I am nominating this for featured list removal because the article fails to properly use "civil unions", which are legal arrangements between same-sex partners with benefits equal to marriage, but instead uses it as a term to refer to all same-sex unions with legal benefits, including those with less benefits (some domestic partnerships) or substantially less benefits (few enough to not be effected by a constitutional amendment banning "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals", as in Wisconsin). This leads to confusion. It's difficult to come up with a legal term that is usable and encompasses what the article means with civil unions, which are legal unions between to people of the same sex with benefits that are not private contracts, especially since the degree of benefits granted impacts whether the amendment restricts it, even if it is a same-sex union (again, see Wisconsin), thus making the language inconsistent. I propose delisting until a solution is found. Hekerui (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an issue of editing and should be worked out on the article's talk page rather than in FLRC. Geraldk (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geraldk - I don't see how the incorrect use of the term "civil unions" affects the FL status of this list.—Chris!ct 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more to the point: the failure to correctly apply a word necessary for a basic understanding makes its featured status unwarranted. The article is misleading. My long explanation is about how I don't think this can be easily fixed. Hekerui (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing Wisconsin - arguments about Wisconsin seem rather hard to reconcile with the issues raised in the nomination, since Wisconsin's DP bill hasn't even gone into effect yet (slated to take effect July 1), let alone having been the subject of any legal action regarding its allowability under the state's amendment (itself the subject of a current WI supreme court case). Since as has been noted this appears to be an issue which can be reconciled within the normal editing process I can't see any reason why this should be de-listed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the FLRC nominator: what exactly is wrong here? Is it an issue of factual inaccuracy? If so, was it brought up with relevant WikiProjects first?
The page has great graphics and generally looks good, but the basic terminology is so wrongly applied in that civil union has a specific meaning since 2000 and yet is used differently here - I wonder how this even passed in the first place. It didn't occur to me to drag this out, especially since the main contributor is retired. Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, this in excellent shape and I see no reason why it should be delisted. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because like the Columbus Blue Jackets list, it has a very small lead, and a very small amount of references (which are listed in a bad format). The lead needs expansion and sources, the tables need to be smaller, or the images need to be removed (at least for the goalies). Few other problems that should be easy fixes. – (iMatthew • talk) at 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned on the other two you nominated, I believe the references are fine as they cover everything that might be questioned on the article. Remember its not the quantity that matters but the quality. The lead does need some expansion, and I fixed the table. It was missing some line breaks. -Djsasso (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead mentions the stats are after 2006-07, which is wrong I assume? Same for the statement about players playing in the 07-08 season. Alaney2k (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have overhauled the page, including stat updates, roster updates, and a lead expansion. Hopefully this will be sufficient to bring it back to the quality that it was when it was originally made FL status. Any questions, comments, please don't hesitate to reach out to me about any of my edits. AnthonyHit me up... 16:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't start lists off with "This is a list of..." anymore. See List of Detroit Red Wings players of a good example of an FL lead.
Done.
You need to use symbols to accompany the colors (again see Red Wings list).
Will work on it later.Done.
You need to make a key for abbreviations and phrases such as SC, HHOF, Conn Smythe, etc.
in progressDone.
"1994-95 NHL season" Should be an en dash: "1994–95 NHL season"
Done
"282 different players have played on the team" "different" is unnecessary.
Done
"Only five players (Martin Brodeur, Sergei Brylin, Ken Daneyko, Scott Niedermayer, and Scott Stevens) have been a part of all three Cup wins, and eleven more have won two." Remove "only".
I left the only in there because 5 out of 282 is a small percentage, and provides emphasis.
It is, and readers can see that for themselves. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles, which says "[a]void subjective qualifiers". Let the stats and facts speak for themselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"On the other end of the spectrum, 9 players have played just one regular season game on the team" "9"-->nine
Done
"Martin Brodeur holds virtually every team " "nearly" is more encyclopedic, I think.
Done
"The Devils have had eight captains, with Jamie Langenbrunner holding the captaincy since December 5, 2007."-->The Devils have had eight captains; Jamie Langenbrunner has held the captaincy since December 5, 2007.
Done
In the last paragraph, the third and fourth sentences are redundant to the legend below.Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I will get around to the other two parts of the changes later today or tomorrow, or someone else could tackle that portion of it. If there's anything else to be required, let me know. AnthonyHit me up... 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all relevant issues as per discussion. AnthonyHit me up... 03:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still need a key to explain "Calder", "Selke", "Captain", etc.Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what wiki-linking them is for? I was under the impression that if something was wiki-linked it didn't need to have a key? -Djsasso (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't make readers click away from the article more than necessary. If you take a look at recently promoted FLs, they have keys. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the trophies & awards since the Devils was the only hockey FL to have them (although I think they all should, but that's a wikiproject issue). As for the key, I added Ret. since it was an abbreviation. Captain is self-explanatory, it's referenced in the lead, and if they STILL don't know, it's wikilinked. It's our job to explain things to readers, not hold their hand through every little thing. I think, however, as the list stands now, it's sufficient to pass all the requirements, and we should close this FLRC. AnthonyHit me up... 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Provisional keep – The lead is longer than the other two NHL player lists at FLRC right now. If Dabomb's suggestions are implemented, I would say this should retain FL status. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was about to switch to keep, but I noticed that an NHL.com link is dead. Nice work to bring the list's quality up, but this minor issue should be addressed before this FLRC ends. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose this would be a good replacement, would it? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are many problems with it, including a short and sloppy lead paragraph and a harsh lack of references. The table could probably be improved a little bit as well. – (iMatthew • talk) at 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with the others you nominated I don't think the references are an issue because everything currently in the article that needs a reference has one. Numbers of references are not important, its the quality of the references and the fact that they cover all the information that could be disputed that is important. In that this page is mainly just a list of players and statistics I would only expect it to have one reference for 90% of the article and then the lead would have the remaining references. And I do agree that the lead needs a bit of expanding. -Djsasso (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – Criterion 2. The lead is simply too short for FL status now. Also, the lead states the number of players was correct as of early March; that needs to be checked and updated. The Red Wings and Blackhawks player lists are good models for anyone interested in improving the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Comment The lead needs to be expanded, the table updated and symbols added to accompany color. If these three things are done, then I think this can be kept. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two-week period has nearly passed and nobody is working on this, so I am switching to "delist". I asked Resolute to look at this article back in January of this year, and he upgraded the lead a little. However, standards have improved since then, and there are still several issues that keep this from being our "best work". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please withdraw this FLRC. I'll get around to fixing it when I have a chance. iMatthewtalk at 14:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is not up to current standards, like the NJD and CBJ lists. It's got a small lead, few references, and multiple other problems. – (iMatthew • talk) at 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the lead needs to be fixed up, references however are fine as there doesn't need to be a huge number of references, the reference that are there just have to cover all the information which I think the references there do since they all list the players and the stats which is all this list is really about. -Djsasso (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns
The first sentence in the lead...is obsolete. No bolded links, no word "complete"...
There should be at least two paragraphs in the lead.
Definitely needs updating. What is it, a month since the 2008-09 season ended?
The Key section needs tidying up a little. Those 3 tables are randomly placed. example
The note about "seasons column" is missing here, see the example above.
None of the references mention captaincy and award winners; citations are needed.
Boldface should be avoided in tables; the only exception is the heading.
A little info about "rotating captaincy" would be a plus.
There should be links to the 2008-09 media guide pages.
I rewrote the lead a bit. Hopefully someone else can help finished the job since I am not interested (and don't know much about it) in hockey at all.—Chris!ct 23:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – The lead still needs some expansion, and a cite should be provided for the end of the first paragraph. Several of Crzycheetah's comments remain unresolved as well, notably the one about the list being a year out-of-date. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Lead looks a little better, but much more needs to be done to bring this up to FL standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dabomb or Giant: Are you guys willing to help me save this? I need some more helps. I already started with the lead.—Chris!ct 17:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be around tomorrow to beef up the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will also work on this tomorrow.—Chris!ct 01:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did quite a bit to the list tonight. As far as I can see, the only things need doing now are the expansion of the lead and the stats need updating through 2008—09. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and updated the stats myself. Lead still needs expansion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done for all images. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gave the lead a few more sentences. It still could use more expansion, but it's a good start. I'll be on vacation the next two days, but will try to do more after this weekend. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My lack of knowledge on the team or hockey prevented me from adding more. But, I will try.—Chris!ct 01:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please withdraw this FLRC. I'll get around to fixing it when I have a chance. iMatthewtalk at 14:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list review (removal hopefully not necessary) because this list was recently merged with BBC Sports Personality of the Year (latter into former), meaning that the content of the list has changed a lot. Hopefully by listing this here for featured list review, we can ensure that it is of the high quality required by the featured list criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was awaiting a consensus for the name before submitting this here (so I didn't have to move FLRC pages etc.) But seeing as there wasn't any consensus building I'm happy for opinions on the name to be here as well. I might as well provide a breif history while I'm here. The list BBC Sports Personality of the Yearold id was promoted to FL. I was improving BBC Sports Personality of the Yearold id as it was the last in a SPoTY topic I've been working on. I was preparing for GA and having the article peer reviewed when Oldelpaso suggested a merge. Discussion followed, consensus for a merge formed here, and I performed the merge. The page I merged into this list will be moved somewhere or turned into a redirect (to preserve GFDL). This is why currently the list has a merge in process tag on, because currently it is a WP:CFORK and I wanted to make sure people know that this won't be the case for long. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay it has been 10 days of complete inactivity here. I couldn't history merge due to parallel versions, so I boldly decided to go moving all the pages around. This list is now located at BBC Sports Personality of the Year, with merged material from the page's previous version. I'd really appreciate some input on what the steps are now. IMO there is nothing keeping this from featured status, and it may just be a case of which type of featured. All comments welcome (and encouraged!). Thanks, Rambo's Revenge(talk) 23:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some copy-edits, but I think the article could use with a once-over by someone else, such as User:Malleus Fatuorum. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One minor thing I found in a brief look: Athletics Weekly references could have the publisher (a magazine) in italics. Didn't see anything else that was obvious, but I'm still out of it after my vacation and may not be the best judge at the moment. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good after the changes. After thinking about it, I still think this is a list, with a large chunk of prose in the middle. Malleus Fatuorum seems to agree with me. I'll wait for others' opinions, but I'm leaning toward keep. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone that is unaware, Malleus Fatuorum has very kindly been copyediting this list. He and I discussed some points which are all documented here along with his comment about it thinking it was a list (which Dabomb mentions above). Rambo's Revenge(talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article meets FL criteria as is, and believe that this can still be classified as a list. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While it is a hybrid article/list, I do think it is still mostly a list and can remain eligible for FL. Malleus did a fine job with the copy-editing, as always, and I believe the standards are still met, even with the new format. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Find Articles link (reference 26) is dead. It's worth fixing while this is here. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is certainly feasible at 15 items. Per criterion 3b, I don't think this list is long enough to warrant a separate page. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Definitely not enough nominations to be a separate list.--Crzycheetah 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it probably met the criteria three years ago, but now it's looking a bit limited. Prose is poor, it doesn't meet WP:MOS, it sorely lacks reliable sourcing. Basically, it needs a makeover to remain as a featured list, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – Referencing is insufficient, among other things. A 2006 FL that doesn't hold up well by 2009 standards. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist
The LEAD needs improvement. There should not be any obvious restatements of the title, bolded links, and bullets.
The section headings should not contain flags and links
There should be more info on the clubs. Something like year found and year when the club advanced to top-division.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because things have changed in the three years since it passed. I think this list currently fails (1) engaging prose, (2) comprehensive lead, (5) MOS issues (accessibility) and really needs a bunch more secondary, reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it needs a major tuneup. Are there any WikiProjects that can be notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was passed in or around August 2006; quite some time ago. I would definitely redo the table format. Perhaps editors of WikiProject Films's Featured Lists would be interested. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is about to be merged with List of Test cricket grounds per this discussion. After the merger, I don't think it will meet the criteria. Crzycheetah 05:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per my opinion at the discussion; sortable tables make this list redundant, thus failing 3b. Even if it is not merged, the lead needs to be updated and expanded, the table updated (possibly, I don't really know cricket), and inline citations added in some places. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it could and should be so much better. We have limited references, poor prose in the lead, MOS failures, a table which could be sortable as a minimum. At this time of year I'm hoping we can revisit this, funk it up and make it what it should be – part of Wikipedia's finest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Delist Fails 3b; the list could easily be conflated into one table and merged into the main article. The "other recognitions" section is a nice addition, but isn't enough to keep this separate, I'm afraid. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist On top of the 3b, the other recognitions section is trivial, no?--Crzycheetah 02:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails the 3b criterion. Also, per merge discussion. The merged version was created by Jaespinoza; it's located here. Crzycheetah 05:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Fails 3b, and the list will be merged per discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails the 3b criterion. Also, per merge discussion. The merged version was created by Jaespinoza; it's located here. --Crzycheetah 05:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Fails 3b, and the list will be merged per discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has a list of reliable print sources, but no inline citations; we don't know what information is attributed to what source. Also, it has only four sources. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Three of the four sources were links, you could cite the information from them yourself and have the article's primary author cite the rest from the book. Abyssal (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any WikiProjects that can be notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list may actually be out of date, following recent taxonomical changes. See for example, Frost et al (2006), The amphibian tree of life [15] and the Amphibians Species of the World (one of the sources) is now in version 5.3, which incorporates a lot of the changes proposed in the 2006 paper. GoEThe (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The WP:LEAD does not summarize the article as well as it should. The tags at the top need to be solved. A featured list being "out of date" is very worrisome to me.--Crzycheetah 02:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per lead, comprehensiveness, and citation concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.