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 23:30, 30 December 2010 [1].

List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832[edit]

Nominator(s): BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it meets all the criteria, and I want to subject it to thorough scrutiny before applying the same approach to other lists in Category:Lists of MPs elected in United Kingdom general elections, starting with other elections from the same period which currently have no lists. It is a complete list of all the Members of Parliament (MPs) elected at the first general election after the United Kingdom's Great Reform Act, which marked the first step on the democratisation of the UK's election process. It is fully referenced, with links to the primary sources as well as to secondary sources, so it is easily verifiable by even the casual reader. It is structured to be sortable under several different headings, allowing it to be used to group MPs in many different ways.

To assist maintainability, I built it using templates and sub-lists. When I created it in July I had some concerns that this might cause problems with maintenance or server-load (see discussion on talk page), but four months later that seems to be working fine.

My only outstanding concern is that the introduction may perhaps be a little too verbose, and may include some material which might better placed in United Kingdom general election, 1832. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from KV5

Some major issues, the largest one mentioned specifically by the nominator. Per WP:TMP#Usage: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." We have longer featured lists than this, so this breakdown into templates should be removed.
Actually that quote follows the "With the template namespace it is possible to" bit of prose. This isn't in the template namespace but the article namespace e.g. List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832/Constituencies A–B. By using clever only/noincludes the references also display on both article namespace pages. This is just a transclusion. Note many television episode lists use transclusion and, although I now would oppose the use of transclusion in those cases, I see no problem with it here. Without these subpages I daresay a split may be recommended. (Note this is the method I was suggesting for your roster list KV5). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only a transclusion, that's a bit better. I was thrown by the template-edit code when I looked at the inner workings of the list. That being said, I still see no reason why it couldn't be included as prose/straight code in this list. — KV5 • Talk • 14:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the templates is to simplify maintenance. By structuring the entries using templates, it is much clearer how each entry is constructed than would be the case with using raw table markup. This also reduces the risk of formatting errors. The reason for using sub-lists is again to simplify maintenance: it saves the editor from having to edit a single, undivided section of thousands of lines of code, which (because of the number of templates involved) takes ages to save. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

230k bytes! Also it did take a while to save. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point. — KV5 • Talk • 14:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COLOR violations: there is no key explaining what the color (or indeed, any of the formatting elements) means.
MOS:BOLD: Do not use bold for emphasis in tables.
Featured lists no longer start with "This is a list of...". See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging leads.
Remove all spaces between references and their respective entries.

These are just a few major issues that have to be resolved before a proper review can be made. — KV5 • Talk • 13:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt feedback.

I have addressed the templates issue above, and hope that's resolved.
I have removed the spaces between references and their respective entries. I always do that in prose, but in the list I thought that the spaces added clarity. If that breaches the MOS, then it's fine to have it removed.
On bolding, I am not wedded to it, but before removing it may I ask for you to consider that in this case the bolding assists the reader?
The most logical structure for each row is keep the columns relating to the constituency beside each other (constit name, seats, county, country), and similarly the columns related to the MP (name, party)are grouped beside each other. However, the two key items in each row are the name of the constituency and the name of the MP, and the bolding makes it easier to pick out those two key items from the subsiduary data. I am aware that it breaches MOS:BOLD, but I suggest that this is one of the "occasional exceptions" where a breach of the guidelines is beneficial.
I will add a colour table now.
My brain can't think of a more engaging intro at the moment, but I would welcome suggestions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the bold issue: if this "assists the reader", how does it then help visually-impaired readers? I, as a reader, see no added utility from it, and all would be much better served by the addition of scope="row" parameters to add the necessary row-headers (which would be bold if the plainrowheaders attribute is not implemented). — KV5 • Talk • 14:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it doesn't assist visually-impaired readers. However, it impedes them in no way, and as above I think it assist readers without visual impairment.
I'm interested in the scope="row" parameter, which by defining structure offers the possibility that tools for visually-impaired readers can utilise it, but have not used it before, but I am studying the W3C documentation. Can you point me to any other lists on wikipedia which use the scope="row" attribute? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A). — KV5 • Talk • 15:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose just a quick skim...

Don't start with "This is a list of..."
Avoid bold links per WP:MOSBOLD in the lead.
Lead is weak, needs to summarise the article entirely.
Avoid starting sentences with numbers, e.g. "1832 was ..."
Russell's image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
"For a list of results which were overturned, see below: overturned elections." we just don't do this, the "see below" thing, we have "See also" sections and ((see also)) templates.
""Conservative". [2]" remove space between punctuation and ref. Check others, especially those in the table.
No need to have bold MP names in the table, contravenes the MOS.
"Edit by initial letter of constituencies" - why would a reader want to "edit" by an initial letter?
If the initial order of the list is alphabetical by constituency, why does it change considerably when ordering by constituency?

That's enough for now. If this lot gets addressed, I'll happily re-visit for a comprehensive review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Pages in the article namespace cannot be Subpages of others. Even with the forward-slash List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832/Constituencies A–B is not a subpage of List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832 even though it is presented as such. List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832 (Constituencies A–B) would be okay, though. Cf WP:Do not use subpages. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've closed this FLC as unsuccessful. Although the issues presented are not insurmountable, the technical aspects of them would be better resolved outside FLC (perhaps at peer review), where the nominator and reviewers can work together without time restraints. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (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 list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:30, 30 December 2010 [2].

List of Romanian football champions[edit]

Nominator(s): BineMai 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i believe it meets all the requirements to be a FL. Thank you BineMai 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments looks good: Nergaal (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the league changed in the 2000s. It should be mentioned and perhaps split into another section.
- Done. BineMai 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a bit short:
- it should mention Dinamo also (it won 18, notably more than everybody else)
  - Done. BineMai 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also mention how many different teams won it.
  - Done. BineMai 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bucharest won it 59 of 92 times.
  - Done. BineMai 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth mentioning which years the winners qualified directly into the UEFA Champions League groups
- Done. BineMai 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was more than one year. Also, it should say in the text that the champion qualified to the European Champion Clubs' Cup until 1992, and that the 1986 champion won the latter. Nergaal (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. BineMai 12:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a sentence on the Steaua-Dinamo rivalry
- Done. BineMai 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please work on the intro a bit more (I've done some edits but there should be more). Nergaal (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no non-Romanian sources available?
- Sadly not very many. BineMai 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try to use those since it would look better. Nergaal (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Herzog, Jean Luca P. Niculescu and Harwester Cups" supposed to mean?
- These were all names of the championship before Divizia A. BineMai 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but the actual text does not say that. Say that in the text (with years) and give references. Nergaal (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changed the title to Pre-Divizia A championships. BineMai 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The post-war years were dominated by CCA Bucureşti, UTA Arad and Petrolul Ploieşti. The 1960's saw the gradual emergence of Dinamo Bucureşti, needs citation
- not done. Nergaal (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't have a ref for this one i just used the table information to compile this. BineMai 09:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "emergence of Dinamo in the 60s" I bet there is a reference about the Steaua-Dinamo rivalry mentioning this. Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - didn't find any ref for this should i remove the sentence? BineMai 12:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
winning the European Golden Shoe (for top scorer in Europe) twice, in 1975 and 1977 needs an actual citation
- Done. BineMai 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Say something about the Golden boot in 1989 also. Nergaal (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Added 1986-87 Rodion Cămătaru and 1988-89 Dorin Mateuţ. BineMai 09:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Say that in 2007-08 CFR was the first champion outside Bucharest in 16 years.
- Done. BineMai 13:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit of text about the UEFA performances. Try to put in the exact dates, and some references. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. And why should I add the Europa League statistics if this list is about champions which qualify to the Champions League? BineMai 21:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neah, I did not mean to suggest adding anything about EL, just CL (i.e. the outcome/rewards fir the 1st place). Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok ;) BineMai 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Ref 9 is a note not a reference. Interested in knowing why May is in a different language in Ref 4. Something seems to of gone wrong with the italics on Ref 8. "Florin Costea (Craiova) 17()" error here. Why do you shorten the names of the clubs after first mention in the tables? Also for the Clubs subsection, what do names with neither bold or italics represent? Afro (Nice Beaver) 23:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the refs. Regarding club names i thought there is no reason to list the full name each time. Normal text clubs represent clubs that are neither in the current season of the competition or clubs that still exist in lower divisions. BineMai 09:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that they still exist and have been relegated. How reliable is romaniansoccer.ro and Napit.co.uk. On the name issue, you don't seem to share this reason with the runner-up row. Afro (Nice Beaver) 20:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed what you pointed. The sites are reliable, romaniansoccer.ro is unes in many Romanian football articles because it has one of the most complete (if not the most complete) statistics regarding this competition, and Napit.co.uk is used and accepted in wiki articles that involve the use of it's statistics. BineMai 11:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't give me specifics as to why they are deemed reliable. Afro (Nice Beaver) 13:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What specifics are you looking for? BineMai 12:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if other Featured articles use it, I would like to see where you're pointing to first of all. Plus I did find an editorial page on Romaniansoccer.ro and it appeared to be a fansite of sorts. Afro (Nice Beaver) 17:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The editorial page you found presents the editorial team of the website and I'm pretty sure it isn't a fansite. BineMai 08:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should i search for another ref insted of this one? BineMai 18:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on if these are reliable, which is all I'm asking. Afro (Nice Beaver) 18:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment at the Reliable sources noticeboard on the questionable sources. Afro (Nice Beaver) 21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the sources are still being discussed at the Noticeboard I would like to bring up an issue of first party sources since the use seems to conflict with #5 of WP:ABOUTSELF. Afro (Nice Beaver) 07:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the first party sources with others. BineMai 19:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the response regarding Romaniansoccer.ro I would now suggest the removal. I'm still unsure about Napit.co.uk I would suggest any articles which confirm the golden boot. Also a coloured cell needs to be accompanied by a symbol. Afro (Talk) 04:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the Romaniasoccer and napit refs with others. BineMai 12:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There still seems to be an issue regarding first party sources, to be more specific the LPF.ro is first party. Afro (Talk) 06:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How can the lpf.ro website which represents the Romanian Professional Football League can be a first party source? BineMai 15:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying get rid of them, but it would be nice to have some third party sources backing up the information lpf.ro gives. Afro (Talk) 10:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's kind of hard to find reliable sources because there aren't many websites with statistics available for the Romanian Liga I and even if there are they tend to be in the same category as Romania Soccer.ro BineMai 11:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't add sources from Newspapers? Afro (Talk) 10:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added some sources. BineMai 16:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little things I notice while scanning the page are the clubs in the Top scorer section are short like the discussion before, and Ref 8 doesn't source the runners-up until 1932/33 season, so how you've sourced 1909/10 to 1932/33 I do not know. Afro (Talk) 06:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right the ref doesn't source the runners-up, must have missed that. BineMai 22:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now the Runner-up's for 2 tables are completely unsourced. Afro (Talk) 11:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what should i do because i haven't found a suitable ref for the runners up in the table. BineMai 20:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the Ref 8 to source all the Runners-up from 1933/34 are you able to individually source the earlier seasons? Afro (Talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have refs for the earlier seasons. BineMai 22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a partial review, as I'm occupied at the moment. Writing looks a bit rough at first glance, and could use polishing before this is over

There's no need at all to have two Liga I links in the first three sentences. Anyone interested will have clicked on the first link, making the second one unneeded.
- Fixed. BineMai 09:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Venus Bucuresti also the most prolific team during the early editions". Why is "also" being used here when this sentence doesn't expand on anything from before? A simple "was" would do as a replacement.
- Fixed. BineMai 09:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of "it's" should be "its"
- Fixed. BineMai 09:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The 2007–08 champions CFR Cluj was the first team...". To work grammatically, either change "champions" to "champion" or "was" to "were".
- Fixed. BineMai 09:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More overlinking: Months shouldn't be linked.
- Fixed. BineMai 09:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"due to Romanian's large UEFA coefficient...". Romanian's → Romania's.
- Fixed. BineMai 09:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early championships: "The most succesfull team from this periods...". "succesfull" → "succesfull". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. BineMai 09:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose needs copyediting by native English speaker. Some of those issues, and some technical problems...

To assuage concerns over the potential misunderstanding of exactly what "football" means here, I'd suggest you say "...premier annual association football league competition."
- Done. BineMai 04:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't overlink team names in the lead. One link only per team is needed.
- Fixed. BineMai 04:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same for Liga I, and Romania, and UEFA Champions League etc etc.
- Fixed. BineMai 04:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Typo in caption and lead (successfull) and no need for (team and cup pictured) - that's pretty obvious.
- Fixed. BineMai 04:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eternal derby should be Eternal Derby.
- Fixed. BineMai 04:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"was won by a number of 22 teams representing 11 cities" no need for "a number of".
- Fixed. BineMai 04:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"winning 59 titles, or almost 2/3 of the editions" perhaps "with nearly two-thirds of all editions, 59 titles, being won by..."?
- Fixed. BineMai 04:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Several times in history mark when a champion was not named." really odd English. What you're saying is that "The championship was not awarded a number of times..."
- Fixed. BineMai 04:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the lead. I really suggest you appeal at WP:FOOTBALL for a native English speaker to help you with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a response from someone down at WP:FOOTBALL. BineMai 21:24, 21 December 2010 (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 list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:30, 30 December 2010 [3].

List of Spice and Wolf episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): NocturneNoir (talk · contribs), Juhachi (talk · contribs)

A legendary wolf deity joins a wandering merchant on a trip to find her ancestral home. This episode list has had its first half checked in a peer review. I feel this list passes all featured list criteria and I will make any necessary improvements. Thanks. I have acquired permission to run two simultaneous FLCs. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 06:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I've requested further reviews at WT:ANIME. I've attempted to word it neutrally so that it does not violate canvassing policy; if it does, please let me know so I may rectify it immediately. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 16:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: not a problem, it's a good idea to offer reviews in return as well, hopefully it'll give a boost to the content improvement fraternity. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments firstly an apology that it's taken so long for you get some interest here. Nevertheless, some comments for you: "a wolf-deity in control of wheat" reads a little odd to me. I get the deity thing, but what does "in control of wheat" really mean?! "stopped believing in her." believe it or not it's difficult to be sure who "her" is here, either "Holo" or "Kraft", neither of whom you've told me if they're female or not! "released to six DVD " normally released on DVD. " were released to four BD/DVD compilation " ditto. No key is given for episodes with red/pink background. What does # mean in the table? Is wolf deity hyphenated or not? "She requests to become" reads a bit odd, maybe just "She asks if she can become"? "silver has actually gone down" why not just "silver has decreased"? "Lawrence and Holo head to the guild that Lawrence is a member of and Lawrence is greeted warmly inside" Lawrence x 3 in one sentence? " and flirts a bit with Holo" reads like a tabloid newspaper. Do you really think we need to link bankruptcy and ultimatum? "scrounges up a few" don't think you need "up" here. "smooth talking" if you insist (I would imagine) needs to be hyphenated. "haggled over pieces of pyrite, their price greatly inflated by haggling" repeat of haggle here, can we be more imaginative? " in an attempt to create some space. " what? "she get drunk " gets. Better still, becomes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] First off, thanks for the review. You shouldn't apologise for the lack of interest; it's understandable given the subject matter consists of long bits of prose from a non-English source comparable to much easier to verify lists with far less prose. I've attempted to correct all the issues raised above with the notable exception of the key for the episodes with a red/pink background: both episodes are marked by a (OVA) in the Original air date column and have a note explaining it. If this is insufficient, I would not be opposed to removing the colours altogether since they add very little substance to the list itself (as they should). Please let me know if anything else needs clarifying. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments firstly an apology that it's taken so long for you get some interest here. Nevertheless, some comments for you:

"a wolf-deity in control of wheat" reads a little odd to me. I get the deity thing, but what does "in control of wheat" really mean?!
"stopped believing in her." believe it or not it's difficult to be sure who "her" is here, either "Holo" or "Kraft", neither of whom you've told me if they're female or not!
"released to six DVD " normally released on DVD.
" were released to four BD/DVD compilation " ditto.
No key is given for episodes with red/pink background.
What does # mean in the table?
Is wolf deity hyphenated or not?
"She requests to become" reads a bit odd, maybe just "She asks if she can become"?
"silver has actually gone down" why not just "silver has decreased"?
"Lawrence and Holo head to the guild that Lawrence is a member of and Lawrence is greeted warmly inside" Lawrence x 3 in one sentence?
" and flirts a bit with Holo" reads like a tabloid newspaper.
Do you really think we need to link bankruptcy and ultimatum?
"scrounges up a few" don't think you need "up" here.
"smooth talking" if you insist (I would imagine) needs to be hyphenated.
"haggled over pieces of pyrite, their price greatly inflated by haggling" repeat of haggle here, can we be more imaginative?
" in an attempt to create some space. " what?
"she get drunk " gets. Better still, becomes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for the review. You shouldn't apologise for the lack of interest; it's understandable given the subject matter consists of long bits of prose from a non-English source comparable to much easier to verify lists with far less prose.
I've attempted to correct all the issues raised above with the notable exception of the key for the episodes with a red/pink background: both episodes are marked by a (OVA) in the Original air date column and have a note explaining it. If this is insufficient, I would not be opposed to removing the colours altogether since they add very little substance to the list itself (as they should). Please let me know if anything else needs clarifying. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I can't find the airdates in ref 3.
~~I think the refs would look better having trans_title in the webcite template.~~
I also can't seem to find the airdates for the second season.

I'll have a better look when I'm free. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Regarding your points:

Did you check the archive? The current "original" version does not display the dates but the archived version does. This applies to the second season's references as well.

Ref 3 says every week and I suppose that covers the first series, but I can't find information confirming the start date for the second season. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of the cite web template is not under the purview of this candidacy and should instead be taken up directly at the template's talkpage. I merely apply code as instructed by the template's documentation. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 2, where does the "Whistling Wolf" part of the theme song come from? From the reference, only the Kanji was found. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:41, 18 December 2010 (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 list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:30, 30 December 2010 [4].

List of Governors of Maine[edit]

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving this another shot, as it came pretty close last time. I updated the format to match the rest. Designate (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - File:DavidDunn.jpg doesn't exist. Afro (Talk) 08:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.

"Maine Legislature[4]," ref after the comma. Does Note 1 need some type of reference. Also I'm sure most of the notes need a full stop. Afro (Talk) 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree about the full stop. I'm not sure about the references (see below).

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose as it presently is; it does not conform to the higher standards of the current governor FLs. Specific concerns: Why did you remove the "all congressmen represented Maine except where noted", causing a huge repetition of "from Maine" in the table? I think this one would benefit from the H/S style of congressional table used in some of the other lists. I'd rather just have it written out. There's going to be repetition anyway ("Republican", "Democratic"), and abbreviating some of the positions with letters and symbols just seems a little obstructive. The list is the same size whether you use abbreviations or not, since most of them only had one or two positions. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'll have to agree on Golbez with this. It is a huge repetition and kind of disguises those who weren't a Representative. Having a H/S style of table would present the information better at a glance and more cleanly Bgwhite (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, I switched the format. —Designate (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] This needs to be upgraded to current prose standards, which is to 1) Move the constitutional information into the Governors section, so that's not so barren, leaving the intro to be about the extremes (longest, interesting, etc.). And the other high offices section needs a prose upgrade, see the California list for examples of both. I'll do that tomorrow. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The top needs an image; I can understand not having an infobox, since there's a "main" article, but it's kind of barren up there. OK, I threw in the state house. I think that's an appropriate image. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] We use ((stack)) instead of divs now. Done. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I can work on some of these later today. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose as it presently is; it does not conform to the higher standards of the current governor FLs. Specific concerns:

- Why did you remove the "all congressmen represented Maine except where noted", causing a huge repetition of "from Maine" in the table? I think this one would benefit from the H/S style of congressional table used in some of the other lists.
  - I'd rather just have it written out. There's going to be repetition anyway ("Republican", "Democratic"), and abbreviating some of the positions with letters and symbols just seems a little obstructive. The list is the same size whether you use abbreviations or not, since most of them only had one or two positions. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll have to agree on Golbez with this. It is a huge repetition and kind of disguises those who weren't a Representative. Having a H/S style of table would present the information better at a glance and more cleanly Bgwhite (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I switched the format. —Designate (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs to be upgraded to current prose standards, which is to 1) Move the constitutional information into the Governors section, so that's not so barren, leaving the intro to be about the extremes (longest, interesting, etc.). And the other high offices section needs a prose upgrade, see the California list for examples of both.
  - I'll do that tomorrow. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The top needs an image; I can understand not having an infobox, since there's a "main" article, but it's kind of barren up there.
  - OK, I threw in the state house. I think that's an appropriate image. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We use ((stack)) instead of divs now.
  - Done. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can work on some of these later today. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Why did John Fairfield resign?
  - Google Books, newspaper search, Senate journal, etc. don't mention his first recognition. He didn't write a letter or anything. Leaving a few days early seems to have been an unremarkable practice back then. —Designate (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added a note clarifying that it's a known unknown. --Golbez (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was there anyone in power between January 3 and 19, 1838?
  - No, not according to NGA or any other source. Nathaniel Littlefield was Senate president at the time but he's not listed as a governor anywhere, and no one else would've been in a position to serve. —Designate (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hrm. Littlefield should at least be mentioned in the footnote, then... interregnums are rare enough, outside of the post-Civil War era, that they need mentioning at least in the footnote (and PA actually counts the vacancy in its official list of governors =p) --Golbez (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The note about Burton Cross being governor for 25 hours needs a reference. --Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It turns out there were two one-day governors so I just simplified it. —Designate (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Would look at two paras in the lead since you have three relatively short ones right now, which looks a little odd. OK, I moved one of them per Golbez above. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ensure refs are post-punctuation where possible (e.g. look at [4]) Fixed, I think. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sortable tables need every linkable item linked every time. Fixed. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "As of January 2010"... it's 10 months down the road now... Fixed. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Maine was admitted to the Union on March 15, 1820, as the 23rd state. Before then, it was the District of Maine, part of the state of Massachusetts." is unreferenced. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Most notes are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] To me it looks like all the ones that need referencing are done, except for "Resigned" and the one about acting governor Burton Cross, and those indeed need it. --Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Would look at two paras in the lead since you have three relatively short ones right now, which looks a little odd.
- OK, I moved one of them per Golbez above. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ensure refs are post-punctuation where possible (e.g. look at [4])
- Fixed, I think. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sortable tables need every linkable item linked every time.
- Fixed. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As of January 2010"... it's 10 months down the road now...
- Fixed. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Maine was admitted to the Union on March 15, 1820, as the 23rd state. Before then, it was the District of Maine, part of the state of Massachusetts." is unreferenced.
- Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most notes are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it looks like all the ones that need referencing are done, except for "Resigned" and the one about acting governor Burton Cross, and those indeed need it. --Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have The Rambling Man and Golbez been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

I think we should have a discussion about references. Right now most governor lists reference the "Other high offices" section but not the biographical details (except the unusual ones). That's the scheme I used for this article, but I'm not sure it makes sense. How should we handle this? —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tad confused. Does listing references in the "biographical details" section mean listing references in the notes section? If so, based upon the last three FL governors lists ( Utah, Kentucky and Idaho), referencing is confusing. Kentucky doesn't have most notes referenced, but Idaho and Utah was asked to have notes referenced. My opinion:

Notes 9 and 15 should be referenced for sure. If those notes were in the main article, a reference would be needed.

Notes 5, 10, 12 and 13 should be referenced. They resigned under unusual circumstances... ie didn't die or resign for a higher office, so they should be referenced.

Usual resignation circumstances, ie resigned for a higher office or died... I think they should be referenced, but I'm not sure.

Other notes should not be referenced. For example, the governor's death is easily looked up on their own article. President of Senate acts as governor is already referenced in the article on why this happens.

Bgwhite (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note regarding the last comment Bgwhite, we aren't reviewing other articles so all information relevant should be presented within the article being reviewed. All content such as deaths should have the relevant references if the claim is likely to challenged. Afro (Talk) 10:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Sometimes we simply have to let people click through. We don't need to reference when someone died in office; we have abundant general sourcing of their terms and their lifespans, so to source that they died in office is a bit too much. --Golbez (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why do we need sorting in the other offices table? Sorting is a way to reorder information; to find out which people won a race from a particular country, or find out which cities have the most population. There's zero use to sort the other offices table except to alphabetize, and I may be in the minority here but I just don't see that as terribly useful. It's slightly more useful to allow sorting of the main table (and since there's no broken cells, it should be made sortable) but to add sorting to the other offices table seems useless. (To the living governors table makes a little sense, to sort by age) --Golbez (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We can sort the main table but we'll have to get rid of the colspan for the color bars. —Designate (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, see List of Governors of Arizona on how it's been done. --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the other offices table and made the main table sortable. —Designate (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Vose appears to have also served only one day. Should he be mentioned in the lead too? Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 6 December 2010 (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 list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:24, 15 December 2010 [5].

2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table[edit]

Nominator(s): ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator: Strange Passerby (talk · contribs)

The article satisfies the FL criteria. You may refer to other Olympic medal table FLs. Just a question, will credits be given to significant contributors to the article? Thanks in advance for reviewing, ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You should invite significant contributors to be part of the process, or add them in their absence as "nominators" (but it's best to check first). Not sure we need a link to "medal" to be honest. At least, not a generic one. Removed. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Would prefer a more imaginative intro so you don't just repeat the title of the list so you can get some bold in the opening sentence! Lede should be captivating enough now :) ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Avoid "see footnote", just use normal notes/references where appropriate. Removed. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Context - what edition of the 2010 SYO is this? Edited article. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Mixed-NOC needs explanation as this is, perhaps, unique? Explained. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] The term is overlinked as well. Resolved. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Do you have a reference for the date of "dissolution" of Netherlands Antilles? Yes. I'm not sure if its absolutely necessary, but its there anyway. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Mildly unstable based on the 15 October 2010 announcement... Haha its stable as the table I feel. Only one actual "disruption" so far. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "for a gold medal[4] and a bronze medal,[5]" prefer "for a gold and a bronze medal,[4][5]" See Strange Passerby's comments below. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] "in these events are bound to be swept by " sorry but I don't know what this means. See Strange Passerby's comments below. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Avoid "Refer to the main article for further information." as well. You've already linked this... Removed. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just for some more context, how old are the competitors in this? Clarified. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Changes... section uses expanded version of IOC, just use abbreviation once you've abbreviated it. Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Remove the overcapitalised title in refs 4 and 5. Removed. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Don't mix date formats in the references. Resolved. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Refs 7 and 9, are they WP:RS and why is one a work and the other a publisher? Both are credible websites covering the Olympics. Used often by WP:OLYMPICS too :) In Safari, I got an error when looking at ref 6... Is is still there now? ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fixed! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Re. RS: [6][7] Seems to meet criteria for RS. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Re. (old ref 6) ref 7 error: it's because there was a Google Maps app in the original link which webcite couldn't handle. The ref is from the text though. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Citation added for dissolution of Dutch Antilles. Overcapitalisation in refs fixed. Refs moved to end of sentence. Reworded mixed-NOCs events "swept by" mixed teams Refs have a single date format now. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

You should invite significant contributors to be part of the process, or add them in their absence as "nominators" (but it's best to check first).
Not sure we need a link to "medal" to be honest. At least, not a generic one.
- Removed. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer a more imaginative intro so you don't just repeat the title of the list so you can get some bold in the opening sentence!
- Lede should be captivating enough now :) ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid "see footnote", just use normal notes/references where appropriate.
- Removed. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Context - what edition of the 2010 SYO is this?
- Edited article. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed-NOC needs explanation as this is, perhaps, unique?
- Explained. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term is overlinked as well.
- Resolved. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference for the date of "dissolution" of Netherlands Antilles?
- Yes. I'm not sure if its absolutely necessary, but its there anyway. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly unstable based on the 15 October 2010 announcement...
- Haha its stable as the table I feel. Only one actual "disruption" so far. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"for a gold medal[4] and a bronze medal,[5]" prefer "for a gold and a bronze medal,[4][5]"
- See Strange Passerby's comments below. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"in these events are bound to be swept by " sorry but I don't know what this means.
- See Strange Passerby's comments below. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid "Refer to the main article for further information." as well. You've already linked this...
- Removed. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for some more context, how old are the competitors in this?
- Clarified. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changes... section uses expanded version of IOC, just use abbreviation once you've abbreviated it.
- Corrected. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the overcapitalised title in refs 4 and 5.
- Removed. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mix date formats in the references.
- Resolved. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 7 and 9, are they WP:RS and why is one a work and the other a publisher?
- Both are credible websites covering the Olympics. Used often by WP:OLYMPICS too :)
In Safari, I got an error when looking at ref 6...
- Is is still there now? ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. RS: [6][7] Seems to meet criteria for RS. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re. (old ref 6) ref 7 error: it's because there was a Google Maps app in the original link which webcite couldn't handle. The ref is from the text though. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added for dissolution of Dutch Antilles.
Overcapitalisation in refs fixed.
Refs moved to end of sentence.
Reworded mixed-NOCs events "swept by" mixed teams
Refs have a single date format now.

Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is no real need for the second table. Just update the entry in the main table and add a note to explain the situation. Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second table was added based on precedent at 2008 Summer Olympics medal table#Changes in medal standings. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally think it clarifies the change clearly. Whether the table should be removed because only one medal change was made is something I've no comments on. Fine either way. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my clumsiness. I should have done a more thorough check! I have one issue that warrants its discussion here. Is or are the Olympics singular or plural? The recently promoted Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics (see FLC) had me convincing reviewers it was singular, and so it stuck. However Strange Passerby believes the Olympics are in plural form and not singular. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- ~~WP:ENGVAR. All our articles on Games in British English-usage countries use the plural. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]
  - ~~Okay then. Which means I would have to make the according changes to Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics as well. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - Done. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 10:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support –

~~Don't think the bolding in the lead is necessary. Once you seperate the bolded items for the purpose of creating a better intro, it doesn't look that attractive to leave the bolding in.~~
~~Medal table: the dashes in the third paragraph should either be made unspaced or turned into smaller en dashes; I recommend the latter for consistency throughout the article.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both done. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

"A total of nine nations – Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Jordan, Nauru and Turkmenistan – won their first ever medals at an Olympic event. Puerto Rico, Vietnam and the U.S. Virgin Islands won their first gold medals." Besides pouring over ~50 medal tables, what is sourcing this information?

Would provide indendent sources for each, give me a day or two. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find sources – and add them – for Bolivia, Eq. Guinea, Jordan, Nauru and Puerto Rico. You'll have to forgive me but I'm unable to find sources for the others. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to oppose over unsourced statements, then. Courcelles 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would a link to a search for all medallists from an NOC at www.olympic.org showing no medals be considered a source? E.g. http://www.olympic.org/en/content/All-Olympic-results-since-1896/?AthleteName=Enter%20a%20name&Category=&Games=&Sport=&Event=&MenGender=false&WomenGender=false&MixedGender=false&TeamClassification=false&IndividualClassification=false&Continent=1310290&Country=346682&GoldMedal=false&SilverMedal=false&BronzeMedal=false&WorldRecord=false&OlympicRecord=false&TargetResults=true 85.164.140.22 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Courcelles been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way to evaluate this idea until it is executed really. This could work or it could not, try it and let's see. Courcelles 02:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review it now and see if that satisfies your concerns? Thanks. Str Pby (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some other opinions here? I'm just not sure about showing a blank search result as proof of something. Courcelles 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well from my perspective, I'm not keen on "sources by deduction" i.e. working out that something hadn't happened yet because a source provides no results. I suspect you may need to rely on non-English sources (which is okay, if used reliably, sparingly and with appropriate translation) to fix this problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:"The concept of mixed-NOCs was newly introduced in the games" Not quite- see Mixed team at the 1896 Summer Olympics. The first three Olympiads (and perhaps 1924 Chamonix) had mixed teams. Actually, both are different, which explains their different names. This has been roughed out thoroughly in Archive 1 of the article's talk page; and in fact, Archive 2 and the current talk page. A number of sources also introduce mixed-NOCs as a new concept in the Olympics. From the official Singapore 2010 website: " It is the first time in Olympic history that there will be mixed-NOC events." From the official Olympic website: "introduction of innovative events, such as the mixed NOC team fencing competition", "created especially for the YOG" ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Read that a little more critically. Events specifically for mixed teams? New concept. The idea of folks from different nations making up a team? Not new at all. They're different, though somewhat related, concepts. Courcelles 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was unsure of it myself at first, though the talk page debate with other editors eventually led me to believe mixed-NOCs is a new concept. I will find time tomorrow to comb through the talk page archives to review what happened then; don't think I got it wrong, but we'll see. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have now reworded the offending sentence. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Prose, "(202 gold, 200 silver and 221 bronze)" Table, "199 silver". Also compare 623 versus 622. Sorry about the mistake. I've corrected it. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] not a mistake. 1 silver medal stripped. --Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You are right. Now I know why I thought I had made a mistake when I hadn't. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have included a short mention of the stripped medal in that paragraph now, although the main information is still in the "changes in medals" section. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ref 8, why is this a reliable source? Ditto ref 11. Courcelles 04:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] AroundTheRings (ref 8) has its own article on WP, and is well-cited by other news sources. And if you read up on Morethanthegames (ref 11), there is absolutely nothing to suggest its unreliability. If I'm not wrong, it is one of the top sports news providers in the UK. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Any response to the rest of my comments, then? Courcelles 08:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:"The concept of mixed-NOCs was newly introduced in the games" Not quite- see Mixed team at the 1896 Summer Olympics. The first three Olympiads (and perhaps 1924 Chamonix) had mixed teams.

Actually, both are different, which explains their different names. This has been roughed out thoroughly in Archive 1 of the article's talk page; and in fact, Archive 2 and the current talk page. A number of sources also introduce mixed-NOCs as a new concept in the Olympics. From the official Singapore 2010 website: " It is the first time in Olympic history that there will be mixed-NOC events." From the official Olympic website: "introduction of innovative events, such as the mixed NOC team fencing competition", "created especially for the YOG" ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read that a little more critically. Events specifically for mixed teams? New concept. The idea of folks from different nations making up a team? Not new at all. They're different, though somewhat related, concepts. Courcelles 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unsure of it myself at first, though the talk page debate with other editors eventually led me to believe mixed-NOCs is a new concept. I will find time tomorrow to comb through the talk page archives to review what happened then; don't think I got it wrong, but we'll see. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reworded the offending sentence. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose, "(202 gold, 200 silver and 221 bronze)" Table, "199 silver". Also compare 623 versus 622.

Sorry about the mistake. I've corrected it. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not a mistake. 1 silver medal stripped. --Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Now I know why I thought I had made a mistake when I hadn't. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a short mention of the stripped medal in that paragraph now, although the main information is still in the "changes in medals" section. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 8, why is this a reliable source?

Ditto ref 11.

Courcelles 04:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AroundTheRings (ref 8) has its own article on WP, and is well-cited by other news sources. And if you read up on Morethanthegames (ref 11), there is absolutely nothing to suggest its unreliability. If I'm not wrong, it is one of the top sports news providers in the UK. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any response to the rest of my comments, then? Courcelles 08:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 07:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments - per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons. Afro (Talk) 08:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The only colored cells are the 'Gold', 'Silver' and 'Bronze' cells at the top of the table, if I not wrong? If that is so... they don't need explanation since it involves basic understanding of sports. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Umm, see the Singapore row. Courcelles 11:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] That is correct Courcelles. Afro (Talk) 14:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well that is explained at the top of the table. This practice of highlighting the host nation in blue already applies to the ten or so Olympic medal table FLs. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Its the only way you are conveying the information in the table, its why you need a symbol. Afro (Talk) 18:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Actually, technically the symbol here would be "Singapore", so I'm not sure it's a problem, as the key says, so it's not really a problem (in my opinion). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I guess that makes sense. Afro (Talk) 13:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 07:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments - per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons. Afro (Talk) 08:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The only colored cells are the 'Gold', 'Silver' and 'Bronze' cells at the top of the table, if I not wrong? If that is so... they don't need explanation since it involves basic understanding of sports. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm, see the Singapore row. Courcelles 11:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct Courcelles. Afro (Talk) 14:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is explained at the top of the table. This practice of highlighting the host nation in blue already applies to the ten or so Olympic medal table FLs. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its the only way you are conveying the information in the table, its why you need a symbol. Afro (Talk) 18:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, technically the symbol here would be "Singapore", so I'm not sure it's a problem, as the key says, so it's not really a problem (in my opinion). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes sense. Afro (Talk) 13:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – this FLC is stagnating and I believe that as a co-nominator I've done what I can to try to solve the concern raised in the single oppose. However, as this seems to have been unsatisfactory, and as my co-nominator has only made one edit in the past month and has been unable to help on this issue upon which I've reached a dead end, I'm formally requesting the article be withdrawn from consideration from WP:FLC. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:10, 15 December 2010 (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 list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:06, 14 December 2010 [8].

Shooting thaler[edit]

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the standards for a Featured List and covers the topic of shooting thalers thoroughly.-RHM22 (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments resolved by GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs)

Quick Comments:
- You didn't add non-breaking space. See here.
- References should be after punctuation marks.

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I fixed the punctuation, but I have a small question about the NBSP. Should they be added before and after a number, or just after? For instance, if I wanted to write "The United States entered World War II in 1941 due to the bombing of Pearl Harbor", should I type "The United States entered World War II in 1941 due to the bombing of Pearl Harbor or "The United States entered World War II in 1941 due to the bombing of Pearl Harbor"?-RHM22 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NBSP wouldn't be necessary in that instance for the year. It should be used for "World War II", or anywhere that separating the number would cause confusion (see examples at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Non-breaking_spaces). At a glance, the only place I see the need for it here is in the diameter measurements. Jujutacular ^talk 03:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The only problem, however, is that I used conversion templates for all the diameter measurements.-RHM22 (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you should add for example in measurement modules like this: 10 centimeter or 40 millimeter. oops, didn't read above, sry.

Just to be sure, there aren't any places left that need the NBSP, are there? I went over the article and I didn't see any.-RHM22 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found one and added non-breaking.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currencies shouldn't have non-breakings.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've removed the NBSPs from the currencies.-RHM22 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments nice to see a list of something slightly different here! Comments on the lead only as I am "otherwise engaged"!

Avoid bold links in the lead.
The lead could be perhaps three times the size, this list is big so the lead needs to comprehensively summarise it.
No French for "shooting festival" or "free shoot"?
I hate years in headings, but that's just my opinion.
Perhaps a useful link for "circulating" for non-numismatists.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great suggestions! I'll fix those right away. Unfortunately, I don't know what the French translations for those two words are. I know the direct translation ("tir libre" for "free shoot", for example), but I don't know if those are actually correct in that context. I'll check my books and see what I can find. Thanks again for the suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I found the French translation, at least for shooting festival. It should be "fête de tir"!-RHM22 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some to the lead, but I was only able to increase it by about double. Also, I don't really think I can remove the years, because they're very important in coin-related articles. I fixed the other problems. I'm sorry that I was not able to improve upon it more.-RHM22 (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments more on the top part of the list...

Not sure why the year needs to be in the heading when it's repeated in each table.
Would make the lead into two paragraphs rather than one big one.
Would force the table of contents to display to level two only as it's quite oversized right now.
Image caption has a capital T for Thaler, but the article title doesn't. Why?
"each bearing the same design. One of which is struck in silver while the other is struck in gold" ->"each bearing the same design, one struck in silver, the other in gold".
Caption "5 francs" ->"five francs".

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think addressed everything. Using a little imagination, I was able to remove all the years in the lead. I fixed the capitalized "thalers" and the clumsy sentence and edited the lead into two paragraphs. One for the definition of a shooting thaler and one for history of the coins. The table of contents thing was a really good idea. I don't think it affects the ease of access at all, and it looks a lot better. I changed the caption for the 1934 image to "five francs", but you didn't mean to change all the captions within the tables, did you? I can do that, I just wasn't sure if that's what you meant or not. Thanks again for great suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note to those interested in the article: JohnFromPinckney suggested added new tables to the article in order to increase it's usefulness to users who are required to use special read-aloud software (sorry, I forgot exactly what that is called). John and I have both decided on a suitable layout. I'll begin implementing them soon, but it may take a little while, as I need to add some information about the images for the rollover text. I apologize for the inconvenience to reviewers. Please feel free to remove this article from the FL nominations if these changes could possibly cause some type of jam in the system. Thanks to all who have contributed thoughts and suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I think withdrawing the nomination is a good idea if you are about to undertake a large overhaul of the list. I'll remove it from the listing in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will it be ok for me to renominate the list after all necessary changes have been made?-RHM22 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I know I'll have to wait two weeks for the renomination, but I'm not in any rush.-RHM22 (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, renomination is fine, and in this case I would see no objection to it being listed sooner than two weeks. Good luck with your changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2010 (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 list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 15:09, 6 December 2010 [9].

List of awards and nominations received by Santana[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is closed ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jujutacular ^talk 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The lead suffers from poor grammar and sentence construction. Needs to be mostly rewritten. Can you have a look now, you might watched the prior version. See lead comments below. Jujutacular ^talk 19:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] The lead needs to give a bit more background information about the group. I don't think so. Look at this: The lead sparsely contains any background informations. In the infobox, there should be more nominations than wins (as wins are a subset of nominations). See for example List of awards and nominations received by Arcade Fire. narrowed. Looks kinda funny now. You misunderstood, I mean to change '7' nominations to '58' - as they have been nominated for 58, winning 51 of them. Jujutacular ^talk 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh boy... Sry. Done Award names should not be bold. done Jujutacular ^talk 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Lead comments "They have been nominated for, and won, a number of awards during their career." - awkward sentence construction - 'career' is usually used to refer to one person, not a band Reworded "This including ten and two nominations, for the Grammy Awards and three Latin Grammy Awards" huh? Reworded Grammar is still awkward. Jujutacular ^talk 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Overall, Santana has received fifty-one awards and seven nominations" - the list documents 51 wards and (58?) nominations, can you be positive there aren't any more? Oh I know what you mean :D. Reworded Better, but not quite there. It is misleading to say definitively that he has received fifty-one awards unless you have a source specifically saying that. Just because we've created a list of 51 awards doesn't mean they haven't won a few more we don't know about. Jujutacular ^talk 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~I know a websites including all awards, but it is marked as a spam link...~~ donesee below "Santana sold in the following years more than 100 million album copies to date and is cited to be the best-selling latin band." How about: "In the following years, Santana sold more than 100 million album copies and is cited to be the best-selling latin band." Reworded Still problematic - the sentence is not verified by the source provided. Also, cited by whom? Jujutacular ^talk 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~Changed site, but it is heavily loading for me.~~ Website is loading Ok now. "so far" - use "to date" Changed Jujutacular ^talk 19:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your comments.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jujutacular ^talk 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~

The lead suffers from poor grammar and sentence construction. Needs to be mostly rewritten.
- Can you have a look now, you might watched the prior version.
  - See lead comments below. Jujutacular ^talk 19:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs to give a bit more background information about the group.
- I don't think so. Look at this: The lead sparsely contains any background informations.
In the infobox, there should be more nominations than wins (as wins are a subset of nominations). See for example List of awards and nominations received by Arcade Fire.
- narrowed. Looks kinda funny now.
  - You misunderstood, I mean to change '7' nominations to '58' - as they have been nominated for 58, winning 51 of them. Jujutacular ^talk 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh boy... Sry. Done
Award names should not be bold.
- done

Jujutacular ^talk 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead comments

"They have been nominated for, and won, a number of awards during their career." - awkward sentence construction - 'career' is usually used to refer to one person, not a band
- Reworded
"This including ten and two nominations, for the Grammy Awards and three Latin Grammy Awards" huh?
- Reworded
  - Grammar is still awkward. Jujutacular ^talk 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Overall, Santana has received fifty-one awards and seven nominations" - the list documents 51 wards and (58?) nominations, can you be positive there aren't any more?
- Oh I know what you mean :D. Reworded
  - Better, but not quite there. It is misleading to say definitively that he has received fifty-one awards unless you have a source specifically saying that. Just because we've created a list of 51 awards doesn't mean they haven't won a few more we don't know about. Jujutacular ^talk 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~I know a websites including all awards, but it is marked as a spam link...~~ donesee below
"Santana sold in the following years more than 100 million album copies to date and is cited to be the best-selling latin band." How about: "In the following years, Santana sold more than 100 million album copies and is cited to be the best-selling latin band."
- Reworded
  - Still problematic - the sentence is not verified by the source provided. Also, cited by whom? Jujutacular ^talk 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Changed site, but it is heavily loading for me.~~ Website is loading Ok now.
"so far" - use "to date"
- Changed

Jujutacular ^talk 19:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of addressing my concerns, as I was still not happy with the state of the grammar. Therefore I will recuse myself from further review. Jujutacular ^talk 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Prose.

Grammar: "an Mexican"
- Done , look above.
  - Yay. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Latin Grammy Award is an award, which are given to musicians, who have contributed to Latin music."
- It's comprehensible, that this award is given to latin musicians, but I couldn't design an another sentence.
  - How about: "The Latin Grammy Award is an award given to musicians who have contributed to Latin music" or "The Latin Grammy is awarded to musicians who have contributed to Latin music." — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wasn't it the same as I wrote before? Reworded.
Article undecided whether Santana is singular or plural.
- Done, look above.
  - No, not done. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proofreading: "including ten[4] and two nominations"
- Done, look above.
  - Yes, but still suffers from problem in next item. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The following I changed to: "The band was also inducted into the followings: Grammy Hall of Fame,[5] Hollywood Walk of Fame,[6] Latin Grammy Hall of Fame[7] and NAACP Image Hall of Fame.[8]" Better?
Uses phrasing like "fifty-one awards and seven nominations" throughout as if they were two unrelated things.
- Done, look above.
  - This is a problem throughout the article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Do you mean I should delete the nominations in the whole paragraphs and just write the awards?~~done I reworded like this: fifty-one awards from fifty-eight nominations.
Caps: "First band with over 5 Million record sales worldwide"
- Changed
  - No. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes (computer problem)
The description under "Hollywood Walk of Fame Award" needs a quick and thorough replacement.
- Done
  - Where? In your Sandbox? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about now?

2. Lead.

No; grammar errors, basic formatting mistakes, awkward phrasing. Needs copy-editing/re-writing.
- Done, look above.
  - No, not done. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5(a). Style.

Formatting for book title against MoS.
- Maybe it's OK now (couldn't find MoS especially for books, but I looked at Help:Footnotes).
Caps in "Further Reading" heading per MoS
- I don't understand; the first letters were capitalised. Should I rewrite to "FURTHER READING"?
Page is hard to parse with all those one-entry tables.
- Any suggestion?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Need formatting per MoS
- Is it Ok now?
  - Why, did you change something? The date formats don't all match in the refs section. Magazines and books should be italicized. Web site names should not be italicized (my personal preference) OR they should all be italicized (default of templates like ((cite web))). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Italicized and non-italicized.
A quick check of just a few refs (#5, #6) showed semi-invented titles. Cf. refs 21–23.
- The problem is that I don't know the publisher, like californian music awards.
  - Huh? If you don't know the publisher, where did you get the reference? Ref #22 is a public wiki anyway, so it's of no use here. But I was complaining about the titles being products of your imagination, which has no connection to you knowing the publisher's name, AFAICT. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changed from (#5, #6)

"Grammys for Santana" to "Grammy Awards for Santana"

"Induction in the Hollywood Walk of Fame" to "Induction into the Hollywood Walk of Fame", did you mean this?

(#21-#23)

Capitalized "Californian Music Awards"

~~I know wikimusikguide isn't a veriable source, but I coulnd't find any better (except the "spam link", that I mentioned above).~~ Replaced link

- Added bio in pdf format with publisher
- Made a request to mark website as a white-list and added reference
- Took several cleanups-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doing ~~added more awards after I had whitelisted it-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)~~ done[reply]

Ref #24 is suspect. Are both claims really confirmed on page 1888? How many pages are in that book, then?
- Done.That was an error made by Dash Solver
  - Are you even answering the same issues I've mentioned? Or are you typing answers to questions on another page? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Yes I'm answering and I changed from "page=" to "pages=" long before -_-?
    - Oh I don't know what happened, but much of my improvements Were not changed. My computer is lagging today, I don't know why (maybe overload).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GreatOrangePumpkin, I just saw that you left a message on my Talk page to "Stop insulting [you]." I don't know what insult you are referring to, as I haven't edited this page since 19:58, and you made multiple edits here before leaving your note at 21:37. It doesn't make sense.

I must also say, however, that I am sorry I took a swing at trying to review the article you nominated. Not only is it quite unready for Featured status, but you have taken a weird approach to the review. I should have known better following our last interaction, but then, I guess I'm a slow learner. I don't like that you interleave replies between my notes contrary to the instructions, but I see that happens a lot. I really don't like the way you move my signature around so that a reader may mistake your words for mine. And I can't understand why you think it's okay to strike out a bunch of my comments and notes when they haven't been addressed yet. I hadn't even read all of your replies before you started striking out the text. Once again, it makes me wonder what you think we're doing here. It certainly makes me wonder what I'm doing here.

I believe the best thing is for me to withdraw from this process. I remain opposed to this article being promoted without considerable work being done, but you or whatever FL honchos end up reviewing my notes may choose to disregard them, as I no longer expect to respond to further claims of "done" or queries whether it's "okay now". — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Lots of problems with refs:

Many of the references have "titles" which are completely different to the actual title of the source. For example, ref 12 has the title "Santana received his World Records", but the actual title of the source is "Grammy Awards 2010: Continuing a Record-Breaking Tradition". Similarly, ref 30 lists the title as "Patrick Lippert Award for Santana", but the source actually has the title "History of Rock the Vote". Why have these "fake" titles been used?
- I misunderstood; I thought I must write titles alone. Done
Ref 5 has a wikilink in the "title" field, remove this as it blocks the actual link to the source. Also the title of the source is not "Grammy" anyway.....
- done
Ref 19 lists the publisher as Billboard, but it is actually on something called www.mexiko-lindo.de. What is this, what makes it a reliable source, and why is it being claimed that the publisher is Billboard when it blatantly isn't?
- Yes, but the awards are called Billboard Music Awards, so the publisher is Billboard, or not? And I think it's a reliable source, because this site is about Mexico and the people, including Carlos Santana. So I don't think they invent this awards and put his name. Maybe I should contact this page and ask where you found this awards and nominations.
  - The "publisher" field refers to the publisher of the source, which in this case is the mexiko-lindo website. Please read WP:V#Reliable sources which will confirm what is considered a reliable source. I can't see anything which would indicate that this site has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and given that it appears to be a travel site, I doubt it is run by experts on music. More reliable sources for these awards must surely exist..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Medallion" is spelt wrong in the title of ref 26
- done
What makes aceshowbiz.com a reliable source?
- Well, it's like the german page above: It's might be a spam-site but it's not a list of awards, that this author invented. And I also ask to whitelist this, so it would take me much time to revert the edits.
Refs 25/27 seem to suggest that both facts are referenced to page 1888 of the International Who's Who 2004, but according to this, the book only has 1888 pages. I'm guessing that the source information is not on the back cover, so what page of the book is actually referencing those facts?
- Huh? The book has 1888 pages. The page is 1478. I added this page to the book reference, although I think it wasn't necessary to do this, because the page can be seen at the bottom.

There are also lots of problems with the prose, which really needs a copyedit from a native English speaker, but the referencing issues are the most glaring faults for me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

There seems to be a cite error on the page with the references "cMA2" and "CMA".
- oops forgot to delete this. done
"In the following years, Santana sold more than 100 million album copies to date." is it possible to get a reliable third party source for this?
- I couldn't find any references, proofing that they sold more than 100mil.
How reliable is Rockonthenet.com? it looks like a fansite, and I can't seem to find an About page.
- No it's not a fansite at all. I found alot of featured "awards and nominations" which contain this ref, for example: List of awards received by U2

Other pages using it is hardly concrete evidence, any FLCs in the past year or so which have used it? Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 12:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I remove this source, more than half of the awards should also be deleted. This page has archivated famous awards. I would use the official grammy awards website, but unfortunately this site was updated and only nominees from the years 2009 and 2010 are shown.

After looking over the website again, I found an FAQ (stupid me as it was in plain view). looking over the FAQ though it doesn't settle my concerns "Artist Information pages are created from a thorough search of all artist websites including fan pages and record label profiles.". Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns over Hollywoodusa.co.uk as well, I can't seem to find an About page on their website.
- Added official website.done
Wouldn't it be easier to use the actual ref for 20 and 22? Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 23:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what actual ref? I am sure, this book is a good reference, especially who is who.

Well 20 and 22 seem to be using "Sleeman, Elizabeth, ed. (June 2003). The International Who's Who 2004 (2004 ed.). Europa Publications. pp. 1478 of 1888. ISBN 978-1857432176. Retrieved 2010-11-12." wouldn't it be easier to have this in the reference than "The International Who's Who 2004: 3"? Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 12:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to add books in the notes section? I thought they should be separated. If so I will do that.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping this point after reviewing some recently promoted FLs. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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