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 The Rambling Man 18:27, 26 December 2009 [1].

Harry Potter influences and analogues[edit]

Nominator(s): Serendi^podous 23:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it was initially a good article, but got delisted on the grounds that it was, well, a list. Serendi^podous 23:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure whether this is an article or a list, and have posted at WT:GAN in the hopes of getting more opinions. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In any case, there are two dead links (check the toolbox). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links subbed. Really annoying because I only went through this a month ago and they were already dead again. Serendi^podous 21:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure this constitutes a list either. It's certainly unlike most other lists we see around here with far, far more prose and much less list-ness (e.g. sortability, linking to a collection of similar articles etc). On a different but similar note, presumably this article could not claim to be complete either, as HP must have had many, many influences, not least Rowling's life... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Personally I think the GA closer was wrong to demote on the basis that this isn't a list, but I'll give some brief feedback anyway. Although the overall prose quality is excellent, per criterion 2 the lead does not introduce the subject in an engaging way. Also I have generally understood that an FL lead shouldn't reference the list's structure. Criteria 3a; the scope for inclusion isn't clear. Influences directly referred to as such by Rowling are fair enough, but the anologues section could in theory go on indefinitely, and while it is a good read I don't understand how the other favourites section is relevant. Finally, while the images in the article/list are good, ideally there should be one that is in some way related to Harry Potter, or if that's difficult for copyright reasons, perhaps one of Rowling/Radcliffe? WFCforLife (talk) 03:57, 17 December 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 The Rambling Man 18:27, 26 December 2009 [2].

List of songs in The Beatles: Rock Band[edit]

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 06:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this list, now that the main game article has reached Featured status, this list can also easily meet this. There is some possibility of more DLC, but the format used in that table given is likely not going to change should that happen: the only change may be if there is a lot of non-album, single content, in which case it makes sense to add the album column as the first table. Note that this follows similar formatting and content approach (outside tables) as the various Guitar Hero song lists that are featured. MASEM (t) 06:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The gameplay mechanics of The Beatles: Rock Band are similar to those found in other Rock Band games." Could you perhaps elaborate on this a little, so the reader doesn't have to navigate away from the page?
• "However, compared to other music video games..." However should follow a semi colon, that than starting a new sentence. If you can WP:AVOID using it altogether, though, that would be better
• "number of tracks was considered small [4][5]," refs are misplaced
• "the inclusion of certain songs over the exclusion of others was considered confusing." by whom? And are there any reasons why?
• "The game disc features 45 songs chosen from twelve" comparable quantities should be in the same format (ie all numerals or all words)
• "I Am The Walrus" see WP:NCM for correct letter case in song titles
• "Abbey Road Studios '67-68" follow MOS:DATE and use "1967-68"
• "Oct. 20, 2009" MOS:DATE again says only to abbreviate months when space is limited, but that's not the case here

That's all for now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted all the above, except the "'67-68" bit, as in the game, these venues are labeled exactly like that. It's not that these can be changed, but it is staying accurate to how the game presents the information. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

Just two quick comments:

• Date ranges need to use en-dashes, not hyphens, regardless of the punctuation used in-game.
• An image of the Beatles in the lead would be great, since the game doesn't have anything free use and no fair-use rationale could likely be provided. This file from the lead of the Beatles article would be ideal.

Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 04:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the ndashs. As for the picture, there is also File:RockBandBeatlesPAX.jpg this free image of people actually playing the game. Either could work here. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed (link had moved elsewhere on the site) --MASEM (t) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• In the first table, the Venue column is sorting incorrectly, at least if alpabetical sorting is the goal (varies depending on the situation).
• In the lead-in to the second table, DLC is given as an initial without being defined anywhere. The initials in parentheses should be added after its first use in the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The venues are sorted by their in-game order (which is roughly historical). I've noted this in the prose. DLC spelled out. --MASEM (t) 04:47, 12 December 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 The Rambling Man 18:27, 26 December 2009 [3].

List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)[edit]

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies all criteria of a featured list and presents a valuable contribution to wikipedia. The list is modeled after the featured List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures). bamse (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the list is of high quality and shows great effort.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Info: I added "Snowclad houses in the night" which was designated very recently to the list. The list is now complete again. bamse (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• "the paintings of the Momoyama period was characterised" should be "were characterised" for proper grammar.

• Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, the maps to the right of the Statistics table are cutting off the list on the right (I'm on Internet Explorer, in case that helps diagnose the problem).

  Fixed. At least on my Internet Explorer it does not cover the maps anymore. Please let me know if you still experience the problem and if yes, which of the tables is interfering with the map and on what resolution you are.

• Change header in Usage table from Present Location to Present location, because the second word is not a proper noun.

  Done.bamse (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually, bibliographies are in alphabetical order. What system are you using here? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I used random order :-). Fixed now. bamse (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I think I addressed all of them.bamse (talk) 17:36, 11 December 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 The Rambling Man 18:27, 26 December 2009 [4].

Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics[edit]

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the first in what will hopefully be a number of nominations related to the 2010 Olympic Games. Thanks in advance for reviews, comments, and constructive criticism. Geraldk (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mm40 (talk) Mm40 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT Text, dabs, and external links check out fine. Mm40 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also look forward to all that exciting new Olympic content we'll get to work on next year, like Canada's eighth Olympic men's ice hockey medal (but I don't look forward to the Russia/Soviet nationalist debate that will inevitably pop up). Anyway, I realize the actual list won't change much (other than from future tense to past tense), but shouldn't we wait until after the Games pass? The costs and other such figures could potentially in the next 90 days. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought hard about nominating it for just that reason. But according to VANOC, all venues are now complete, so the costs should not change, and the venues have been set for a while. The only thing I think is likely to change is that the article's phrasing will switch to past tense. Geraldk (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, see proposed move at Talk:List of 2010 Winter Olympics venues#Name change needed based on the interpretation that, due to the large amount of non-list content, the article isn't really a list at all. -M.Nelson (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the status on the proposed move? Gerald, are you watching? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Whatever the name winds up being, the page is clearly meant as a list and should be eligible for FL status. That said, the cite tag in the lead needs to be addressed promptly. Will take a closer look after this is done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks great except for the one citation needed tag. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks good. Felipe Menegaz 15:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will abstain until the problem below is resolved. Felipe Menegaz 14:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – The cite tag is an automatic disqualifier for me. Until that's gone, and the sentence is either cited or removed, I'll be forced to oppose since I don't want to see this promoted with a tag. Honestly, I'm surprised that three reviewers have already supported despite it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as an outside view, that entire paragraph isn't strictly relevant to this list at all. It's nice to have a bunch of background information and all that, to get a more rounded picture than just a plain list, but this may kill two birds with one stone (particularly as Geraldk has not been seen for two weeks) – why don't we remove that sentence (at least) or the paragraph (at most)? Thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TRM. The paragraph does not have any connection to 2010 Olympics venues and should be removed. This info should be moved to 2010 Winter Olympics.—Chris!_c/t 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a closer look, I agree that most of that paragraph is not overly important for this topic and would have no problem with removing it. At this point, I'm more concerned that the nominator has been inactive for so long when there is a page move proposal and an active oppose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph moved to 2010 Winter Olympics#Venues. Felipe Menegaz 14:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the cite tag is gone, here is the review I've been meaning to do for a while. Found only a couple of things in what looks like a solid list:

• The first paragraph consists of just one sentence, and is rather slim. Is it possible to move some of the content from the second paragraph there for better overall balance?
• "with the remainder already existing in Vancouver and Whistler." This is what is know as a noun-plus-ing structure, not the best possible. Take a look at the provided link for ideas on how to fix this, and avoid similar issues in the future. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Felipe Menegaz

• I would like to see a map with the location of the venues on the list. It is very useful and I have not seen in other similar lists. If provided, it should be placed on top of the page, next to the lead, replacing the sidebar and the BC Place picture.
• I think that this picture is much better than the no-snow ski jump. The Richmond Olympic Oval is one of the symbols of these Games.
• The BC Place picture should replace the Olympic Village under construction.
• The External links should be improved since there is only one link (to Commons).
• I will open a section on WP:OLYMPICS to discuss the removal of these sidebars from Olympic-related articles. They are not very functional, occupying important spaces within the articles. They will be much better in the form of a navbox.

Only feedback over details. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe, would you be willing to implement these changes? It appears that our nominator hasn't been sighted on Wikipedia for a month, and since we're close, it'd be a shame to lose out now... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 17 December 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 Giants2008 17:17, 22 December 2009 [5].

List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends[edit]

Nominator(s): The Flash ^{talk} 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. All sources are reliable, every award is referenced, it doesn't come off as a skittlepedia, the prose is sufficient, and it covers all aspects of the topic in a neutral and clear manner. Any concerns will be taken care of as swiftly as I can. Thanks, The Flash ^{talk} 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Support Seems good to me, no dealbreakers I can see. treelo _radda 09:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I am still a bit concerned about the red links (delinking them would have no effect on this concern). This article is listing awards and nominations (nominees) that this show and various cast and crew have received so those awards and nominees should have minimal red links. However, this is not a big enough concern for me not to support this list for FL. Ideally, in the near future, some additional articles/stubs can be created for these red links.—NMajdan•talk 16:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• "it was nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and has won 16 of them" - verbs don't agree. Either it was nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and won 16 of them or it has been nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and has won 16 of them. The former would be best because it agrees with the rest of the paragraph.

• done The Flash ^{talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "It received 20 Annie Award nominations, including Best Animated Television Production in 2006, of which it won five" - 20 and five are comparable quantities, so twenty... five or 20... 5.

• done The Flash ^{talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "one of the imaginary friend main characters from the series" - this wording seems confusing to me.

• done The Flash ^{talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sortability would benefit this list per criterion 4. Once you add sortability, note that all occurrences of a term or name should be linked, because table rows need to be able to stand independently per WP:LINK.
  • What? The Flash ^{talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somebody put in sortability, but the "nominee" column doesn't sort correctly. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can I fix it? The Flash ^{talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The nominee columns are not worth sorting since there are cells with multiple animators, so I just made them unsortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a kludge until I figured how to prevent the name column being sortable, nice of you to fix it. treelo _radda 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The table uses colors without accompanying symbols. This needs to be changed per WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS.
  • No clue what you're talking about. Nor do I see the need to add unneeded symbols/legends to a simple table because it has colors. The Flash ^{talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • KV5, the color is accompanied by words ("won" and "nominated"), so blind readers are not missing anything here, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Ah, so that is what KV5 was referring to. The Flash ^{talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is indeed what I was referring to, but the text itself was never enough on any prior list I nominated, Dabomb. Has something changed? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can't see how the text isn't enough. treelo _radda 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • (edit conflict) (to KV5) Not quite. The circumstances under which color is used are different from other lists. For example, 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings needs symbols because blind readers cannot determine, say, which teams were selected for BCS National Championship Game (only the blue color indicates that information), whereas the green and red in this list complement existing information; in fact, blind readers are not affected by the presence of the color at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm still put off by the use of red and green. MOS:COLOR says "try to choose colors that are unambiguous (such as maroon and teal) when viewed by a person with red-green color blindness". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That might be a good topic of discussion on WT:FLC, since a whole lot of our Featured lists use those colors. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • True, though I don't think it's nearly as big of an issue when there are symbols. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It's a template, colors can not be changed for them. And, again, "symbols" would be utterly useless and complicated. What more needs to be said then "Nominated" means "Nominated" and "Won" means "Won"? The Flash ^{talk} 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Please do not refer to attempts to help visually impaired readers of Wikipedia as "useless". WP:ACCESS has an important purpose. As for the colors, just because it's a template doesn't mean anything. What that template does can easily be replicated by simply typing "Won" or "Nominated" and changing the background color of the cell. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • It's not the intent which is pointless, it's the rationale for the change itself which is pointless. The cell colours are for making pretty only, even if someone with deuteranopia happens upon it it'll still read "won" and "nominated". I know that if the cell colours are differed slightly so there is a marked difference to colour blind readers it won't improve readability for them anymore than if they were still green and pink. Anyway, the intent is noble, just not required as it doesn't affect meaning directly if the colours can't be interpreted as it's only a visual aid in essence. treelo _radda 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • • KV5, I am not suggesting that something to help visually impaired readers of Wikipedia; I am simply saying that "Won" and "Nominated" are completely sufficient and adding a table to say that "Won" means "Won" is, essentially, useless, and would not help their understanding. The Flash ^{talk} 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I also see where Nmajdan is coming from on the redlinks and would like to see some more of them become blue (even if it's just simple stubs) before I support.

• I do not see the need to do so at all, because there is no information on these people, despite the fact that they were nominated for an award (WP:NOTABLE anybody?) The Flash ^{talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If they aren't notable, then perhaps they shouldn't be linked? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A previous reviewer asked for it, but I still do not see the point in them. Shall I remove them? The Flash ^{talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Would prefer to see nominees who are not notable enough to have an article de-linked. Also, please check to make sure all of your blue links go to the right locations – Mike Moon and Ed Baker link to unrelated articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If they go somewhere else, it's highly probable the persons referred to in the list aren't notable enough for an article which brings us back to the redlink issue some FLC reviewers are really picky about. I'd go without if it helps the article look better. treelo _radda 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think being a nominee (and especially a winner) for a major industry award would make one notable. A lot of the red links share a cell with people who do have articles. So its hard to say that one is notable while the other isn't.—NMajdan•talk 13:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nmajdan, keep in mind that, as I mentioned above, a lot of those blue links are pointing at the wrong people. However, I do agree with you on this, which is why I mentioned it, but in a source search for some cherry-picked names, I didn't find anything. Not to say that nothing is out there, just that I can't find it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delinked false links. Also, I agree that most do not meet notability, which is why I'm smitten on not creating and them and leaning on removing them, if nominators agree. The Flash ^{talk} 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the thing. I do think these individuals are notable. One of the criteria under WP:CREATIVE is "The person's work has won significant critical attention." I believe being nominated for your industry's highest achievement satisfies this criteria.—NMajdan•talk 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kind of what I was hinting at earlier, but didn't know where the guideline was... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try and get to creating a few of them soon, but, seriously, there's nothing known about them besides they won/were nominated for an award. The Flash ^{talk} 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've created Shannon Tindle, will try and create more soon. The Flash ^{talk} 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• An inconsistency in episode titles exists. In the lead, "Good Wilt Hunting" is ended by a question mark, but is not in the tables. Don't know which one is correct, but it should be made consistent one way or the other.

• done. The Flash ^{talk} 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 15 requires an access date. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• done. The Flash ^{talk} 21:12, 10 December 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 The Rambling Man 19:05, 17 December 2009 [6].

Nightwish discography[edit]

Nominator(s): DreamNight (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to be in accordance with the requirements, with references a complet list of albums and demos. DreamNight (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please don't center the tables, since the year column of different tables wouldn't be aligned.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]
• Comments - country codes in the table headers link only to the name of the country, when they should link to the specific chart where an article exists. "EUR" links to "Europa", which is a dab page - what chart is this actually meant to refer to? Given the incorrect linking, it's hard to tell whether the EP listed is meant to have got to number 10 on the UK Singles Chart or UK Albums Chart (it could have been eligible for either depending on the length), but whichever it is, it's definitely wrong - Nightwish's UK chart positions are here and there is no record of it having charted at all in the UK. Here are chart positions specifically for this release, and again no UK..... Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..........and in fact the reference placed against the EPs section doesn't support the claim of a number 10 position in the UK anyway. Where did this information come from? Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Some more comments - music videos section is completely unsourced, as are the demo tapes section, B-sides section and guest appearances section. There's also some style issues, eg names of countries without capital letters, wikilinking of some dates but not others, and the fact that some of the tables are centre-aligned whereas others are not, but the sourcing is definitely the biggest issue....... Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see that http://www.angelfire.com/trek/hmlyrics/nightwish/bsides.htm has been added as a reference to the B-sides section, however it doesn't appear to be reliable source (it just looks like some dude's home-made page) and it also doesn't actually reference anything in the section, e.g. it doesn't support the fact that "Once Upon a Troubador" is a duet, or that "The Wayfarer" was a Japanese edition bonus track. Also, how come the B-sides section doesn't say which singles the songs were the B-sides for, a fairly crucial piece of information, I'd have thought? To be honest, the Manual of Style for discographies advises against including lists of B-sides, so you're probably best just removing that section anyway. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Some more comments - in the soundtracks section, the names of countries should have capital letters, also "Song featured in more two american production" should have an s on "productions" and "Wrote for the film, later released in "Amaranth" single" should be "Written for the film, later released on "Amaranth" single". Some dates are wikilinked whereas others are not (none of them should be). Something has gone wrong with the last column of the "EPs" table. IMDB is not normally considered a reliable source. What makes metalcrypt.com, lordsofmetal.nl and metalfromfinland.com reliable sources? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]

Acording to some primary editors, IMDS really isn't a reliable source, and was erased, but there aren't problems with lordsofmetal.com and metalfromfinland.com, they're websites about music news, like mtv.com and roadrunnerrecords.com, both accepted as sources. DreamNight (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it isn't enough to just say that a site is reliable because it's about music news, you need to be able to prove the reliability of the site per WP:RS. Metalfromfinland.com, for example, just seems to be run by one guy, so WP:SPS would apply. Can it be proved that this guy is an expert in the field? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two dead links; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Overlinked (years, countries, etc), questionable sources per WP:RS, too many country charts per MOS:DISCOG, some odd formatting choices (centered tables, small font, etc), a few unused-columns (certifications in the second table, for instance), missing information (release date for Lokikirja), American-style dates despite it being a Finnish band, some POVish stuff in the lead ("worldwide fame") and in the tables (bolding of the number one spots), and just a general slopiness in style. Unfortunately I have next to no time to follow up on this oppose, so if these concerns are ever addressed, please feel free to ignore my oppose. Drewcifer (talk) 20:25, 13 December 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 The Rambling Man 19:05, 17 December 2009 [7].

List of Nightwish band members[edit]

Nominator(s): DreamNight (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it seems to be in accordance with the requirements, with a short bio of the members (current and former), image for each one, and a complet list with the main guests. DreamNight (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This seems better suited to the featured list process. Steve Smith (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to the featured list candidates. DreamNight (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - with only seven members (guest musicians are by definition not members, so I'd query why they're on here anyway), surely this isn't long enough for a FL.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? Erase the "Guests" section?DreamNight (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Chris is saying is that this is a list of band members and therefore really should contain only seven items, and therefore would not typically be considered long enough for a featured list per WP:WIAFL criterion 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, guest musicians who played on the band's albums aren't members of the band and therefore should not be listed. Existing Featured "band member" lists like List of Megadeth band members don't include them. Unfortunately this will then leave the list at just seven items, almost certainly too short for a FL per WP:WIAFL..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 7 December 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 Giants2008 21:58, 15 December 2009 [8].

List of Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire[edit]

Nominator(s): WFCforLife (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has come quite a long way since I first saw it, and has just undergone a peer review. I think this is a model that all lists of its type should follow, and based on this FLC I intend to create similar lists for all areas in time for the next general election. I believe I've learnt from the mistakes I made in nominating my first Featured List a bit prematurely, and invite your comments. Thank you, WFCforLife (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I recently carried out a peer review, during which the standard of this list passed from goodish to excellent. It is definitely the best constituency list within the project, and could be a template for a series of similar lists that would provide a superb resource for the next and future UK General Elections. Great work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support withheld until the issue below has been settled and the corrections confirmed. The openness is appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been brought to my attention off-wiki that there are multiple issues with the timeline. On the whole this was simply me miscounting the columns, and an incorrect correction. But there seems to be a serious omission concerning Hemel Hempstead. The table cannot be considered reliable until I've had the opportunity to cross-check all of the twentieth century constituencies, and if I have to use the Craig book, this will not happen until Monday. Feel free to review the rest of the list in the meantime, but I thought it was important to be open about this. WFCforLife (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: in the map showing the changes in 2010, would it be possible to shade the areas which are moved to make them stand out more? Polarpanda (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the two biggest changes (between constituencies 3, 6 and 9) are very noticeable. For the smaller ones the geographic area is so small that I'm not sure of the benefit. I'll have a think about it, but I think it would be wrong to do one thing for some changes and another for others. WFCforLife (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Has this article talked itself out of being a list? It no longer seems to conform to any of the formats in WP:SAL - would it be better renamed to Hertfordshire (parliamentary constituencies) or even Hertfordshire (democratic structure) as it also lists all the local democracy wards by locally elected authority as well as by parliamentary constituencies; and it also lists the current elected members, so it's actually four lists in one. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the fact that those names need tweaking, I'm not sure I understand your point.

The local authorities are there partly because they're the simplest way of describing the boundaries and boundary changes, and partly for the benefit of a serious researcher, who could conceivably be interested in the relationship between local and national politics. If you wanted to know about an individual district (or the local politics within it) you would go to the individual district's page. Those admittedly aren't up to scratch yet, but they should go into far more detail than this does.

As for MPs, it strikes me as a somewhat bizarre concept to have a list about the political makeup of a county, and then make no reference to the politics. I then had the choice between listing political party only, or political party and MP, and opted for the latter. Similar to the local authorities, I've covered what I've deemed to be relevant, with more detailed information for each constituency to be found on those pages.

I'm not claiming that my judgement is perfect (or even correct) on these areas, but I don't see how that stops this from being a list. I would have thought the question is whether or not the "list" goes into needless detail. WFCforLife (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the detail is inappropriate or ott - except that I think it might (and I only say 'might' - it's very possible no-one else will agree with me :) have taken it out of the 'List' class. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment I suppose. Ultimately the judgement is for the wider community, but I'd ask whether a similar job on London would be considered a list, and if so, what makes this different? WFCforLife (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you did it for London, the amount of text you would need to explain the changes would be higher, and the big table (local electoral ward by local administrative authority by parliamentary constituency) would be absolutely enormous. Again, it would be a tremendous resource, but it wouldn't be a list. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been back again and looked at everything Wikipedia has to say about lists. In my opinion, this article is definitely not a list article as defined by Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that your argument is consistent. While also accepting that I clearly have a conflict of interest, I still disagree. To respond to it, an individual constituency would be the same size as individual constituencies here. There certainly is precident to include maps in lists, and I believe the text would not be significantly longer, because it would clearly be inappropriate to go into such detail in the prose. With the number of constituencies at one time never exceeding 11, it was appropriate here. WFCforLife (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We really could do with a few more voices on this. Since it's not really a FAC question, I wonder if there's anywhere else we can raise it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If you want more voices on the topic, you can start a thread at WT:FLC. See also related lists at Wikipedia:FL#Politics and government to see how this compares. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WT:FLC would be a good starting point. As I've got a conflict of interest, I'll leave it to Elen to start a thread. If the consensus is that this is an article rather than a list, (or there is significant participation yet no clear consensus) I'll withdraw the nom. WFCforLife (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thread started

I'd like to withdraw the nom. Partly because I'm busier than I'd planned on at the moment, but also because on reflection this process won't be particularly useful until there is clear-ish consensus on whether this is an article or a list. The distinction matters, because it affects the criteria by which this is assessed, a judgement on whether or not it is comprehensive or goes into too much detail, and the potential scope for improvement. I don't actually know the technical steps for withdrawing this, so if anyone does I'm more than happy for you to do so on my behalf. If the outcome of discussion is that this is a list, I would most likely re-nominate in six weeks or so. WFCforLife (talk) 01:44, 14 December 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 23:24, 8 December 2009 [9].

List of Oklahoma Sooners head baseball coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all criteria for FL.—NMajdan•talk 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose has less than 10 items - per 3b because this "can reasonably be included as part of a related article."—Chris!_c/t 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• It does appear that this could very easily be incorporated into the main Sooners articles. It would have no effect on a potential featured topic as far as I can tell if you did merge it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way a section could be included in a featured topic. I would have to bring the whole article up to GA or FA quality for it to even be considered.—NMajdan•talk 16:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you missed my point. There is no reason for this list to exist on its own. All the information should be included in the main Sooners article. Then a featured topic is still a possibility (should that be your aim) because you'd be able to get all relevant articles to good or featured status. In my opinion this list simply has too few entries to be considered "Wikipedia's finest work". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Oklahoma Sooners baseball article already does list all of the coaches, though not with as much detail. This table, with the additional detail, could be merged into that article, and parts of the lead trimmed down to create a "lead paragraph" for the embedded list, as suggested at WP:EMBED, treating the tabled list as "children" below the main paragraph of the section. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – 3b. A list already exists in the main article, as KV5 points out, and I see no reason for a seperate list to exist either. What's here can easily be moved to Oklahoma Sooners baseball to replace the smaller table. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:37, 8 December 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 02:57, 8 December 2009 [10].

List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 09:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as a follow-up to my nomination of List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks. I believe that the list meets all of the criteria for a featured list as the general structure has been copied from List of Kansas City Chiefs head coaches (another featured list). The only major difference is that I have removed the colour from the table as I believe that it presents accessibility issues and does not add anything more to the table than the symbols that are already next to each name. As I am not particularly well-versed in matters of American football, I would appreciate any comments that anyone may have about the facts in the "History" section. – PeeJay 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from KV5

Normally I don't offer an oppose right off the bat unless I see a huge amount of mistakes to be fixed. In this case, however, it's two main things:

• No sortability (this, however is easily fixed)
  • You are right that it is easy to add sortability to a table, but with the colspan in effect in the column titles, this would make sortability technically unimplementable (is that a word?). I'm not sure how to get around this without creating separate tables for regular season and post season games, but I would welcome suggestions. That said, I'm not even sure that sortability is necessary in this instance, seeing as the entire table is currently visible on even the lowest monitor resolution.
    • As to the sortability v. colspans: Many lists have been brought to FL with colspans in their headers, which was later removed in favor of sortability, which is part of the criteria. The format of the list you copied isn't that old of an FLC, but requirements have tightened in the last 17 months since it passed. It's easy to talk about postseason play and regular season play in the same table; a good example of a recently promoted list that does so is List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I can sort that out. The Oklahoma Sooners list is actually a pretty good template for other lists of football head coaches! – PeeJay 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This list has only seven items; ten is the arbitrary minimum. Other reviewers should view and comment on this list, because there is a great amount of prose here which gives background on the coaches themselves. At this time, though, I don't think this passes muster.
  • I don't see anywhere in WP:WIAFL that says that a list must have at least 10 items. Furthermore, I don't believe that it is fair for a list to be denied Featured status just because it doesn't have "enough" items, whatever the definition of "enough" may be. Without wanting to violate WP:CRYSTAL, it is almost certain that the Vikings will - one day - have had 10 head coaches in their history, but I can't imagine any reason why the basic structure of the list would differ just because of the addition of three extra rows to the table.
    • See my reply below. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting input from other reviewers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, mate. Sorry if my replies above sounded a little bitey. Must be my inner lawyer coming out to play! – PeeJay 02:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This is unfortunate because this looks good. But had to oppose because the number of item is below 10.—Chris!_c/t 02:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, I don't see anywhere in WP:WIAFL that says a Featured List must have at least 10 items. If I'm missing something, please point the relevant policies out to me. – PeeJay 02:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it is not on WP:WIAFL because it is an unwritten rule. Please look at the archive of the talk page.—Chris!_c/t 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect to the guys who run WP:FLC, the reason why it's an unwritten rule is that it's complete BS! I assume that this "rule" only exists in order to provide some sort of definition to the term "list", which I could understand if the list was limited in some way, but since this list is completely delimited (i.e. it's a complete list of every head coach of the Minnesota Vikings, with no exceptions) the whole reason for the "rule" falls apart. Anyway, if that's the rule, that's the rule, I just don't believe it applies in this case. – PeeJay 08:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's truly not BS. Yes, the rule is fairly arbitrary, and there have been lists promoted with less than ten items (like List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters, a list that I wrote). It's not a bright-line rule, but it is generally adhered to. In this case, there is more prose than list, making this more appropriate as an article at this point. Sometimes, as unfortunate as it is, we have to say WP:NOTNOW. For another example, the baseball project has been working on promoting its lists of awards in a featured topic push. When trying to determine the format for the Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award, it was determined during the 2009 season, while it was being worked on, that we needed to wait until the 2009 season was completed, and the 2009 award was presented, before attempting to have that list promoted, simply because of this unwritten rule. The main issue is that a list with less than 10 items can easily qualify as a content fork, which is expressly forbidden by the criteria. Thus, I must unfortunately still concur with Chrishomingtang, and oppose the promotion of this list based on length. It disappoints me because the list has great prose, but that's the way things work at the moment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, as an extension of FL criterion 3b and WP:CFORK, I can see why a list with less than *insert arbitrary number* items could be disqualified from Featured status. However, if you consider the scenario that the Vikings disestablished tomorrow, meaning that the list would never grow beyond seven items, would it still be ineligible under the aforementioned criteria? If so, I find it absurd that a list, regardless of its quality, would be denied Featured status purely because of its length. As I said earlier, every single Vikings coach is listed here, so there should be no reason to deny promotion based on the scope of the list. – PeeJay 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Only after nominating List of Oklahoma Sooners head baseball coaches for FL did I notice this discussion which would affect my nomination as well. It is hard to argue that my list and this one violate 3b when lists such as List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches and List of Detroit Lions head coaches are FLs. Otherwise they would all fail under the same criteria.—NMajdan•talk 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not true. The length of those lists precludes them from being reasonably included as part of another article. A list of eight baseball coaches can be included within an article as an embedded list much more easily than a list of 25 football coaches, etc. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not commenting on whether this article meets or does not meet a standard, but the applicable FL criterion would be 3b: "in length and/or topic, [the article] meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." (emphasis mine) Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I kind of forget about 3b. This is applicable here.—Chris!_c/t 20:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my reply above. – PeeJay 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Hate to pile on here, but the other reviewers have it exactly right. For a list of less than 10 items to have a chance at gaining an exception to the unspoken limit (which has been around for a long time; I'm surprised you haven't seen a similar case before), it needs to be a unique case. A simple coaches list isn't unique, especially not when it has the same format as similar, longer lists. Why don't you try making a Notes column in the table and including facts about the coaches in it (think a more extensive Achievements column); for example, you could say how many times a coach reached the NFL playoffs and his best playoff finish. That might give the list some added value, in a similar fashion to the no-hitters list KV5 linked above, which has an example of a Notes column. Not sure that would do it, but the list might at least have a better shot than it doesn now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewers Please elaborate as to how the article fails an FL criterion (I believe 3b is the one everyone is concerned about). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know no one has commented on this review for a while, but I did want to make it known that a table listing the records of the head coaches is already included in the team's main article. I don't see any reason why this table couldn't be copied into the main article, along with a very condensed lead paragraph incorporating the information in this article. Then the information in the history section can be merged into the team's actual history (some of it's already duplicated), and we'd have a clean and tidy little merge on our hands. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we keep this list and just not promote it to FL status. It's pretty obvious to me now that it doesn't meet the criteria, but I don't think it's entirely necessary to merge it back into the Vikings main article. – PeeJay 09:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main point of identifying a content fork, as far as I'm aware, is to merge it into a more general article. Most of the delisted FLs that were removed as a result of the tightening of criterion 3b were merged, though I know that some were merely delisted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay, should I withdraw this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Thanks for all the comments everyone! – PeeJay 02:00, 8 December 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 18:28, 5 December 2009 [11].

List of BC Lions head coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First ever CFL head coach list FLC nomination, and hopefully my 29th head coaches/managers FL. I'll try to find some secondary sources, rather than the primary sources currently used like CFL, BC Lions, and CHOF websites. Grammar/copy-edit mistakes can be boldly fixed by you, the reviewers. Everything else should be fine.-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I saw that an additional row for Adam Rita is added for sorting purpose. I don't think this is a good idea because it confuses readers. I wonder if there is FL precedent for this.—Chris!_c/t 04:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's confusing and odd. We should not be confusing the text just to make the software work. I suggest choosing one of the two methods and deleting the other: list each term separately or combine the two stints into a total stats for his time with the Lions. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the readers wouldn't be confused, as there is a note that indicates that the column is for their own sorting purposes. There is no FL precedent for this, but how about color the column light gray, to indicate that the column is for sorting purposes? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even with the note or the color, it is still extremely odd to have another row showing the sum of the numbers of 2 other rows. I'd say remove it as people can easy add the numbers up themselves.—Chris!_c/t 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Made another section. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still not sure if this is a good idea, but I will wait for others to comment first.—Chris!_c/t 20:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is precedent for the separate table, though I don't like it. I think that readers can do math, so I don't think it's necessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • User:Rlendog also used a section of managers with multiple tenures on his MLB managers FLs (ie. List of New York Yankees managers), but ehh...Removed section. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - On a sentence level the prose is acceptable, but overall it doesn't flow well.
• The opening sentence is a bit boring, and doesn't indicate at all what the article is about. If I didn't know better, I'd assume this was some duplicate of another page.
• The name “Lions” was based on a two similar mountain peaks that can be seen north of Vancouver. - Seems really out-of-place and irrelevant to the article.
• The first paragraph seems like a few random facts were organized into a block of text.

• To answer the first four comments, the first paragraph is an introduction to the BC Lions, in case people don't know who are the BC Lions. I kind of agree with your fourth comment, though is there any way of having a better introduction? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lions' first head coach and general manager was Annis Stukus, who coached the team for two WIFU seasons; the Annis Stukus Trophy is named after him. - Last part is off-topic.

• Annis Stukus Trophy is for the best CFL head coach of the season. Now explained on article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dave Skrien, who coached the Lions for seven seasons in the 1960s, has coached the Lions to two... - "Coached the Lions" twice in a row.

• Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Excluding the previous mentioned, no other coach has won the Annis Stukus Trophy with the Lions, and Dave Ritchie and Steve Buratto are the only other head coaches to have coached the Lions to a Grey Cup championship, in 1994 and 2000 respectively. - Previous what mentioned? Doesn't seem like good grammar.

• Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this isn't ready yet.

• It is ready, but just has a few minors that need to be fixed, that's all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My issues have been addressed and I feel the editor has made a substantial effort in resolving the issues of other editors.—NMajdan•talk 20:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – To start, I feel that I must say something about the nomination statement. You may feel that it saves time for reviewers to make copy-editing changes, but they should feel no obligation to fix a page that they haven't worked on. The nominator should be the fixer, unless a reviewer graciously offers copy-editing services. Look at it this way: it will help you avoid similar errors in the future, saving time for everyone involved.

I tell reviewers to copy-edit the article for me, as I barely have any time to do anything these days, plus I copy-edited myself twice already.

• "In their 56-year history, the team have appeared in nine Grey Cup finals, and have won five Grey Cup championships." Second use of Grey Cup is a redundancy and those words can be safely chopped.

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "who coached until the Lions first CFL season". Apostrophe missing at the end of Lions. Also, it's pretty obvious from this that he was their first CFL coach; not sure the next bit is needed.

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now reads "who coached three games into Lions first CFL season." Think this should be "the Lions' first season", as I suggested before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the Lions first season, it was their first CFL season. If the current revision still doesn't satisfy you, then just DIY. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "led the team to two consecutive Grey Cup finals in the 1963 and 1964". Faulty grammar.

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Vic Rapp was then hired in the 1977 season, coaching for 96 games until the end of the 1982 season, winning...". Don't like this structure, which has an -ing on top of an -ing. Try "Vic Rapp was then hired in the 1977 season and coached for 96 games until the end of the 1982 season, winning...".

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the reason why people are criticizing the flow may lie with the third paragraph, which is long compared to the rest of the lead. Try siphoning a couple of sentences to other paragraphs, which may help this feel more flowing.

I'll try my best to do that if I have time. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - normally I don't criticize the prose because I am not a good writer myself. But paragraph 3 is just poorly written. There are so much repetitions. Instead of cramping every facts into the sentence, please be clear on what you want to say. Also, you shouldn't just tell reviewers to copyedit for you, you just learn to do it yourself. Because in the end, it is going to help you improve.—Chris!_c/t 01:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look above. I'll try to fix the third paragraph sometime this week. Hope I have time for Wikipedia... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of fixed the lead, and the flow of the lead, though more improvement on grammar could be possible. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some tweaks and believe that the prose have improved. Though before I support, I want others who are better equipped to locate and fix prose problems review this first.—Chris!_c/t 23:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please ask opposers to revisit the FLC and check whether their concerns have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll do that sometime later, if possible on Friday. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Archiving this FLC as unsuccessful. Although the list was improving, there were still outstanding opposes and concerns over the prose, and on a brief runthrough I still easily found errors. I think if the nominator can work with one or two editors over the prose during the next week, the next FLC will be much smoother. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 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 22:41, 3 December 2009 [12].

List of New York Yankees first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried nominating this last month, but had to close it down due to the backlog and other active nominations. Please feel free to resume the conversation now. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody watching this? --Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid me, I forgot to properly list this FLC. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "with the team possessing the worst record receiving the first pick." The structure of this sentence needs revision. The noun+-ing structure is awkward enough, but this sentence has multiple -ings after the noun.
• Hyphen for "World Series winning".
• The lead is outdated in multiple places after the Yankees' 2009 World Series title. It states that Jeter has four titles, instead of the five he now has, and Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain have now joined him and Thurman Munson as first-round picks who won a championship with the Yanks.
• The part about the Yankees not gaining a compensatory pick for Mark Prior needs a cite somewhere, either in the lead or a note. A simple link to the draft rules should do.
• What makes http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a week since I commented. Is a response forthcoming? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been real busy. I'll try to get to this. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to do this, especially since I am a Yankees fan, but I'm moving to oppose now. It's been almost two weeks since I originally commented and five days since the nominator last responded here, and the list has seen no changes. We can't leave lists at FLC indefinitely without response to comments, and the outdated parts and shaky source concern me too much to consider supporting this now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree. Unless someone else can step in and make the changes, please close this down. I've gotten swamped and it's going to be this way for a decent amount of time. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Didn't even see this baby had made it's way to FLC. Nice!

• The image captions could use some alteration, in my opinion, particularly the lead image. Something like "Derek Jeter, the Yankees first-round pick in 1992, has won five World Series with the franchise." The rest work, I suppose, but the simple [Name] ([draft year]) is very dull looking.
• Needs serious updating per 2009 World Series. Jeter needs another WS added to his name, and as I write this I see Giants already mentioned this. :p
• Agreed that MLB Trade Rumors is a very so-so source. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is calling it "The Bronx, New York" accurate? I honestly don't know. I would think something like "The Bronx burrough/county of New York City, New York" would be more accurate.
• The While in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph is not needed.
• I second Gaints2008 issues with the reliable source and Mark Prior fact.
• Should Schools be sorted with the "University of"? Meaning should, say, University of Texas be sorted as "Texas" instead of "University of Texas"? I may have to go dig around the MoS to find out.

Outside of these issues, the rest of the sources look good and the images look good.—NMajdan•talk 16:47, 2 December 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 22:17, 3 December 2009 [13].

List of Essendon Football Club honours[edit]

Nominator(s): Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 22:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria despite limited information even in a club book. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 22:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment empty cells should have centered emdashes (—). Mm40 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we centre? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just add align=center| to the cell; I've done the first row for you.—Chris!_c/t 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Color need to be accompanied with symbol; see recently promoted featured lists for example—Chris!_c/t 06:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You use VFL without explaining it.
• "The club Best and Fairest award ..." isn't it "The club's..."?
• You talk about the Best and Fairest a bit, but then launch into "Dick Reynolds won the Brownlow Medal..." what's that awarded for? And I'm guessing it's not an Essendon award, so for non-experts you should offer us some context...
• Don't relink best and fairest, and be consistent with the capitalisation.
• "a club record " hyphenate club-record.
• Instead of just "Premiership" for the key, perhaps you could say "Essendon won the AFL Grand Final" or similar, to make it clear to non-experts what you mean.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 20:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• The VFL/AFL link redirects to AFL, so that doesn't have much use. Also, I remember seeing somewhere that slashes are discouraged in text. Maybe try a dash?
• Hyphen for "record equaling".
• Remove comma after Kevin Sheedy.
• "Despite no player kicking 1000 career goals, full-forward Matthew Lloyd, is the clubs leading goal-kicker with 925, ahead of ruckman Simon Madden with 575." Couple of issues here. Lloyd didn't score 925 despite no one having 1,000, so I don't get that sentence. Also, change "clubs" to "club's".
• Change semi-colon in last sentence of lead to a regular comma.
• Any reason the names are sorting by first name rather than last? Is this a custom for Australia-related lists that I'm only discovering now?
  • Will do Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Check 1937 Crichton Medal winner for a broken wikilink.
• Crichton Medal is given as W. S. Crichton Medal in the lead and W.S. Crichton Medal (without spaces) in the table. I'd imagine it should be the former throughout, since that complies better with our naming guidelines and avoids a minor redirect. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done the rest. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:01, 29 November 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 23:17, 1 December 2009 [14].

List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario[edit]

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel I have fixed every (real) problem that was brought up at the last nomination and over two peer reviews. The article is not perfect and I'm sure some cool things could still be done to it, but they would only be navigational aids and not anything new content wise. Let me know if the images need adjusting, as I can fix those pretty quickly. I feel the redlinks to county roads without articles should be left, as they encourage the creation of those articles. However, if the choice between pass or fail comes down to redlinks, then I will remove some of them. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restarted Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to reviewers Please revisit this FLC and a) clearly restate the remaining issues, if necessary, and b) if possible, make a succinct declaration (i.e., support, oppose, or neutral). Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, The list, as it is, has too many redlinks. --Fredddie™ 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would lean more towards support if the current list format is scrapped for a format similar to List of highways in Hamilton County, New York. --Fredddie™ 04:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still not ready to support. Too many unresolved comments.—Chris!_c/t 06:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Which of those comments are personally keeping you from supporting? So far the only unresolved comment seems to be the redlinks, and perhaps the image size (though I made the requested adjustments). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Ok. I support if the comments are resolved as you said.—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm not certain they are, but I believe they are. You'll have to use your judgement or see what the posters say. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This list has too many major issues:

1. There are not supposed to be citations in the lead unless that information is unique.
2. There are large areas of uncited information in the prose portion of the list.
3. The article has too many redlinks.
4. Reference #4 appears to be a personal website and is probably not reliable.
5. The article relies too heavily on Google Maps as a source. ---Dough4872 00:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) That is a choice, not a policy. Refs shouldn't be in the lead, but can be.

I haven't actually checked this article, but note that according to WP:LEADCITE, the lead can either be uncited or cited, as long as the convention is consistent (i.e. do not cite half the lead and leave the other half uncited). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No citation in the lead was unique, so I've removed them. This lack of desire for citations in the lead directly contradicts the requirement for a sourced statement in the lead for DYK. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) What is in the prose that you find controversial and in need of a source?

3) Not part of the criteria, should be forbidden as a reason for opposition, but I am fixing this atm.

4) Looks can be deceiving. That website is run by a member of the MTO and is the only reliable source on the subject. They will be releasing a book within the next several months which I will source upon its release.

5) As stated before, google maps is for user convenience. Official MTO roadmaps are used for highways, and local maps used for county roads. I had an idea for fixing this which I will implement later tonight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main sticking point for my oppose is the lack of citations in the prose. Every piece of information needs to contain a citation. For example, "Although they are generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane exist along the highways. The municipality's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length." needs to have a reliable source stating the number of lanes on the road and this statement can easily be challenged without a citation. ---Dough4872 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:When_to_cite, not everything needs sources. Only information that is controversial or that may be challenged needs sourcing. Unlike the US, Canada does not have straight-line diagrams describing highways mile for mile, nor do many counties provide more than a simple diagram or list of their county roads. However, information such as how many lanes a highway has can be discovered on a variety of maps and by looking at satellite imagery. It may be slightly outdated at times, but that does not mean it can't verify the validity of the information. I feel I have sourced all of the information that could incur a genuine challenge, so if you'd like to point out specifics that you don't believe to be true, or information that you'd contest the validity of (without being a beaurocrat and contesting each and every sentence without a citation at the end), I'll try and find the most reliable source available on the information, otherwise you are effectively prohibiting all Canadian (or at least Ontario) roads from ever having the possibility of being a featured article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could all reviewers please note the new set-up for referencing. All the Google Maps references are separated, and are exclusively used for the 1/10th of a kilometre accuracy for route lengths (whilst being supplemented by a reliable up-to-date 2010 paper atlas that I've measured using the scale and a digital caliper ruler). I have also updated many other refs (Such as the continuations into other regions) to the 2010 atlas. I also expect to make at least another 4 roads (4, 7, 9, 18) into articles within the next day or so. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have collapsed my earlier comments; I am going on a trip soon so may not be able to address responses, so I didn't want my oppose to weigh upon the deliberations. Switching to neutral for now. I still think the tables need smaller shields, but the work on fleshing out the redlinks is moving along. Also, at current, one of the refs is broken, giving a big red error at the bottom. --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update I have now changed the way the shields are displayed in the left column. This should take care of the whitespace issue. Where once I could see a max of 8 at a time, I can now see up to 14. In addition, I've added ((nths)) to the two terminus columns, so that they now sort the highways and roads with numbered designations into order. The redlinks are also several magnitudes better than before. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Looks okay, but needs substantial work.
• Title is purely descriptive, and thus the boldfont in the first sentence should be killed.
• The shortest numbered road is Kawartha Lakes Road 3, Hartley Road, a causeway just less than a kilometre long crossing Mitchell Lake. - Why link to Road 3 if it redirects to the same page...?
• The city of Kawartha Lakes was formed on January 1, 2001, and was known as Victoria County before that. - Out of place and quite off-topic for this article.
• The shields in the Secondary highways segment are so small that they contribute no additional value to the text; I suggest removing them, to be honest.
• Almost all of the citations are inconsistently formatted/need more info.
• The "Route Maps" thing is bizarre. Just cite Google Maps collectively and remove the dozens of ugly footnotes.
• Misplaced punctuation all over.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the first two. The part regarding the Victoria County bit is important (on top of the fact of it being historical), as the article makes many references to the past roads, or to Victoria County roads that were replaced. As for the shields in the secondary highway section, they are the same size as in a junction list, and were mostly there to show the difference in their appearance, but I have removed them. I will not replacing the end footnotes to Google Maps, as each one is a link to a map of that route, and I hardly see that as an inconvenience or detrimental aspect. The punctuation and inconsistent citations I shall take a look at, but are there any places in particular that you feel need attention? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to cite an almost identical Google Maps source dozens of different times when you could simply list one neat and concise general source? As it is, the large block of Google Maps links isn't really visually appealing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every entry is unique, and shows the route of the road in question. Citations are never visually appealing, so I don't understand why its detrimental to have them. Yes I could list google maps and say "This is a source... Except its not sourcing anything... But you can use it to see the various routes and the directions they take... oh, but you'll have to find them yourself because Google just removed an information source and is 15 years out of date", but it would be absolutely and completely useless and unhelpful to readers. Information always trumps appearance in my books.

My point is that by condensing all 50 Google Maps footnotes into a single general citation, you don't lose any additional information. And visual appeal is indeed a valid objection per FL criteria #5a; "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Into a single reference to maps.google.ca? How absolutely useless would that be (its ok to go over 100% for this one)? I'd lose all of the information! Point noted, but disregarded. Those references will all be remaining, because I absolutely refuse to remove hordes of valuable information on the grounds that one editor finds it visually displeasing, probably based on dissimilar articles. They provide a visual accompaniment to what is otherwise a distance. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, I'm going to restart this candidacy when it expires. Two of the opposes were from editors involved in a quarrel with me elsewhere on the project, and they have made a point of not returning to counter those votes despite me making the improvements they requested. Not to mention that the point of FLC's is back and forth communication. I'm aware the pending holidays play a role in this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but as an FLC director, I respectfully ask you not to re-nominate, at least not immediately. The disagreements that have surfaced here don't seem to be resolving themselves. I will be archiving this FLC tomorrow, as there is clearly not a consensus to promote. Re-submitting will not be helpful or fair to the other FLCs (this one has been up for about six weeks). FLC is not the place for dispute resolution, nor is it where articles should be overhauled (that's why we have peer review). I suggest that you and the other involved take a break from the article for a few days to cool down and have time to regain focus. Then, start a centralized discussion somewhere (article talk page, WikiProject talk page, or peer review) and try to work out your disagreements. When significant progress has been made in that front, please consult me or another FL director, and we will be glad to let you re-nominate the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not planning to until after new years. There are no disputes on this article right now, they were regarding a completely separate issue. I simply feel their anger towards that brought them here to oppose this. Dough and JC have made legitimate comments that I can improve the article with in the mean time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:52, 1 December 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.