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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:26, 28 April 2009 [1].

List of Shugo Chara! episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Farix (Talk)

After working on again, off again on this article. I feel that it is now ready to be promoted as a Featured List. I believe that it conforms to all of the featured list criteria, as well as project-specific guidelines and meets the standards set by other featured lists for anime television series, such as List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1). --Farix (Talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• See also section goes above references.
• References 12-15 don't need to be cited. Place them as general references to increase visual appeal.
• The date format is inconsistent.
• The publisher should always be "Amazon.com" regardless of what language.
• "The collectable artbox of the first DVD release in Japan." - This is not a sentence, so remove the period.
• Why is the summary of episode 24 so much shorter than all the others?
• "Shugo Chara! – Official website (Japanese)" - This appears to be about the whole franchise, therefore it belongs on the main article, not on the episode list.
• The |title= parameter is not freestyle. Titles should not be translated or simply describe what the page shows.
• Do not use ((nihongo)) for terms and names that are linked. The kanji should be given on the linked pages, not here.
• "Each episode begins with a quote in English: "All kids have an egg in their soul, the egg of their hearts, their would-be selves, yet unseen."" - What is the purpose of this? It doesn't seem to help me understand the article.
• In general, the first paragraph, starting from "The story follows", is confusing and unhelpful. (See MOS:BEGIN.)
• "The first episode, "A Guardian Character is Born!" (しゅごキャラ誕生! Shugo Kyara Tanjō!?), was first broadcast"
• "The first episode... concluded on September 27, 2008" - You mean the season/series, right?
• "concluded on September 27, 2008 with the fifty-first episode, "I'll Get the Embryo!" (エンブリオをこの手に! Enburio o Kono Te ni!?)."

More comments later. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added some comments. Will be back with more. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that airdates have to be directly cited via inline citations. As for the shortness of episode 24's summary, that is because it is a recap episode with little plot development. Episode 44 is similarly short for the same reasons, but it contains additional plot development that episode 24 didn't have. The other issues have been fixed. --Farix (Talk) 14:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Goodraise here; not a single episode list cites every single episode date; it messes with the table formatting. Further, the top bar of the table is uncentered; "Director", "Writer", and "Original airdate" look off-center. Finally, see if the "See also" section can be incorporated into the prose in the lead; List of Shugo Chara! characters is already linked several times in the episode summaries I'd expect, and the sequel's mention in the lead can link directly to the episode list. I may have further comments later. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 15:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airdates are normally not controversial or likely to be challenged. That makes referencing them a question of visual appeal and common sense. List of One Piece episodes (season 5) cites every airdate, because it uses a different references for each of them. List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes cites the column because it makes no sense to sub-section the references for only one item. List of Bleach episodes (season 9) does not cite at all. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give that referencing of airdates have been a issue in other Feature Lists, especially after the status of ANN's encyclopedia was lowered to non-reliable, I would be extremely hesitant to remove these references from the list. --Farix (Talk) 15:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that. Removing the citations doesn't mean removing the references. Just look at List of Bleach episodes (season 9)#References and you'll see what we're talking about. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Prose is not up to standards. Examples:

• "People view Amu Hinamori as a "cool and spicy" girl; she is actually timid and easily scared. The next morning, after wishing" "The next morning"—There is no mention of the day before, why "next" morning?
• "for the courage to be her "would-be" self," What is her "would-be self"? Please elaborate.
• "whom Amu develops a crush on and confesses to in front of the entire school after a Character Change." What is she confessing to? Is "Character Change" supposed to be capitalized?'
• "Others are also interested in the eggs as Ikuto Tsukiyomi and his Guardian Character, Yoru, attempts to steal them." "as" is ambiguous here, try "Others are also interested in the eggs; Ikuto Tsukiyomi and his Guardian Character, Yoru, attempts to steal them."
• "One of the eggs hatch and Ran, Amu's Guardian Character, emerges to help Amu out and along with the Humpty Lock, stolen by Ikuto earlier, Character Transforms into Amulet Heart. " Not grammatical. What is stolen?
• "Nadeshiko Fujisaki invites Amu to tea at the Royal Garden with the Student Council Guardians, along with a message from Tadase that he will tell her about the Heart's Egg." The parallel sentence structure is off. Right now, you have "Fujisaki invites Amu to tea ... along with a message", which sounds like he invites the Amu and the message. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 22:46, 25 April 2009 [2].

List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts[edit]

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have significantly upgraded the article from a week ago. I also am aware of the red links and will work to create those pages as soon as I am able to do so. If need be, I am willing to remove the inactice list and accept the page being featured with the top list as the only part. I have modeled the list after the similar New Hampshire and Vermont lists. I would appreciate any criticism. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Anonymous user) I second the nomination. I see some promise in this article, and will help with necessary rewrite. (Mr. Rutheford is away and has delegated this to me. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.91.3 (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FLs no longer begin "This is a list of...". See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. That was an oversight that I will fix in the other aforementioned lists as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• "117 such colleges" - remove such
• "law school" - law schools
• "undergraduate associates and baccalaureate colleges". I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, consider a reword.
• You mention 117 schools twice in quick succession. Trim.
• There are no references at all in the lead. There should be, especially since the list refs just establish the existence of schools.
• "Enrollment sizes range from the small," - remove "the" and the comma
• "with less than 19 students" - commas around this
• "to the private school Boston University in Boston, which serves over 30,000 students." - Consider a change to "to Boston University, a private school which serves over 30,000 students.
• Per MOS:HEAD, Active institutions, Inactive institutions, External links
• Refs should be in a separate column in both tables or neither table. If you keep them with the years, no spaces between reference and entry.
• Those external links should be general references.
• "Never Opened" - "Never opened"
• Refs alone in a cell should be centered.
• 2 columns in the reflist.

Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to that right away. I actually have already fixed some of them before reading this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - NuclearWarfare

• Any chance of getting some images? Shouldn't be that hard to get some new ones if you live in Massachusetts, and I'd be surprised if we didn't have at least some of the big ones (MIT, Harvard, Amherst, etc.) already.
• For the blank cells, can you replace then with "—"?
• There is a random "align="center"|" in the ref cell of Andover Theological Seminary.
• Could the closed institutions please all be sourced?
• The lead most definitely has to be expanded

More to come later if the last one is fixed. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all but the last thing. I will see to it that it will be expanded though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Aepoutre

• This is what I posted in response to User:Chonak at Talk:List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts#Not stable enough yet to be a featured list: I agree. There are some patent issues with this. One egregious one seems to be WP:OR -- things like "Although there are many schools currently operating, 66 other schools have closed or merged with other schools in the state." There's no source for this; that information is garnered from a poorly compiled list of closed schools. I call it poorly compiled because there are clearly institutions here that have neither "closed" nor "merged" but simply changed their names: Cambridge Junior College is almost certainly Cambridge College, Chamberlayne Junior College is Mount Ida College, Jackson College for Women has always been part of Tufts University, &c. This needs some major re-working and isn't ready for Featured status. I'll get working on some cleanup, but I won't have time until tomorrow at the earliest. --Aepoutre (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to explain why I added colleges like Chamberlayne and Jackson. I added them because they are no longer their own separate school. I did this to show that at one time, they were a separate operating entity. That is the only reason that they are there. If you would like to have a discussion over this, I am all in support of it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Chonak

• I've made several corrections to the list in recent days -- e.g., Harvard was listed as a Master's-level institution -- and I expect that other errors and inconsistencies remain to be resolved. Chonak (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that there are corrections to be made there. It was a pain to get accurate information from pages that were really contradictory. I actually thought that I listed Harvard as a doctorate school. Thanks for catching that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Ref column shouldn't be sortable.—Chris! _ct 02:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no idea how to keep that from being sortable without removing the sorting parameter from the entire table. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 22:46, 25 April 2009 [3].

List of Mexican National Trios Champions[edit]

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it's up to par with other wrestling championship Featured Lists that have been approved this year and is eager to make this another Featured List article. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Diaa Abdelmoneim:

• Style:
• "Because the championship is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won or lost competitively but is instead, the result is determined by the bookers of a wrestling promotion" Grammar doesn't make sense.

• You're right, I pasted something in without removing a remnant of the old text, I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Mexican National Trios Championship was created in 1985, with Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) being given the promotional control of the title, with the Commission only being asked to approve the champions." "promotional control of the title"? and don't repeat "with" twice.

• Fixed

There are many other grammar corrections that should be made. You have to make the plot have a better grammatical structure.

• You lost me here, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are some Names bold and others not?

• They probably shouldn't be in bold at all, the bold indicated (past tense) that the team had a collective name. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of April 13, 2009." delete that, we can see when the last wrestling was through the list.

• Well it's to indicate that even the "days held" in the table is up to date, there is a template that counts the number of days and well this is used to indicate that the table is 100% up to date.

• Citations: You should cite in the plot each paragraph

• Well under the "general references" I put two references that cover EVERYTHING up until and including 2004 unless it has a specific citation. I put them in the general or they'd be used between 10 and 30 times each, which I feel just clutters it up. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "List of Championship reigns by combined length" should be removed. We already can change the "by" in a sortable list.

• No you cannot, the first table doesn't combine the lengths at best it puts them next to each other leaving you to do the math so to speak. They're also commonly used on Pro Wrestling Championship pages. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "What's the difference between "List of individual Championship reigns by combined length" and the first list?

• One is combined as a team and the other per individual - one speaks to how many teams repeat etc. the other lists how many and how long each individual has held them (usually with different partners). MPJ-DK (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally the list is very confusing and should be really worked on before becoming Featured.

• I'm sorry you find it confusing, since I've been working on it and similar lists for quite a while it's not obvious to me what is so confusing about it so if you could be a bit specific?? MPJ-DK (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could u also work on more online refs and u shouldn't have references in the Notes section if they aren't accompanied by some note. (What are these references for? Aren't they covered by the general refs?

• Unfortunately most online wrestling sources do not fall in the Reliable source category while all the printed sources do, I've not yet found many reliable online sources that list title histories, mainly results and that's what I've used for the more recent changes. As for references in notes? Erm I made a couple of foot notes to explain a few terms that may or may not be immediately clear to the reader and thus can expand on it without runing the flow of the main text. If you're askin what the specific references are for then it's easy enough, the book covers up until 2000 (the year it was published) and the magazine reference covers up until 2004 (the year it was published), everything beyond that naturally needs a source as well which I've located. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I see till now.

• Oppose by Truco -- This should have been peer reviewed.

• Well I hope your oppose isn't actually because it's not been peer reviewed since that ship has kinda sailed. But in the hopes that that's not the major snag for you I'll just go ahead and address your comments.MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No its because I found a lot of issues, and these could have been resolved at WP:PR.

• That's what I figured, I just had to be sure. And yes my next FLC will definitly go through a peer review first. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "The Mexican National Trios Championship (Campeonato National Trios in Spanish) is a Mexican professional wrestling three-man Tag team championship created and sanctioned by "Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F." (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission)." -- its not really clear that this title can only be one by a three people. How about The Mexican National Trios Championship (Campeonato National Trios in Spanish) is a Mexican professional wrestling tag team championship that can only be won by a group of three wrestlers; it was created and sanctioned by "Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F." (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission). [tag team is not capitalized]

• How is "three-man tag team" not clear? I man "three-man tag team" or "group of three wrestlers" to me is the same content, slightly different wrapper. Tag team should not be capitalized, true and fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It really sounds akward, but I'll let it go.--Truco 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Because the championship is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won or lost competitively, but instead the result is determined by the bookers of a wrestling promotion." --> Because the championship is contested in professional wrestling, it is not won or lost competitively, but instead the result is determined by the bookers of a wrestling promotion.

• I'd disagree here, "contested" doesn't fit with the explanation that it's not technically won through a competitive match, while you may not agree with my wording at least it's not misleading about the nature of wrestling in any way at all. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay then, reword to Because the championship is operated in professional wrestling, it is not won or lost competitively, but instead the result is determined by the bookers of a wrestling promotion. (too much repetition of "championship")--Truco 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Works for me, done. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The title is awarded after the chosen champion "wins" a match to maintain the illusion that professional wrestling is a competitive sport." --> The title is awarded after the chosen champion "wins" a match to maintain the illusion that professional wrestling is a competitive sport.

• erm did you just suggest changing the text to the exact same text or have I lost the ability to read? MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I was smoking--Truco 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• "CMLL controlled the Championship from 1985 until 1994 where control was turned over to Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA)." --> CMLL controlled the championship from 1985 until 1994, when control was turned over to Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA).

• Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first champions of the AAA controlled era were Los Hermanos Dinamita (Cien Caras, Mascara Año 2000 and Universo 2000), who had held the title before in CMLL, and had jumped to AAA since then." --> The first champions under the control of the AAA were Los Hermanos Dinamita (Spanish for "The Dynamite Brothers")[Cien Caras, Mascara Año 2000 and Universo 2000]. [Its not necessary to know that they jumped since it did not affect their title reign or the title itself.

• Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "When AAA began to co-promote events with Promotora Mexicana de Lucha Libre (PROMELL) the Championship became jointly controlled." --> When the AAA began to co-promote events with Promotora Mexicana de Lucha Libre (PROMELL), the title became jointly operated. [Championship is not capitalized when used by itself, too much use of "control"]

• Done and good point I will remember for future articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "When AAA and PROMELL split up in 1996 the Championship was vacated." --> When the AAA and PROMELL split up in 1996, the championship was vacated.

• Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Subsequently the Commission returned the Championship to CMLL, allowing them to hold a tournament to crown the new champions." --> Subsequently, the Commission returned the championship to CMLL, allowing them to hold a tournament to crown the new champions. [it would help if you note who won the titles]

• Done and added. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since 1996 the titles have been under the exclusive control of CMLL." --> Since 1996, the titles have been under the exclusive control of CMLL.

• Done

• "It's the first reign as a team although Sangre Azteca has held the titles before with Dr. X and Nitro." --> It's their first reign as a team, although Azteca has held the title before with Dr. X and Nitro.

• Done MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Los Brazos (El Brazo, Brazo de Oro and Brazo de Plata), Los Payasos (Coco Rojo, Coco Azul and Coco Amarillo) and Los Hermanas Dinamita (Cien Caras, Mascara Año 2000 and Universo 2000) are the only teams to hold the title more than once, while Pirata Morgan, Sagrado, Volador, Jr. and Sangre Azteca have held the title twice as well but with different partners. -- (1)You need to state the Spanish equivalents for the tag team names (2)Its Hermanos not "Hermanas" (3)The link to "Los Hermanos Dinamita" needs to go on its first mention, which is before this. Then remove the link here and remove the names of the wrestlers because you would have already mentioned them (4)"to hold the title" --> to hold the titles because you are talking about the team not individually (5)"while Pirata Morgan, Sagrado, Volador, Jr. and Sangre Azteca have held the title twice as well but with different partners." --> while Pirata Morgan, Sagrado, Volador, Jr. and Azteca have held the title twice as well, but with different partners. (6) As of when is this?

• (1) You mean the English translations? If so done.

• Um, right.--Truco 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (2) Done.
• (3) Done.
• (4) Done. Although I don't see singular as wrong, it's one title, one championship just three belts. But either is cool

• Yep.--Truco 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (5) Done.
• (6) As of when? as of right now, it's totally up to date after all but it can easily be added. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, as of the date, see the List of TNA World Tag Team Champions for a template that has the current day and is updated automatically.--Truco 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• the table already has that, I reworded it to match the TNA Tag one but it already had the "as of "todays date", easy fix. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Blue Panther, Fuerza Guerrera and El Signo are the team with the longest reign of 1,728 days while Los Payasos held the title for only 1,728 days, which is the shortest time of any championship team. --> As of (date), Blue Panther, Fuerza Guerrera and El Signo have the longest reign as a team, at 1,728 days, while Los Payasos have the shortest reign, at 1,728.

• Technically it's "as of the day the current champions eclipsed Los Payasos reign". Is there really a need to repeat the date since I already stated the date once? When the title changes hands the text will be updated. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as you add a transition, then no.--Truco 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List

• The wrestler column should not be sortable because sorting it by stable name/wrestler name is not representative of the whole list.

• I'm not sure what you mean, it sorts by stable name when there is one, otherwise by first person listed - why is that a problem? MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing with tag teams (duo), its easier to sort by the wrestlers (especially when they are listed in alphabetical order) like in List of WCW World Tag Team Champions. Now, in this list, you have "Team Name / Wrestlers" in the column header, which automatically shows that the content is not listed consistently, so it will be best if you don't sort it at all or format it like in the WCW list to sort by the wrestler (in alpha. order)--Truco 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point, I've made it unsortable. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've checked and I cannot find another wrestling champions FLC where it's not sortable by team/wrestler. That's not to say it can't be changed but I'd need more of a reason than just one reviewer saying so. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to make mention in the notes about when control of the championship was turned over from AAA/CMLL

• Can do. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Under the wrestler column you need to clarify what the name in small font in parenthesis means

• I'll check out FLs on tag teams and see how they do it. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright they handled in the colum header, so that's what I did too. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the names in small font need parenthesis.

• Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Championship vacated when Nicho el Millonario no-showed a title defense against Los Nuevo Infernales . The titles were offered to Los Infernales by default, however, Satánico, on behalf of his team, refused" --> The championship was vacated when Nicho el Millonario no-showed a title defense against Los Nuevo Infernales. The titles were offered to Los Infernales by default, however, Satánico, on behalf of his team, refused.

• Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

• "Nicho el Millionario, part of the 22nd. Mexican National Trios Champions along with Halloween and Dámien 666" --> Nicho el Millionario, one third of the 22nd Mexican National Trios Champions along with Halloween and Dámien 666

• Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reign lengths

• What does 273 ¤ mean?

• Well see if I had remembered to actually put this explanation in the "Key" you'd know this but well I forgot. Now it's fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

• In this, "control" refers to the every day use of the title, determining which storylines the title is being used it, who gets to challenge for the title, how to use it in a public relations sense. --> --Truco 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite being a bit cryptic I think I figured it out. Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Remove the "--", and the beginning should not be "In this" and instead In this statement, the "it" in "being used it" should be in. Also, add an and before "how".--Truco 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just now noticed aht the "--" is part of your signature, apparently you're not the only one smoking. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything in the lead looks better now except the following..

• "As of April 14, 2009, Los Brazos (Spanish for "the Arms", the team of El Brazo, Brazo de Oro and Brazo de Plata), Los Payasos (Spanish for "the Clowns", the team of Coco Rojo, Coco Azul and Coco Amarillo) and Los Hermanos Dinamita are the only teams to hold the titles more than once, while Pirata Morgan, Sagrado, Volador, Jr. and Azteca have held the title twice as well, but with different partners." -- its really confusing IMO how its setup, how about setting it up like (Spanish for "The Clowns": Coco Rojo, Coco Azul, and Coco Amarillo)? In addition, the "the" should be capitalized because it is part of the proper noun in English. [This also applies to the other sentence set up like this in the 2nd paragraph]--Truco 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite, the commas need to be colons after the translation.--Truco 00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• "with Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) being given..." is a noun plus -ing sentence structure. For more on how to fix this hard-to-spot prose glitch, please read this guide.

• Fixed, I think. (very helpful link btw. thanks). MPJ-DK (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyphen for "AAA controlled".

• Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "the championship was vacated.Subsequently...". Space needed after period.

• Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comma after "As of April 14, 2009".

• Erm it already has that? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Blue Panther and Fuerza Guerrera are linked twice in the lead. It's better to avoid repetitive links whenever possible.

• Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "are the team with the longest reign of 1,728 days...". This makes it sound like there was more than one team that held the title that long. A re-wording is in order.

• Done. "is the team" NOWMPJ-DK (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the notes in the table to see if any need periods.

• Done, added periods for the full sentences. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are the teams not sortable in the main table? They are in the table below.

• They were made unsortable after a suggestion above from Truco, I forgot to do that to the secondary table, fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In footnote 2, change the comma to a semi-colon. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done and thank you. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• What makes http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/pro-wrestling.htm reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly I don't think it is, it also doesn't source anything controversial - "wrestling is predetermined" is hardly controversial. I forgot who suggested the source, but I agree it's not really obviously reliable. I've removed it, if it's really necessary then I'll look through my book collection and find something but honestly I don't think it needs it. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 20:37, 21 April 2009 [4].

List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay[edit]

Nominator(s): Matthew R Dunn (talk)

I am nominating this article for FL. I have recently rewrote it from my sandbox and turned the rather ghastly and terrible awards page to what it is now. It has a rather long lead, it certainly looks comprehensive, I do truly believe the sources are reliable, its stable and looks appealing. Awaiting review. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't read the article yet, but do you think you can explain why this passes Criteria 3b? Could this not be merged with Coldplay discography? See WT:FL?, Some of the lists about to be nominated at FLRC in the coming months, and WP:FLRC for more. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't jump the gun. I think 43 awards out of 108 nominations warrants a separate awards list. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is also a pretty big article as well (27kb), and I can safely say this has got to be one of the largest awards page for a band, since Coldplay is very well known in all parts of the globe. Besides, I saw List of awards and nominations received by The Strokes, and that is still FL despite only 6 awards and 13 nominations. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see now. I haven't listened to Coldplay for a while and I don't follow the music industry too much, so I hadn't a clue they exploded. I'll give an actual review in a few days then; please do give me a message on my talk if I forget. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • General note: since criterion 3b was implemented, standards on what and what cannot be a featured list have tightened. The aforementioned The Strokes list will probably delisted from FL and merged. The Coldplay list is safe, IMO. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards from my view. Good work, but I want to wait to see what others think before I can support. I will revisit after others review.--Truco 17:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given the lead section a bit of a copyedit. All my concerns are now addressed. I'll remain neutral until someone has given the citations a thorough review. --JD554 (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref review

• For BBC sources, such as BBC News. BBC News is the work and BBC is the publisher.

• But that will italicise BBC News, which is wrong. I'd have BBC News as a a publisher and leave "BBC" out. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Read my comment below.--Truco 15:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For MTV sources, such as MTV Asia. MTV Asia is the work and MTV Networks is the publisher.

• MTV Asia is a network; putting it in the work field will italicise it, which it shouldn't be. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect, because per ((cite web)), the work field is if the source is part of a larger work. MTV Asia is part of the MTV Networks, as it is written on the site at the bottom.--Truco 15:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I probably should have said something about this months ago, but it is not necessary to do this when the website name contains the same name as the publisher (MTV Asia as work and MTV Networks as the publisher) because it is redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's redundant.--Truco 15:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2005/09/08/story219818.asp source, you need to state the work as being from the archive of Ireland or wherever its from
• and Pop doesn't seem like a reliable source because it has blogs and doesn't really state what makes it reliable. What makes it reliable?
• What makes http://www.andpop.com/2009/03/30/2009-juno-awards-show-winners/ reliable?
• http://www.ilikemusic.com/music_news/-739/4 is a sales site, what makes it reliable?
• http://eil.com/awards/mtv.asp What makes it reliable?--Truco 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The band has released over twenty singles, including: " Numbers over ten should be written in numeric form, per WP:MOSNUM.
  • This isn't necessary, MOSNUM also states: or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words. --JD554 (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes, but it needs to be consistent. The article has "The band has released over twenty singles" but "Coldplay have received 43 awards from 114 nominations." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)It[reply]
      • Singles and awards aren't comparable quantities. --JD554 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't understand; the inconsistency is that 43 and 114 are over ten and are written in numeric form while twenty is over ten but is written in words. There needs to be article-wide consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do understand what you mean. However, the only consistency mentioned in MOSNUM is the following line: 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. As the singles aren't being compared with the awards I don't believe you are correct otherwise all of the numerical values in the lead will need converting to digits because 114 has to be given in digits as it is more than one or two words. --JD554 (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Yellow", which was the band's first hit "
• "the United States where it reached" Comma after "United States".
• "and "Viva la Vida" which was the band's first " 1)Comma after "Viva la Vida" 2)"which was" can be deleted
• "2009 was their most successful year having received seven nominations at the 51st Grammy Awards—more than they had done previously—of which they won three. " Per MOSNUM, sentences shouldn't start out with numbers.
• "GQ is a monthly men's magazine, where the annual winners are voted through the GQ website. " "GQ" should be italicized because it's a publication; "where"-->and; and specify what the awards are for.
• "songwriting and composing, held annually in London, United Kingdom. " 1)No comma 2)Unlink London
• "of Ireland, held annually since " No comma.
• "The NME Awards is an annual music awards show, founded by the music magazine NME, where the winners are decided by public votes."-->The NME Awards is an annual music awards show founded by the music magazine NME; the winners are decided by public votes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (in addition to Truco's comments above)

• What makes http://www.pubquizhelp.com/ent/brit_award_winners.html reliable?
• Likewise http://www.musicsnews.com/articles/1199/1/THE-Q-AWARDS-2006 and http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4380152-1.html?
• Publications should be italicized (The Guardian, ref 31). You can do this by changing publisher= to work= in the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 20:37, 21 April 2009 [5].

The Ting Tings discography[edit]

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

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be well referenced and informative. Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved, and I am confident that Dabomb's comments will be resolved; article meets WP:WIAFL. Good work.--Best, TRUCO 00:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Per WP:OVERLINK, don't link common geographical terms such as England.
• "limited edition debut single"-->limited-edition debut single
• "It reached number twenty-two " Numbers over nine should be written in numerals. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason that the compilations were not included? See http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thetingtings/discography. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't included them because all the songs featured on the soundtracks are included on their album. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style says that "non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks" should not be included in a discography. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Promonews.tv is of marginal reliability, why not use the liner notes instead? Basic information such as this can be verified by primary source. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot use liner notes from their album or singles because non include their music videos. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MTV has directors for two of their videos if you want to use that. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 03:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added them. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status here? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just waiting for more responses. Also, I have responded to all your comments. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 05:26, 16 April 2009 [6].

List of Case Closed episodes (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): DragonZero (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I would like a featured Case Closed episodes list before applying the same concepts to seasons 2-16. It will also show what is dreadfully wrong with the article and would allow me to find faults to fix. Thank you for your time. Also, for the translated title, there hasn't been much people saying whether they should be taken off or kept. Either way I think it'll work. DragonZero (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

First of all, I guess I have to apologize. Had I known you wanted to go straight for FLC, I would have been more thorough during the peer review. I should have made that clear.

• "The Case Closed anime wasis based on"
• "it was changed to Case Closed" - Where?
• "The episodes are" - What episodes?
• "The English airing was on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming block" - What is an "English airing"?
• "Conan then lives with Rachel Moore" - Who is that? A word of introduction wouldn't hurt.
• "containing the first twenty six episodes of the series." - What about episodes 27-29?
• Some terms/names are linked more than once without need. (WP:OVERLINK)
• The prose does not flow sensibly in the first paragraph and lacks structure.
• I still think the summaries vary too much in length. It reduces the visual appeal.
• ((cite episode)) has a parameter called episodelink. Use it to link directly to the episodes you're citing. (Example: ep13)
• The episode citations don't specify the network or station.
• What makes Aga-search.com a reliable source?
• Expand contractions. WP:CONTRACTIONS
• "gymnastic could pull off the murder" - Too colloquial.
• "he gets attacked by behind" -> "he is attacked from behind"
• "force him to swallow a newly developed poison"

I didn't go through the whole list yet, but there will most likely be more errors such as these three. Also, better prose reviewers than me will probably find a lot of imperfections/issues. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I changed most of the stuff from the list. For contractions, I can't find anymore, unless things like "Jimmy's" is a problem. I'm not sure if the third paragraph can cover the 28 episodes. DragonZero (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Will never mind then. Please remove this from the featured list candidate. There is no official source for episodes 1-266 as YTV did not start achieving them which is about 6 years after the series launch. DragonZero (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not give up so easily. Here is a reference for episode 39. References for following episodes should be available from here. (You're lucky that Detective Conan is so popular.) As for season 1, I didn't say Aga-search.com was unreliable. I just can't tell if it is reliable, as I don't speak Japanese. Alternatively, you could use the reference library of the anime project. For example, Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) might be able to reference the airdates using his issues of Animage, provided that you ask him nicely of course. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the list. Episodes 27-29 (English dub numbers) are there since the season division as Detective Conan had those episodes. By terms, do you mean the references? I'm just copying Bleach season 1 style, I could unlink them if it's not a good article to follow. DragonZero (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know from the peer review why those episodes are in there. What you need to do is write it into the article.

As for the terms, you link Rachel Moore twice. You shouldn't. However, in the references linking all occurences is fine.

In general, if you have chosen the Bleach lists as your model, that's fine, but use the newest Bleach featured list if you do. That would be List of Bleach episodes (season 9), IIRC. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would Yomiuri Telecasting Corporation be the network or station? DragonZero (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to its article it would be a station. BTW, it would make things easier, if you could reply to comments directly beneath them in the bullet list above. (Just a suggestion) -- Goodraise (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 21:45, 14 April 2009 [7].

List of Dexter episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): --Music26/11, 97198 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FLC criteria. Over the past few weeks, 97198 and I, have worked on this article and we think it's ready for FLC. Thanks. --Music26/11 18:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - A few things I noticed in the lead. I'll provide a more thorough review a bit later.
• While solving murders in the Homicide division, Dexter also spends his time hunting and killing murderers and criminals who have escaped the justice system. - Why is "Homicide" capitalized but not "division"?

• Fixed.--Music26/11 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The pilot was watched by over a million viewers, giving Showtime its highest ratings in nearly two years. - I dunno, just seems a bit like an ad for Showtime.

• I think I get what you mean, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it. It could be reworded, but the fact remains that it broke a record for showtime.--Music26/11 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Three seasons have aired in the United States, each of which encompasses 12 episodes. A fourth and fifth season have been announced. - If "four" and "five" are spelled out, "12" should be, as well, for consistency's sake.

• My bad, fixed.--Music26/11 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The episode summaries seem too short to me; I have come to expect lengths of episode summaries like Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2), Prison Break (season 2), or Veronica Mars (season 2) are at the minimum. I'd encourage either massive expansion rather quickly, or a short withdrawal followed by a couple of weeks of expansion. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I like it the way it is, actually. All I'm looking for is a brief explanation of what the episode is about, not an in-depth analysis of it. Moreover, the less original research, the better. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the consensus on WP:TV-related episode lists has generally been that basic plot summaries do not constitute original research. Right now, I feel like the article's episodes are simply too short to give any real information; they almost seem to be deliberately masking information to get you to watch the episode to know any real details. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mind expanding the sections, but I agree Julian, however, if there's more than one user that disagrees, I will expand the sections.--Music26/11 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the length is that bad, but one-sentence summaries are a no-no. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anything that needs to be done right now? The majority thinks that the episode summaries are long enough, and so it appears that all problems are fixed. So why hasn't the article gained any supports? Please, if there are any problems, say so.--Music26/11 13:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Manual of Style currently recommends 100-200 words per episode summary in episode lists. The pilot article's summary in that list has 47 words. Episode 1x5 has only 31 words. That's far too short in my opinion for me to support. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your clear reply, I'll see what I can do.--Music26/11 10:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm oppose per Matthewedwards' request. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There should be some mention of Showtime being a premium cable channel, and that CBS is a national terrestrial broadcast network. This is necessary because people outside of the United States may not be aware of the difference.
• "over the public airwaves." again, non-Americans may find this hard to grasp
• "and chose to depart from Lindsay's second Dexter novel," No need for the itallics here, as it appears to be referring to the character
• In order to be promoting a non-systemic bias, you should move away from the ((globalize/USA))-ness. Has the series aired in other countries?
• Can you provide information on whether the episodse are available in any forms of new media? Internet streaming, iTunes downloads, DVD releases, etc.
• The lede currently describes the premise of the series, but doesn't really discuss the episodess. Who are the exec producers? Who (if anyone) has directed and written the majority of the episodes? You may also want to consider giving the names of the main characters and actors
• The summaries are not summaries of the dictionary-definition for me. They're more like teasers, leaving the reader hungry for more, meaning he must either look for another site, or watch the episode. Example:

  Dexter Morgan is introduced as a blood spatter analyst by day and a serial killer by night. He is called to mysterious murder scenes involving chopped-up bodies, but with no blood in sight. The murderer intrigues Dexter with the intricate methodology as well as a personal message.

  There is nothing here showing he is a serial killer. It's all about his "day job"; did he do any killing in this episodes? "The murderer" what murderer? Who is he? How do they find him? Is it the same murderer for all the chopped up bodies? Intrigues him in what way? What intricate methodology? What's the personal message? How is the episode resolved?
• The date format in the references should be in the same format as what is used in the main body of the article. Some are, but some are in ISO format.

That's all I have for now. Let me know if you manage to expand the summaries; I'll be glad to revisit. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 02:48, 10 April 2009 [8].

Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season[edit]

Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because... As i said last time i feel that this meets the critera. However due to a lack of reviews when i submitted this timeline the last time it failed. Please note that is the first timeline to come from outside of the NHC AoR so all comments on how to improve it are welcome. Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously think that you should have waited a little more to do the comments from the last FLC, and fix some minor ones on the article. I also suggest you to ask the users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones for some guidance. Good luck on your nomination. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 00:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Comments Keith :). I have spoken to other members of the WPTC and the FL Director who suggested that i should put it up after Gimmebot has archived the previous page. Also the only reason the previous FLC failed was because of a lack of reviews so there wasnt anything to correct as far as i am aware. Jason Rees (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- My comments from the previous review were addressed, and it seems like other comments raised by other reviewers were also addressed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Truco :) Jason Rees (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Tropical Depression ex-Daman" and "Tropical Depression ex Elisa" Still unclear for ordinary readers; maybe "that a tropical Depression formerly known as Elisa" or something like that.

Except as i said in the previous review they are designations so they should not be removed Jason Rees (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You added the en dashes to everything in that section, not just the separators between the listed items. Remove the en dashes from the citation templates.
• "The JTWC storms are referred to numerically, to avoid confusion, as the JTWC sometimes recognises a storm at a different intensity compared to RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington." Just very confusing, I don't know what else to say. You might ask fellow hurricane editors on how to rephrase.

Thats already been rephrased Jason Rees (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I still see basic grammatical errors in the timeline itself, examples:
  • "Tropical Depression 08F is downgraded to a Tropical Disturbance by RSMC Nadi who issue " There should be a comma after "Nadi".
  • "reached its peak winds of 205 km/h, " Don't you mean peak wind speeds?
  • "RSMC Nadi reports that a Tropical Depression 08F has formed, to the northeast of Vanuatu." No comma.
  • "While the JTWC designates the Cyclone as 11P." Not a grammatical sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, needs another hurricane editor (Juliancolton or Cyclonebiskit?) to look through this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ive caught evreything i think Jason Rees (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Sorry, but there's quite a bit of work to be done. Examples:
• The timeline includes information that was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC), and the Fiji Meteorological Service, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on. - This sentence is incomplete.

in my opinion it is complete as TCWC Wellington pass their BT to FMSJason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it's grammatically incomplete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To avoid confusion, the JTWC designates storms numerically, as the agency may assess a different intensity than that of RSMC Nadi or TCWC Wellington. - Needs a source.

Ive removed the pov part but i doubt it needs a source.Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Disturbance 01F has formed, to the east of the Solomon Islands. - This comma is unnecessary. Removed Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Depression 01F, has weakened into a tropical disturbance. - Same with above, but this comma is simply ungrammatical.Removed Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 2100 UTC, (0900 FST, November 28) RSMC Nadi downgrades Tropical Depression 03F to a tropical disturbance. - Missing dash.
• RSMC Nadi upgrades Tropical Depression 04F to a Category 1 tropical cyclone naming it Daman. - Poorly worded. Revised Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Cyclone Daman, has become a Category 3 severe tropical cyclone. - Another ungrammatical comma. RemovedJason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• RSMC Nadi reports that Severe Tropical Cyclone Daman has intensified, into a Category 4 severe tropical cyclone. - Again. Removed
• The JTWC reports that Tropical Cyclone 05P has reached its peak windspeeds of 205 km/h, (125 mph), which makes it a Category 3 Cyclone on the SSHS. - "Cyclone" shouldn't be capitalized. Revisd Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Severe Tropical Cyclone Daman weakens in to a Category 3 severe tropical cyclone. - "In to" → "into". Removed Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Severe Tropical Cyclone Daman weakens in to a Category 2 tropical cyclone. - Again. Removed Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Depression 07F has formed about 215 km (130 miles) west–northwest of Vavua Island, Tonga. - "West-northwest" should have a hyphen, rather than an en dash. DoneJason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Cyclone Funa makes landfall on Espiritu Santo. - Where? Espiritu Santo big hint its linked above Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• RSMC Nadi reports that Cyclone Gene has re–strengthened into a Category 2 Cyclone - This should be a hyphen. Done Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral from Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs)

The article has improve a bit since the previous nomination, but seeing how many errors were found, I'm neutral with the promotion/failing of the timeline. That said, one major issue I see is that the article is not using the final Best Track from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. The operational best track would be fine but there have been several changes since then and need to be represented in the timeline. More when I'm awake :P Cyclonebiskit 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments

• The 2007–08 South Pacific Cyclone season officially ran between November 1, 2007 and April 30, 2008, although Tropical Depression 01F formed outside these official parameters, on October 17, 2007. Can you make the starting sentence a bit more interesting? Say something about what was abnormal about the season or what was very notable about it as a whole.
• Link the season article in the first sentence and delink it at the end of the intro. paragraph.
• Link RSMC the first time it is used.
• 0000 UTC, (1200 Fiji Standard Time, (FST), July 1) – The 2007–08 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone year officially starts. Remove the comma after UTC and after Fiji Standard Time
• Remove all the commas after UTC in the article
• 0000 UTC, (1200 FST, December 7) – The JTWC reports that Tropical Cyclone 05P has reached its peak windspeeds of 205 km/h, (125 mph), which makes it a Category 3 cyclone on the SSHS. What's the SSHS? Don't abbreviate a the first usage of a term and always link it; also remove the commas between km/h and mph
• Use while instead of whilst
• 1800 UTC, (0600 FST, January 12) – Tropical Cyclone Elisa weakens into a Tropical Depression. Tropical Depression should be in lowercase - doneJason Rees (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 1800 UTC, (0600 NZST, January 21) – TCWC Wellington reports that Tropical Cyclone Funa has become Extratropical. Extratropical should be lowercase - Done Jason Rees (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 0000 UTC, (1200 FST, January 29) – RSMC Nadi reports that Cyclone Gene has intensified into a Category 2 Cyclone after emerges back into the Southern Pacific. Reads a bit strange since an island really doesn't block a storm from being over water entirely.
• 1800 UTC, (0600 FST, April 18) – RSMC Nadi reports that Tropical Depression 16F has formed approximately 255 Nautical miles (470 Kilometres) to the southwest of Honiara, Solomon Islands. Use statute miles not nautical miles - done Jason Rees (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll have more later, those were just after a rough skim through the article. Cyclonebiskit 15:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn; there are still issues, and FLC is not a peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Dabomb87. There are issues as simple as incorrect grammar to be dealt with. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. But the grammar issues that I was unable to find is astonishing, I suggest withdrawal as well.--Truco 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree. I found some awkward grammar issues in the lede and article, and rather than doing a full review, I think it should be withdrawn. Sorry. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments There are issues still to be resolved with this article, and it's clear it's not ready for FLC yet. To the reviewer, the suggestion about WP:Peer review seems to be a good idea; you'll be able to find a good copy editor there, too. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:49, 9 April 2009 [9].

Timeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): Yue ^{of the North}

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think that it is good enough to be a FL Yue ^{of the North} 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This nom is premature, as the article was made today. I see some pretty basic problems, which means the article needs a copyedit.

• 485 (900 km) miles - this makes no sense as it is. Please fix all instances of this problem.--
• 0600 UTC - Hurricane Alma (there is no local time mentioned) -- fixed
• 150 (278 km) miles - same problem as the first one, but the km number isn't rounded. The general rule is rounding the converted unit when the first one. Be sure to fix all around.
• Remove the Wikilinks to articles that don't exist: Hurricane Alma (2002), Tropical Storm Boris (2002), etc. There's no need. --fixed
• 305 miles (565 m) south-southeast of Puerto Escondido, Mexico - really? 565 meters from the coast? Please be more careful.--fixed
• For Fausto, you should mention when it moved into the CPAC, and be sure to do the same for other basin-crossers.
• Tropical Storm Ele strengthen - watch out for noun/verb agreement. Also, there is an article for Ele. --fixed
• Hurricane Ele moves out of the Central Pacific Hurricane Center's Area of Responsibility. - pretty minor, but you should clarify who picked up warnings. --fixed
• Tropical Depression Fausto regenerates. - it's really important where it regenerated.--fixed
• You should mention when Kenna became the strongest storm of the season, and how strong it was.

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the unit rounding was not done. Please respond separately when you feel you addressed something. I still spot unrounded units. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the units. --Yue ^{of the North} 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't. I see one unrounded distance unit, and one unrounded intensity unit. Let me know if you spot them. If not, I still oppose. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the distance and intensity. (the intensity was kenna's pressure, right?) --Yue ^{of the North} 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the intensity was a wind speed. The reason I'm not telling you where is so you can find them on your own, in case I missed any. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I used the winds twice (I think?) and I can't find them there. --Yue ^{of the North} 22:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tropical Storm Julio makes landfall west-northwest of Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico with winds of 45 mph (72 km/h)

It's right next to the word "winds". I got some more to oppose about.

1. 0000 UTC (5 p.m. PDT)- Tropical Storm Julio makes landfall west-northwest of Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico with winds of 45 mph (72 km/h).[18]
2. 1200 UTC (5 a.m. PDT)- Tropical Storm Julio weakens into a tropical depression.[18]
3. 1800 UTC (5 a.m. PDT)- Tropical Depression Julio dissipates.[18]

How can the last two, which are six hours apart in UTC time, be the same time in PDT? I just noticed it really quickly, and I saw it somewhere else, but I really don't think it's up to FL status, with as many errors as I caught after you put it up for FLC. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the intensity, the 2 times and I found the other time problem. --Yue ^{of the North} 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but I see a lot more time issues, exactly the same as Julio. I really don't think enough time was put into this article, considering all of the errors. You should've at least used the WPTC assessment page, which is there for people to get project input before FXC'ing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess that I need more time to fix this, so I will withdraw.--Yue ^{of the North} 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 13:41, 8 April 2009 [10].

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Imperial College London[edit]

Nominator(s): — sephiroth bcr ^(converse)

Another Nobel Prize list. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. See the other FLC for the similar replies.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Fix Truco's semicolon-colon thing.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "was the only laureate not a member of the faculty" Missing verb.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Frederick Gowland Hopkins.jpg – can you find someone to remove the watermark? Not a deal breaker.

• Eh, that would be hard. You'd need some pretty serious Photoshop skills. I'll see what I can do. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Take your time, I don't mind if this isn't possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Chris! _ct 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 3b of the new FL criteria. This is an excellent list, but I no longer believe this list warrants being split off from the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 13:41, 8 April 2009 [11].

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins University[edit]

Nominator(s): — sephiroth bcr ^(converse)

Another Nobel Prize list. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. You're right, its not like all the refs come from one publisher. You're cool then.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport Comments Good to see you back at FLC!

• Only prose issue I see is Truco's colon-semicolon thing.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Harold Urey.jpg – How do we know that it was created by NASA? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cut. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—Chris! _ct 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there any reason why this page can't be merged with List of Johns Hopkins University people? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The bulky table, WP:WEIGHT concerns, the fact this is a standalone list, my unwillingness, among other reasons. Seriously, I know you want to increase standards, but you're taking this a tad bit too far. Simply because material can be merged does not necessarily mean that it should be merged. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because anything can be split doesn't mean should be split. I honestly don't think there is any reason why this page should have been split off. Sure, the table is a tad bulky, but I think it could downsized and merged relatively easily. For example:

I don't think the rationales are needed here, and there are only seven images, so why bother embedding them? I think this page also lacks notability. Sure, the Nobel Prizes are notable, Johns Hopkins University is notable, but why is a list of laureates from this school notable enough for an individual page? The lead summarizes the Nobel Prizes and the list, but it doesn't mention this. The school has its own summary of Nobel laureates from the school [12] and I think that is enough. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Firstly, I could not find any concerns with the prose or list as such but do have a few comments.

• I'm indifferent to the existance of the image column as it is so empty (although I know why it is so empty, and that is not your fault!)
• I realise that the information is correct and won't change but I have a slight copyvio concern. For example many of the "Relation" entries are copied word for word from the JHU site. It is especially notable for the Agre, Mundell, Nathans and O'Smith entries.
• Wrt notability, lists like this have always been a grey area on Wikipedia and are difficult to judge and I certainly wouldn't want all of these to have their own list. The only source that links the two events is a primary (JHU) one and WP:N does actually say that "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources". I realise it would be drastically unfair for me to come down hard on this as so many other lists like this exist (and some are FLs). So I'm happy to see what the community thinks about this.
• As for the merge, I do see a case for this all going here (or here) without images & rationales.

Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 3b of the new FL criteria. This is an excellent list, but I no longer believe this list warrants being split off from the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 13:41, 8 April 2009 [13].

List of awards and nominations received by Ray LaMontagne[edit]

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) 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 01:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complies with criteria 1–7. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it necessary to use EveryHit? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this and this work for the two album chart sources? I am having trouble finding another source for the singles chart... Is that a problem? I will keep looking. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and change the references used, though I have not heard back from you on the issue. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, I have been busy. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose What is this, a list of awards and nominations or a discography? The first paragraph speaks only about the albums released by Ray Lamontagne, while the second speaks very little about his awards and nominations. Please expand. Cannibaloki 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This awards list follows the exact same format as many of the other lists, including 5 similar awards lists I constructed and took to FL status. I am surprised to see this one criticized when the others were not. However, I will try to see what I can do to receive your support.

• • LaMontagne has also released two EPs: Live from Bonnaroo 2005 was released through RCA in 2005 and Live Sessions was distributed via iTunes in 2009, reaching a peak position at #119 on the Billboard 200. (This sentence is irrelevant and confusing; what EP reached the peak position on the Billboard 200?)

Why irrelevant? Live Sessions reached the peak position--would a comma after 2005 help to clarify?

• • Singles that have charted include "Trouble" (#25 on the UK Singles Chart)[6] and "You Are the Best Thing" (#90 on the Billboard Hot 100 and #42 on the Hot Canadian Digital Singles chart). (You must merge the releases according to the nominations that this artist received.)

Can you please clarify what this means? I am not sure I understand.

Comment I question whether this list is even needed. Only one of these awards, the BRIT Award, is a non-regional award. Three of them are magazine awards, one of them is a radio award. Ray LaMontagne is only 14 KB, I think this page could easily be merged into there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly concur with Scorpion. With the main article being so short, why must we have a separate list for the awards? His article is short, and this list is short: only 14 awards, most of which are minor. The lead of the list simply summarizes the main article anyway. I see no reason why they should not be in a single article. Reywas92^Talk 01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think these awards lists are very informative, organized, and contain a great deal of information, including years, nominations, wins, award descriptions, references, context, etc. I am not sure how you could merge this list into the Ray LaMontagne article while still maintaining the amount of information it occupies in an orderly fashion. The size of the LaMontagne article should not have an influence on this awards list--that article is one that simply needs to be expanded. Featured awards lists with comparable numbers of awards and nominations (or even less) exist for Adele, Fiona Apple, Katy Perry, Matchbox Twenty, Scissor Sisters, etc. I think this list is an asset to WP, and provides the framework for future awards and nominations received by LaMontagne. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really did not like promoting them because I think such lists promote the belief that all you need for a FL is a lead and a small table and do not represent wikipedia's best work. Why would the table be less informative if merged? You could still split into sections, or merge all of the awards into one table like this, but you could introduce a key to keep the award name size down (I can help you do it). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply suggesting that it would be hard to put all of the information from this list onto LaMontagne's WP article--the awards descriptions, years, results, nominated works, references, etc. However, I take no offense, and my purpose here on WP is simply to try to conduct research, generate frameworks for displaying information as accurately and organized as possible, and making improvements whenever needed. If more experienced users feel this list is unnecessary, I will leave that in your hands to decide. I feel the list is worthy and appropriate, but being the creator I am certainly biased. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like an example of a GA for a BLP that also has an awards table, there is Julie Kavner. The awards list has more items than this one does and is not too unwieldy. I just don't think incorporating a fully formatted table would look as terrible as you think. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this seems to be a serious issue. I am striking my support until we reach a consensus. To be fair, I don't think this FLC and other similar ones should be archived until the issue is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a consensus being reached on? Whether or not the list should exist as its own article? That decision will have to be made by others. I feel I created this list by following examples of other FL awards lists. It is accurate, relevant, of FL quality, and I believe it should remain as is. However, if others feel differently, I understand and respect the process of WP. However, I am not sure why this list is different than the others previously mentioned, or why this list would be questioned or considered for removal. I've seen other featured awards lists that I feel are of lesser quality. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) See [14]. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored my support because although there is debate on whether this should be a list, as a list, this article meets the current criteria. The support has no relation to my position of whether this list should or exist or not. If a new criterion is added to the FL criteria, this would be a different story. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I think that it does not meet the very first, and most important, part of the criteria: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." The criteria also says: "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content", although they are not specifically mentioned, I believe this list is not notable enough for it's own page and is content forking. Currently, there is no opposition to the proposed criteria change, so I'm not sure I like the idea of promoting pages that may just end up at FLRC within a few months. Either way, I'll leave this one for Matthewedwards to close. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so here is my compromise. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Cr. 7. Even though this page does not have any edit wars, the ongoing discussion about this topic makes all these "award" pages unstable. I suggest putting on hold all nominations of such lists until a consensus is reached.--Crzycheetah 05:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 3b of the new FL criteria. This is an excellent list, but I no longer believe this list warrants being split off from the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 05:17, 8 April 2009 [15].

List of Nashville Sounds alumni[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all featured list criteria. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning towards a 3b oppose. Why does this list need to be split of from Nashville Sounds all-time roster? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - 3b. This lists basically repeats what can be found in Nashville Sounds all-time roster and List of Nashville Sounds managers. Exactly the kind of duplicate list that the new criterion is meant to prevent. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 3b and Giants2008—Chris! _ct 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - The all-time roster list is long enough as it is. This list serves to highlight players who have gone on to win MLB awards. It provides more information about those players than provided in the all-time list. In regards to content forking, does this list fall under the category of article spinouts?

• Oppose -- 3b (content forking). In response, this information can be denoted in the all time roster list, its just not have been done so.--Truco 15:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:39, 6 April 2009 [16].

List of Chicago Blackhawks captains[edit]

Nominator(s): Teemu08 (talk)

I made this one all pretty, too. Teemu08 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why can't this article simply be a subsection in List of Chicago Blackhawks players? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dabomb87.—Chris! _ct 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a very forky topic.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

111kb isn't long enough? Teemu08 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the proposed new FL criteria? Basically, just because a list can be split off doesn't mean it should be. See User:Scorpion0422/FL_audit#Ice_hockey, in which a current FL captains list could potentially be delisted and merged. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, didn't know that it had come so far along. Well, if the new criteria are accepted, I'll withdraw the nomination and merge the articles. Teemu08 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment List of Chicago Blackhawks players is an enormous article, so I think a split may be justified. A more logical place to merge might be List of Chicago Blackhawks award winners. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the captains just be denoted in the main roster list?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, you can easily indicate that by adding symbol and color.—Chris! _ct 02:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.--Best, TRUCO 00:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 3b. Excellent list, but there is no reason to have it for reasons I've explained above and at the players' list's FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 3b, can easily merge with List of Chicago Blackhawks players—Chris! _ct 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - 3b. Captains can easily be highlighted in the team's list of players. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw now that the criteria has been changed. Teemu08 (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 12:41, 5 April 2009 [17].

List of NATO Secretaries General[edit]

Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk)

Well, this is a fairly short list, just 14 entries, but it is comprehensive and I believe it meets all the FL criteria. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Under the current criteria, this appears to fail 3b. I withdraw my nomination. Depending on how interpretation of the criteria progresses, it might be back, but it seems not to fit in. Thanks to everyone who participated, even if this is not FL eligible, I think we made some good improvements. Cool3 (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  • Please format references properly - some are missing publisher, author info
  • Empty cells need emdash
  • Is there a reason why the table is not sortable?
  • A side issue: Why create a seperate list when the main article is so short? There is a discussion about changing the FL criteria regarding these kind of lists. I will see what other reviewers think first.

—Chris! _ct 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references now have all of the information available. For some of them (i.e., the ones on the NATO website), many of the fields just don't apply. I've added dashes in all the empty cells. As for why the list isn't sortable, I decided that it was short enough that there was no need to sort it, and what would you sort for anyway? If people feel differently, I'm open to changing this. Cool3 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think for refs, access dates definitely apply. As for sortability, I still think it is a good idea to have that. Names and dates can be sortable, for instance.—Chris! _ct 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, I don't know why I didn't put in access dates (duh!), and I'll go ahead and make it sortable.

Oh, I forget to mention that names won't sort correctly without using ((sortname)). Sorry about that.—Chris! _ct 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I figured that out. All the fields are sortable now, and should sort correctly. Also had to use dts to make the dates sort. Cool3 (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I agree that this list should be merged into the main article of Secretary General of NATO, it shouldn't warrant for a separate article.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as per the proposal linked above, it reads: "A featured list should not have less than ten items; exceptions must be discussed beforehand on a case-by-case basis." This is at fourteen (or at least 11 if you just want to count the true appointments). It could be merged with Secretary General of NATO, I suppose. As a matter of fact, I unmerged the two this morning. My reason for doing so is that I also plan a large expansion of the Secretary General of NATO article. Yes, we could just stick this list in there, but I think it's worth having separately. As that article grows in develops, it will become clunkier and clunkier to have the list incorporated within it. There also other featured lists of comparable length. For example: List of African American United States Cabinet Secretaries. Cool3 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't see any difference of information that cannot be stated in the main article. The list itself doesn't say much that the main article doesn't, so the 10-item rule doesn't apply here because listing 10 different apples wouldn't be enough to warrant a List of apples list, but over 7,500 is.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for more inputs on this before deciding on this issue.—Chris! _ct 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think List of Governors of Hawaii is a good precedent. It's an FL with 18 entries (4 more than this one) and a relatively short main article. The FLC is here. Basically, I think what this all boils down is that it is useful for people to have a separate list of things like this to look at. Cool3 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look also at List of premiers of Saskatchewan with exactly 14 entries as well. Cool3 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the new criteria is passed, this will not meet those standards per WP:FORK.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - FLC isn't where we decide if articles should be merged, so I'll proceed as usual. That said, there are numerous issues.
• Bold font shouldn't be linked per WP:MOS.
• The Secretary-General typically serves for a four year term, but he or she may be asked to serve for a fifth year or longer, with the consensus of the member states. - Shouldn't "four year" be hyphenated?
• The opening image should be larger.
• The lead is pretty short; is there any further information?
• Why are some dates linked and others not?
• The three images in the Secretaries General section overlap.
• References #2–9 need accessdates.
• Link The New York Times, etc?

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bold font is delinked
• Opening image increased in size to 250px
• I suppose further information could be included in the lead, but it tells you everything you need to know, imho.
• Sorry, I don't see any linked dates. Which one/ones are you referring to? Oh, the caption of the image. Delinked.
• Removed one image, they don't overlap on my screen, but this should take care of it for others
• Access dates linked everywhere
• All newspaper titles linked on first occurrence. Cool3 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton, I understand that normally FLC is not a proper place to decide if articles should be merged. But if you read the current discussion about a possible criteria change to WP:FL?, you will notice that the new criteria include a part that says lists shouldn't be content fork. That why I brought this up.—Chris! _ct 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I was comparing the article against the current criteria, which is what we should all be doing in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Even though it passes the current criteria, it might not for the new one. It seems to be a waste of time to pass the lists now, and have them demoted a few months later. In fact, some nominations are already put on hold by the directors b/c of this reason.—Chris! _ct 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I feel it's unfair to the nominator to judge an article against a set of tentative criterion which may or may not be implemented. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On Hold until the WT:Featured list criteria is finalized; oppose if the essence of the currently debated criteria passes. I don't believe that this merits a spinoff list. The main article is short enough anyway; the article should be merged with that. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to boldly put this in the on hold section for now, per a FL Director's similar actions. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just like to point out, that I'm not really even convinced that this would violate the proposed policies. It is clearly more than ten items. As for the content fork issue. It is no more of a fork than any other that lists people to have held any political office. We have, by my count, around 50 of those already. Some of them (mentioned above) are of a comparable length to this one. So, I see no reason to put this article on hold or oppose it on the grounds of its size. Can't we focus this discussion on how the article meets the standards as they stand? Cool3 (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all those content fork lists maybe delisted in the future, but there is no reason to add to it by continuing to promote new content fork lists. But this is just my opinion, so don't take this reply seriously.—Chris! _ct 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Scorpion undid my action, which is completely fine with me. I don't see how this article is a valid content fork of its main article, and so I'll oppose on the same lines as Chris. Perhaps you could withdraw this FLC and resubmit it after the criteria is finalised if we adopt a policy that would declare it not to fail the content fork criteria. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I undid your edit because the section is meant for FLCs that have been open at least 10 days, not because I disagree with you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, I've update the Secretary General of NATO article substantially, and plan to continue working on it (though not this evening). I hope this helps address some of your concerns. Cool3 (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither article is particularly long, and some is redundant. I support merging them back together. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 3b. The FL criteria has been changed, and I don't believe this list needs to be separate. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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