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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 0 support, 1 oppose. It's failed mostly due to inactivity. Fail. Crzycheetah 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. Based on List of state symbols of Maryland which is already a FL. T Rex | talk 07:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What is the Eastern Oyster doing under "Geology"?

  Fixed T Rex | talk 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aside I can't be the only one to think we should try to have at least the featured lists have a similar name format? If this is promoted, we will have 3 lists of the exact same topic in three different naming format (List of state symbols of X, List of X state insignia and List of X state symbols).. Circeus 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, we should try. There is a template for these lists(((State symbols))), where "List of X state symbols" is the most popular choice. We can start from there. --Crzycheetah 06:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Agreed. Renata 05:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I chose that name because that was what the redlink was called on the template mentioned above. T Rex | talk 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • • I invite everyone to discuss this matter at the tamplate's talk page. --Crzycheetah 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixable oppose: lead is too short. Also, just a silly note, I would rather go with no pic than with this one. Renata 05:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what more could be added without going too detailed. T Rex | talk 05:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is there no slogan? Is Virginia for lovers? I also see that there are 18 symbols here compared to Maryland's 25 and Kentucky's 41. Do I have to worry that this list is incomplete?--Crzycheetah 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the symbols that are on Kentucky and Maryland are only on a few states. Virginia simply doesn't have these. I'll get a pic fo there slogan right away. T Rex | talk 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did you add the license plate? Is it an official symbol of Virginia?--Crzycheetah 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Official state license plate, and it is considered a symbol by ((State insignia)). T Rex | talk 10:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Conditional support I'll fully support as soon as images for slogan and license plate are verified.--Crzycheetah 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (unident) You mean like cited? T Rex | talk 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure whether you can use those images here. I want some fair-use expert give his opinion before I fully support.--Crzycheetah 07:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 1 support, 3 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous nomination

As I said in the previous nomination, several editors have put a lot of work into this entry, as have I, and I looked to List of United States cities by population as a rough template. Having reached the same level of quality as that list, it seems logical to me that this too qualifies for FL status. The issues remaining at the last discussion were relatively minor, including a source that couldn't be located, but I think that that has now been addressed. Let us know, Tewfik^Talk 09:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The list looks good to me, but it does include three cities (Ariel, Beitar Illit and Ma'ale Adummim) which are Israeli settlements and therefore not "in Israel". Either they should be deleted from the list, or a note about their status inserted somewhere into the article. Number 57 13:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are listed as being in Judea and Samaria Area, where detailed discussion of their status can be found, though I can add a note if people think that that is necessary. Tewfik^Talk 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a footnote at the very least is needed to point out the disputed nature of these areas. However, since this is an official list of cities from the Israeli government, they should of course be included in the table. I also stand by my previous statement that the 2004 figures aren't needed in the main list. Furthermore, it's a bit odd to keep switching between censuses; the main table has 2004 and 2006 figures, the next two use 2000 and 2005, and then it jumps back to (presumably) 2006; however, the population figure for the 'large immigrant population' table is undated, and it really needs to be, considering how the dates hop around. --Golbez 01:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason that those years are used is that specific analyses have been published for those years, and not necessarily for others. While it may theoretically be possible to produce similar analysis for the most current census, that would no longer rely on published information, but on independent analyses of published numbers. I'm not sure that I personally have sufficient resources to carry out such a project, and so while I appreciate the discomfort caused by the status quo, I'm not sure what to do about it - perhaps someone could offer a suggestion. As far as the 2004 figures, while I personally support them for a number of reasons (illustrate population fluctuation etc.), if there is a consensus to remove them, that would of course be fine. That said, some of the opposes on the previous discussion stemmed from disagreement among the reviewers, and so I reiterate that I am willing to be quite flexible here, but that some agreement amongst the uninvolved reviewers on what course to take needs to happen as well. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Looks good, but a few important quibbles about sourcing and focus.
  • Some non-statiscal statements need sources or explicitation:
    • Does the Israel CBS actually define or release stats for urban agglomerations, urban area or metropolitan area ? If not, I don't think it is necessary to discuss it. It's not mentionned in other similar lists,and I think it's a given the population is taken to be that within the city limits.
      • This is actually based very closely on phrasing in the similar featured List of United States cities by population, while the Tel Aviv metropolitan area is indeed an officially recognised entity. Ultimately I defer to your judgement though, Tewfik^Talk 06:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because they identify with their central city as the economic, cultural and oftentimes political center of the urban area, many definitions (and people's perceptions) of cities include the entire metropolitan region, as in Ben Gurion International Airport being referred to as Tel Aviv Airport even though it is actually closer to Lod and Yehud-Monosson."
      • A nice analysis, but it needs a source.
    • "Tel Aviv, which is considered to be approaching global city status." Weasel words: by who?
      • I've added a reference for that one, but someone will need to format it - I'm rubbish with reference and citation formats. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Number 57 12:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Global city is a technical term defined by a specific academic institution, as outlined on that entry. I think that if you take a look at it it will become self-evident why there wasn't a reference, though I suppose it doesn't hurt. Tewfik^Talk 06:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the list is not primarily preoccupied with population, I'm thinking that the "fastest growing", "declining" and "immigrant population" sections ought to be moved in Demographics of Israel, and a link to it added in "See also".
• Circeus 17:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned above, this is one of the issues that the reviewers need to establish a consensus on - I'm open to either direction. 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

At least two of the "cities" listed in the "fasting growing" table are settlements also. While I agree that all settlements listed by the CBS should be included in the list, it must be clearly indicated which are in fact settlements. Tiamat 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The status of Ariel, Beitar Illit and Ma'ale Adummim as being "in Israel" is so controversial that I'm very nearly inclined to say that I'll oppose this list outright without it being renamed. I would be much happier, for example, with List of Israeli cities, which says what rather than where these cities are. At the absolute minimum, the issue of their status needs to be explicitly addressed, and in more than just a footnote - I'd like to see a paragraph in the introduction. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per OpenToppedBus. IP198 02:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 0 support, 2 oppose. No attempts to meet the opposition. Fail. Crzycheetah 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists the competition winners, runners-up and "minor premiers" for a competition that has been running for 99 years. The page is stable, complete and citated where applicable. mdmanser 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - tiny lead and no in-line citations in history section. Renata 05:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The lead is super small and needs to be expanded to sum up the entire list. Also, as stated above, the history section should have some inline citations. -- Underneath-it-All 03:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 1 support, 0 oppose. Many comments remained unanswered. Fail. Crzycheetah 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, much like the other county lists that have reached featured status, I feel that this one shows a comprehensive view of all 88 of Ohio's counties. It passes the criteria as far as I can see, and looks just as good as the others. Support as nom. Wizardman 00:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 10 days, but I current am addressing the comments. Wizardman 18:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, this can be failed for now, since it's become apparent that I still have a lot of work to do on this yet. I won't get it done in a couple days, it'll take a while. Wizardman 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment List looks great, and you've done a yeoman's job getting it together. Congrats. Only comment: the first paragraph of the lead needs to be referenced. It has statements about Ohio law and elected county officials that don't appear in any of the current references. Geraldk 02:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I'll get on that. Wizardman 02:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  1. How many counties Ohio had at the time it was admitted into the Union?
  2. I don't understand what Indian Lands means in the Wood County row. There needs to be a note next to it explaining that.  Done
  3. The table states that Wayne County originated in 1796 from Columbiana County, but Columbiana County was formed in 1803. It doesn't add up.
  4. I beleve it's overlinking when the county names in the "origin" column have blue links.  Done
  5. People's names in the "etymology" column need dates(birth-death).

--Crzycheetah 07:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The first question I'll check and make a note of in the lead. I'll also check what Indian Lands mean, I'm thinking it was territory aquired from them, but I'll see. Wayne County's giving me many different origin dates; the site that had the origins had it at 1808, which is wrong. As for what county it originated from in this case I'll try and find something. The fourth one I guess you're right on, I could take care of that if necessary. The fifth one I'll also put on the to-do list. (I'm gonan need to create a to-do list in my userspace at this rate) Wizardman 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This source may help. It states that Wawyne was formed on August 15, 1796, but I didn't find the origins.--Crzycheetah 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This source implies that Wayne was an original county. I'd like you to use this as a main reference for the origins column instead of that rootsweb site. I noticed there were several differencies for other counties, too. It's better to have a book as a reference than a website anyway, right?--Crzycheetah 18:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice find. I'll use that. :) Wizardman 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment Given that multiple wikilinks are frowned upon, I feel the county names in the "Origin" column shoudl be de-wikilinked. Also, where are the multiple countys in a cell, then I suggest something like "Wayne, Richland, Huron and Lorain counties". Tompw (talk) (review) 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can delink the counties if necessary. I was a bit iffy about doing the counties in that format though just because it might mess up the table on some computers. If that's not really an issue though then I'll take care of that. Wizardman 14:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Wizardman 15:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Dates need to be linked. Rmhermen 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Rmhermen 02:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Done T Rex | talk 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to this site (not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source or not), Wayne County was created in 1796, disorganized, and later recreated from part of Columbiana County. Therefore, it's correct but rather confusing and needing of explanation. Nyttend 16:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still doesn't say that Wayne was created from part of Columbiana County. It said Wayne was created from nc(non-county) area.--Crzycheetah 17:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I edited Wood and Wayne counties to reflect that they were taken from non-county affiliated territories. s that what you were looking for? Wizardman 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's better. Now, you need to add a ref saying that. I still suggest you to use this source, it states that Paulding, Van Wert and Williams counties were formed from Indian territories, too.--Crzycheetah 18:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: I'll take a look at everything and do all that I can this weekend. I didn't forget about the list, just got burned out from it (if you look at my log I've never done this many edits on one thing before) Wizardman 02:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment further to my comment above , it would be nice to see a bit more info in the lead. In particular, it states that counties only have the powers specifcally allocated by the Ohio General Assembly, but what are these powers? Also, an explantion of the phrase "Refactored from non-county territory" and Wayne County's tortured history would be benefical. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll expand the lead a bit and explain some of the more confusing sections. I'm trying to find some more information on what the heck is Wayne County's hstory, but I'm finding nothing. I still have to find out if Wayne County existed upon statehood yet. Wizardman 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. Not enough supports along with 2 oppositions. Fail. Crzycheetah 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. This is a list of seasons completed by University of Minnesota Golden Gophers men's hockey team. It includes a detailed history of the team's national tournament play. --Gopherbone 04:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The seasons have to be linked. They have to exist in order to compile a list of them.--Crzycheetah 23:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Crzycheetah; if you see all other season FLs, they link together a series of articles on both the team's season and (I believe) the league's season. You would have to at least create articles for each Golden Gopher season, if not each individual NCAA hockey season for whatever conference/division the team was in. They don't all have to be great articles, but they can't be redlinks either. Anthony Hit me up... 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Complete, well referenced, well layed out. Personally, I disagree with the opinion that this article is not FL worthy because other articles do not exist. An article for each NCAA season, and for each Minnesota season, would be nice, however I do not believe the lack of such articles does not detract from the quality of this article. Resolute 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The list is well layed out and referenced.. Season do not have to be linked if you read the criteria; -"contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". --Krm500 10:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the members of this set are sufficiently notable to have individual articles.--Crzycheetah 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? We're talking about junior hockey here, not professional hockey. --Krm500 10:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are about four links in the lead, why can't others along with these four be linked in the table?--Crzycheetah 17:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did not notice that, of course the existing articles should be linked. --Krm500 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Withdrawn by nominator. Circeus 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating article, based on its comprehensiveness in covering its topic. Drewcifer3000 08:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose
  • Improper focus: It's not a "discography", it's a "list of works who X contributed to"
  • Formatting is thoroughly improper, and doesn't even remotely attempts to followother discographies.
  • Lead is far too short.  Done (Drewcifer3000 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Overinclusiveness makes the table of content useless.
• Circeus 17:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Circeus. Hopefully I can address your concerns.

• I agree somewhat. Although the majority of the entires are musical releases, there are indeed a number of them that aren't. There are a total of 57 musical entries, and 10 non-musical entries (video, zines, writings, etc). Perhaps a move to List of works by Ian Svenonius might be in order, but I'm not sure if a 10/57 ratio really warrants that.
• Is there a MoS for discographies? Or a general consensus on formatting? If there is I'd be happy to follow it. I actually based the formatting of the article on Butthole Surfers discography, so it's not something I made up out of the blue. And the formatting of many discographies, namely the ones already featured, emphasize sales and chart positions, which is irrelevant to this article.
• Agreed. I'll work on expanding it.
• I'd be happy to remove the ToC if that's a problem, but the article's inclusiveness almost requires it, I think.Drewcifer3000 17:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm not sure if a 10/57 ratio really warrants that." No, the problem is all those band sections should be there to begin with. Wikipedia sorts discographies by group and people separately, for reasons this list demonstrate very well: they get humongous very quickly. See Gwen Stephani discography. It explicitly doesn't include stuff from No Doubt discography.
  • Well, you might want to look at dozens of discographies, or just the various ones we have featured (Goldfrapp, Gwen Stefani, Hilary Duff, No Doubt, Sophie Ellis-Bextor and Wilco)
  • The problem with the TOC is caused by the fact the list is far too inclusive, removing the TOC is never a solution to anything.
  • Circeus 18:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can definitely see your point. Thanks for the review. I guess I'll split the article up into numerous smaller discographies, and hopefully nominate those soon too. In the mean time I'll delist this article. Thanks again. Drewcifer3000 19:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 1 support, 0 oppose. I know that there is no longer any opposition to the page, but there is also no support after 17 days. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extensive list of every draft pick made by the National Hockey League's Buffalo Sabres since the team's inception in 1970, including selections in supplemental drafts. Statistics are included for every player who achieved NHL status.Skudrafan1 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Did no one from the 2005 or 2006 drafts play in the 06-07 season? --Golbez 08:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one the Sabres chose in those drafts has made the NHL yet. Hockey players often do not ascend to NHL level for several years after being drafted. In fact, the six players from the 2004 draft who have made the NHL all debuted in the 2006-07 season. Skudrafan1 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. Thanks. You should mention that, since if it confused me it will definitely confuse others. --Golbez 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentCould you find any free images of the players? Also, there are too many sections. I'd suggest to rename them to 1970s, 1980s...that way there would be four sections instead.--Crzycheetah 08:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can certainly look for free images. As for the sections issue, I'll work on it. Skudrafan1 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a half-dozen photos to the list. Skudrafan1 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been thinking about the "too many sections" issue. I think it is important to have each draft in its own section, so that one can easily see who was the first pick in each draft, what late-round selections panned out particularly well, etc. If they were bunched by decade, seeing the results of each draft (the main point of having the article in the first place) would be difficult. Skudrafan1 16:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if he meant combine the tables, just combine the sections. --Golbez 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to discussions held at WikiProject Ice Hockey, I note a couple things about the article:
  • First off, it should be called Buffalo Sabres draft history, to match both other sports, as well as Calgary Flames draft history, which is the template we are using.
  • No discussions were held regarding the Supplemental Draft, though I see no problem with including them.
  • The major point, however, is that to avoid incredible lengths in some articles, especially for the older, more established clubs (Montreal, et al), the page would only include players who actually made it to the NHL. See the Calgary page for how to accomplish this: the draft history page includes only NHL players, while the link to the individual season article has every player drafted that year, whether they played in the NHL or not. This way, the draft history page isn't cluttered with 7th-rounders who never played after college and don't have articles. Also take a look at my sandbox page for a similar page with the Devils currently under construction (we still have to create several season articles before transferring the draft history over, hence its non-completion).
  • I'm not taking anything away from the list; it's a fantastic list and you did a great job with it. It's just that there's a template for how these pages are to be done, and hopefully we can get all 30 NHL teams to get their draft histories to this level. So here's what I'll do: conditional support for now, and then we'll work on creating the season pages and shifting the draftees over so that it looks more like the other draft histories. This way it's still a featured list (because again, you did a great job), and then we can tweak it. Sound like a plan? Anthony Hit me up... 11:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the great comments. The reason I included all the draft picks is because, well, the page is titled Buffalo Sabres draft picks, not Buffalo Sabres draft picks who played in the NHL. It doesn't make sense to me not to include everyone. If the page did not include players who didn't make the NHL, it would not show (among other things) first-round busts (Jiri Dudacek, Artem Kryukov) or invalid claims (Taro Tsujimoto). Those are interesting parts of the Sabres' draft history. Skudrafan1 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive12#Draft picks format for the discussion on the draft history pages; that should explain how the pages should be formatted and the reasoning behind it. Anthony Hit me up... 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the link to the discussion, Anthony. I missed it when it originally occurred, and I do not agree with its conclusion about not including non-NHLers. As I mentioned above, it takes away from some of the rich history of Sabres draft choices. In my list of non-NHL-player history above, I neglected to mention that, in 1985, the Sabres drafted Wayne Gretzky's brother, Keith. However, since Keith never played in the NHL, he should not (per the discussion) be included in the "draft history". Anyway, it pained me to do so, but I have removed non-NHL players from the list. Skudrafan1 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand your point, but for the sake of article length that was the compromise that was reached. When individual articles are created on each Sabres season, you can include all draft picks, whether they played in the NHL or not (see 1988-89 Calgary Flames season for a guide). Also, as a suggestion, bold the names of players who are currently on the Sabres; this helps readers identify who's still on the team, and who they let get away. Finally, like I said above, I think it should be moved to Buffalo Sabres draft history. Just fix those two minor issues and I'll give a full support. Anthony Hit me up... 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The page has been moved and the appropriate players bolded. Skudrafan1 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Object Neutral Taro Tsujimoto should be included in the list in some form.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess I would like to see a notable non-NHL player section for this list. Any player who has a wikipedia entry could possibly be included. I am not sure what other objective measure to use for inclusion. Maybe having spent the last week in Buffalo beefing up The French Connection (hockey) for WP:GA status and doing the best I can with Gilbert Perreault (a current WP:GAC) and Taro Tsujimoto, make me a little bit partial for Taro. I feel remiss that he is not included in the article. Is there a way that non-NHLers could reasonably be included that would set a good precedent for the league draft lists and possibly for other major sports.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my discussion above, Tony. Several players with Wikipedia articles had to be removed, because the consensus said that only NHL players were to be included on such lists. Perhaps other notable picks could be included in prose form somewhere? Skudrafan1 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • O.K. Is there a way to add prose of notable non-NHL draft pics that is no WP:OR? I kind of think Gretzky and Tsujimoto should be in the article some how.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Similar to Skudrafan1 and TonyTheTiger, I'd like to see a blurb under the year or a footnote somewhere noting these exceptions like Gretzky and Tsujimoto. --maclean 04:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think they should all be in one table rarther than sepperated by year. #1 overall picks and hall of famers should be highlighted. Lead is too shot and shouldn't really have anything about the list itself. Notes should be in the form of footnotes. Browns first-round picks should help give you an idea. Also should this list be called "List of Buffalo Sabres draft picks". Buc 08:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be expanded, I agree. I will work on that when I get the chance. The page is titled as it is per a consensus reached at WP:HOCKEY. And I vehemently disagree with placing all draftees in a single table; it eliminates the entire purpose of the list, which is a year-by-year listing of draftees. Bunching everyone together would make it confusing. Skudrafan1 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you add the draft year into the table it wouldn't be confusing. Buc 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support but echoing the above about Taso Tsujimoto - 'he' needs to be included in some fashion. --Golbez 22:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree Tsujimoto (and, possibly even more importantly, Keith Gretzky and Jiri Dudacek) should be included, even if only in prose form. Skudrafan1 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Quickly looking at the NFL draft WP:FLCs at Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Sport_and_games the lists are generally comprehensive. I don't believe they exclude players who never played in the pros. Why don't we keep that strategy here and include all draftees. Thus, all wikipedia bio subjects will be included regardless of professional success and original research regarding who is notable would not be necessary. Some sort of legend feature could quickly demonstrate those who played at the pro level.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (addendum) A comprehensive listing would eliminate the need to monitor minor league progress of players to see who has gotten called up to the NHL.
  • You know I agree with you on this, Tony. I just need the approval of others before I can re-add them. Skudrafan1 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to Tony, the only featured lists that are draft related are three pages devoted to NFL first-round picks. For starters, a first-round pick is almost virtually guaranteed a spot on an NFL team's roster, because there is no minor league/farm system. Therefore, they're all notable. Secondly, limiting those lists to first-rounders only prevents incredibly long lists filled with no-name 8th rounders. The same principle applies here. Furthermore, the Sabres franchise has only been around since the 1970s. Imagine if we were to create a full and complete draft history for each Original Six team. The pages would be over 200-300 kb apiece. The Wikiproject Ice Hockey group came to a consensus on these pages because we deal with them first & foremost, and it was our opinion that for the sake of length, we would keep the pages ONLY focused on those players that actually made it to the NHL. If you will look at my sandbox page above (which I admittedly haven't worked on in a while), you will see that each draft table links to the article on the draft year, plus that team's season article. Each team's season article, in turn, lists the FULL draft results. This way, it keeps the draft history page uncluttered. In addition, limiting the draft history page to actual NHLers gives an interesting view into a team's ability to draft well. If a draft year contains no players who made it to the bigs, then we know the management did a poor job of selecting viable talent for the long-term success of the team. In short, that's why NHL players and NHL players ONLY should be on the draft page. If you want to include Taro in the prose lead, feel free. But not even as a footnote does he belong in the table, nor Gretzky or Dudacek. Anthony Hit me up... 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing to neutral not because I dislike the list, but to echo that it shouldn't be promoted until the list can be made comprehensive. Personally, I completely missed that it was only for players who actually played; I figure draft lists should include everyone who was officially drafted, whether or not they actually played... --Golbez 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 0 support, 0 oppose. It's been more than 10 days and there is no support for the article, so for the time being, it's a Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of official releases by American grunge band Nirvana. I've been working on it for a while now and believe that it meets all of the criteria required to be a featured list. --Brandt Luke Zorn 10:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might want to note the differences between the two "In Bloom" videos: one being an unreleased (at least from what I understand) Sub Pop promo and the other being the video for the song when it was released as the fourth single off of Nevermind. WesleyDodds 10:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added "(Sub Pop version)" to the name of the first "In Bloom" video - if you think more needs to be done, let me know. --Brandt Luke Zorn 10:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should prove useful for citing certifications, so you don't have to keep directing people to the RIAA's searchable database link for some albums. WesleyDodds 11:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, used the link. --Brandt Luke Zorn 11:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tiny details are largely settled. Include inline cites for the sales and chart positions such as the other featured discographies do and I'll feel comfortable supporting the article. WesleyDodds 10:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the sales references to inline citations, but I'm not really sure about moving the chart positions references because doing so would hugely widen some of the chart position columns - 8 citations would have to fit. Alternatively, I could put one reference in each row, or leave it as it is. --Brandt Luke Zorn 11:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-comparing to Wilco discography- Is it all that necessary to list the album producers? That might save some space. WesleyDodds 11:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I moved the references to inline citations for all albums and singles. --Brandt Luke Zorn 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from some redundant cites (why are there so many citations for the Australian album charts when only one chart placing is listed?) I feel confident voting support as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music and as someone critically familiar with Nirvana's discography. WesleyDodds 08:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, contains information available only via color. Circeus 16:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed shaded table sections. --Brandt Luke Zorn 19:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • random digging brought a few issues. Molly's Lips was re-released as a Promo single in Brazil, for example, which sounds to me as if it should be listed somewhere. Also, there is no apparent reason the split singles can't have chart listings.Circeus 20:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, athough "Oh, the Guilt" was the only one that actually charted (it was a rather big hit in the UK). WesleyDodds 21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these have been done. Anything else? --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is significantly more complex than the other discographies I have checked, and I would not feel secure in supporting it, since I easily found oversights, but do not believe I can really afford to go through all the articles to double-check it. Circeus 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to note that "Silver" was originally released as a single on Sub Pop, but it charted in 1993 due to the release of Incesticide. For example, in the B-sides section, you might want to note which songs were the B-sides to the later Geffen release of the single (although I'm not entirely sure if there were B-sides to a Geffen single, since I recall that Come As You Are said Geffen was going to release "Sliver" as a single to promote Incesticide, but decided against it. Nevertheless it charted in 1993, so we should clear that up.) WesleyDodds 00:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that Geffen ever released "Sliver" as a single, but I did note that the single charted upon the release of Incesticide. As far as I can tell, the two extra live b-sides were put on a CD single, which was already noted. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Looks good, but I'd feel more secure if more people familiar with the topic could review. Circeus 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, is it possible to put the refs for the chart positions next to the number they're for? It stretches the page in a bad way if they're all placed next to "AUS" or "SUI". Axem Titanium 00:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 0 support, 5 oppose. There was no attempt to improve the list. Fail. Crzycheetah 20:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine images and almost all articles it links to have thier own articles.Bewareofdog 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Very poorly laid out with inconsistent width boxes, image sizes, even ambiguous names (Does the shield go with the name above or below the image?) Rmhermen 20:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Lead is too short. There's no verification that this list is complete. All sections need descriptions. On a side note, why some of the images contain the name of the area?--Crzycheetah 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I love the list, but the lead is far too short, and there are no references. Geraldk 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Links in headers, and the cities are entirely cherry-picked. "fr:Comté de Guînes" is not even a city! There are several, more technical issues with it, too. Circeus 00:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; I suggest this be retasked from a mere image gallery (which really has no place on wikipedia) to more of a list of coats of arms, with annotations and information about each. --Golbez 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 19 days, 2 support, 0 oppose. Not enough supports. Fail. Crzycheetah 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back again with another discography. This one contains the official releases of British singer KT Tunstall. -- Underneath-it-All 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe this is very short and can be merged into the artist's page.--Crzycheetah 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, this is way too short for an FL. It offers little added value beyond what can be accomplished in her main article. IMO. --Golbez 05:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I second Crzycheetah's comment. Cliff smith 16:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. If List of counties in Rhode Island, which is nearly three times smaller than this, and that I nearly opposed on that ground, is not so short as to be a FL, pray tell me how this is? It is also certainly long enough in term of page space to warrant a separate listing. Circeus 14:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support: Flesh out a bit the "Ashes" Promotional single listing. Circeus 14:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on it or to confirm that it was even released. I have removed it until more info can be found. -- Underneath-it-All 02:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree with Circeus - there's more than enough information here to make it worthwhile asd a list independent from the artist's article. Plus, a discography is a recognized list format that has current featured lists, and is a complete set of works, making it justifiably useful to have it as a separate list. Geraldk 12:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 0 support, 1 oppose. After ten days there are still too many red links remaining. Fail. Crzycheetah 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful list spun-off from the recently-featured cardinal-nephew article, which I believe meets the featured list criteria. One potential issue may be the red-links. This issue is not addressed (as far as I can tell) in the featured list criteria, but I will create redirects/stubs for these if someone objects to them and can demonstrate policy/precedent against redlinks in featured lists. Wikipedia has been exponential growth in the area of articles about historical cardinals, and I believe that many (if not all) of these articles are likely to be created, eventually. Perhaps featuring this list will provide additional impetus for their creation. Savidan 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The criterion (1.a.1) requests the list "brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria". With the word "existing" implying blue links rather than red. There is no exact threshold, but generally the red links should be a small minority. Removing the link is acceptable only if you think the entry could not be notable enough to deserve an article. I appreciate your comments about featuring providing "additional impetus for their creation" but featured material has to be useful to readers, not editors. A list of redlinks isn't that useful to our readers. If you don't feel you can create all the stubs in time, there's no shame in re-listing at a later date. Hopefully, you'll get some useful comments during this nomination. I'll have another more detailed look later on. BTW: what do you mean by "create redirects"? Why would you do this rather than stubs? Colin°^Talk 10:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that both redirects and stubs would be a disservice to the project, in the same way that blank pages are harmful. They dissappoint readers looking for the article, and they demotivate editors from creating the article. I would in all likelihood redirect the nephew to the pope who was their relative, then at least the {R with possibilities} template could be employed. Is there a more specific criteria related to redlinks, though? The article does bring together a group of about 50 existing articles. Savidan 11:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The criteria used to say explicitly "A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)." This was changed on the 1st Feb 2007 after talk page discussions. We split 1a into three examples. The latter two remove the requirement for a majority of blue links, but only for specific cases (a timeline of events; and a finite, complete set on a notable topic iff entries weren't notable enough for articles). The first example was reworded but not in a way designed to change its meaning.
• As discussed on the criteria talk-page archive, stubs can be useful. Readers might get to them via a WP search, Google, or an blue-link elsewhere than just this list. So even the most basic stub bio info can be useful. I strongly discourage redirecting to someone else other than the person. If you use an appropriate stub category/template, a wikiproject could tackle these stubs. Colin°^Talk 13:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alrighty then. I'll get started on creating these stubs. Savidan 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 1 support, 4 oppose. Fail. Geraldk 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never nominated to WP:FL before, but I believe this satisfies WP:WIAFL. This list combined three previous lists into a more efficient and detailed list using a sortable table. This can be sorted to search presidents by date of birth, date of death, age at ascension, length of retirement and longevity/age at death. For the living presidents, the table uses formulas to automatically update ages to the day. Please suggest improvements before a support or oppose: since information about US presidents is so readily at our fingertips, it should be easy to quickly make any requested changes or adjustments. Thanks for your consideration! --JayHenry 04:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. There is no units on the numbers in the Length of Retirement column. Rmhermen 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Good catch. Any other suggestions? --JayHenry 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the use of the hidden div to allow last-name sorting, but the [br]s in the names is really distracting, and seems to only serve to narrow an already not-very-wide table. --Golbez 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... we used the break because the table barely fit on smaller resolution monitors. Are you saying that the table could stand to be much wider on your monitor? Would it work better if the names were centered? --JayHenry 05:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be much wider on my monitor, and unless you use non-breaking spaces, narrower monitors will render it thinner anyway, so this is a non-issue. I don't want the names centered. --Golbez 18:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is not a "List of United States Presidents by age". It is a list of presidents in which age is one of several factors by which the list can be sorted (it's not even the default sort order). The list is also completely unreferenced. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears completely referenced to me. See "Sources". Rmhermen 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources were added an hour and a half before OpenToppedBus made his comment. Rmhermen 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the name is OK. All, or almost all, the material is related directly to their age at death or ascension. I definitely agree that the basic sort order should be related to their age, though. Circeus 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. IMHO if it's called "by age", it should be sorted by age. Otherwise, it would be a list of ages of US presidents. -- User:Docu

It's easy enough to make any specific category the default. But please let me explain my thinking here: "by age" or "oldest" could be almost any of the categories. Age at ascension, age at death, order of birth, order of death, or order of office. In fact, people might refer to any of those things as the "age of a president." Some would say that "George Washington is the oldest president, because he was the first president." And of course, in that sense, his presidency is the oldest. I simply used order of office as the default because 1) it is the most familiar way to see a list of presidents, 2) it is the most logical field for the left column, 3) people aren't stupid, they can figure out how to sort the list to get the information they want. I could easily change it to any other default, but please consider that if somebody is trying to find the "oldest president" or "oldest presidency" that means completely different things in different contexts, and any other default sort is going to be more confusing than this one. --JayHenry 15:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose nowithsatnding the article name, I feel the lead is too short. Some general comments about what is typical/exceptional with regard to the information in the table would be beneficial. Plus, living presidents shoudl have a note to that effect (in the death date column perhaps?) The table formatting wasn't great, but I fixed that myself. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - not encyclopedic. Marcus Cyron 15:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:FIVE, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." This sort of information is included in every almanac I've ever seen. --JayHenry 21:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 20 days, 4 support, 2 oppose. Many unanswered concerns are left. Fail. Crzycheetah 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial self-nom, though most of the grunt work was done by previous editors. A couple questions for reviewers to answer:

• is the lead long enough?
• is it OK to have countries overlinked when using the county/flag template rather than just the flagicon template?

Geraldk 23:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't mind the countries being overlinked as long as the runners aren't underlinked. IMO I shouldn't have to hunt for a link to click, especially lower in the list. --Golbez 13:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Re-linked the runners. What about the states?
      • To further justify my remarks - in a list where a large number of people aren't linked, having someone blacklinked because they're already listed earlier makes no sense; I might have no clue they're linked earlier if they're surrounded by people who don't have articles. I don't mind delinking the repeated states. --Golbez 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Gareau.jpg, Image:Boston1979.jpg, and Image:Ronald J. MacDonald.jpg are fair use images but do not have fair use rationale to be used in this article. If you feel they are necessary images for the article, add fair use rationale for this article on their image pages. Without this, I cannot support promoting this list. --WillMak050389 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Dropped the problematic images, added one good one from Commons. Geraldk 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral
  • Drop the links from the "year" columns. (unless you can link to an article about that year's marathon)
  • The lead could certainly be made more useful: Who won the most times? Set the most records? Who were the first winners outside North America? What are the by-country statistics? etc. (although that could be made into a separate section before the listings.)
  • Maybe add a "synopsis" table combining all four categories with only the winner and time?
  • There's an extraneous parenthesis in the 1981 men's wheelchair entry.
• Circeus 17:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the last one. --Golbez 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded lead. Let me know if it works. Added table showing number of victories by nationality. I'm not sure I like the idea of a synopsis table, both because it would be very repetitive (adding a lot of length for only a little extra reader convenience) and because such a table would have 70-some years with just a men's winner and blank cells for the other three divisions. But if there's consensus on that, I'll add it. Geraldk 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Support. Really like the nationalities table. New lead is fine for me. Circeus 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: There is something odd about the "course record" notations. If the course wasn't standardized before 1924 (as lead text claims), why are some times indicated as course records? Why after 1924 does Clarence DeMar set course records that are slower than his previous times? Rmhermen 02:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. I think the lead makes clear that the BAA recognizes course records for alternate lengths of the race, but I added another sentence to the lead to clarify some of these variances - esp. why DeMar is listed with a 1927 course record that's 15 minutes slower than Johnny Miles' 1926 course record. Geraldk 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is an important and well done list. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All faults I have seen are now fixed. Featured material for me. --WillMak050389 04:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Weak Oppose. I find that putting the state name next to the american flag, while all other countries have their names displayed next to their flags, too US-centric (even if it's a Boston event). It would be better if the "United States" is displayed next to the flag and the state in abbreviation format (eg: United States (MA) or United States,MA). And one more thing. I find it odd that this list is displayed in reverse chronological order. Isn't it common practice to make it the other way round? Anyway great list. CG 19:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - However, I would like to comment that I don't agree with the underlinking of states if everything else is going to be consistently linked. I think it would look better to just have it all consistently linked. Otherwise, very good work. Lara♥Love 15:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please add a note in the intro or something to explain what the Military Relay marathon was in 1918. --Golbez 06:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 0 support, 6 oppose. Fail. Crzycheetah 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by Addit on 06:24, July 21, 2007 (UTC).--十八 06:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Opppose: The images don't comply with WP:FURG, the lead is much too small, and it needs more references.--十八 06:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Opppose Stub lead, One Ref not set out correctly, More info about films needed, I could go on but what's the point. Buc 07:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per Buc.--Crzycheetah 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose, the intro is far too small, and as it is the list has little added value beyond a set of categories. --Golbez 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The lead is too short, the formatting is poor and it lacks references. -- Underneath-it-All 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - Insufficient lead, copyrighted images lack fair use rationales, unreferenced, not broad. Lara♥Love 16:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]