Comprehensive, easy to follow list. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object; no references. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 07:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - a bit too much of red links. Renata 14:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Red links in a list like this should be expected. I suspect that many of the names are not of note, except for their appearance on this list. -- Samuel Wantman 09:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dungeons & Dragons computer and video games/archive1
There are no longer any images on the page, and I see nothing that needs or admits citation. Support Ben Standeven 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - reference format is not external link format. See ((cite web)) of how web pages should be properly cited. The lead is way too short. The list could do with more info because now a simple category could perform its functions. But most importantly, the list looks very very ugly (and even the version with pictures looked ugly, so don't blame them). Renata 01:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object; information should be tabular, with fields such as release date, publisher, platform etc. Just a long text list at the moment. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per above. It could sure use a better lead and a little more information. Phoenix2 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I agree with Smurrayinchester, more info can be included, this is not the best Wikipedia has to offer. Nevertheless, it is still a good work, it just needs more info and a better formatting. Afonso Silva 21:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've proposed an alternate format for the list here; please let me know if it's an improvement. --Muchness 22:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I always hate it when a "notes" box is included because inevitably you end up with a bunch of ugly, empty boxes. I feel that footnotes work better for any notes that are needed. --SeizureDog 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about changing the "notes" column into a "series" column? Ben Standeven 21:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The structure seems good. And I agree with this second proposal of a "series" column if information about series is the only thing that can be included there. Afonso Silva 13:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a mock-up using footnotes at my sandbox. We could add an additional series column. --Muchness 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nom. An extensive list of fish in Swedish waters, both native and introduced, in both fresh, brackish and marine waters.
The most important fish are given a little text in the lead of each section. All information is referenced to a Swedish fish database. There are also images of the fish that are mentioned. Naturally more could be written about each species but I'm not sure making the list even longer would be benefitial.
Although all textual information is well referenced, I admit that it is a problem that the list reference is not online anymore. I did not expect that from the Swedish Museum of Natural History! It is however available on archive.org: [1] . I have written to the museum and asked what happened to the page.
Fred-Chess 12:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good stuff, but: there are way too many red links, the pictures distort the layout big time, the table columns are not of consistent width, references are not quite cited in an acceptable format (see ((cite web)) for the format), and the introduction could benefit from some more information (I especially don't like a direct reference to the table itself). Renata 13:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now corrected the tables to make the rows equally wide. It did require the table width to increase to 700px , hope it fits all screens. / Fred-Chess 14:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What makes the fish in Marine waters Swedish? Are they found in what Sweden defines as its territorial sea (12 nautical miles from the coast)? CheekyMonkey 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I would assume so. It isn't mentioned in the material I used. There is also often made reference to two different areas: the marine east of Sweden and the marine west of Sweden. The water east of Sweden is the Baltic Sea, and in its northern parts it is (a) cold and (b) quite brackish. The water west of Sweden, on the other hand, is part of the Atlantic, where Sweden has territorial sea in both the Skagerrack and the Kattegat. (see map Image:Map of Sweden, CIA, 1996.jpg). / Fred-Chess 19:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object It is a great list, well-referenced but with a large number of red links it fails the usefulness criteria. Other things to consider:
- Some pictures are framed while others are thumbed and captioned. I think it is preferable to thumb and caption all.
- What taxonomic order or authority are you using? This should be mentioned in the lead.
- Why does the lead use an approximate number of species? If this list is complete then an exact number of species can be given.
I will support once these issues have been addressed. The red links are the most time-consuming request. Good luck and ,once again, good job. Joelito (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article because it contains useful data from multiple sources, and is a valuable resource to many. I was surprised that there are no economics related featured lists yet, which is also why i am nominating this particular list.Suicup 02:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I think I would perfer having every country listed and stick the ones without information on them at the end with a dash in the rank and a "No info" in its "GDP (PPP)". This keeps the lists all lined up. Don't do this unless I'm supported by another though. A short explanation on the terms used might be good as well. Need to avoid redundancy between articles of course, but a couple of sentences to where we're not forced to go check the meanings would be nice. --SeizureDog 13:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: layout bothers me. There should be one table only and the bottom of the page looks ugly when only CIA factbook has still countries to list. The list should use cite.php instead of ((ref)). Renata 13:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't agree with grouping all in one table, that will generate ranking problems. What can be done is listing all the territories in all the 3 tables, and where the info is unavailable, put something saying that. I know it is not a good solution, but grouping is also not that good. Afonso Silva 10:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the page is great as it is. It shows clearly that there is multiple sources which calculates GDP with different datas each, so tables should not be merged. And we don't need to make the tables the same lenght, it doesn't affect the aestethics of the page, and the reader will certainly guess that the information is not provided by this source. CG 12:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this list is well constructed and full of detail. It is worthy of being featured. Comment below. --Chris 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. This list is poorly structured and unreferenced. In fact on the WikiProject The Simpsons we have discussed how to improve the character lists. --Maitch 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong object Ugly, messy list. I'm assuming it's probably not complete (as there are a lot of characters) and the lack of pictures is killer. --SeizureDog 04:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - The list is ugly and messy. Some characters have a description, others don't. I don't think a table would be better, this kind of structure is, perhaps, preferable, and WP:TABLE says that. However, it still needs an improved formatting, better references and a more coherent distribution of the information. Afonso Silva 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong object - ugly & unreferenced. Renata 00:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Widthdrawn
Nomination - highly useful list. --bdude Talk 03:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object:
- There's no telling how incomplete of a list that might be
- Might need to be moved to wikidictionary instead
- Over half of the words don't link to an article
- Could be tabled
- No references--SeizureDog 05:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly object - not only is this list is almost certainly incomplete, it includes a raft of words that are unquestionably part of the English language (sabotage, anyone?). I like the fact that the list exists, and I think it's a good page to have, but this requires a LOT of work before it's ready for featured status. I'm also not entirely convinced that some of the literal translations are the best they could be, although this is something of which a native French speaker would have a better idea. Dybeck 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination retracted I'm not even into football but these lists are amazingly well done. There might be a few consistancy problems and the external links might need to be turned into refferences, but I don't think it should take much effort at all to smooth out any wrinkles they might have. While I only put the tag for the 2002 cup, this nomination is actually for all 17 articles as they are all in the same format and are all very well done. --SeizureDog 09:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the bulk approach is going to work here. Please list all 17 article individually (not at once, of course). They need to be considered individually. It's not Wikipedia:Featured topics. Renata 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I certainly don't see the need to waste effort in reviewing them 18 seperate times. As I see it, it might take, say, a week to review all of one list completely, put then we can just have the same logic apply to the rest and review them in about an hour each. --SeizureDog 13:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Renata, list them individually. Why such hurry? Let the community review them one by one, of course you may list them all at the same time, if you do it properly (not this way), but don't forget you need 4 supports to promote an article, so, you should give people time to analyze each article. What do you think? Afonso Silva 13:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination process takes about 2 weeks. That's 9 months if they go through one at a time. It's not that I'm in a hurry, but nobody wants to wait THAT long. I'm find with focusing on reviewing one article as long as it means the process for the following related articles would take less time or could be mass done. That's assuming they pass of course. If it fails they all fail so it quickens things there as well.--SeizureDog 14:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, all those articles should go through FAC in my opinion. Most of those articles could be expanded greatly. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They seem kinda in the middle. While they could have information as an article perhaps, they are very listy by nature from all of that play statistics. I don't think there's any way they'd let it go as an article. It feels more like a list to me. --SeizureDog 11:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, these articles could be expanded a lot so I prefer if we move the detailed statistics and calendars to titles like 2006 FIFA World Cup calendar or 2006 FIFA World Cup matches or 2006 FIFA World Cup statistics and keep the current titles just for text and information. CG 12:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This proposal is quite sensible. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Renata 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. Nomination retracted on grounds that it's only a semi-list :P --SeizureDog 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just from checking a couple, it seems 1954 and 1958 are not even finished yet (all scorers and match info, as in most of the others are not done) AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article myself and several other editors have been working on for quite some time. When I first encountered the list, it was very disorganized and cluttered. A group of editors (see the history of the list) and I worked to improve the article both informatively and in formatting so that it would be ready for featured list status. It follows all five criteria, as far as I can see. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 00:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is there looks good, but the lead could be expanded. Also, the list seems incomplete. Only 41 people (five without an article) that were born or reside in Colorado are worth noting? Seems like there should be a lot more. VegaDark 01:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, VegaDark, I expanded the introduction a bit, and I will be incorporating many notable names found in Category:People from Colorado into the list. So yes, presently, the list is incomplete, but I (and hopefully others, if they would like) will expand the list significantly in time for more votes. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 04:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Someone will soon come along and officially object about the copyright status of some of the images. Generally try to avoid fair use or copyrighted images. Rmhermen 02:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- This list is a dynamic list, and will be subject to too much changes as time advance. It's probably not truely comprehensive either (e.g. categoryPeople from Colorado has 195 pages, this lists about 60 of them, but lists are generally expected to expand beyond categories.)
- All images should be strictly free, because this list is not closely associated with any of these people.
- As far as Images goes, maybe you could consider adding a map or a generic landscape picture for the lead? Not everyone can locate Colorado on a map (I am Canadian and although I have a rough diea of where it is, I couldn'ts pot it with 60% accuracy on a map). This is just a suggestion, though.
- Circeus 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The notion of notability is very vague and hence this list can never be considered complete. Unless it is clearly defined what is considered notable, this shouldn't become a Featured List. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - list should be focused on people who are actual Colorado natives, but can also include those who were raised in Colorado or lived in Colorado. I actually found the list of people from North Carolina useful, so maybe you could make the list of Coloradoans in a similar style/format. -User:Arual
Withdrawn Self-nom. Timeline of United States and China relations 1995-1997 is a companion timeline to the featured article 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal which I wrote. I put months of work into this (there are over 130 unique references) and I think you all will find it interesting to say the least. Let me know what you think. Thanks! --Jayzel 22:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object:
Lead claims it goes to May 1997 but text goes to December. Also, no clear reasoning for the start and end dates is given. Rmhermen 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is the introduction for others to see: "The Timeline of United States and China relations 1995-1997 consists of documented information relating both to the 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal and the People's Republic of China's alleged nuclear espionage against the United States detailed in the Congressional report known as the Cox Report. The timeline also incorporates information relating to the actions of the Clinton Administration and the government of China between May 1995 and December 1997."
- Clearly, the lead claims to go to December 1997. I'm at a loss where you see "May 1997". As for your other comment, the reasoning for the time period is due to the main actions relating to the two issues in question. Namely, the campaign finance scandal and the nuclear espionage investigations. I take it you don't have any complaints regarding POV issues, facts, and references? --Jayzel 17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I must have read the dates backwards. Rmhermen 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not clear that the events listed in May are related to those two issues. And the last event is in 1998 and implies further events not listed. Seems to be relatively short of Chinese events versus those occuring in the U.S. Rmhermen 00:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe your concerns have been addressed. Originally, the timeline had a different title and I should have deleted some of the info when I changed it. Now that it's a bit shorter, it's easier to read. I hope you like it! Thanks!--Jayzel 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has a lot of good points, including the summary box in the top right (though I am not sure if PLA is worth linking to as a related issue, any more than linking to the U.S. Army would be). However, the scope of the list is a little confusing. It seems incredibly arbitrary! 1995-2000 would make a little more sense purely numerically; there doesn't seem to be a clear topical reason to stop at 1998. It would also be nice if there other timelines of U.S.-China relations on "either side" that could be linked to, to form something of a series. TheGrappler 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed PLA from the issues list. That was meant to go under related groups. Perhaps the problem is with the title of the article. Until I can think of a sutable title I'm withdrawing the nomination. Thanks! --Jayzel 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object That name's just a redirect. The article's actual name is "Timeline of the Chinagate controversy". First, Chinagate is hardly a neutral name, though in some right wing circles, it's common enough. Second, this is a hodgepodge of stuff about campaign finance and weapons deals. The only common thread is that some folks use the phrase Chinagate to refer to essentially any controversial contact during that period with China. But, under any name, that leads to the false, or at least unsupported, impression that this is all one coherent event instead of bits and pieces of various contacts all juxtaposed. It's probably a better candidate for AFD than for featured status. Derex 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has already been withdrawn Derex. No need to object. P.S. Chinagate isn't just a name "rightwingers" use. Plenty of middle of the road folks use it too (myself included). Regardless, even if your evil right-wingers only used it, it would still be valid. The term's been used in the media many times. By the way, did you see my work over at the old Chinagate page? I rebuilt the page, changed the title of the article, and got it featured on the main page back in April. By the way, how's you Plame Affair page going? I stopped checking in back when it reached 160 kilobytes! ;) --Jayzel 02:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I checked it a while back. I generally liked what you did with it. (Otherwise, you'd know it by my presence there ;) While I'd quibble with a thing or two, I think you did a pretty reasonable job of keeping it NPOV and informative — especially for someone who does have a strong POV (or so I gather by the freep posting). I recall that this is roughly what you initially posted there. Didn't like it then, and clearly don't like it any better now.
- I haven't edited Plame Affair much (if any) that I recall. I did participate in Talk there for a few days with some joker who didn't understand NPOV tags. Ended up having to clarify the official guidelines after that, to prevent willful misinterpretation. Derex 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you liked it. I can do anything with a NPOV. I'm a trained journalist (Old school journalism -- not this new infotainment crap). My Freeping days ended many years ago, BTW. There were many intelligent researchers there back in the late 1990s. None now. That's why I'm here. I can't stand rabid ideologues of any stripe. Anyhow, this isn't really the place for a chat so I'll bid you adieu. It's getting late in my neck o' the world. Time to hit the sack! --Jayzel 04:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "... can't stand rabid ideologues of any stripe" — common ground. Derex 17:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I am not sure if this meets the completeness criteria. This looks like hand-picking the set of news the editors of the article "think" are relevant to the article. While writing FAs on Timelines are easy as they need to follow Summary Style, FLs should be complete. There are events that people can argue have nothing to do with the Chinagate controversy while someone can come up with another piece of news and claim it is significant enough. If the editors have a definition of what is considered notable enough event to be mentioned in this list, I might reconsider my opinion. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - doesn't satisfy WP:CITE. The web pages need to be referenced correctly (try ((cite web)) if you are unsure how to do this), including a date of access. The book reference could do with details such as name of publisher, date of publication, (depending on reference style) place of publication, and ISBN number. Ideally (especially if you are pressing for featured status), page numbers ought to be given for specific facts. If may well be better to use the new cite.php (<ref>) rather than the old template system - this may make referencing easier for you. This is a good list and has certainly got the potential to be featured once the referencing is sorted out though! TheGrappler 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. Sorry Blnguyen, but I am going to have to oppose. While it is an excellent list and contains great information, it is not exactly appealing more than any other list out there. It has great potential, however, and I hope that you work it up to be a FL. For now, though, I suggest that you add a few pictures, make some more write-ups about Australian involvement and their impact on the games. → J@red 19:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would like to see commas between the dates in the tables. Rmhermen 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
