more specific lead image than a generic hat toss?

Looking, hard to find one that says "Naval Academy and Astronauts". — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

ADDED an astro pic to the lead. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for any of the collquial names of the Naval Academy, especially Canoe U. and Boat School.

Cut. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• "This list is drawn from graduates, non-graduate former students, current students, and faculty of the Naval Academy." What does this have anything to do with astronaut alumni?

Tweaked. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The table is very good, but the lead isn't very descriptive of it specifically. I see that most of copied verbatim from List of United States Naval Academy alumni, and I really don't like that. Reywas92^Talk 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Pls revisit, worked your issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead really needs to be more specific to the astronauts. You can't just copy and paste the lead from the main article. "A few are also given the option of entering the United States Army or United States Air Force. Most students are admitted through the congressional appointment system." This is not relevant to astronauts. Many good lists have statistics in the lead. What year(s) had the most future astronausts graduate? How about a breakdown by NASA project - Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle? How many naval grads actually walked on the moon? Did any naval grads go on the the same flight together? Reywas92^Talk 16:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support as a co-nom since I did a large quantity of the work when this list was still integrated with List of United States Naval Academy alumni. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:33, 21

February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Pretty good list Delink United States, it is a common geographical term and should not be linked per WP:OVERLINK. Done — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC) "often is referred to simply as Annapolis. "-->is often referred to as Annapolis. Done — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC) "this usage is officially endorsed." Source? Done — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC) "upon" Done — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC) "The Academy was founded in 1845, graduated its first class in 1846." Missing verb before "graduated". Done — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC) "Two alumni were part of Project Mercury, three part of Project Gemini, seven part of the Apollo program, three have walked on the moon, one was part of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, and 42 were part of the Space Shuttle program." "42"-->forty-two, comparable quantities should be written the same. Done — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC) "The most recent alumni to go on to become astronaut"-->The most recent alumni to become an astronaut Done — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC) List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Chiefs of Naval Operations)—Why is this linked in the see also? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Same reason the main list it, it's a topic. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Mercury 8 redirects to Mercury-Atlas 8. Done — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Can the image captions be a bit more descriptive, such as what the astronauts did? Other than Shephard, they're not doing anything, just official poses in astronaut gear. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• The work should only be used if the website is a publication or is different from the parent company, i.e., "Biographical Data" in the NASA refs should not be there. Same with USNA Astronauts. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See email and juliancolton's stmt above. NASA is not a primary ref and both are completely uncontroversial. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I didn't say don't use the sources, I am talking about the formatting. See this sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I misunderstood, apologies. Done (in a few minutes). — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [73].

---

List of Pittsburgh Penguins head coaches

Nominator(s): blackngold29

My third and final nomination of head coaches in Pittsburgh sports. I will address any issues to the best of my abilities. Thank you! blackngold29 20:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Not sure that I like this new format. Where is the playoff win percentage column? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done blackngold29 20:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak OpposeComments from Truco (talk · contribs) -- Mainly due to the table formatting. Lead Established as one of six new franchises of the 1967 NHL expansion, the Penguins are members of the Eastern Conference's Atlantic Division. -- The two clauses do not connect, as the first one implies. Split or reword. Reworded The franchise is co-owned by Ronald Burkle and Mario Lemieux—the only player/owner in the modern era. -- modern era of what? Clarified Eddie Johnston—who along with Patrick and Ken Schinkel served two tenures as head coach—leads Penguins' coaches in games coached (516), wins (232), losses (224), and ties (60). -- Link to Eddie Johnston and Patrick Schinkel? Linked Johnston and Ken Schinkel. Patrick refers to Craig Patrick who is linked above. Scotty Bowman leads coaches in winning percentage (.628) and playoff victories (33). -- Since Bowman is noted beforehand, just mention him by his last name. Done Bob Johnson led the Penguins to its first Stanley Cup victory in 1991, but was forced to retire due to health problems—he died later that year. -- (1)It should be stated whether his retirement was also in 1991 because the wording doesn't imply that. (2)Johnson is mentioned beforehand, only mention him by his last name. Done Hired during the 2008–09 season,[9] current head coach Dan Bylsma took over for Michel Therrien who won the Prince of Wales Trophy, as Eastern Conference champion, during the 2007–08 season. -- The many commas makes the statement confusing, its best to split these two sentences. Split Key Each column can be sorted to the viewer's preference. Due to this feature head coaches with multiple terms are counted once, and are presented along with their total career figures. For a specific order of the coaches see the Footnotes section. -- This should be made into a footnote, not located above the key. What column should the footnote go on? It applies to all of them. Well (1)Remove the first sentence, its obvious that it can be sorted since the sortability keys are available. (2)The footnote should go either on the years column or on the name of the coach's column.--TRUCO 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Done The key needs to be revamped if my comment below is consulted. Coaches I don't really like this format either, the sortability does not function as a result of this new formatting, most likely due to the integration of the Season in progress, see 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season for details. row. These tables are best as unsortable, and in smaller sizes, like it is List of Washington Capitals head coaches#Here. In addition, the column headings don't really match the proper wording, like in the FL I mentioned. I understand that the format is different than others, but I don't think that it prevents the list from meeting the FL criteria. Yes, the "Season in progress" thing messes it up, the recent coaching change kind of screwed that over. I can change it back to blank columns until the end of the season if you want. blackngold29 04:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC) No, that would look unappealing. These types of table are not meant to be sortable. That's why the previous format is preferred. Another thing to point out is that the Years column is redundant to have sortable since some coaches had more than 1 term and the sortability function isn't representative of that.--TRUCO 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Why are they not meant to be sortable? From the comments below and at WP:HOCKEY, it would seem that the sortability option is preferred; I personally prefer it, that's why I made it that way. Just because it's different doesn't mean it doesn't meet the FL criteria. blackngold29 00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Due to the sortability mishap. Something has to be done about that. It can't just be left like that. In addition, did you remove the sortability function of the Years column?--TRUCO 00:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I removed the years sortability. The other columns now sort properly; if yours does not they I would guess you have Firefox. The same thing happend with the Pirates coaches list. I've heard no word on if there is a way to fix it yet. Anyone? blackngold29 00:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I cleared my cache and some sort now, but others dont, mostly the last 3-5 columns.--TRUCO 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Hmmm, true. Why can't we go back to this style until the end of the year? Or we could actually just update the figures now and have the footnote ("Through Feb. 22"). Just as a one-time special case. blackngold29 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I don't see a problem with that format except that you need to make the # column sortable and make fixes to the table presented above like making the Years column unsortable.--TRUCO 03:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Reformatted with all FL review changes incorporated, how's that?--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackngold29 (talk • contribs) I would add Season in progress, see 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season for details. as a footnote to the 2009 entry.--TRUCO 03:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Did you see the one I put there? Dan Blysma's statistics will be updated upon the completion of the 2008–09 season. Is that alright? blackngold29 03:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Now I did.--TRUCO 03:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Footnotes Note B: Gene Ubriaco served as the Penguins head coach to begin the 1989–90 season, the team began with a 10–14–2 record. -- The comma should be a semi-colon. Done Under Patrick the team went 22–26–6 and did not qualify for the playoffs. -- Comma after Patrick. Done Note C: Coach Eddie Johnston was replaced by Craig Patrick who finished the season 7–10–3 and lost in the first round of the playoffs four games to one. -- Comma after Patrick Done Images Scotty Bowman — 2006 -- this doesn't really say much, reword to something like "2006 Penguins head coach Scotty Bowman" Same thing with Michel Therrien — 2008--TRUCO 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Reworded The year is the year the picture was taken (not when they were coach).

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] A lot of hate for this aritcle's format...anyways... See above comment to Truco Currently I need consistency with the colors and the table format. That is because I want more consistency right now for the topic. If you want the format to change into something else with the sortable function, then please talk to WT:HOCKEY. I will support this format if you do, but I'm currently busy at the moment. I don't care about the color, I just felt that the blue meant more to the team than pink; that can easily be changed. As for the format and the FT: Does the format on every list have to match? I would think that as long as all of the lists are FLs it shouldn't be a big deal. blackngold29 04:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC) I think it does say something about consistency on WP:WIAFT. Anyways, just ask WT:HOCKEY about the consistency problem, and it'll be fine. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC) From my POV, anything that improves on our current standards is a good change. Certainly most of the other coaching FLs are not sortable at this point, but really, when I look at this list vs. List of Calgary Flames coaches, I really see only two real differences, neither of which I consider major: this list is sortable, where the Flames one is not (and that would be easy to change), and this list uses a reference for each coach, while thanks to the Flames media guide, I was able to get away with a single general reference. Trivial differences in my book. I wouldnt oppose based on slight differences from other lists If list A is FL calibre, and this list is FL calibre, I'd say support it now, and we can decide which format we wish to use after. Resolute 05:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC) So could you or Blackngold29 notify WT:HOCKEY about this, just since I believe that notifying the WikiProject is mandatory. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) WP:HOCKEY coversation can be found here. I understand your POV SK and I'll do everything I can to help you get the FT, but if they refuse to allow a topic to be approved because all are FLs but a few are sortable and a few aren't that seems ridiculous. As Resolute said, the differences aren't major, so it really comes down to personal preference (which one is better could be debated forever) so I think we should first try to get all the teams to FLs and then see what the FT reviewers think. blackngold29 18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Good luck with the FLC, and there will be more comments from me soon. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC) On the list, the column "Managers"....managers? these are head coaches. (you probably copied List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers) Yep, fixed The notes don't work. Done More to come... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC) To be consistent... List --> Coaches Coach --> Name Years --> Term Games --> GC (your choice) WPct --> Win% (your choice) Achievements doesn't have to be aligned center. Done "Games" is probably as descriptive as GC so I left that one. In the Pittsburgh Penguins navbox, it should be "Head coaches", not "Coaches". Done -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Do you really need to say former? aren't all the head coaches (besides Bylsma) "former"? I believe it's more nicer mentioning how many years the coach coached. Done Also, on the image captions, "–" --> "to". Done champion --> champions? I really don't know... I don't really know either, I figured something like "The coach (singular) was a champion, the Penguins (plural) were the champions" On the Achievements, it should be "championship" because it is an achievement. Truco mentioned about this on one of my FLCs. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, right. I don't know how I missed that.--TRUCO 12:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Done 2007–08 season could be wikilinked. Done Why not link the years on the table? You could, but needs to include a note (ie. List of Los Angeles Kings head coaches) Eh, they're done by year and not season (i.e. 2005 could be during the 2004–05 or 2005–06 season) I never really felt the links added a whole lot. True, but I still wikilink them. Just look at List of Los Angeles Kings head coaches. It has "1987–1987". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Done Elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame († denotes induction as a builder) --> Elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame († denotes induction as a player). This is because the article is about the head coaches, and should be mentioned first. Switched Builder first... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Done Again, Achievements doesn't have to be aligned center. I like them centered. Stats are as of...? Note added, obviously I'll update after the season. -->"through the end of Michel Therrien's term as head coach." --> "as of February 15, 2009". Some readers don't know when was the end of Michel Therrien's term as head coach. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Done -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support with one comment; switch the last and second last sentences, as the current head coach sentences are usually last. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments - A citation would be useful for the Penguins coming into the league as part of the 1967 expansion. Done "Since its founding, the Penguins have played their games...". Tense problem here; this refers to the Penguins (plural) as "their" (plural) and "its" (singular). Done "The franchise's first head coach was former New York Rangers' captain and head coach Red Sullivan." I don't think Rangers needs an apostrophe. Done "Sullivan. Sullivan...". Change the second to avoid repetition. Same with "Kelly. Kelly..." Done Another tense issue: "Johnson led the Penguins to its first Stanley Cup victory in 1991". Done Consider shortening the last column to Ref. That would get rid of some white space. Done Also would like to see a playoff win percentage column, as it would be a nice touch. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Done Thanks! blackngold29 20:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) The changes all look good. One more thing from note e: "Coach Eddie Johnson was replaced by Craig Patrick, who finished the season 7–10–3 and lost in the first round of the playoffs four games to one." Technically, the team did those things, not the head coach. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Done. blackngold29 16:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Meets the standards after the fixes above and below. Good work. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I will leave the formatting issue alone for now, but when this topic is completed, I think the all these lists should look the same. "Since founded"-->Since their foundation Done "whereas"-->and Done The image caption in the lead should have a period at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Done

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [74].

---

System of a Down discography

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki

I am nominating this for featured list because after putting it on a peer review with all concerns adressed, I think it is more prepared to meet the WP:FL?. Thanks in advance, Cannibaloki 03:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks good, and I'm happy to support. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cannibaloki 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments Looks good, but I have the same old comments I usually make: Per MOS:DISCOG, 10 is the recommened limit for charts. Here you have 13. Done. "The discography of System of a Down" is a lame/boring way to start the list. We already know what the list is about from the title. Any suggestions? How about a general overview on the band? See Pendulum discography as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC) The album column for the music videos is unnecessary. We already know that information from the singles table. Drewcifer (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Removed. Cannibaloki 05:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The lead needs citations, specifically for chart positions. And repeat what is already on the table? Yes. But basically the only thing you need source are the specific chart positions in the lead, since those are specific statistics, rather than broad notes that you'll go into more detail about in the tables anyways. Drewcifer (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Done. I'd recommend presenting chart numbers as "#37" not "number 37". Why? Just my own personal preference I suppose. Drewcifer (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Your vandal! "Gremlin"! Many of the similar columns aren't similar widths, mainly the detail columns. Drewcifer (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Done? Cannibaloki 20:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Why do we care how Hypnotize and Lonely charted in Finland? I mean, nothing wrong with Finland, but they charted better elsewhere. Why is Finland specifically relevant to mention here? They were better charted on two Billboard's component charts, already mentioned. Ok, fair enough. "numbers four and 16" should be "#4 and #16". The # to be consistent with everything else, and four shouldn't be spelled out since it's a statistic. Drewcifer (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Cannibaloki 17:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC) In the lead you've got "U.S." and the tables you've got "US". Stick with "US". The "U.S." of the text is based on this: "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America)..."; The "US" in the table is just an abbreviation. OK, I know what U.S. means, thanks. But U.S. and US are both abbreviations, so you should stay consistent whether or not your using it in prose or tables. They both refer to the same thing, so there is no reason for them to bifferent. Drewcifer (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Done. U.S. → US Cannibaloki 00:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Why were the Extended Plays and Other appearances removed from the article? From what I can see most other featured lists have them so I don't really see any reason to remove them, especially when they were sourced. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • What extended plays? If you're refering to Lonely Day, it is a maxi-single not EP.
  • The section Other appearances was added.

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead By the end of 1997 the group had signed to American Recordings, then distributed by Columbia Records. -- (1)Comma after 1997. (2)The by should be "as" Done. The following year they released their eponymous debut album, which peaked at number 124 on the U.S. Billboard 200 and number 103 on UK Albums Chart; Years later it was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and gold by Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). -- (1)Comma after following year (2)UK needs to be spelled out in its first occurrence (3)The Years later should be de-capitalized. Done. The follow-up, Toxicity (2001), topped the U.S. and Canadian charts and also reached the top 10 in Australia, Finland, and New Zealand. -- Comma after and. Done. The album was certified triple platinum in its home country, as well as double platinum in Australia and Canada. -- (1)the last part should be "as well as double platinum in Australia by the _____(industry) and the (acronym) in Canada." Done. Toxicity produced singles for the title track, "Chop Suey!", and "Aerials". -- Remove the comma after "Chop Suey!" Done. This album's first single "B.Y.O.B.", peaked at number 27 on the Billboard Hot 100, and number 26 on the UK Singles Chart. -- Remove both commas. Done. The follow-up "Question!", reached top 40 in the Ireland and United Kingdom charts. -- Comma before "Question!" and add "the" before top 40. Done. Also, they are the first band since The Beatles to get a pair of chart topping debuts in the U.S. within the same calendar year. -- Reword the beginning to "They are also the first band since..." [its improper to begin a sentence with Also] Done. In 2006, the group went on a hiatus and since then, all members have begun work on side projects. -- Comma before and since then. Done. Tables Check out fine. References If you are going to link some of the publishers, you may as well link the rest of them, like Allmusic and MTV.--TRUCO 01:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Take a look in everything (again), please. Cannibaloki 04:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Followup comments Lead The following year, they released their eponymous debut album, which peaked at number 124 in the United States' Billboard 200 and number 103 on the United Kingdom's Album Chart; years later it was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and gold by Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). -- I reworded this a bit, but the end needs to be reworded as "; it was certified platinum ___(# of years) years later by the...." Reworded. It produced two singles, the title track and "Lonely Day", which reached numbers 4 and 16 in the Finnish chart, respectively. -- The formatting of the integers should be consistent, per MOS:NUM numbers usually under 9 need to be spelled out (in this case). Reworded. References Allmusic should be linked in the general references. Done. If you want to avoid overlinking, only link the publishers the first time they appear within this section. Done. Remove the link in Ref 16 since other publishers that don't have articles aren't linked.--TRUCO 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Cannibaloki 00:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.TRUCO 21:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "at #124 in the United States' Billboard 200" "in"-->on "which reached top 30" Add "the" before "top". "The follow-up"-->Their follow-up album, "reaching only the top 20 in the U.S. and Australia."-->reaching the top 20 in only the U.S. and Australia. "UK Singles Chart.[3][2]" Put the inline citations in numerical order. "They are also the first band since"-->System of a Down is the first band since "to get a pair of chart topping debuts"-->to release two chart-topping debuts "within the same calendar year"-->in the same year "reached numbers four and 16" Write the numbers the same way. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC) All done! Cannibaloki 17:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [75].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Scissor Sisters

Nominator(s): Another Believer (talk)

I am nominating this awards list for FL status because I believe it qualifies and I have made several improvements to the list based on suggestions made in the peer review process. Thanks! -Another Believer (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead These types of lists usually have one sentence explaining how they rose to prominence. Which this list does not have. Done. After the group was signed to the independent record label A Touch of Class, their songs "Electrobix" and "Comfortably Numb" (a Pink Floyd cover) were picked up by underground DJs in electroclubs. -- This doesn't really say that they gained to prominence, I would mention in this sentence that their songs being picked up gave them a boost in popularity or something along those lines.--TRUCO 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Not exactly, I reworded it myself though.--TRUCO 01:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you. Much better. --Another Believer (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC) While experiencing only limited mainstream success in the United States,[3] the band has been hugely successful in Europe, Canada, Australia, and particularly in the U.K., where they have achieved a number of chart hits and their debut album was the best-selling album in the nation. -- (1)hugely is a pov-ish word, reword (2)the last part should be reworded to "where their debut album was the best-selling album, and have achieved numerous chart hits in that nation." Done and done. Changed "hugely" to "more", used here as a relative term. (Opt.)Change United States second occurrence into acronym form. Done. U.S. List The Award itself is a solid bronze sculpture of Euterpe – the muse of lyric poetry. -- this needs a source. Comment: Actually, I went ahead and removed this. Not relevant, and certainly not necessary. The NME Awards are an annual music awards show founded by the music magazine NME. -- Source?--TRUCO 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks so much for your time, assistance, and suggestions! -Another Believer (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.TRUCO 01:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support My concerns have been addressed, and this list cleary satisfies all criteria. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comment Looks pretty good, only two minor comments: Year columns should be centered. And the Other recognitions section isn't mentioned in the lead, and per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize all major points/sections in the article. Drewcifer (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Years are now centered. I am assuming "Overall, the Scissor Sisters have received 6 awards from 17 nominations" needs to be the last sentence of the header, but how do you think the Other recognitions section should be incorporated in the lead? In the past, I have tried to include a sentence like "also listed are additional recognitions received by XXX", but was told it was unnecessary. Also, please note that similar lists for Fiona Apple, Amy Winehouse, Rufus Wainwright do not mention the "other" recognitions in the lead. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The fact that other list have gotten through FLC without something doesn't mean they should have, and that doesn't mean that this list should either. And I don't think the overall tally does the trick, since those awards aren't part of the tally of 6 wins from 17 nominations, so that sentence in fact completely ignores the other awards. I'm not saying you need much, just a sentence or something to address it in a very broad sense. Drewcifer (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Like so? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Yup, very nice.

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "in which their songs"-->during which their songs Done. "U.K."-->UK (there should never be periods in UK) Done. "While experiencing only limited mainstream success in the U.S."-->Although they have experienced only limited mainstream success in the U.S. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [76].

---

Yeah Yeah Yeahs discography

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk)

A fairly straight-forward discog from a relatively new band with relatively few releases. As always, any feedback and opinions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead The Yeah Yeah Yeahs followed this with another EP a year later, titled Machine, which spawned an identically-title single that charted on the UK Singles Chart. -- (1) EP should be mentioned earlier in the lead as 'extended play (EP)' (2)identically-title should be 'identically-titled' DONE AND DONE The band's first album, Fever to Tell, was released in 2002, and peaked at #55 in the United States and #13 in the UK. -- The specific UK Chart was stated, but the specific US chart should also be stated. DONE In April 2009, the band is set to release its third studio album, It's Blitz!. -- Source? I don't see it sourced in the article either. DONE This would actually be worded better as 'The band is set to release its third album, It's Blitz!, in April 2009.'--TRUCO 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Passive voice. Yuck. Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The lead is a bit broad, I would actually tell the ranking of some of their work, like charted on the UK Singles Chart isn't really saying much, how about 'peaked #__ on the UK Singles Chart' I just didn't find #87 and #26 to be that notable of chart positions. The important thing is that charted in two countries, not how marginally popular they were. I figure such (relatively) uninteresting data is better left to the tables, not the lead. Oh okay, I didn't know they ranked that low.--TRUCO 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Singles The last three entries need verification of some sort since they didn't chart and no wiki articles are written on them. I agree for Zero (added it), but the other two are covered by the Allmusic source. Just because they didn't chart and don't have articles doesn't mean they can't be covered by general references like everything else. Gotcha.--TRUCO 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC) References For Ref #9| Yes the publisher is COE, but the work is from JAM! Music, so add that parameter into the {[tl|cite web}}template DONE --TRUCO 23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) All done I think, except for where I've made extra notes. Thanks for the helpful notes. Drewcifer (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you get rid of "Max Knies Photography Sample" from the photo, please? Its very distracting

The author of the photo wanted it to stay. It's an otherwise awesome photo, so I think it's worth it. Then again, since it's GFDL-approved, anyone could come along and Photoshop it out... But I'll leave it as is in good faith, since the author trusted me with his photo, and it doesn't particularly bother me. Drewcifer (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether It's Blitz can be included in the discography yet as it hasn't been released

Yeah, technically it shouldn't be included, given the verbatim definition of a discography. But I've realized in situations like these it's best to just let the will of the people take over. The entry was added literally like an hour or two after the announcement, and I guarantee it'll be put back up right away if I take it out. So why fight it?

All good otherwise. Nice to see you back. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes, and the warm welcome! Drewcifer (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - the BPI certification ref (no 9) points to the listing for "Pretty Hate Machine£ by Nine Inch Nails?!?!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Woops! Got a little carried away with the cut+paste I guess. Fixed it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Another comment - the self-titled EP's peak position of #1 was on the very minor UK Budget Albums chart (as denoted by the ¥ symbol next to it on the zobbel.de page) - this should probably be noted, as currently it could give the impression that the release actually topped the main UK Albums Chart (which in fact it seems to have missed completely) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Took it out. Drewcifer (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks alot for the help. Drewcifer (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The Yeah Yeah Yeahs are a New York City-based alternative rock band, formed in 2000. " No comma necessary. Alternatively, you could move this nonessential clause to the next sentence "Rormed in 2000, the band consists of " "identically-titled" -ly adverbs should not have hyphens after them. "From Fever to Tell came four singles-->Fever to Tell spawned four singles "later with another EP" "with" is a poor connector, why not "by"? "The Yeah Yeah Yeahs are set to release their" Why not a simpler "The Yeah Yeah Yeahs will release their"? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.everyhit.com/ a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rearranged the citations so that it's no longer needed. But, for the record I believe it is reliable, but I can't remember where I found it officially recognized. I'll look into that for next time. Drewcifer (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/ Right hand side menu column, at the bottom. It's a shame you can't link to the actual results page with this site :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, good looking out. I've added that link to MOS:DISCOG, so hopefully we don't have that issue again, at lease with this site. Drewcifer (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Took care of your other comments, by the way. I kind of didn't notice them until just now. Drewcifer (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked User:Ealdgyth about EveryHit. I want to resolve it once and for all. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

She says that more than one reference to EveryHit would be good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems as the reference was removed, so I will strike. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Comments from Cannibaloki (talk · contribs) Hide "It's Blitz!", has not yet been released. See my similar comment above. I could delete it, but it will just be added back in right away anyways, so what's the point? I don't think it's doing any harm there for the next month or so. I hide this album. Cannibaloki 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Is Is Mexican chart position Show Your Bones chart positions DVD album? → video album Formats released. CAN → CAN "Date With the Night" → "Date with the Night" Don't have other appearances? mimimi, mimimi... Cannibaloki 21:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Nope, no other appearances as far as I've been able to research. And all your other comments are hopefully addressed. Good catch for the Austrian and Mexican charts! Drewcifer (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support, all done. Cannibaloki 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: Since everyhit.com is no longer being used in this discog, there is no point keeping the nomination to continue the discussion about it. Best place is WT:DISCOG. Since there are no other outstanding concerns, I'm hereby promoting the list. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [77].

---

List of Numb3rs episodes

Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare _(Talk)''

Did you know "...that you can get a million dollars for solving a millenia-old math problem?", but that even locking yourself in a garage as Charlie Epps did many times in a Numb3rs episode does not help solve it.

Well, I have spent the last few days working on this article, and I really feel that it meets the Featured List criteria now. There isn't a lot of prose, so I didn't feel that grabbing a copy editor was necessary, but feel free to tell me how awful I am at writing them. So...here you guys go :)

Also, this article had existed for a long time before I started my work on it, so if you feel that you were a primary contributor to the article, just add yourself. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that this article does not meet one of the seven criteria of a FL: "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." This seems to go against one of the philosophies that made Wikipedia grow, Wikipedia:Red link. I'd take an editor being interested enough to write an article over visual appeal anyway, so I do not wish to remove the redlinks. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 07:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Redlink is all well and good, but the idea is that Featured content should exhibit some of Wikipedia's best work. Links that go nowhere and gaps in the surrounding knowledge are not conductive to this idea. Ironholds (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• The prose needs to be referenced.

• Done. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 07:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The redlink:bluelink ratio is too close for my liking. WP:REDLINK is all well and good, but this many redlinks seems to violate section 6 of the FL criteria which requires that a featured list "has a minimal proportion of red links". Options: either write articles or just delink.

• Replied in original post. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 07:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is BIGWentertainment considered a reliable source?

• I was told that it is kind of the Amazon of Australia. I figured that was good enough. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 07:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• That be all. Ironholds (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General comments Prose and list checks out fine. My main concern is also the red links, like Ironholds stated, its all well and good, but for featured content (like the criteria states) less of it is needed. In this case it would be best to unlink them all. I've started a discussion about this at WT:Featured List Criteria. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC) What are the Amazon sources citing specifically about the DVD? Its use as a source is limited depending on what is cited. This also applies to BIGWentertainment. I would have rather cited this to TvShowsOnDVD, but it doesn't have the information. Basically, the Amazon links cite the fact what I say is in the Extras section is actually true, as it is mentioned in the product description. BIGWentertainment is used for Region 4 dates; I can't find that information anywhere else. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC) --TRUCO 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My issues were resolved but I will wait until there is some outcome on the discussion opened above on the redlinks, because that is substantial to FLs.--TRUCO 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• File:Numb3rs Insignia.jpg is not acceptable due to it's digital watermarking.
  • This issue should be resolved soon by the Graphic Lab: [78]. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • pd_Thor has kindly given us an SVG version to use. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
      • This new SVG simply is not the Numbers logo, it is misleading and frankly offensive to the show and the logo designers to claim otherwise. It would have been better just to edit the previous image to rubber stamp out the offending watermark. This new image is not an improvement by any means. Sorry.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Andrew, I really cannot see a difference between the original and the SVG version, besides the watermark. I'll create a "rubber-stamped version, but can you explain why you dislike the SVG one? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Numb3rs" should be italicized.
  • It was like that, but someone removed it. Readded. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Lead: Year ranges should be ndashes per WP:DASH
  • I'm unsure where you mean. Instead of say, "September 2007 to January 2008", should I do "September 2007–January 2008"?
    • In the lead and now general ref. It is "2005-2006" etc. but should be 2005–2006. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Fixed, I hope. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Not quite. I've done it though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Seasons One, Two, Three, and Four have" - why the capital letters?
  • Fixed. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • There is still some more of these in the lead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Fixed, I hope
        • Almost Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Since this FLC the consensus is not to use transclusion for the episodes. This will also allow alot of errors from the transclusion to be fixed. e.g. uncentered headings.
  • I could substitute all of them, but as this is a currently running series, I am unsure if season five should be substituted. If we left season 5 transcluded, it would make updating things a whole lot easier. Would it be acceptable to leave that transcluded? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I can compromise if you really wish, but one of the reasons to not transclude was accessibility. This would alow people to update it who don't know how transclusion works (and might reduce the work). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • All five seasons transcluded. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• The Visual Appeal would be greatly improved if alternate rows were coloured along with the headings (like this)
  • Done. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't really matter but normally, like in the example I showed you, the colours reflected the DVD colour (so here season 3 would be maroon. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. Colors changed to match up with Region 1 DVDs, except for season five, for which I picked an arbitrary color. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Are there other media releases? (e.g. Hulu, iTunes, Amazon Unbox etc.)
  • Nothing that I could find any reliable sources for. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The first search I did gave this. That mentions Unbox. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think these are notable (sorry, that's what I meant) enough to mention, but I did add a paragraph on iTunes and Unbox. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I have tweaked the wording, but feel free to revert/change/discuss. Also are you in the US, becuase I think they are available from the CBS website, but cannot check as I am not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Usually about the previous three episodes are available for free at cbs.com. Is that available for inclusion? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I think it should be included, but is there anybody you know (I'm thinking onwiki) that is in the US and could confirm the number available? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Right no, there are 16 (Wow! That's higher than usual) episodes that a US resident can watch for free, though many are from season four, and were rebroadcast recently during weeks where there were new episodes. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• The piped links of the seasons don't work in the "Series overview" table.
  • The formatting changed. I'll fix the links. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• The "DVD releases" table experiences some strange text wrapping. I suggest making only the "Region 1 Extras" wrap onto one or more lines. To be honest I'm not fussed about having that column at all and would remove it completely.
  • I'll move the entire thing to the Numb3rs article. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Season 1 and 2 are completely uncited. The IGN links for those seasons contain no information that can verify the airdates, directors etc.
  • IGN replaced with DVD booklet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Does the DVD booklet really cite the airdates? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • TVGuide added for the airdates. I personally do not have the DVD; I had to call a friend who does. He isn't around at the moment, so in the interest of expediency, I have added TVGuide. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Production codes: Are these right or verifiable in any way. It appears they are just the season number + episode number. I thought they were usually something like they are here.
  • Usually, but not always. IGN should verify these ones, at least for the later seasons. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • IGN does not seem to verify these (e.g. in [http://uk.tv.ign.com/objects/142/14274718.html season 5). I would strongly suggest removing this column per se, but you could add in a column equivalent to listing the "# in series". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Google Numb3rs production codes, for example, comes up with several links to IGN. IN the two lines below the title/hyperlink, you can see: "TV Network: CBS Airdate: May 18, 2007. Episode Number: 324. Production Code: 324. Runtime: 60 minutes. Genre: Crime Series: Numb3rs ..." NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Hmm I am less than convinced but will ignore whether they are right for now. Assuming they are, I still don't think they are worthy of inclusion. This FLC also wanted the prod. codes removed. I especially share this view on this list, because they are all exactly Series #, Season #. They presume (not all cited) that they were all produced in the order they aired, but there is no reason this should be the case. I would still strongly suggest swapping it for a "Seasons #" column, which contains all the same information without having any controversies. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I converted the format a little.[79][80] I hope it is good now. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Much better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Can you stubify some redlinks
  • I would prefer to wait until the discussion at WT:Featured list criteria is over. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The discussion is completely stalled. If you have to rely on a massive policy change to push an FL through then you're grasping at straws; simply create some stubs, it'll take an hour at most. Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Update please - are you planning to do this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, I missed this comment. I have set aside some time in a few days; I should be able to do it then. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Spell out FBI on its first appearance. It is linked, but I expanded it in any case. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) "five seasons consisting of 94 episodes" Comparable quantities should be written out the same; either all numbers or all words. I had always learned that any value that didn't have a zero at the end and was less than twenty should be written with digits. Should I still change it? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The comparable quantities thing is an exception to that rule. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I see. Changed to digits. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) "Seasons two and three aired normally from" Can you be more clear than "normally"? Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) "In addition to being broadcast on television, Numb3rs is also available on DVD. Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) "four have all been released Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/06/08/now_on_itunes_csi_survivor_ncis_aamp_num a reliable source?
  • I'm not sure if this is enough, but it has partnered with IGN, so it isn't just a run-of-the-mill site. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Likewise http://www.bigwentertainment.com.au/product/numb3rs_705875_229972.html?
  • Someone, who I cannot remember now, told me that it was a smaller version of Amazon in Australia. I didn't dig deeper than that. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It's one of the websites of Aussie retailer Big W. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Web titles should not be in all caps; convert them to title case.
  • Doing. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Image fails WP:NFC, specifically Criteria #8: "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
  • The image is in the public domain. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• American television series →→ American television series
  • Done. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps wikilink pilot episode
  • Good idea and I have done that. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• As of February 16, 2009, five seasons consisting of 94 episodes have been broadcast. needs updating ;)
  • Hey, I'm only two days late :) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• The first season was the shortest of the five, and spanned 13 episodes from January to May 2005. could you perhaps say it was a midseason replacement, perhaps even what it replaced?
  • Added and cited. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Maybe link "2005–2006 and 2006–2007"
  • I forgot those articles even existed. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Season six is projected to begin in early September. What year?
  • 2009, it is. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Redirects:
  • CBS
  • Federal Bureau of Investigations
  • Region 1 Regions 2 4 (plus WP:OVERLINK)
  • Amazon Unbox
  • TBD (Plus WP:OVERLINK)
  • Martha Mitchell
  • Fred Keller
  • Frederick K. Keller (the same person)
  • Michael Watkins
    • All redirects done. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Dabs:
  • Dennis Smith
  • Peter Ellis
  • Andrew Black
  • Amazon in references
    • Done. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• References:
  • Dates should be in the same format as the article
    • I can't believe I missed that. All changed to mdy format. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm also unsure about the reliability of the Starpulse article.
    • replaced with CNet reference. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Bigwentertainment references: please attribute to Big W
    • That makes more sense. Thanks. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's all. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [81].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): Efe (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been peer reviewed and I feel it meets the criteria. Thanks, Efe (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) -- Mainly due to sourcing. Singer Ashanti was the first act to have achieved the feat with "Always on Time", as a featured guest. -- Note the original composer. Mentioned lead artist. --Efe (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Singer Kelly Rowland, then-member of the girl group Destiny's Child, scored her first number-one solo single with "Dilemma", a song by rapper Nelly, who also had his first number one with "Hot in Herre" in this year. -- Would be better worded as 'Singer Kelly Rowland, then-member of the girl group Destiny's Child, scored her first number-one solo single with "Dilemma", a song by rapper Nelly, who received his first number-one with "Hot in Herre" during this year.' Revised as suggested. --Efe (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC) In 2002, only three acts had two number-one singles, namely Ja Rule, Ashanti, and Nelly. -- How about 'In 2002, only three acts had two number-one singles: Ja Rule, Ashanti, and Nelly.' Revised. --Efe (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Most of the number-one singles in 2000 were extended chart-toppers. -- I think you mean 2001? Its 2002. Sorry. --Efe (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The word scored is used a lot, I would use it interchangeably with 'earned' Only three times. Removed one. --Efe (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC) References The main problem is that all the sources come from Billboard. Variety is needed from which the information is cited from.--TRUCO 22:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Variety of sources is not required in FLCs. Only the reliability and verifiability. --Efe (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. So at least one or two other primary/tertiary/secondary source should be used, such as a newspaper or other reliable source.--TRUCO 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Set up a discussion here. --Efe (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC) See my comment there, maybe that will help clear up what I meant.--TRUCO 03:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC) I think you misinterpreted my comment, I never stated Billboard was unreliable or whether what type of part source it was. All articles need refs from just one publishing source, per WP:RS, (as I stated above and transcluded the text from there). If you just add at least 1 or 2 source(s) from another location to verify something that can replace 1 Billboard citation, then the referencing will be up to speed.--TRUCO 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC) OK. I'll try to add if I can find one or two. This debate has gone way too long. --Efe (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Added one from Yahoo! --Efe (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Although nine singles reached number one in 52 issues" Per MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be written the same (9, 52 or nine, fifty-two). MOS states: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty‑two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." There are no comparable quantities in this article. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Nine singles, 51 issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC) So these are comparable entities? Not sure, though. MoS is not clear, or perhaps give little examples. --Efe (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC) It is rather awkward to go from numerals to words. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC) It's not entities that are being compared, but quantities. It doesn't matter if it's cats and dogs, or cats and television sets. It's either 5 cats and 32 TVs, or five cats and thirty-two TVs. You either have to write "Although nine singles reached number one in fifty-two issues" or "Although 9 singles reached number-1 in 52 issues". You should probably go for the former, because you write all the other numbers as words in the rest of the prose. -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC) number-1 is rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Changed to all words. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "Singer Ashanti was the first act to have achieved the feat" Simplify the tense: "Singer Ashanti was the first act to achieve the feat" Rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Whoops, fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC) How is it now? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC) "they become the first " Wrong tense. Oops. Fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ", which is the soundtrack to the 2002 film 8 Mile" Unnecessary. "52-to-one"-->52-to-1 Should be in words, per MOS. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Comparable quantities should be written the same. It looks awkward to go from numbers to words. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC) fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "number 27 to one"-->number 27 to 1. Same thing. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Comparable quantities should be written the same. It looks awkward to go from numbers to words. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC) "Rapper Eminem's "Lose Yourself" is the longest-running single of 2002." Do you mean "Rapper Eminem's "Lose Yourself" is the longest-running number-one single of 2002."? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed caption. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Although nine singles reached number one in 52 issues of the magazine in the calendar year, two of which began their peak position in 2001, and are thus excluded. is not a proper sentence. The bit inbetween the commas act as if its in parentheses, so without that part, the sentence is "Although nine singles reached number one in 52 issues of the magazine in the calendar year and are thus excluded." which doesn't make any sense.

• Removed the last comma. The first one is grammatical. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Billboard Hot 100 is a chart that... →→ The Billboard Hot 100 is a record chart that...

• I think the word record is carried out in this phrase "the best-performing singles". --Efe (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• 2002 is an Easter egg. Try to use the full titled link instead

• Its rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• May it be worth linking to calendar year?
  • I think that "calendar" is redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• then-member reads awful

Is it grammatically amiss? --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• "number one" vs "number-one": Be consistent (I think the latter is more correct)
  • No, "number one" is the noun version (so-and-so reached number one) but "number-one" is used as a compound adjective (she achieved a number-one single for the second time that year). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Most of the number-one singles in 2002 were extended chart-toppers. what does this mean? The songs are 5-minutes long?

• extended chart-topper'. I think its clear. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Same with "Lose Yourself" is the longest-running single

• Its clear. I think music articles are just too different from other articles here WP. That phrasing is widely used. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Hot in Herre" and "Ain't It Funny" by Jennifer Lopez →→ "Ain't It Funny" by Jennifer Lopez and "Hot in Herre"

• Fixed because its ambiguous. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is "Lose Yourself" part of the "Rock era"? It's a rap song

• Its regardless of the genre of the song. Rock era began in 1955 up to now. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Table entries are verified and correct.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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