Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2010

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 29 April 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 17:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria and has received a lot of work. It definitely has enough references. It has recently received a peer review and I really think it's ready to be FL. CrowzRSA ^{17:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Oppose

• What's an "early tour"?

An early tour generally represents a tour that did not have shows outside of North America, and/or do not have any legs with actual names. CrowzRSA ^{21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Sorry but that prose is weak (for me). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually did not name it this, Nergaal did, so I'll ask them. CrowzRSA ^{21:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Actually Nergaal hasn't contributed since February.

• I'd like the prose revisited by an independent reviewer.

• Oppose I'll point out some issues, but with the caveat that this is not an exhaustive list- it needs an independent copy edit.

• "Slipknot is an American heavy metal band from Des Moines, Iowa, formed in 1995, currently consisting of four early tours, and three world tours. " Bands are made up of members- this sentence needs a rewrite
• "The band's first concert tour was of the United States with the 1999 Ozzfest, founded by Ozzy Osbourne and his wife Sharon Osbourne in 1996 and featured live performances by heavy metal bands." Who are Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne, and why should we care? *In other words, wikilink for context)
• "which was taken off their 1999 debut album" Try 'removed'.
• What is the delineation between early tours and world tours, and why, with 4 continents, is the "World Domination Tour" considered the former?
• "Slipknot toured in countries they had never performed in before, such as Israel, Luxembourg, and several other countries."The repition of countries makes this feel clunky.
• "This was usually caused by injuries." Is this really the best way to end the lede? It seems a strange ending to me.
• The referencing needs work; just checking a few here at random: (numbers as of this revision)

• Ref 47 gives an author and publishing date
• Same for 38
• 79; "WebCite" is not an appropriate title for that ref. Give more information
• 54 gives an author
• 107 has an author and publishing date
• Same for 33
• Again for 43.

That's about 50% of the ones I checked that have more information at a glance than is included in the footnotes, that ought to be there if available. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 27 April 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): Mbz1 (talk), Avenue

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of Jewish Nobel laureates. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria that provides interesting little known facts of some of the laureates. Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restarted, old version.
• Note I have restarted this nomination, as the FLC was growing long with comments, and the status of and consensus on various issues was unclear. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure about this. It seems like a contrived conjunction of two disparate concepts and I'm not sure of the true significance of it. The list is interesting but, like other contributors to this FLC, I'm unsure as to the significance of this "criterion". I'm not being flippant but a "List of Jewish FIFA World Cup Final scorers" would be an analogy which would be laughed out of court (if you get my drift). What makes this (uncertain inclusion criteria) list useful? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Director's note: this comment has been inserted from previous version since it was made just a few hours before the restart. Dabomb87 (talk)[reply]

• Comment above issue has been addressed at the AFD. The fact that ~ 20% of nobel laureates are Jews seems strongly linked to the discussion of racial intelligence, The Bell Curve and so forth. By analogy, if 20% of the FIFA World Cup Final top 100 scorers were from La Masia, that would probably merit some discussion. Sandman888 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not really. The issue was discussed at the AFD and it was pretty clear that many people have different definitions of what constitutes being "Jewish". Even the nominator, in that AFD, said "For all Jews being Jew is a state of mind". Also, I'm very uncomfortable with the heavy dependency on a single source declaring all these laureates to be Jewish. As stated in the AFD, it would be far superior to find independent sources in which the laureates self-identify as Jews. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I think you've expressed three concerns in your two comments, namely that: (a) the list doesn't seem useful, or its topic is not significant; (b) the inclusion criteria are uncertain or subject to dispute; and (c) the list relies excessively on a single source. Sandman888 addressed (a), and you responded by reiterating (b) and introducing (c). I'm not convinced that relitigating (a) here would be productive; the AfD covered the ground fairly thoroughly, and was closed as "keep". I have more sympathy with you on both (b) and (c), but requiring public self-identification would probably not be uncontroversial either. Beside a strong matrilineal tradition, there have been fairly compelling reasons not to publicly self-identify as being Jewish at various times and places during the last century, and external sources have not restricted themselves to laureates who have publicly self-identified as Jewish. I think Mbz1 addressed (c) in the previous comments, saying that another source had also been used. However this has not been made explicit in the list, so some improvement would be worthwhile there. --Avenue (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is now done. (See my comment below.) --Avenue (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Personally I don't see the point of lists like this which combine unrelated things. However I acknowledge that some people might be interested in this particular list. bamse (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think this list is completely fine as the Nobel Prize is the one of most prestigious award in the world. And categorizing the awardees based on race can be quite useful. Besides, we have a similar list List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients already promoted, so I don't see why this one shouldn't be an FL.—Chris!_c/t 21:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked at this list again and I have to withdraw my support regrettably. There are several issues. Several refs are located below the tables, which should be in the ref section instead. Publishers in many references are not consistent. The lead is a bit disorganized.—Chris!_c/t 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral There are still nearly three dozen laureates who lack a source regarding their Jewishness (a WP:BLP violation in the case of living laureates), and I still haven't received a satisfactory explanation of why The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia, an illustrated book intended for children, edited by Mordecai Schreiber and published by Schreiber Publishing, is a WP:RS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again "The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia" is used only as secondary source. Jewishness of all and each and every individual, who are included in the list confirmed by at lest one reliable source, but "The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia". --Mbz1 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia (reference 23) is cited nearly 130 times—in nearly every instance, it's the only source that attests to a laureate's Jewish heritage. So (a) what makes The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia a WP:RS and (b) where are the sources for the other three dozen laureates' Jewish heritage? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As was said many times before the main source for making the list was this site. It is referenced in the beginning of the list, where the number of Laureates is discussed. This site provides at least one reliable source for each Laureate to confirm his/her Jewishness. There was simply no use to add the same reference to every name on the list. That's why the Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia is just a secondary source. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose According to Mbz1's comment, the reference for the Jewish ethnicity of the laureates is hidden in the lede (footnote 3), and footnote 23, the children's encyclopedia that is cited 130 times, is merely a "backup" source. In my opinion this doesn't satisfy the citation requirement of a featured list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually nothing is hidden. I simply said that I see no reason to mention the same reference for every entry. Let's for example take this featured list. There's no reference for every name is added. The same is the situation with most other featured lists.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that were a list of "Buddhist winners of the Golden Melody Awards", it should have references that verify that each member of the list is a Buddhist, and this list should have references that verify that each laureate is Jewish. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a reference for every entry. The references is added to the beginning of the list versus to the every entry. If you believe it should be added to every entry, I will. It is just a matter of formatting the list, and there's no reason for "opposing" because of that. Besides I see nothing wrong with children encyclopedia either. Of course it is a reliable source on its own, or at least as reliable as other published encyclopedias.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and added the relevant citation to each entry. The list now has very detailed citations compared to similar featured lists like the List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients, List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients, and List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients. In particular, every entry now has an inline citation for the award's rationale and for the recipient being Jewish. --Avenue (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the references to the headrs of most sections.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Thank you, Avenue. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Use a proper template for sources. Include publisher, accessdate and so on for all sources (accessdate only for online sources). Sandman888 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - the headings are now all broken, column widths differ from section to section, refs ideally in numerical order please, no spaced hyphens (make them en-dashes per WP:DASH), lead has far too many small paragraphs, and the quotes break it up further, to its detriment. No lead image? Don't mix date formats in the references... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sandman888 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've went ahead and fixed the headings, thought it was a browser thing. If it's not, I can't understand why you didn't change it back when you saw them mixed up.
• The lead, I think, should reflect why the list is important, i.e. discuss Jews and their over representation amongst laureates and who else has done so, not just say this Jew had a rought time, and btw. the nobel prize is this and that. This is my main opposition. I think the lead should be completely re-written.
• If you make a distinction between Economics and the rest, note that the Peace prize is also qualitatively different as it is awarded by the Norwegian parliament, not the Swedish academy. This shd be noted if you continue the focus on what a nobel prize is.

Thank you for your comment, and for fixing the mess I have done. I did not notice that. Would you care to re-write the lead and share it with us at the article talk page maybe? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will not. Sandman888 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The subject is very notable, and the source of Mbz1 does seem reliable enough and cites more sources. Broccoli (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to several outstanding issues, and because it appears that some editors are voting support out of some form of principle rather than by actually reviewing the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This subject is of immense interest to many as similar lists can be found at Jewish Virtual Library,Israel Science and Technology Homepage,Jewish Biography site- About.com also has a list: [3]. If you Google it there are many many hits. Now I realize that sometimes some people use such a list to gloat over the fact that other ethnicities maybe don't have so many prizewinners, or use it against Jews to claim that the Jews control the Nobel Prize along with the rest of the world's institutions (I've seen both) but neither of those things is not what this is about. WP is not about what is done with the information we present, it is about the information. The intriguing point, as Mbz1 has pointed out and as the About.com link points out "Of the 750 Nobel Prizes awarded worldwide between 1901 and 2007, at least 162 were awarded to Jews. While Jews are approximately 0.25% of the world's population, Jews make up approximately 22% of all Nobel Prize laureates worldwide. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellarkid (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, Stellarkid, you do realize that we're discussing whether the list "exemplifies our very best work", not whether the subject is notable? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everyone in the list is Jewish, there is no original researche regarding Jewishness here. This kind of lists is many time the hardest to verified according to WP criterions, however this list do it well. The subject itself is very very interesting for many people and it's a very frequently watched list. So, it deserve to be featured. And as for WP:WIAFL- I came over the article, the list do seem to meet it fully. Conditional Support: The article is good and important but need further work to become completly tidy-as the The Rambling Man mentioned--Gilisa (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't meet our standards. There are problems with many of the reference formats, there are references just floating in mid-air, the column widths vary from section to section making it look very untidy, refs are out of order. These are all very basic issues. People who are already supporting this list in its current state should refamiliarise themselves with our criteria and current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose pending resolution of the technical points re refs etc. Please nudge me when these are resolved and I will take another look. --Dweller (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What's the status on the various concerns listed by reviewers above? This list has not been edited in a week. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my oppose. Concerns have not been adressed. Sandman888 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:05, 16 April 2010 [4].

Nominator(s): Ominae (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I am sure this has passed the criteria for FA status. There has been no edit wars and all areas of the article are cited when needed. Ominae (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This list was originally submitted to WP:FAC but I moved it here, as episode lists are considered, well, lists rather than articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The citeweb templates should include publishers and the access dates should be in Month, Day, Year.
• Are all those sources reliable? Dogakobo seems doubtful.
• Japanese titles of the citeweb template should have |trans_title=translation goes here.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). I never read through this but from my understanding, FILE should be File.
• Picture needs Alt Text

• Alt text is no longer a requirement for featured lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Summaries feel, a bit lacking. Do they cover the whole episode?
• The DVD release paragraph sounds kinda strange to me.
• I think 13 should be thirteen instead. 3 to three. 3rd to Third, definitely. 4 to Four.
• For the episode table, have Ep. # instead of just #, and maybe Episode name becomes Episode title.
• What does the last sentence in the theme song paragraph mean?

I have not read the summaries, and as of now, don't really plan to. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 07:42, 16 April 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria for featured list. This is the second submission. Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I commented during the Basketball HoF list, I feel some of the sections without tables need expanded leads to provide a satisfactory summary of what is to be found at the main article. The Civil War summary, for example, is summarizing more than 1500 medals awarded. Yet, it receives only a couple sentences, far less than the Spanish American War or the Boxer Rebellion. The World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam have reasonable length summaries, but I feel that the Civil War, Indian Wars, and Peacetime sections need serious expansion to properly cover the topic within. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I correct that Michael E. Thornton was the last man to receive the medal while still alive (he got his in 72, so later than the Liberty incident)? Worth mentioning?
• Is there any info on why the medal was so commonplace, relatively, in the Civil and Indian Wars?

Thanks all good points and Ill get to those suggestions right away. On the last point the answer is yes, it was pretty much the only award they could get till world war I. There were a few campaign ribbons, brevet promotions and the purple heart (known as the Medal of merit back then) but for valor, that was it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The section heads are still quite quite short. See List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame for an example of serious length. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92^Talk 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) ;Comments[reply]

• There is some image problem for the Korean Expedition - there's whitespace on the right of the images.
  • I'm not sure why this is happening, I think it might be the way the image is. I tried a variety of different things and I couldn't fix it. If you know how to fix it please do. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sections with the list as a subarticle should summarize that list. How many people earned the medal in that conflict? Most give a description of the conflict itself, but nothing about the medal recipients with WP:Summary style.
• mid-August, 1934 → mid-August 1934
  • Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• from 1916–1924 → from 1916 to 1924
  • Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• from 1909–1933 → from 1909 to 1933
  • Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• occurred from 1959-April 30, 1975 → occurred from 1959 to April 30, 1975
  • Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice overall. Reywas92^Talk 23:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the notes quotes? If so they should be in quotations. For instance, I can't imagine you came up with "Stood on the gunwale on the Benicia's launch, lashed to the ridgerope and remained unflinchingly in this dangerous position and gave his soundings with coolness and accuracy under a heavy fire." yourself... (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation_marks). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Check the toolbox; there are a couple dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got everyhing covered know. Please let me know if I missed anythng. --Kumioko (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Spanish-American War" Needs an en dash, not a hyphen. Multiple occurences of this.
• "Philippine-American War" Needs and en dash, not a hyphen. Multiple occurences of this.
• "While current regulations, (10 U.S.C. § 6241), beginning in 1918, explicitly state that recipients " Doesn't make sense; how can regulations "begin" to state something in a year?
• The Spanish–American War section does not mention the MOH awardees at all.
• In general, the undue weight given to the events over the recipients is an issue for most of the sections. I would expect only two or three sentences for each event, and a similar or greater amount of prose dedicated to the awardees per sections.
• Are all of those external links really necessary? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:08, 7 April 2010 [6].

Nominator(s): Tsange ^►talk 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is worthy of the status. Tsange ^►talk 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes [7] reliable? Mm40 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please remove all the strikethroughs you've made through my comments; it's up to the reviewer to see if they have been resolved. Mm40 (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Tsange ^►talk 17:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up all these above issues, except the last one. The website melaniecbase.com isn't a very good source as I think it is a fan site. I have emailed the official Mel C website for help as I can't find another source. Tsange ^►talk 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Chart Stats should not be used as a source. Numerous better sources exist (Music Week, ChartsPlus, ...). Goodraise 01:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All links are now fixed. Tsange ^►talk 16:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 3 April 2010 [8].

Nominator(s): ImGz (t/c) 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets FL criterion after working on it for the past few months. It recently underwent a peer review and I believe all of those issues have been addressed. --ImGz (t/c) 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this list identical to the Drexel 100? Maybe indicate who's on 100 and request a delete of the other list? Sandman888 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the only alumni list for Drexel on wiki. The Drexel 100 is just more or less the 'hall of fame' of the alumni association. People they choose for the Drexel 100 would not all meet WP:N and the Drexel 100 is limited to living members so deleting the current list and replacing it with just Drexel 100 members would exclude most of the current alumni on the list and add a whole lot of non-notable people to it as well. I think I'm just going to remove mention of the Drexel 100 since it adds more confusion than clarification.. --ImGz (t/c) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I probably should have said I will remove it rather than I probably will. I have gone ahead and removed references to the Drexel 100 since it doesn't add anything to the article other than 'oh hai, drexel has a hall of fame within the alumni association'. Hopefully this clears up some confusion.. --ImGz (t/c) 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Jeff Parke, the soccer player included in the list, is apparently going to play this season for Seattle Sounders FC. The season starts tomorrow, so it's not too early to update this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated! Thanks, it probably would have taken me a while to catch that one. :) --ImGz (t/c) 23:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:GrapedApe

• Broad question - steps have you taken to try to make the list as comprehensive as possible?

• Checked categories, went through the 1,000+ search results for Drexel U, Drexel Institute, etc, went through print sources.

• Why does Rudolph Weaver have two class year? Two different degrees?

• Clarified.

• There are lots of short notability descriptions that don't really give a good sense of why that person is notable. Things like "Illustrator," "Filmmaker," "Filipino architect" don't really mean a lot.

• Done.

• For the "unknown" alumni, like William H. Milliken, Jr., Harry Sidhu, Jack Wall, what is unknown? Is the graduation year unknown, or is it unknown whether that person graduated at all? There should be clarification on that.

• Clarified table.

• The tables should probably be constructed with the {{Alum}} template, IMHO.

• With all the recent additions I don't believe the Alum template would work well with this list. --ImGz (t/c) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like the refs for Arthur Raymond Randolph and Albert Branson Maris are dead. I suspect that the Federal Judicial Center is temporarily down.

• I noticed that a few days ago, strange for a .gov site to be down that long so I did some searching on the website - it looks like they've overhauled it and have the pages at a different address so I've updated the citations. Thanks for the comments btw!--ImGz (t/c) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • --GrapedApe (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 3 April 2010 [9].

Nominator(s):  MPJ -DK  09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list for Featured List because I feel it conforms to the FLC and generally has the review input from previous FLCs I've done worked into it. There are currently three redlinked articles: César Curiel, Gran Cochisse and La Fiera. Since the FLC process usually takes over 2 weeks I am confident that I will turn the links blue before the FLC process is over. The wrestlers who are not linked are wrestles where I have been unable to find much information on the except that they've won this particular championship so it's my judgement that they do not fullfill the Notability criteria and thus do not have to be linked.

As always I am open to any and all comments and will work to produce the best possible list.  MPJ -DK  09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All three done before the first review :)  MPJ -DK  16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

It looks pretty close for me now. Well done on all your work to resolve our comments; it would have been easy to get disheartened! Harrias ^talk 10:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I had a sinking feeling for a while, thank you so much for all the extremely constructive input, it made the articles 10 times better.  MPJ -DK  10:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Too many prose glitches for me at the moment. A few of them are listed below, but I don't guarantee that I got them all. I agree with Harrias that a copy-editor is needed.

• "The championship was called the 'World Middleweight Championship', created by Salvador Lutteroth". Seems to be missing "and" after the comma.
• "The title was created at an unknown point before March 29, 1939 and awarded to Gus Kallio." The "awarded to Gus Kallio" part was already covered in a previous sentence.
• "and changed their name to Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre to in order...". The promotion has both repeated links and repeated initials, neither of which are needed. Also, there's that misplaced word at the end.
• Hyphen needed for "NWA labelled" and "NWA branded" at various times.
• Remove comma before "that were all originated in CMLL."
• "Dragon won the title from Corazon de Leon on November 8, 1994 after which he began promoting the belt in Japan;". Comma after the year. Also, the semi-colon here should just be a comma.
• Hyphen for "CMLL based" in "the first CMLL based title match since 1994."
• "In March, 2010...". Move comma to after year.
• "and the president of sent letters...". Something's missing here.
• "but was ignored by CMLL. CMLL...". Try to avoid the repetition of the promoter's name here.
• Comma after "Averno is the current champion".
• Change the semi-colon before "while the Great Sasuke's single reign..." to a comma.
• Gus Kallio note: "due to the fact that he already held the World Middleweight Champion in the United States". "Champion" → "Championship". Also, there should probably be a period after this.
• Anibal note: "Anibal defeated El Cobarde in decision match to win the title." Missing "a" before "decision match"; the other similar notes have one.
• Reigns by combined length: De-capitalize Of Reigns and Days in the headings.
• Shouldn't footnotes 3 through 7 begin with capital letters?
• Reference 3: The em dash for the page range should be a smaller en dash. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll do the various fixes later, I'm just not sure if it'd be worth still having this be a FLC if there are so many problems with the prose that I just seem to miss.  MPJ -DK  22:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've done all the fixes, I just want people's honest opinion - how much work does it need? If it needs quite a bit of work I'll withdraw it for copyediting.  MPJ -DK  19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not one to usually doubt myself but right now I get the impression that i presented a bowl of alphabet soup for an article, which is a first for me. I apologize.  MPJ -DK  19:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's much better than it was; although it sounds slightly stilted now. I will read through it again properly at some stage, but my dinner is ready now! Harrias ^talk 19:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 3 April 2010 [10].

Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria to become a Featured List in Wikipedia. Most likely all that is missing are minor things. ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Chart Stats should not be used as a source. Numerous better sources exist (Music Week, ChartsPlus, ...). Goodraise 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Goodraise 02:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Chartstats is listed as website used as archive on Template:Singlechart#Non-Billboard charts. So, I think its perfectly usable. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid being listed on some random Wikipedia page doesn't make a source reliable. The one page that matters is the one linked from the featured list criteria: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Goodraise 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable sources and it does not seem to violate it. There is no poor reputation for checking facts. There is editorial oversight. It does not express "views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.". Furthermore, Chartstats.com is used on FL discographies like Gwen Stefani discography, Hilary Duff discography, Madonna albums discography, Madonna singles discography, and Rihanna discography. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you know that there is editorial oversight? Where is the evidence of Chart Stats' reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? As for those other lists using Chart Stats, feel free to fix them. Goodraise 02:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If it had no editorial oversight then just anyone or any user could edit the website and it doesn't work like that. But that may be me speculating. If it had a bad reputation, it would be on Wikipedia's black list or be mentioned on Wikipedia pages or guidelines, but since it's not, I think can be used without problem. There is nothing saying the website cannot be used as a source or even advising against using the source. On the contrary, Template:Singlechart#Non-Billboard charts advises to use the website. What is your reason for questioning Chartstats.com as a reliable source? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The absence of an edit button is no proof of editorial oversight and that black list is not what you think it is. -- I am saying the source should not be used. The documentation of some template says it can be used. Neither matters. The only thing that does is whether WP:RS is met. -- I don't need a reason to question Chart Stats' reliability. It's not "Reliable until proven unreliable." It's the other way round. Goodraise 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ChartStats is a reliable source as per WP:CHARTS. Extensive discussions have happened there regarding this, and consensus is to use the website. Please don't oppose based on that. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CHARTS is a style guideline and as such has no business concerning itself with the reliability of sources. As for those extensive discussions, I assume they contain some convincing arguments as to how Chart Stats meets WP:RS? If they don't, then that "consensus" is worth squat. Goodraise 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It does. One of the recent discussions is Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Chart Stats, Zobbel, everyHit and αCharts.us. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So then, what are those arguments? What is it that makes Chart Stats a reliable source? Goodraise 23:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the discussion, ChartStats "has the flow diagram on there which no other UK sources have. ChartStats should be used according to Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS as it always seems reliable and it's the only one that can be used with the {{singlechart}} macro system." -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't answer my question. What is it that makes Chart Stats a reliable source? Goodraise 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That it's factual. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you know that? Goodraise 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you check positions in Chart Stats and the actual page, positions 1 - 100 are archived with correct information. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not enough, even if it is true. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources does not say that sources which contain only correct information are reliable. As far as I can tell, Chart Stats is nothing but an anonymously published website with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Goodraise 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That is you complete personal opinion and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. It is currently being used in many articles and is approved by WP:CHARTS. That's all we need to use it. If you have a problem, leave a comment on the page's talk. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All your arguments on why the site should be considered reliable boil down to "because other Wikipedia editors think it should". You don't see a problem with that? As for back-up, mine is called WP:V, which is policy and therefore takes precedence over that style guideline of yours. As WP:V puts it: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As far as I know, that's not the case here.
  Until I hear some solid and substantiated argument as to why I should consider that page reliable, I will remain opposed, no matter how many editors, style guidelines, and template documentation pages tell me to do otherwise. Goodraise 02:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The flaw with that is: WP:V is not in doubt. The difference you have is with WP:RS which is a guideline and like wise WP:GOODCHARTS which is also guideline, both are to be applied with common sense meaning there are exceptions to them. WP:Consensus(a policy) has established that ChartStats is an acceptable source and thus it is listed in WP:GOODCHARTS, but if you feel consensus can change in this case then bring up the issue on WT:CHARTS. In the mean while I not would recommend attempting to derail on article for FLC by editors who are doing exactly what is appropriate to meet the recommended guidelines. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a difference with WP:RS. Throw RS out of the window, forget I even mentioned it, and I'd still be opposing this FLC for violating WP:V. As for that consensus I keep hearing about, there's no such thing, only a group of editors who apparently think that they can themselves provide a source with sufficient credibility. But lets take a step back. Above policy stands common sense. So, answer me this: Why should I (being a reader of Wikipedia) believe anything that's written on Chart Stats? Any answer to this question that boils down to "Because one or more Wikipedia editors think so." is not good enough. Goodraise 00:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to butt in here, but in all of my time being an editor and all the discussions and whatnot about uk chart sources, you (Goodraise) are the only editor that feels the way you do. so that shows that there is consensus among other editors and admins alike. there are many discussions about uk sources, all of them with many examples of undoubtedly reliably sources that use chartstats as a source, so take your views to those instead of filling up every single discography you review. Mister sparky (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"in all of my time being an editor and all the discussions and whatnot about uk chart sources, you ... are the only editor that feels the way you do." - Easily proven wrong.
"there are many discussions ... with many examples of undoubtedly reliably sources that use chartstats as a source" - Where are those discussions? More importantly, where are those examples? Thus far, I've seen not a single one.
As for filling up FLCs, what I have to say takes one line. Hardly too much. Goodraise 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the bbc news, bbc radio, reuters, sky news, the telegraph newspaper reporting uk parliament debates about eurovision chart entries, norwegian newspapers etc etc. but its become quite clear nothing is going to change your mind. as with all opinions on chart sources, thats just what they are, personal opinions. but the majority of opposes you give to discographies makes no difference anyways.Mister sparky (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean the ones given here? The ones citing EveryHit.com? Goodraise 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yep cuz you had probs with that as well. there were more with chartstats. but doesnt matter anyways. Mister sparky (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you keep insisting that there were such examples in regard to Chart Stats in those discussions, but instead of backing up that claim with proof, you suggest that I am unreasonable, that I would continue to oppose FLCs using the source even in the face of strong evidence of its reliability? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Have I displayed such a behavior in the past? Goodraise 22:14, 23 March 2010(UTC)

Seriously, if you have a problem with ChartStats.com, then write a comment on Wikipedia talk: Record charts, not here. This isn't the page to decide whether a source is reliable or not. I just follow Wikipedia guidelines, which state that ChartStats.com is perfectly fine. If you reach a consensus opposing the use of the website, then come here and I will gladly change the source. But as for right now, ChartStats.com is considered a reliable source. Thank you. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let us for one second assume that Wikipedia:Record charts is not a style guideline, but a content guideline, and that neither Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources nor Wikipedia:Verifiability have any say whatsoever in questions of source reliability. So, what is Wikipedia:Record charts' decree? Perhaps it is "Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives". Take a good look at the page. The only time that Chart Stats is mentioned there is in the sentence "Archived at Chart Stats." It states nowhere that Chart Stats is a reliable source. -- By the way, in the article, you've labeled Chart Stats as being published by The Official Charts Company. If that were the case, I wouldn't oppose its usage. Goodraise 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per [11], the site has editorial review and information is retrieved from reliable sources such as Yahoo!, The Official Charts Company, and the BBC. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That page says nothing about editorial oversight. The only indication is the "Contact Me" link on the left, which suggests to me that the site is run by a single (not to mention anonymous) individual. Even if that person is vigilantly overseeing his/her/its own work, that's nowhere near good enough. As for the sources used, Wikipedia uses reliable sources too, but that doesn't make it reliable itself. Now, if Yahoo!, The Official Charts Company, and the BBC were using Chart Stats as a source, that would be a different story. Goodraise 18:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says "The singles archive was provided very kindly by Colin at PolyHex and the albums chart archive was kindly published by Lonnie of DistantStar on the UKmix forums." And I have no way of finding out if the website is licensed. Once again, take it up with Wikipedia guidelines not this article. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Colin at PolyHex" and "Lonnie of DistantStar on the UKmix forums"? Who are they? Are they experts on UK charts or something? Once again, why should I "take it up with Wikipedia guidelines", when they're backing my position already? Goodraise 06:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Wonderfully constructed discography. Improved much from the ongoing fan-war edits happening when I last checked. Here are my issues.

1. A comma after Swift in the line The discography of American country music recording artist Taylor Swift.
   • done
2. In the United States, Taylor Swift peaked at number five on the Billboard 200,[1] peaked at number-one Top Country Albums --> Sounds awkward. Try In the United States, Taylor Swift peaked at number five on the Billboard 200, and number one on Top Country Albums. Be consistent with number-one and number one.
   • done
3. Taylor Swift marked the longest stay on the Billboard 200 by any album released in the decade. --> Which decade?
   • done
4. with the releases of the EPs --> with the release of the EPs
   • done
5. Swift obtained her biggest debut on the Billboard Hot 100 in February 2010 --> Mention that it debuted at 2.
   • done
6. Remove NZ certification from Fearless. Minor market certifications are not listed. It's for the album article.
   • done
7. Same from the singles tables.
   • done
8. The note links don't work.
   • • They work for me and there are no dead links per [12]. Please check again. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
       • I'm not talking about references. The notes like [A], [B], [C]. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
         • Oh, haha...I don't understand why. I evaluated them and compared them to other notes and don't know why. Could it be because some letters are repeated since I put it as one per section? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
           • It might be. Try Madonna singles discography and copy the different note jargons from it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
             • Did and I think that's the problem, but how could I unite all of those notes if there are three different sections? I guess put them into a section called songs or something and then the rest as subsections. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
               • I think put different alphabets for the sections. Like in the first section there's A, B, C as the notes. In the next section, don't start with a new A, B, C. Start from D, E... --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                 • That's perfect. You are a genius! -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. The publisher for allmusic is Rovi Corporation not Macrovision.
   • done
10. Ref 3 and 6 for RIAA, use an en-dash(–) b/w RIAA and Gold. Check for the dashes in the other sources also.
    • done
11. For the Hung Medien references, give the work as the main charting source, like ARIA Charts for australian-charts, tracklisten for the danish ones, etc.
    • Don't understand. Coudl you please explain? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hung Medien is not the actual publisher of those charts. The main charting company or the source should be notified. Hence add them in the work parameter of the reference. For eg, again check Madonna singles discography. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • done

These are the things I could find. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Concerns have been addressed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The lead looks worthy of an FL, but I noticed a reference issue above involving Chartstats, which is used to source UK chart positions. Since I have no knowledge regarding what chart sites are reliable, I wanted to ask something from another point of view, namely what alternatives are there? Is there something online that is considered reliable, so that old magazines don't have to be individually cited? Or are the magazines the only source here that won't be questioned? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would of course be considered acceptable, but unfortunately it doesn't come out till November. The current edition only covers up to 2007..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 3 April 2010 [13].

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I spent a couple of months working on it and, based on previous nominations, I thought this article is ready to be promoted to a FL. Sources, lead and images are fine in my opinion and the peer review I resquested before this nomination is already archived. Decodet (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mm40 (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I'm keen on the inclusion of information that you cite with "couldn't be cited with a RS"... interested to see what others have to say.

I have to admit I copied that note from another featured discography but I'm not sure if it was added before or after the end of the nomination. Let's wait for more users' opinions. Depending of consencus, I can remove that note. Decodet (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Decodet (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:45, 3 April 2010 [16].

Nominator(s): Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I spent a lot of time on it, and it's the main article in a topic I'm writing. It's about the freak tropical cyclones that don't form during the normal season. Short, sweet, and too the point. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, one little comment, i have no opinion one way or another on the title, whether it should be "off-season Atlantic hurricanes" or "off-season Atlantic tropical cyclones". --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of some of these issues, but there's still a lot to do, and seeing as this has been up for 3 weeks now, I would like to withdraw it, rather than continue. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC):[reply]

• Deaths and damages are reversed under the 2007 hurricane, Olga.
• Ref 20, [17], appears to be dead.
• The two images appear to lack alt text. See what's been written for Hurricane Rick for an idea on what it should look like [18] See WP:ALT for more precise guidelines.
• The first paragraph of Records and statistics: "[...]most recently Tropical Depression One in 2009." You might consider rephrasing this, so that this information will remain correct in the event that another out of season hurricane occurs and the article isn't updated.

Images are verifiably in the public domain (although the source page for the Hurricane Alice image was dead, here is the proper link [19], in case anyone cares), no ambiguous links. Good luck!

OK, I fixed the image for Alice, switched the damage/deaths for Olga, replaced the olga links w/ one single link thats more official, and added alt texts. i didn't change the wording about the "most recently", since the entire article will have to be updated when there's another off-season storm. Thanks a lot for your review! Viennaiswaiting (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, I suppose that's true. Ok. I'm striking my previous comments, and supporting on all but one count (the article is stable; the prose seems to be high quality; the lead is short, but it is a short article; no structural issues that I can see; and style appears to be in line with requirements) The only exception would be criterion (3). Not that it isn't comprehensive, I just don't feel qualified to judge it one way or the other (sorry). Nice, brief article. Best wishes! ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sweet, thanks! Viennaiswaiting (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as this list covers all known off season AHS cyclones. This being merged into an global list wouldnt work IMO as there are no preseason Cyclones in the Western Pacific/Northern Indian Ocean.Jason Rees (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This list is inconsistent in its treatment of off-season tropical depressions. In the parts of the list covering recent times, it has no problem linking to tropical depressions. However, for parts of the list covering earlier times, it doesn't bother linking to them (not even section links). To a much lesser extent, this also applies to tropical storms. Perhaps it ought to be consistent in how it treats OSTC's across different timeframes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went back through and made sure there was proper links for every tropical storm, subtropical storm, or tropical depression that had a section in a season article. Some didn't have a section in the season article, so I left those unlinked. Originally, I only linked those with articles, but this works too. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can support now then. Many older seasons usually don't have much to say about tropical depressions, and probably don't need their own section as it probably isn't worth it to have a section that maxes out at one sentence. However, a full of discussion of what to do about this doesn't belong at this FLC page. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - a really quick browse...

• Lead is inadequate. Needs to "summarise" the whole article. There are numerous examples of our current featured lists which would help.
• Date ranges should use unspaced en-dashes, not spaced hyphens per WP:DASH.
• List could easily be made sortable.
• The color key fails WP:ACCESS as there doesn't seem to be a way of discerning what a color means without the color. In other words, if I can't discern color, I can't use the key.
• Region affected - there are often more than one, so shouldn't this be Region(s)?
• Spaced hyphens in the references. Not per MOS please.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • thx for reviewing: lead is longer, i see you did the date range and spaced hyphens (i think), the list is now sortable, and now its "region(s) affected". the colors are based off the saffir-simpson scale, which is at the top-right of the climo section: should i say in prose what the colours represent? Viennaiswaiting (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sortability goes nuts when you sort by date... (in Safari at least) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • should i remove the sortability then?? Viennaiswaiting (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or fix it. It usually goes wrong when you have colspans or rowspans. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Removing colspans/rowspans should fix the table sorting issue. If you still require two rows at the top (and need to prevent the second row being part of the sort), check out the sortbottom trick at Help:Sorting#Excluding rows from sorting. But you need to fix up the sorting on the dates anyway. Currently your months are being sorted alphabetically, so "April", "December", "February, "January", etc. You'll need to use the {{sort}} template to fix this up. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • ok, should be good. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More...

• When sorting by name the #-named storms don't sort in the correct order.
• When a date spans you use an en-dash, when the seasons span you use a slash. Be consistent.
• Pressure column doesn't sort correctly.
• N/A means not applicable or not available? I would add a quick note to be sure.
• Damage column doesn't sort correctly.
• Deaths column doesn't sort correctly.
• As per the color discussion above, you need to ensure that the storms identified with colors are also identified with something that is non-color related, e.g. a * or a ^ or similar.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now:

Lead:

• Image caption describes Hurricane Alice as "the first Atlantic hurricane to span two calendar years". Shouldn't this be first recorded hurricane to span two years, as opposed the first hurricane?
• What years does this article cover? At the bottom of the article it says "In the official Atlantic hurricane database, the first storm to occur outside of the current season was in 1865", and searching around I found this goes back to 1851, but there is no mention of this in the article. It would be worthwhile explicitly mentioning what date ranges this list covers.
• First sentence sounds a little forced because it includes the name of the article for bolding purposes. MOS:BOLDTITLE says you don't need to include the article title (or bold it) if the title is sufficiently descriptive. You could probably make the first sentence sound more natural if you don't include the text "list of off-season Atlantic hurricanes".
• The second and third sentences of the lead explicitly talk about 'on-season' rather than 'off-season'. It's a bit jarring when I'm expecting to read about off-season hurricanes.
• Lead says that "The [Atlantic hurricane] season is currently defined from June 1 to November 30". Defined by who? Also, with the sentence above I'm not sure about the wording. I'd prefer "The United States Weather Bureau currently defines the Atlantic hurricane season as occuring between June 1 and November 30 each calendar year."
• "Of the storms that struck land, areas of the Caribbean Sea were affected most." -- In general, prose could use tightening up. Also, shouldn't this be areas surrounding the Caribbean Sea? Areas of the Caribbean Sea itself is just sea, and doesn't match the part about striking land.
• (There's probably more which I can say about tightening up the prose and deciding which things to include in the intro vs the background vs the statistics, but I'll see how the article changes with my feedback first)

Background:

• In the background it says "The Atlantic hurricane season was not always as long as it is now." This sentence seems redundant as is; I'm going to find out that in the next two sentences anyway.
• One of the references mentions re: start/end dates that "the end date has been slowly shifted outward, from October 31st to November 15th until its current date of November 30th." In the background section it seemed like there was a single date range in 1938, which was changed to a new date range in 1964. There was no mention of any changes inbetween or otherwise.
• It mentions definitions of the hurricane season by the United States Weather Bureau. Do any of the other nations mentioned under "Region(s) affected" operate their own meterology services? If so, do any of these other nations have definitions for the hurricane season? Are they the same as the US definitions or different? When were these definitions implemented? (I don't know if there are any answers to these questions, but I'm genuinely curious. I realise most of the source material is from the US, but a worldwide perspective would be great if possible)
• The 'hurricane season' was first defined in 1938, yet the list includes cyclones which occurred prior to that. What definition of off-season is being using for these cyclones? I don't think it's explicitly mentioned that cyclones prior to to 1938 are being classified as on- or off-season based on the current definitions.
• Similarly, what definition is being used for cyclones that occured between 1938 and 1965? When it occurred, Tropical Storm Thirteen (1953) would have been defined as an off-season storm by 1953 standards, but isn't included in this list.

List:

• To my knowledge, units should be left uncapitalised in the table headings. i.e. "Winds (km/h)", not "Winds (Km/h)"
• The table uses a pattern of "Wind [linebreak] (units)", but then used "Pressure [linebreak] units (equivalent units)". Why is "knots" in brackets but "Mbar" isn't?
• As The Rumbling Man mentioned above, Names for numbered storms, Pressure, Damage and Deaths columns don't sort correctly. Read up on Help:Sorting#Numeric sorting with hidden key
• Currently when sorting by alphabetical order, "Unnamed" sits between "Peter" and "Zeta". Given that the term 'Unnamed' is arbitrarily given anyway, I'd prefer if you used the sort template so that these are separated from named cyclones. i.e. {{sort|!|Unnamed}}. ("!" is one of the few characters which will sort before "#1")
• When you fix the above sorting, I'd define "Several" deaths as a number greater than 0 in the sort template so they sort seperately to 0 deaths
• Every mention of deaths other than Arlene (1959) and Ana (2003) cites a reference for the death toll. Why are these two unreferenced?
• Same deal as above for the "Minimal" damages of Arlene (1981) and Lili (1984)
• For cyclones with 0 death toll there is no reference for that number. I assume that such information is more readily available when there is an actual death toll to report, but are you sure there were no deaths for each of those other storms? For all I know, whoever wrote the article might've not searched hard enough for a death toll number and just assumed there were no deaths because they didn't read anything to indicate the contrary.

Statistics:

• Your table under monthly statistics defines the listed months as "Month of formation", but the image on the right does not make a similar definition.
• Do you need a separate section for "Monthly statistics"? In the previous section called "Records and statistics" you already started describing the frequency of storms by month ("Storms were most likely to occur in May, followed by December.")
• "Only one cyclone was reported in March, in 1908, [...]" -- Every cyclone in this paragraph includes its name with the exception of this one
• "[...] and only one tropical storm has ever occurred in February or April, the 1952 Groundhog Day Storm and Tropical Storm Ana of 2003, respectively" -- If there was only one in February and one in March, how come the table says "February - 2" and "April - 7"? Either something is wrong here or needs clarifying.
• "Overall, there have been 58 tropical cyclones in each [emphasis added] month between December and May" - 52 tropical cyclones per month? :)

--Tntnnbltn (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I see I have a lot to do, a lot of small errors, so I'm going to withdraw it and work on it some more. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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