List of Central Coast Mariners FC players

List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks

List of New Jersey birds

List of The Batman episodes

Cleveland Browns seasons

This is a self-nominated and self-supported list documenting seasons completed by the Cleveland Browns. The list is based on other similar lists, notably Chicago Bears seasons and Minnesota Vikings seasons. It is properly formatted and and includes references and relevant footnotes. I believe the lead is sufficient and explains things that need to be explained. If anyone needs to fix or change anything, be bold about it. Support as creator. Wlmaltby3 00:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks fine to me; matches the others for quality and consistency. -Phoenix 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Watch your duplicate wikis, this needs to be cleaned up. Everything else looks great though! RyguyMN 05:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The other lists have similar duplicate wikis. I did it for consistency. Wlmaltby3 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this is a case where the duplicate wikilinks are justified. Good work - I can see these becoming a Featured Topic. Tompw (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree. It goes against Wikipedia guidlines. See WP:Manual_of_Style#Wikilinking. Redundant links clutter the list and make it difficult to read. Chicago Bears seasons and Minnesota Vikings seasons do not have redundant links and this should be consistent will all season articles. RyguyMN 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think you looked well enough. There are certainly plenty of redundant links of the Bears' seasons page. Wlmaltby3 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I don't think I was being clear enough. The playoff opponents have redundant links. The playoff games are fine because they refer to a specific year. The Awards column looks great. Look at the playoff sections carefully on the Bears and Vikings pages. This is how it should be laid out. The table has some funky issues with borders going on as well. Still needs formatting work, but the information looks great otherwise. RyguyMN 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. If you look at the 1985 season on the Bears' article, the playoffs are redundantly linked. I honestly don't know what you're looking at; they look like they're formatted the same exact way. As for awards, I can't figure out any other way to organize it. I wanted to set it up so each individual award was listed, but it was too unwieldy. So any help to get that sorted out would be appreciated. The table formatting was my own idea, deciding to separate individual decades; that can be removed. Wlmaltby3 22:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. Now I understand what you're saying. The teams I've listed under the playoffs section are redundantly linked, not the games themselves. I'll take care of that problem. Sorry again. Wlmaltby3 23:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there should be an article per season. Tompw (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why did you support the Patriots article when it has the same problem then? Wlmaltby3 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I got confused. (I've withdrawn that support). Tompw (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Now redlinks are gone. Tompw (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Pinkkeith 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All the team's individual seasons are redlinked. See the previous seasons list nominations. Also, the italics link at the top is improper (disambiguation is unnecessary here) it should be worked seamlessly within te lead.Circeus 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why shouldn't it be there? It's the same way on all the other articles, I merely put it at the top instead of after the lead. Wlmaltby3 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Absolutely agree with Circeus' assessment. The italics should be tied with the lead. As it stands now, the list appears to be disambiguation. There is a growing trend of inconsistency with these latest season articles. Just follow the Bears and Vikings. RyguyMN 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Comment. So if I moved it down to the bottom like the others, would it be OK? I just figured it made more sense to put it at the top. Wlmaltby3 22:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've taken care of the problems with the duplicate/redundant links to the teams under the post-season header. I've also moved the link to the team's history after the lead, where it's located on the other articles. I've also gone through and created stub-class articles for all of the team's seasons (they'll be filled out later) to remove the red links. I think it's up-to-par now, aside from the awards heading. Any suggestions would be great. Wlmaltby3 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment. Wlmaltby, good job with the playoff team redundancy. The only thing now is redundancy with awards. The award receipent is fine, but the actual awards are redundant. I've given support, but I'm assuming this will be taken care off soon. RyguyMN 05:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The reason the awards are redundantly-linked is to differentiate which award the player actually won, as each award is awarded by several different organizations. If I just put "MVP", a reader wouldn't know if that was the MVP award awarded by AP or UPI. Thus the need for those redundancies. Like I said, I couldn't figure out another way to fill out the awards section at all, so any additional help would be great. Wlmaltby3 07:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Everything looks great now Wlmaltby3. Good job with the cleanup! Two thumbs up! RyguyMN 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Very well-done. The only thing I don't like is that the mix of colors in the columns is confusing -- I would use colors only in the post-season column. Otherwise, it's terrific. -- Mwalcoff 01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The colors are consistent with all the other seasons lists and they're clearly labeled before the list even begins. Wlmaltby3 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I would have opposed using different colors in the same row on the other lists as well... seems like overkill to me. Great list overall, though. -- Mwalcoff 06:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a reason the team's NFL tenrue is divided into an Early Era and Modern Era? While it seems like a good idea, I do not really know if its relevant or not? --Happyman22 02:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I included it to merely serve as an indicator of the Super Bowl era and the NFL Championship era. Wlmaltby3 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image in the front is not being used as the described fair use. It's being used as mere decoration, which is against the fair use criteria.++aviper2k7++ 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I removed the image. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of parishes in Louisiana‎

This is closely modelled on the Featured List List of counties in Kentucky. It is useful (pulls together information not otherwise available in one place), comprehensive (includes all current parishes and counties), factually accurate (with references), stable (assumeing Louisiana doesn't dramatically re-organise its local goverment), uncontroversial (no disputes)and well-constructed (clearly laid out); the lead explains the historical context, and the headings and TOC are apropriate; and images are all the quick-loading SVG versions. Tompw (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, perfect. -Phoenix 02:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: several tweaks are needed.
  • Reference location needs revision per Wikipedia:Footnotes
    • I don't understand... revising in what way? Tompw (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • After punctuiation without a space (and with punctuiation only BEFORE the reference, not before and after.) Circeus 17:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Tompw (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSDATES links to a year that is not part of a full date have to go.
    •  Done Tompw (talk)
  • It's not clear whether Biloxi and Pascagoula parishes were ever actually part of Louisiana. They sound as if they were transferred directly from West Florida to Mississipi.
    •  Done Tompw (talk)
  • The table should use semantic table header cell (I'm not protesting the formatting, only the use of normal cells instead of header ones.)
    •  Done Tompw (talk)
• Circeus 19:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to challenge the accuracy of the source that claims that Pascagoula and Biloxi parishes were ever part of Louisiana. Based on my research for Territorial evolution of the United States, I can't find any transfer of land from Louisiana to Mississippi Territory; it's possible Louisiana provisionally created these parishes, similar to how California provisionally created Pautah County, but the land was never part of Louisiana, again, based on my research. I could well be wrong, but this needs to be sorted out. Based on what I know: the United States initially annexed the Baton Rouge District and Mobile District of West Florida, both of which made up the Republic of West Florida, as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The Mobile District's borders were the Pearl River to the Perdido River, i.e. the panhandles of Mississippi and Alabama. The Baton Rouge District was claimed as part of the Louisiana Purchase from the start, and was always assigned to Orleans Territory. The Mobile District was annexed in paper in 1810, and in action in 1812, after which the Mobile District assigned to Mississippi Territory. Now, it's possible that it was initially assigned to Louisiana or Orleans Territory first - but I haven't been able to find a source that says that. However, this period of US and West Florida history is cloudy at best, but I still think maybe it's best to have a few more weasel words in there, like "Biloxi et.al. Parish was declared by the territorial government but it remains unclear if the land was ever part of Louisiana"? I think I'm rambling now, but you get my point I hope. Do we know if this land was ever actually part of Orleans Territory/State of Louisiana, or was it another phantom like Pautah County? And it's entirely possible that my list needs further refinement and research. --Golbez 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • this states that the "West Florida Parishes join the Territory" in 1811... aha this states that Pascagoula and Biloxi parishes were created in 1811, formed from West Florida Territory , and "abolished 1812 when part of W. FL was transferred to Mississippi Territory". I've added references accordingly (and also for the other defunct parishes). I see where you're coming from with the whole "paper-only" thing. Howvere, I do feel that as they offically exsisted, and this exsistence is properly referenced in the article, then they should be included. If you have a source that states that they didn't have any exsistence beyond paper, then by all means add a note to this effect (with a reference of course). Tompw (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on your explanation and the additional source, I'll yield that my information is either wrong or incomplete. :) At the very least, your information is well-cited, and that's all we can ask for, right? I'll come back later if further research expands this. Switching to support. --Golbez 22:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks fine to me now. It'd be best if the former parishes and counties could be expanded some, but the rest is okay. Circeus 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I found one typo, fixed it myself. The rest looks great. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Institute Professors

Nominating this article after a brush with death after a major revamp modeled on Dartmouth College alumni. It is comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. On the count of comprehensiveness it can possibly be improved: a few citations a cells are missing, but no amount of scouring by me has been able to fill them up definitively. Madcoverboy 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suggest a re-nameing to something like List of Institute Professors. Also, a lot of your ((cite web)) templates have got errors (see the references section). Tompw (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done References corrected. Madcoverboy 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-naming, not re-directing. Tompw (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re-naming is complete and nomination has been open for almost 2 weeks, but still no comments, support, or opposition? Madcoverboy 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tompw (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ticks all the boxes. I have a few suggestions. Wikilink a few more terms in the Deceased section. Fix the WP:DASH issues. Change the list of notable things to have a full stop at the end and possibly separated by semicolon rather than comma. Colin°^Talk 12:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Madcoverboy 14:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I discovered a previously unknown list of names and updated the list accordingly. These edits may make the page appear unstable, but it is in fact more complete and authoritative now. Madcoverboy 23:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Gabbec 05:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England Patriots seasons

I created this list using two other featured lists as a model: Chicago Bears seasons and Minnesota Vikings seasons. I think it meets the precedent set by those two lists. As a self-nomination, I of course support this as a featured list. Please feel free to make any suggestions for improvements, and if not, I would appreciate your support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, it's going to be quite a chore creating articles for all the past seasons for every team. Support nonetheless, though some might see the redlinks as an issue. -Phoenix 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to get on stubbing those redlinks for the Pats soon. However, there are some good sources out there. It will just take time. We shouldn't hold up this article, however, merely for the inadequacies elsewhere at Wikipedia. The redlink problem can easily be explained away, however, and shouldn't make this article any less well referenced, less well written, less well organized, or less adherent to already established FL formats for NFL team seasons (see above).--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An good list...followed just like the template article. Yet another NFL article that will become featured. --Happyman22 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Once I get the Browns list done, it'll be up, too. All these articles should be featured. 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. As creator of the Minnesota Vikings seasons article, this looks excellent! Yeah, the red links are an eye sore, but those can be taken care of quickly with some stubs. RyguyMN 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Yeah, I am getting the season articles done slowly. I have finished 1960 Boston Patriots season and 1961 Boston Patriots season. Rather than quick stubs, I am working on a whole article. Check these out, as they may be useful as a prototype format to use for other team season articles. Also, check out the refs for each of them. If you hadn't found it yet, the JT-SW site is a WEALTH of statistical resources. Very helpful in writing these lists and articles.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's looking good Jayron32. I've also started full articles for the Minnesota Vikings such as the 1961 Minnesota Vikings season and 1962 Minnesota Vikings season. I think NFL Draft info is important to include on season pages. Not to be too biased, but I like the schedule on the Vikings page better. I've changed my vote to conditional for now due to redlinks and duplicated wikis for teams that need to be removed in the playoffs column on your Patriots seasons list. A featured list is one that should be complete and needs little additional work/cleanup. RyguyMN 05:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Fixed the multiple wikilink problem. For the record, I think the redlink issue is misplaced. The redlinks in this article indicate an inadequacy in other articles at wikipedia (that is, they don't exist!), not in this one. I could correct the redlinks, by say, linking all current redlinks to History of the New England Patriots, but that doesn't lead to the creation of needed articles, and instead hides a problem that can be corrected. I won't do that simply to have blue links. However, and I must say this again, the problem is not with this article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It looks just as good as the Chicago Bears seasons and the Minnesota Vikings seasons. The only thing is that the red links should be taken off. --Pinkkeith 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Redlinks should be an invitation for others to improve articles. I am working on creating the individual season pages here, but it is a slow process. Anyone can jump in a create an article themselves to fix a redlink. I see no reason why they should be a problem.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the redlinks are to Team articles, and this is a list of seasons, so I don't feel the redlinks prevent this list from being featured. Tompw (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Damn,I got hideously confused with this and the Browns' nomination. The vast majority of the "team" links (which are of the form 1960 New England Patriots season) should be blue, not red, for this to become a FL. Tompw (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support now redlinks sorted :-) Tompw (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose until the team season articles can be blue linked. If it could be done for the Bears and the Vikings, it can be done here before this is promoted. Circeus 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made articles for 1960-1987. I am presently working on 1988-2005. 2006 is done. 1960-61 are fairly complete; 1962-87 are stubs now, but it will solve the redlink problem. I will let you know when they are all done. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Individual team season article stubbing is complete. All redlinks have been fixed.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, Support Circeus 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support List looks great Jayron23, nice job! RyguyMN 04:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great, Jayeon23. Clean, organized, clear. Love it. Pats1 13:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Florida hurricanes (1975-1999)

It's based on the format of a few other featured lists, and I believe close enough to try for an FLC run. Comments would be greatly appreciated. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed, I believe. It has images, as well. The concern I have is the MOS format, which I will gladly fix if it is incorrect. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, would a lead sentence of "78 Atlantic tropical cyclones affected the U.S. state of Florida from 1975 to 1999." work better because it eliminates the self-reference? -Phoenix 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't so sure, so I checked the other WPTC FL's. The List of Florida hurricanes (pre-1900) starts the same way; the List of Delaware hurricanes starts with The following is a list of tropical cyclones that affected the U.S. state of Delaware; and NJ, CA, and South America hurricanes start A XXX hurricane is a tropical cyclone that affects... All are self-referencing, though, so I don't see the problem in having it refer to itself as the first sentence. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I suppose so. Support anyway; great work. -Phoenix 20:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, appears to meet the featured list criteria. --Coredesat 19:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm a little puzzled by the "damage... is unknown" statements. Do your sources say "damage unknown" or is it just that you've failed to find a source that details the damage. If the latter, would it not be better to just say nothing? Colin°^Talk 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the latter, as the sources I've found do not mention damage. I don't know if it would be better to just say nothing, however. For most of the unknowns, the yearly hurricane review is sourced, and they are usually pretty good in mentioning if there is any damage. Additionally, that is the format of the other featured hurricane lists. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states by population

First nomination a while ago didn't end up going anywhere, looks alright now. -Phoenix 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Everything on the list looks great. The only area of improvement needed is that the map should be updated to reflect 2006 data to go along with the information in the table. RyguyMN 16:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Phoenix 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*OpposeThe table lists electoral votes and HoR seats as well; yet the lead mentions nothing of this. Seems to beg that a paragraph be included in the lead that explains how these are apportioned, since the table includes them. If this is fixed, I will change my vote to support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I added a paragraph on the two items, and also merged the little bit of trivia onto the first paragraph. -Phoenix 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm.. I don't think I got my point accross. Plus, the lead was too self-referential ("these figures" and "this list", etc.) I cleaned it up some myeself and put in what I was looking for. Hope you don't mind my boldness. Check it out and see if it sounds better. However, I still oppose this nomination on the grounds of the unreferenced "trivia" section at the bottom. It's cute, but unneccessary. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly don't mind the boldness; I nominate these lists with the hope that others will step in and make some edits. I added the little trivia section with the hope that it would increase the value of the list. You claim it's unreferenced, but the source of the WY, TX, and MT tidbits come from simply sorting the list by population, electoral votes, and population per house seat, respectively. For the California bit, I simply glanced at the list of countries by population. Nevertheless, I can remove it if it's your sole reason for objecting. -Phoenix 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that they add anything. The list is great just being what it tells you it is going to be. The extra trivia doesn't seem to add anything really. See WP:AVTRIV. Fix that and the article should be great.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And away it goes. -Phoenix 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All fixes made. Looks great now! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A fine looking list! Just make sure not to expand anymore on your summary or it could become too overwhelming. RyguyMN 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cough, cough, Jayron might have something to say about that -Phoenix 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • no, not really after all, anyone should fix anything they think needs it. :) --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Complete, as far as its topic goes. —Lowellian (reply) 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is over, it's already featured. -Phoenix 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of F-Zero titles

Comprehensive, layout from List of Final Fantasy titles. Has a great lead. FMF|contact 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the only thing stopping me from support is the lead, which is not great. It could be longer and giving more background about F-Zero, and the last sentence (For a general overview of the series, see the article F-Zero.) is just bad. Renata 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that sentence is not even needed as F-Zero is linked multiple times; I removed it. -Phoenix 04:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?. Not sure, I used Final Fantasy as an example list, should something like the lead in F-Zero (series) be added too? FMF|contact 23:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Nintendo Database is not a reliable source as it is the personal web site of Fryguy64 (Mark Kelly), who has a day job. The second ref is a search on GameStats. Search results lists aren't suitable refs either. Please provide direct links to the relevant game page. The MobyGames site is user contributed, so isn't a reliable source either. Please rename your "References" as "Notes" and your "Sources" as "References" per MOS. Colin°^Talk 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. FMF|contact 23:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support but your ref titles should be the title of the source (e.g. "BS F-Zero 2 Grand Prix") rather than the purpose you cited it for (e.g. "JPN Grand Prix 2 release date"). Colin°^Talk 08:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Just needs another support vote now. Tompw (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thought it looked good at the peer review and support it to be a featured list.--Clyde (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States cities by population

Again, I don't recall making an edit to this one, but it's a pretty important list and looks fine to me. PhoenixTwo 07:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - notes marked with * should be converted into in-line citation. There is the alternative to <ref> tags: ((ref)). Renata 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get that done this evening at some point...would ((Cnote)) and ((Cref)) be better than renaming the References section to Footnotes and adding them there? -Phoenix 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Phoenix 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, just when you have time add more pics of cities - there is still a lot of space. Renata 12:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look into that later today. -Phoenix 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support on fixing the sort order for the Population column. I believe there are tricks you can do to ensure the Javascript orders properly (search for "wikitable sortable"). Other comments: Your main table probably doesn't need a title (repetition). Please can you provide a short lead/explanation for the table in "Other cities". The "Other source" section is redundant since those sources are already given in your References. The layout of "States with multiple cities over 100,000" is a little confusing at first, with two different presentations (over 10/under 10). It might be better to do this as another short table with two columns. Colin°^Talk 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the trick is ((commas)). Renata 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alrighty, I'll give that a go. -Phoenix 16:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done, looks like the numbers sort correctly now. I also removed the title on the table and the 'other sources' section. -Phoenix 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. List looks real good, but I think the "States with multiple cities over 100,000" section needs to be re-worked since it's a little confusing at first glance to understand the information presented. Once this has been looked at, I would give my support. RyguyMN 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can do to rework that. -Phoenix 16:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    •  Done - I tabled the values, with two columns entitled "State" and "Cities". As for the "Other cities" section, I myself am uncertain what's going on there. Would anyone prefer that it just me removed? -Phoenix 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Having "States with multiple cities over 100,000" removed did cross my mind pending how your changes came out. After looking at this section again, I'm not real sure it adds any real value to the list. It would probably be best to just get rid of it. The section below it showing the number/different sizes of cities in the U.S. is great, keep that for sure. RyguyMN 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done, I added a few tidbits of information to the LA and NYC captions to somewhat compensate for the removal of the table. -Phoenix 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support. Looks great now! The only other area where there could be a change is with the label "Other Cities". It doesn't seem real descriptive. How about "Population Distribution"? RyguyMN 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Done -Phoenix 02:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support as per Colin. --Krm500 11:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The map should have a caption (The ten most populous cities). In addition, try to add a small marker (a red point) to indicate the exact location of the city. CG 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. -Phoenix 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though it should be noted that the maps need a border to avoid having the captions clash with the surrounding text. Also, I cleaned up the lead some to remove self references and made some other minor cleanup. Hope you don't mind. I got bored checking ALL of the images for free use status. I got through like 5-6 of them. Someone should make sure they all are free use... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bordered the template there because it looks better anyway, but I couldn't get the caption to fall into the box! So really it accomplished nothing. Someone that knows more about div elements (is that what they're called?) needs to fix that up. -Phoenix 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)  Done, all images are free too. -Phoenix 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of chemistry

This is a self-nomination of an article that I, along with several other editors, including principally Sadi Carnot and Itub, and others, have worked on. I propose that this article meets the criteria as a featured list based on the following:

• Based on Criteria 1:
  • (a)it is useful (per 1 (a) (2)): it is a timeline with every entry verified in a third-party source as to its significance)
  • (b)it is comprensive: it does not omit any major discovery. Chemistry is a dynamic and full field, and every novel compound or experiment cannot be included, but I feel the editors of this list (myself included) have done a good job at getting nearly every important discovery.
  • (c)it is factually accurate: every entry is verified by being attributed to a reliable source that shows not only the facts behind the entry, but the significance of the entry to the field of chemistry. In other words, I have found third-party sources that ALSO list these discoveries as highly significant.
  • (d)it is uncontroversial: I am not sure that any of these entries would qualify as controversial
  • (e)it is stable: no edit warring at all.
  • (f)it is well-constructed: It is chronologically organized, and subdivided for easy of navigation.
• Based on Criteria 2:
  • (a)it has a comprehensive but informative lead
  • (b)it has a logical system of headings
  • (c)it has a reasonable TOC
• Based on Critera 3:
  • It has appropriately tagged and captioned images that are all free or fair-use.

Please review this list and let me know if any changes are needed to bring it to Featured status, and if not, please support its promotion! Thank you and happy editing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As Jayron32 says, I also contributed to this list, so I may be a bit biased. However, I agree with all the points above (except that I don't think any entries would qualify as controversial, maybe it was a typo?). Anyway, I think this is a great list, mostly due to Jayron32 who started it and did most of the work, and it has everything it needs to be featured IMO. --Itub 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Still has that little extra step to go. Mostly minor things, but their combinations makes the list less than ideal:
  • The entries' format is less than ideal, I'm afraid. Full sentence without the unwarranted break would be far superior.
  • Lead image is a very poor choice.
  • First paragraph should be tweaked to be less trite.
  • Images on the lleft of a list are not a good idea. Inside the item is an even worse one. Since this is not a table, they could be larger (180-200px), too.
  • History of chemistry should definitely have a link in the lead, not the "See also."
  • External links should be last, per Wikipedia:Guide to Layout
• Circeus 22:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • request clarification Just so that I know what to fix, could you please clarify your objections so I can fix them? Specifically:
      • I assume when you say "Full Sentance" I should omit the hypens and just leave it as a sentance?
      • What do you mean by "trite"? Do you mean to short or terse? The other paragraphs in the lead section elaborate on this paragraph. Could you please elaborate on what should be added/removed/changed?
      • Lead image removed. Done.
      • Not sure what you mean by this: "Images on the lleft of a list are not a good idea. Inside the item is an even worse one". The Manual of Style specifically says, and I quote, "When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left" This article complies fully with that guideline. How do you propose the images should be organized, if they are not to follow the Manual of Style? I will, however, resize all images to a more readable size.
      • History of chemistry moved to lead from see also section
      • External links moved
    • I have made the changes I was able to understand (see above) but could you please clarify the points I don't understand so that I can make the changes you want. Thank you. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Yes, that is what I mean. Look at e.g. Timeline of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season or Timeline of events in the Cold War. While I'll admit many events are discoveries (cf. scientific discoveries uses a similar format, but not meteorology or information theory), not all of them are.
          • Now that I look at it, almost all of them discoveries, but not all major events in science are that. Where are the Solvay Conferences, for example?
        • Admittedly, "trite" was not the best word. Maybe Avoid self-references is a beter page to link to.
        • I did not mean the image had to go! I firmly believe there should be one. THe one that was there was, however, inappropriate. I'm sure commons:category:History of chemistry has something that fits.
        • Well, maybe a more appropriate place to look at is WP:GTL#Images, which devellops a bit on some points (although these two sections would gain from a bit of harmonization... I'll have to look into it). The important word at WP:MoS is "can". List items interacts in troublesome ways with images, which is why WP:GTL says (emphasis mine):

          Some users prefer images to be all located on the right side of the screen (aligned with boxes), while others prefer them to be evenly alternated between left and right. Both options are valid, although 'in both cases care must be taken for the images not to clash with nearby contents'.
          
          In general, it is considered poor layout practice to place images at the same height on both the left and right side of the screen. Not only does this unnecessarily squeeze text, but this might also cause images to overlap text due to interferences. It is usually not a good idea to place an image intended to illustrate a given section above the header for that section. Placing an image to the left of a header, a list, or the Table of Contents is also frowned upon.

          • Images inside and at the left of an item (something I've hardly ever seen, so never had to "counter") causes the bullet point to be in an odd location. They also prevent proper wrapping around the element. see this screenshot for a more explicit exemple.
        • I meant integration within the text of the lead. Use of "see also"/"Main" links at the top of articles is strongly frowned upon.
        • Circeus 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixes I have made based on above:
            • rewrote lead to remove self reference
            • reformated entries to read in plain sentance format
            • Moved a new picture to the lead section
            • right justified all pictures for improved readability
            • added entry for the Solvay Conferences
          • Any other changes? If there are I will be glad to make them, and if not I would appreciate your support. Thanks again for your help in improving the list... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Support Looks okay now.Circeus 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, just why no entries since 1995? Renata 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Well, it has to do with the nature of a list like this. In order to be considered noteworthy enough to be considered one of the most important discoveries in chemistry, there is a certain perspective needed that only time can give. In order to merit inclusion, enough people outside of Wikipedia need to recognize it as noteworthy enough. Widespread acceptance as "This is important" only comes with the perspective of time. Also, there is no reason this list cannot grow, even through and beyond the featuring process. If you find something specific missing from the list, and have references to support its addition, by all means add it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add to what Jayron32 said, just think how many years it usually takes for an important discovery to be recognized with a Nobel Prize. ;-) --Itub 05:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with a suggestion and a comment: Otto_Hahn#The_discovery_of_nuclear_fission deserves a place on the list and the scientific community recognized its importance immediately. His Nobel Prize followed six years later. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added him, with references. Thanks for catching that one! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get pushy, but it appears that this list has a consensus to support (the only oppose vote has been changed), and there are now, including mine, 6 support votes. Does anyone else have any further fixes needed or comments to make? Otherwise, I move that this has met the criteria needed for FL listing.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understand the procedure correctly, yes. There are enough votes, they are unanimous, and the nomination has waited long enough. --Itub 05:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Vikings seasons

This is a self-nominated list that details records for all professional seasons played by the Minnesota Vikings in their franchise history. The list displays regular season win-loss-tie records for each year, including playoff results, and any player/coach awards. It is properly formatted and no additional research is required other than updating the list at the conclusion of a completed season. It follows a similar format to Chicago Bears seasons, which is a WP:FL. Thank you! RyguyMN 02:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Support as creator. RyguyMN 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The number of redlinks is an issue, but they are all for team articles, and this is a list of seasons. So, I can't see any problems with it. Certainly as good as Chicago Bears seasons. Tompw (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All red links have been eliminated. RyguyMN 02:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks as good as Chicago Bears seasons. The only difference I see is the color legend at the top is centered, which should probably be moved to the left as is in the Chicago Bears page. VegaDark 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved legend back to the left. Thanks for the input! RyguyMN 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Renata 00:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. List is comprehensive yet finite, and easily attributable to its references. Its organzation is dense yet readable, and it follows the format of the precedent set by FL Chicago Bears seasons. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent, very good job. --Krm500 11:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As the main creator of the Chicago Bears seasons article, this article is great and no question in my mind that it should not be a featured list. Now hopeful other Wikipedia NFL fans will create a list of team seasons for the other franchises. --Happyman22 14:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all the reasons listed above. This is a great list. I plan to do the same for the Browns. All teams need lists like this. Great job. Wlmaltby3 05:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Smallville episodes

I believe the list has finally reached a point that it's well formatted, and easily accessable for changes. Information that needs to be cited is. It provides links to seasonal pages for expanded information, and individual episode pages where necessary. The lead paragraph may need some work, but that's something that I'm hoping can be address (if need be) here. The page provides a short overview of the entire show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a slight problem with the formatting. The tables have exact pixel widths set. If you set the width you should use a percentage, such as 98%. The table spill off the sides of the screen on my monitor. Jay32183 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't realize that, I was just copying "The Simpson"'s design. Do you have a suggestion for a good percentage? (Just changed to 90%, but if better percentage is suggested I'm all ears...er...eyes)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

98% is usually good, because it looks like it fills the page, but doesn't push the limits. I hadn't noticed The Simpsons because the 700px does display properly on my screen. I think anywhere between 90 and 100 should work, it's not that big of an issue. Jay32183 04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I put it at 95%, for an in between.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This now looks like the perfect list for one that does not include summaries, which are optional. I give my support. Jay32183 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm finding the header cell colors to lack contrast everywhere. Most of the time, these headers should have white text instead of black. tables 2-4 also jave colors a bit too harsh in the body, could they be toned down some? Circeus 19:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The borders are colored to the DVD boxes, I can look through the list of colors to try and find lighter body colors though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm made the changes. I lightened up the body color and made the titles white.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Other stuff I just noticed on closer look: too many links to same people pages (only the first instance should be enough), and a couple links to disambig pages (Brad Turner, david Carson, John Schneider, for examples) Circeus 20:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we did that with the old format because the page was so long. I've removed the multi-links, corrected all the links so they go to the right person. If they don't have a page then I just removed the link altogether. The edit summary has the red link for the correct person.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support if Image:SmallvilleNewOpeningCredits.jpg can be given a rationale for this article.Circeus 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. I've added a fair use for the "list of eps" page, as well as a brief summary and provided the source of the capture.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clear and concise, despite no summaries; the subpages for each season, however, remedy this. Qjuad 02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Qjuad; I also added a Seasons section, like at The Simpsons and The Sopranos. Cliff smith 01:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that as far as LOEs go, they should be like this one or The Simpsons if the show ran for over 5 seasons or so. Cliff smith 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - please remove colors from the tables... There is no need for them, especially so bright... Renata 00:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems more like a personal preference of visualization, and other Featured Lists have colors. See the List of Simpsons episodes. That has what, 19, 20 seasons. We're talking about 6 seasons of Smallville.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Can you explain why the list is tagged "incomplete"? Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Season 6 won't be finished until May, so episodes dates could change is something came up. Also, they haven't release the writers and directors every every episode on Season 6 yet. Lastly, Season 7 is all be confirmed to happen, so we'll have that season to tack on afterward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having future episodes symbolizes the incompleteness of the show rather than the list itself, take a look at other current shows' episode lists as an example. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons has the same tag above their current season. I'm not suggesting that it needs to be up for the "potential season 7", just to let people know that season 6 hasn't finished airing yet, and is subject to change without notice because of that.........wait (looking at the page now), you weren't talking about the tag at the top of season 6, but the tag at the bottom of the page that said the "This film, television, or video-related list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." Right? If that's the case then I removed it. I hadn't noticed that tag at the bottom. I thought you were referring to the box above season 6 that was saying it is still in progress.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Champions

The List is fully sourced and well formatted. Any changes can be made during the process. It's main problem (in my mind) is its short lead, but FLs rarely have extended leads and if anyone has any suggestions on how to expand it, I'd be more than willing to listen. -- Scorpion 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I think it's a rather comprehensive list, and well cited. I'm only curious if something can be done to the table. The large cells where more information is written about one wrestler can be a bit distracting, but other than that (which is just personal opinion), I think it's pretty good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Someone can look at the page, check a statistic quickly and check the reference to confirm its accuracy. Informative and viewer-friendly. Suriel1981 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've improved the list somewhat. There are a couple cities that are still wikilinked twice, now easily spotable since you can sort by location, which still need to be fixed. I'd also like some sort of WWE titles template at the bottom to easily access other title belt lists, if someone wants to make one. I'd also like to see the lead expanded somewhat. I'm leaning towards support pending these changes. VegaDark 07:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Does it need a seperate ref for all 81 title changes? Some are needed specifially, but why not just link most of them to 1 ref (the main WWE Title history at wwe.com [1]. TJ Spyke 09:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this myself. On reflection though, being as WWE.com has individual mini-articles fleshing out the seperate title changes/reigns the seperate refs do make for extensive research material that is necessary for this to achieve FA. Suriel1981 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support the table should be fully sortable. All the "vacant" and "held up" entry needs to be adjusted for that.Circeus 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it need to be sortable? -- Scorpion 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made it sortable, but it was reverted for some reason. VegaDark 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because whenever you sorted one of the double columns, the table got all screwy. -- Scorpion 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is why I said some work (not too much) was necessary for it to work properly.Circeus 14:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm curious, where in the FL criteria does it say that FLs need to be sortable? -- Scorpion 15:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Extremely well-referenced, comprehensive, covers all the title reigns. My only wish would be perhaps one or two more pictures (if any such photos are available); if not, not a huge deal. Anthony Hit me up... 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous comments. Very useful for anyone curious about a particular reign, as well as the full history of the title. I also don't think it's necessary for this to be sortable, as it's designed to be a historical reference, and sorting by name, location, etc. doesn't seem very practical. MarcK 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caribbean drums

Self-nom, I think this is pretty close to comprehensive, and includes drums from all across the Caribbean. There's a lot of confusing terminology - four different drums called boula, for example, and I think this does a good job of clearing that up. Tuf-Kat 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Really nice work which I'm sure is a useful list. Referencing is good and its obviously been extensively researched, but sadly fails WP:WIAFL 1.1 - "The list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria.". ie. A majority of the drums need articles. Currently there's 20 out of 180. —Moondyne 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does link to a group of existing articles, related by well-defined entry criteria. The requirements do not say that each item on the list has to have an independent article. Tuf-Kat 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Support also. I hadn't noticed the criteria had changed - there was previously a requirement that it "... must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)". That is no longer the case and this is a very good list which deserves to be featured. —Moondyne 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent work, but I'm going to have to oppose, for the same reason as above. The recent changes to the criteria mean that it's OK to have a list where the individual list members are not significant enough to need their own articles, but I suspect you'd struggle to argue that. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The individual list members are not significant enough to need their own articles. There's very little to say about each individual drum, with a few exceptions that already have their own articles. Tuf-Kat 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not completely convinced - it seems to me that boula at least ought to have an article explaining the four different types of drums and the relationships (if any, beyond name) between them. But I'll take your word for it (as the subject expert) that most of the others are minor variants that don't need their own article. Switching to support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've made an article for boula (music). I'll also point out that a lot of these drums, if they were linked, would redirect to an established article - there's several variants on the conga drum, for example, and articles on drum families like gwo ka have redirects from each kind of drum - plus in a number of genres, the drum used has the same name as the genre itself. So, I think not linking the name of the drum in these circumstances is more useful than linking to a potentially confusing redirect, especially when the target of that redirect is more clearly linked-to in the list description. A goodly number of them, like the Jamaican harp, are generic terms that could probably never be much more than a dicdef. While it's probably theoretically possible for there to be enough verifiable and reliable information out there for an article on the snare drum used in Jamaican marching bands, for example, it's far more obscure a topic than is really necessary here (note that it's theoretically possible for people to document enough characteristics of the drum, but I have doubts that someone actually has in the case of certain drums on this list). Tuf-Kat 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Support. The list certainly has a lot of potential, although I would like a few issues sorted before my support.

• Reference tags should be put right after the punctuation without a space among other references per WP:FN.

• Fixed myself. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• List descriptions need periods.
  • They don't need periods because they're not complete sentences. Tuf-Kat
• The lead isn't written under the expected professional standards:

This is a list of drums used in the Caribbean music area, taken here to include the islands of the Caribbean Sea, as well as the musics of Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Bahamas serial comma and Bermuda. It only includes drums that are indigenous to the local music area or are a vital and long-standing part of local culture; misused semicolon it does not include drums that are, for example, a part of Western style orchestras, unless said orchestras were to constitute a vital and long-standing part of the local culture, nor does it include trap sets and other common drums, unnecessary comma used in popular music recordings of many genres across the world, unless said common drums were to constitute an especially vital and long-standing part of the local culture. > This sentence is overwhelmingly long and thus might be somewhat confusing, please split it. Drums can be classified and described using a number of criteria, most importantly including the manner in which a sound is produced and the shape of the instrument. The presence of a cloth, fabric or skin head, the number of heads, and the constituent materials are also used to distinguish between different kinds of drums. Similar drums within a culture may be divided based on their manner of use, performance methods and rhythms, intended context, audience or performer, or details of the instruments' manufacture, such as its precise size or the technique used to lace the head onto the body of the drum.

• • Lead fixed. Tuf-Kat
• "See kittle" - Italics?
  • Fixed. Tuf-Kat
• There don't appear to be any notes inside the references section. If there are any, please split them using ((note)).
  • There are none, and I've changed the header. Tuf-Kat
• While not a strict requirement, it's preferable to include "see also" or "external links" section for further reading. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 19:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to be rather minimal in such things, and I don't know of anything specifically useful to "Caribbean drums" that adds to what's here. Tuf-Kat 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support Good to see the recent requirement change being tested and examined – that's healthy. I wonder if left-alignment of cell-text would look neater than the centred format chosen. The "other names" column is possibly sparse enough for it to be folded into the Description as required. However, the biggest problem is that the source contains templates in Tuf-Kat's user-space. I'm not an expert on wiki-spaces, but surely they should be moved to article-space? Is this a left-over from sandboxing? BTW: I disagree on the "see also" or "external links" comment above. Both of which were mildly discouraged last time I looked. Colin°^Talk 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops! That was indeed a holdover from experimenting in a user sandbox. I can't believe I didn't notice that in the months this list has been in the article space. Anyway, I've moved the templates to the template namespace.
  • I'd rather not fold the other names column into the description. Though probably feasible, there's a lot of instances here with a few names being used in multiple ways, so I think separating them out makes it less confusing.
  • After some experimenting, I decided to make the descriptions column left-aligned, but leave the others centered. Tuf-Kat 19:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni

I reworked the GT alumni list in a manner similar to List of Dartmouth College alumni. Each entry has a name, a graduation/last attended date, why they are notable, and a reference (formatted with one of the citation templates). I was unable to find references for only two people on the list: Ronald Collé and James Henry Deese. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:21, 10 March 2007

Weak oppose Looks pretty good. The fact there's more blue than red links is a plus. A few issues, though:

• When using Iso format for the date parameter, brackets are needed for the date to be converted.  Done
• The template call in ref #112 throws up an error  Done
• Needs images. With that long a list, there are bound to be a couple PD ones.  Done
• Considering the density of references, I'd consider dropping the extra wikilinks in the references. It creates a sort of "link overload" when combined with the dates. It's only a suggestion though. I have nothing against such links, I'm just not sure they are ideal here.
• Georgia tech has no reason to be ever linked in the ((cite pressrelease)) calls  Done
• The references with "Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine Online, Georgia Tech Alumni Association" in the "work" field needs to place the "association" as the publisher (or, optionally, drop the association altogether and place the magazine as the publisher)
• Some headers are classes ("nobel laureates"), but others are topics ("Business", "Military service"), chose one, and stick to it.
• Circeus 17:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple questions/comments:

• So, on your first suggestion, the "date" parameter in a reference should be (for example) "|date=[[2007]]-[[03-13]]" ?
• Fixed the error, thanks for pointing that out.
• How would one best go about integrating images into this list? Do you have any good examples? Perhaps a gallery near the beginning or end of a section? Yes, there are images available.
• Which wikilinks are considered "extra"? Linking to a publication's article makes sense, at least to me.
• Is there a specific reference you're referring to? I was fairly consistent with having "|work=Publication Name|publisher=Organization that produces it"; was there an instance where I had a "|work=Publication Name, Organization that produces it"? Or are you suggesting that I simply need either "work" or "publisher" but not both?
• The Nobel Laureates are notable for something outside of their award, and are doubly categorized, because they're doubly notable. The Rhodes Scholars are only notable because of their scholarship. So, I'm not sure I agree with you on that one.

Thanks :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dates the proper format is [[2006-03-14]]  Done
• Images I don't think relatively tight (e.g. 100-150px width) would be an inappropriate fit. Loot at List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry, for example. The curent list doesn't have to fill the entire strip, though, obviously.
• Extra wikilinks My thought was that said links being always optional, might be best dropped off here as they only seem to reduce the signal-to-noise ration in the references as they appear right now.
• georgia alumni mag well... #20, 27, 28, 47, amongst others.

Circeus 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So, instead of ((cite news|...|work=Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine Online|publisher=Georgia Tech Alumni Association...)) in #20, have ((cite news|...|publisher=Georgia Tech Alumni Association|...)) ? Sounds easy enough.
• If a ref only has the year and the month, or the year and a season (e.g., Fall 2003 or 2002-10), how do you link it, if at all?
• I was trying to put images into the list, but it doesn't work correctly; the image is placed over the table, instead of the table resizing around the image. How do you fix that? I tried placing specific values in ((Alum)), but it didn't seem to make a difference.  Done _{figured that problem out...} —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dates: Of course you don't. It's simply that since the "date" parameter, unlike "accessdate,"does not automatically wikilink the ISO dates (2005-03-12) to transform them into the full format (March 3, 2005), so when using an ISO date there, it has to be formatted as [[2005-03-12]]. Does it make more sense now?
• georgia alumni mag Actually, my beef was that for some reason, sometimes "Georgia Tech Alumni Association" was in italics, other times not. Now I can see the problem is that some times you use ((cite web)) and others, ((cite news)) (in cite_web, publisher is not italicized). Choose one and stick to it for all references to the same source and it'll all be fine ;-).  Done

Circeus 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Used ((cite news)) on all of those. IMO, it shouldn't be italicized there, but I think of it more as a news publication than a webpage.
• Also, I've got the pictures up; it took a while to get them working correctly, but it looks good. Unfortunately/oddly, none of the people listed in "Business" have pictures.

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Image:Georgia-Tech-Insignia.svg needs a fair use rationale.  Done Also, in the intro you mention that GT is 19th in the giving rate-I think that is a little off topic for this list.  Done That should be something mentioned on the main GT page. I also have some concerns about this list not being comprehensive. There are only 12 people listed as being notable for football, yet everyone listed here should be on this list, as is done on List of Oregon State University alumni. Also, Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation is linked to under the Nobel Laureates section, it doesn't need to be linked in the See also section at the bottom.  Done VegaDark 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The sports section can be expanded... That link will be useful, thank you. Should there be a limit to the notability of the sportspeople included on the list, or is it simply a "if they have an article, they're listed" deal? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If they have an article, they should be for sure be listed. If they played professionally in any sport, article or not, they should also be listed. If that is satisfied about 90-95% of the people that deserve to be on the list will be on there, a good place to check might be GT's athletics hall of fame page for any extras. VegaDark 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I worked on that some, is that what you had in mind? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the size of the athletics section, perhaps it should be split off into a new article? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is looking much more comprehensive. However, now red links become an issue. As for splitting it off, I don't have a problem with it but others might think it is too large. The image fair use rationale needs to look like the one at Image:203 chickenlover.gif, it needs to specifically say which article it is being claimed fair use it. VegaDark 06:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the image description page looking better now? Also, I'm not quite sure yet if I want to split off the athletic alumni... although the page has reached a pretty impressive size. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the fair use rationale looks good now. The only real issue left for me is the red links, which will take a long time before they are all done, but this would easily meet good article criteria if GA's still accepted lists. I'd renominate once most of the redlinks are gone, unless you want to attempt to make a ton of stubs before this is up. Also, one other thing- Just because someone is in the GT HoF doesn't mean they need to be listed-I was just saying that that is a good place to look for any notable people who might not otherwise have been in the "played professionally" level. I doubt everyone in the GT HoF warrants inclusion, I know Oregon State has many people in the OSU sports HoF that I haven't included in the OSU list, because I don't feel they are notable enough. VegaDark 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I took out the people w/o articles that were only (AFAIK) notable for being in the GT HOF. How's that? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks very good. I took off my oppose since I don't like to oppose simply based on red links, but I can't support either based on so many red links. VegaDark 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Support, this is good enough regardless of all the redlinks. The redlinks will become blue over time. VegaDark 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks all right to me now. I especially like the new lead image.Circeus 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'm pretty proud of that image; LaMenta3 happened upon a GT site with a ton of old images, so I've been uploading several of them. It's much more descriptive than the institutes's seal. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm a little worried about redlinks. My rough count puts it at about 280 red to 150 blue, which would normally be just the wrong side of my personal standard (at least two-thirds). But I'll let it go, on the basis that I like the rest of the list and don't care massively about football players. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been going through and writing a few articles on redlinked alumni since you voted, but let me tell you, there are a ton of football players. :p —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Image:Randolph Scott500.jpg, Image:Jim Allchin.jpg, Image:Arad1.jpg, Image:FrankBroyles.jpg don't seem to have any fair use reason to be on this page... gren グレン 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out. I have to get ready to go to class, but I'll try to get those done today or remove them from the page. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the meantime, I went ahead and commented them out. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support List on the balance looks good, but some minor fixes:
  • Bill Bolton lacks reference and year. If we don't know when he graduated, or even confirm if he did, why is he on the list?
  • Several other entries lack a year? Some of these people look prominent enough to have a public CV or something?
  • The lack of year thing isn't huge, but its absence is somewhat glaring. Other than that, if Bolton can be referenced I would give my full support to this article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Added a reference and a year for Bill Bolton. I admit that I wasn't able to find years for several people. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to full support. Objections have been addressed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of delegates to the Millennium Summit

I have been able to compile this list using reliable sources. It is a list that complements Millennium Summit.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello???--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HOw come 15 of the people don't have articles? Shouldn't they be notable? Besides that, the list is nice and sortable, refrences are formated bbut it would be nice not to have the titles in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Once that is fixed (if possible) and a reason is given for the redlinks in the table, I will support. The Placebo Effect 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is being picky, but since all the people present and in the list were delagates of their county, shouldn't they all be notable? Is their any reason for the red links in the table? The Placebo Effect 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the table, this is a model list and am happy to support it now/ The Placebo Effect 20:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think the lead should be expanded a little bit. At the very least it should be a bit clearer on where the summit took place, its goals, and its significance (even though the article isn't about the summit, readers should have an idea of the context and significance of the list). I also think that as it stands the lead is a bit ... "clunky" or something. Choppy sentences, I guess. I'm not sure what I mean, exactly, though, and I wouldn't oppose for that. Anyway, I also agree that the external links shouldnt' be in all capitals. --Miskwito 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed all of the external links and titles, etc. I'll see what information I can get on the lead.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. Support --Miskwito 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support One minor issue: The notes on DPRK delegate not attending: The delegates claimed diplomatic immunity. To say that they had it assumes the issue was resolved. It looks, however, that the issue was left open and never was resolved. That change makes the article seem more NPOV. Also, the image tag for the group portrait looks incomplete. Minor fix needed there as well. Other than that, looks good! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to comments on my talk page. First fix looks good. The second fix is not what I was looking for. You need to click on the image and load it's image page. Then, you need to fix the image copyright tag, and fair-use rationale. Contact Ed for more help with this, since it looks like he/she uploaded it. Also see WP:UPIMG and WP:IUP for more information. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 22:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial evolution of Canada

Self-nom; it seems to fit all of the FLC criteria, and the animated map of all of the changes is doing well on FPC so I figured I'd put its 'parent article' on FLC. :) It lacks individual citations because the one reference link at the end contains all of the information; thanks to the Atlas of Canada, all of this info was available from one place. --Golbez 10:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (for now): Main problem is the lead, which is too short, and not very useful. The opening sentence "This is a list of the evolution of the borders of Canada" to me implies the list is about Canada's external borders only. Further, this is a timeline, rather than just a list, and the lead should reflect that. I also suggest including some basic information about Canada's provinces and territories and mentioning the difference between the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Canada. Also, given that the key on the images cannot be seen in the timeline, you should include a key somewhere near the top (see List of Alberta general elections for an example).
  Having said all that, the content of the timeline is sound and well-referenced (although rather concise), so I see no reason why this won't become a FL after the lead has been dealt with. Tompw (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a key (simply a crop of one of the maps, until I or someone can make a table for the colors) and made the lead a little better. --Golbez 13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I still feel that the lead is insufficient - two sentences just doesn't cut it. An article like this should be able to get a least a paragraph. Mention things like the pre-Dominion history (Quebec was originally French, but got annexed by GB; everythign else came from various (ex-)British colonies/dominions), something about the province of Canada and why it got replaced, the difference between provicnes and territroies, the fact that Canada obtained its present borders in 1949... you get the idea.
      • I've added a little more to the intro, and along the way found an error in the text. Also expanded the second entry in the list. Let me know what you think. --Golbez 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's much better :-) The expanded second entry is also good.Any chnace any of the otehrs could follow suit? Tompw (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your support :) I mean, it's not like we've ever had articles like this before, so I'm learning as I go along! Just compare the first hurricane articles with what we have now! ;) --Golbez 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be instructive to see the comments on the FLC nomination of the similar Territorial evolution of the United States. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I really like the maps, but it should be noted that the Manitoba article says Rupert's Land was transfered to Canada in 1869, one year before the creation of the province of Manitoba. -- Mwalcoff 14:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Rupert's Land Act of 1868 - "The transfer occurred in 1869 and was consummated in 1870 by the payment of a consideration of £300,000.00 to the Hudson's Bay Company, as mandated by the Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order of 1870." In other words, I guess the transfer was 'consummated' simultaneous with the creation of Manitoba, and that was the date used by the Atlas of Canada, which is where I obtained most of my information. I don't think it's worth a change to the list, but it's certainly worth a note. Thanks! --Golbez 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By "not worth a change to the list" I meant not worth an extra entry. :) --Golbez 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems to meet all aspects of WP:WIAFL. I was at first leary of the lack of inline citations, but since the information is a) cited to a single source and b) likely to be uncontroversial. Other than that, this looks like a feature quality list. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with the previous comments. A similar approach could well be applied to other countries, in which case a uniform bench-mark standard should be applied. --JohnArmagh 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks good to me.--Wizardman 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]