Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2008

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 User:The Rambling Man 12:25, 31 August 2008 [2].

previous FLC (08:36, 17 July 2008)

Think I've addressed the issues from the last nom. Bole2 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Killervogel5

Support - My comments have been resolved and I feel that it now meets the FL Criteria.S_RX 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Color shouldn't be the only indicator
    • Where is it a problem?
      • Wherever a color is used to indicate something.
        • Isn't the text in the cells enough? BUC (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's confusing.--Crzycheetah 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is it? BUC (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes.--Crzycheetah 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't follow BUC (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Color shouldn't be the only indicator, just add some symbols along with colors to indicate something.--Crzycheetah 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As I said before, isn't the text enough? Is say exacly what the colour indicates. BUC (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And as I said before, it's not enough. It's confusing still.--Crzycheetah 20:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
                        • I seem to be getting nowhere with working this out. Do you have a page about this you could piont me to? BUC (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I just did yesterday, see the link below. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Maybe this will clarify some issues. WP:COLOR. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the awards column, the following recipients currently cannot be verified: Craig Morton, Randy Gradishar, John Elway, and Terrell Davis.
    • See ref #4 and 5.
      • Those refs don't have any info on these guys.
        • Refs should be cited next to the names because having 6(!) references for one column is confusing.--Crzycheetah 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • They were there before but I was told to put them at the top. BUC (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You had two references before and that's why you were told to put them on top. Now, you added four more references, so there are six references on the top.--Crzycheetah 21:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you still have that NFL link in the general references. You already have two other general refs, why do you still keep that NFL link? If you want to continue using that webpage, you need to create a new column named "refs" and put specific links on every row.
    • What wrong with it?
      • That source should be used specifically while you're using it as a general reference.
        • Is it not allowed to be a general reference? BUC (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • General reference is a page that contains all info needed. That NFL page does not have any info that is beneficial to this list, hence can't be used as a general reference.--Crzycheetah 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It does say "click the drop down box for yearly standings" BUC (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Cool! That just proves my point!--Crzycheetah 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't follow. BUC (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That website has to be cited as a specific reference.--Crzycheetah 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Why? BUC (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Because, currently, there is no info on that page. Be kind and provide pages where we can see the necessary info to verify the content of this list.--Crzycheetah 20:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Dear me I'm going round in circles. Didn't I piont out be before that it says "click the drop down box for yearly standings". BUC (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Well, two years ago that would have been fine. We need specific references today. You "click the drop down box for yearly standings", copy the links and provide them here.--Crzycheetah 19:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • HickokSports.com shouldn't be used as a source. Those links you provided above prove that pro football reference website is reliable, but not this one.
    • [8]. Bucs (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there any third-party sources that verify that HickokSports is reliable?
        • [9] [10] [11] BUC (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the retrieval date for ref#8

--Crzycheetah 21:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.databasesports.com/
  • http://www.hickoksports.com/index.shtml
    • I've already covered hickoksports.com. BUC (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the MOS, titles of website links shouldn't be in all capitals (examples refs 2, 12)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'd like the first sentence to say how many seasons of professional football they've played in. The lead doesn't mention it at the moment.
• "of the... of the... of the..." :(
• "their first season in 1960, in Denver" Add "Colorado", please, so the Non-US people know where Denver is
• "The first was from 1976 to 1981, where when the Broncos did not have a losing season"
• "(a season where in which the team"
• "were AFC West champions twice and were AFC champions once." I had to re-read this a few times as it's not a clear sentence. Could it be re-written at all?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ping? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:35, 31 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 12:25, 31 August 2008 [12].

Continuing the string of, most recently, PA, NY, and the basic templates from AL and WI. The only issues I have with the list as it currently is are the list of the commanders of the department (a paucity of sources) and the party colors in the territory tables. I've only used the parties of the presidents who appointed them, and have not tried to find out their own personal party, which I don't think matters for an appointed post. Should I remove the colors, or try to find out what political leanings they held? --Golbez (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "The following is a list of the Governors of the State of Alaska " is now being avoided. I know the previous lists all passed like that and WP:LIST still says it's fine but it isn't. We don't have featured articles starting "The following is an article about X" so now we're trying to avoid the same for FLs. Perhaps introduce the article with something like "Since 1867 there have been X Governors of the US state of Alaska..."?
    • I've debolded some and moved things around.
  • Move [A] to other side of the comma.
    • Done.
  • "13 and a half" I imagine this ought to be hyphenated?
    • Using 1/2 instead.
  • I think we've debated this sort of thing before but I'd really like to see a reference for the opening para of the List of Governors section.
    • Not yet fixed, need to find suitable refs.
      • Done for Alaska Day; does the rest need a ref since it's basically a 'see also'? --Golbez (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions, I'd prefer to see "first" instead of 1st etc.
    • I would too, but then I ran in to "38th" and figured I should match them all. I'll move the lower ones back except for 11th and 38th. --Golbez (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The commander col would look better left-aligned.
    • Would that apply to the governor name columns as well?
      • I would prefer that.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would need a bit more work than I'm able to give at the moment, and the previous ones are all center-aligned.. can this one slide? :) --Golbez (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink the dates. We're pushing now to only link the significant dates (e.g. 4 July, 1776) and not those which are comparatively trivial.
    • I've just been waiting for someone to say it. ;)
  • There's a key for the Governors of Alaska table but not the others. Is this what is worrying you? I'd remove the colors if you're not sure.
    • I'll respond to this later.
      • The issue is, the appointed governors are not necessarily partisan, since they were not nominated by a party. So the party color used is that of the president who appointed them. Should this be removed, and just have no coloring, since it's technically not partisan (IMO)? --Golbez (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Golbez (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref H (Ruskin, Liz) is lacking a last access date.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done; while i'm at it, that's a web copy (not official archive) of a print news story; should I use cite web or cite news? --Golbez (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the link, but I suspect if it's not an official archive and just what someone's copy/pasted onto another website, WP:COPYVIO may be in effect. If it is a news article that appeared in a newspaper or magazine you don't need to provide an URL because it can be read in that newspaper. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does say "courtesy of" the paper at the top, but it might be wise to cite it as a newspaper article and drop the link. Thus solving both issues at once. Also check if the paper itself holds archives online? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There's no need to use Egan's full name the second time in the lead. His surname will suffice
  • Done.
• I'd prefer Capt., Maj, Lt, and the like to be spelled in full the first time each is used
  • Done, though I don't think I like how it looks.
• In the "Governors of Alaska Territory" section, the sentence "Governors continued to be appointed by the president." should say US president. If someone visits this section via a link from another page, as in [[List of Governors of Alaska#Governors of Alaska Territory]], they may not know which president
  • Fair enough, done.
• "Alaska was admitted to the union" What union? Expand and/or Wikilink, please
  • Linked.
• You need to use the magic word
  • ... Please? =p I think you left something out here.
    • Oops. This is meant to be Bunch. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You have a key for the colours in the "Governors of Alaska" section, but not in any of the others, either use it in them all, or not at all, because of the key within the lead section
  • True, dealing with this question above.
• WP:BUNCH
  • Done, thanks for the link, didn't know about that.
• I'm confused about referencing. Letters being used for inline cites, and numbers for footnotes? Seems very odd.
  • Bug the devs to let me nest <ref>s and I will happily combine them. As it is, this is the only way to separate footnotes from citations, which IMO should not be combined.
    • I agree with that, but if you use {{note label}} and {{ref label}} for footnotes you can use </ref> to reference them. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that is merely the opposite of the current system, in use on all these articles except, IIRC, the Lt. Gov of WI list, since it would run out of letters for citations. --Golbez (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The pink shading for Alaskan Independence is very wishy-washy against the white. Could it be made a little darker or changed?
  • Switched to standard 'independent' color. --Golbez (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't forget to change the table in the lead as well though ;) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 More Please use {{frac}} for the 13 1/2 thing. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. --Golbez (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

• Footnote 13, "Governor Palin's term expires December 6, 2010; she is not yet term limited" -- does this need updating? I'm presuming she won't stay Governor now she is McCain's running mate Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:13, 30 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 06:52, 29 August 2008 [13].

After a bit of a break, another US County list... it has professional prose, a suitable lead, comprehensive (covers all 99 counties), clear structure, good visual appeal and is stable (no edit wars). Tompw (talk) (review) 11:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, in order:
  1. I've changed the phraseing on the opening sentence;
  2. Good point, I've moved it to the section containing the table;
  3. I've changed the heading for the section containing the table to "County information", which I think resolves your comment;
  4. I agree, "Former counties" sounds much better, and I've changed things accordingly
  5. "llonger" - well spotted :-)... that's changed now
  6. Length of lead... this I haven't done anything to address yet. What information do you think should be included in the lead that shouldn't be?

  Thank-you for your suggestions and comments. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have been addressed against C1, C2 and C5. The lead has also been expanded, I will give me Conditional Support if the prose of the lead is made into 2 paragraphs instead of 4 short ones.--S_RX 00:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Lead is too short for a list of this length. Talk about Iowa, some of the history of the state and its division into counties, the defunct counties, maybe the largest, smallest, most and least populated etc. Use your imagination but it needs to be much longer. Plus avoid squashing text between two images per WP:MOS#Images. If you make the lead longer this shouldn't happen but if you don't you'll need to remove one of the images.
  • ninety-nine->99.
  • Established dates don't need to be wikilinked.
  • Etymology col could do with being left aligned and the red links should be sorted out.
  • I think there's a better link for president of the US than just president. Plus I imagine its capitalised.
  • President should be linked each time (to the relevant page US presidents page) as the table is sortable.
  • "signer" - is that a signatory?
  • "hero" - really? Reads a little WP:PEACOCK else reference him being called a hero.
  • Some of the etymology looks confusing, "Louisa Massey, woman who avenged the death of her brother, or Louisa County, Virginia" probably needs a footnote to explain the etymology in these cases is uncertain and provide suitable references to back that up.
  • Is it really necessary to link Irish? If so then do it all the time.
  • Link Fox (tribe) each time - it's a sortable list.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for recommendations concerning the lead - I shall work on that. I think having the etymolgy column left-aligned would look out of place, because the rest of the table is centre-aligned. (Also, other similar FLs use the same layout). I take your point about the conufsing eytmolgy, and will work on that as well. The rest of the issues you raised have been addressed. Thanks for the comments :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 19:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attempted to deal with the multiple etymolgy issue - feedback would be apreciated. Tompw (talk) (review) 13:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the lead... what do you think now? Tompw (talk) (review) 19:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.eskimo.com/~lisanne/ney/wischron.htm
    • Furthr clarify - self-published family history website, that doesn't give its sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.50states.com/statehood.htm (it's also missing a publisher)
    • Unclear who is behind the site and doesn't give its sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.iagenweb.org/state/places/formation.htm (also lacking a publisher)
    • GenWeb sites are maintained by private volunteers and vary greatly in their quality. There are no qualifications for maintaining or updating the information on these sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~iahenry/henrycocourthouse.htm (also lacking a publisher)
    • See above about GenWeb sites, same applies to RootsWeb. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.shopiowaonline.com/node/114
    • An online directory of shopping sites isn't the best source for information about a counties history. The page says its information comes from the County itself, why not directly cite the County webpage? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 5 (Iowa Consolidated..) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 14 is missing a publisher and a page number
• The following deadlinked and were missing publishers:
  • http://www.past2present.org/own/counties/Bancroft.htm
  • http://www.past2present.org/own/counties/Cook.htm
  • http://www.past2present.org/own/counties/Crocker.htm
  • http://www.past2present.org/own/counties/Risley.htm
  • http://www.past2present.org/own/counties/Yell.htm

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

???? What makes them unreliable? I take your point about publishers/deadlinks though, and will try and get them sorted. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To further explain on the above, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to show they are WP:RS Tompw, so please do that. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—Since "County" is the name of the first column, can you remove that word from every square in the column? Tony (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Reference [7] after punctuation please.
• Images in the lead are useless unless you actually click on them. Can you specify a size of thumbnails? I think 250 is the max for the lead.
• Agree with Tony. No need to repeat the word "county" in the county column.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:02, 28 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 07:36, 28 August 2008 [14].

Fixed. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC) previous FLC (17:01, 11 August 2008)[reply]

• Comments
  • Their next studio album. Start Something, earned Lostprophets international success, selling 2.5 million copies worldwide and achieving gold certification in the United States and platinum in the UK. - 1) The period should be removed after album and replaced with a comma, and then continue the next sentence. Also consider then, splitting the sentence because it is relatively long.
  • Are their any sources verifying the EPs?

--S_RX 17:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - here we go again...
  • "The band formed in 1997 in the Welsh town of Pontypridd.[2] Lostprophets formed with two members " - formed, formed... reword.

• Fixed

• • "Both member initially" - members?

• Fixed

• • "although Watkins quit as soon as 1998" in 1998?

• Fixed

• • "Lewis (who did not leave Public Disturbance until 2000) playing bass,[3]" - where's the rest of the sentence?

• Fixed

• • "became an underground success" what does this mean?

• Removed

• • "Their ..." - you talked about the band in the singular throughout, be consistent.
  • "Lostprophets won the NME award for Best Metal Group in 2002.[5]" - what relevance to the discog?

• Removed

• • No need to link dates in the albums table etc.

• Fixed

• • I don't see ref 10 telling me that Thefakesoundofprogress was released in Ireland at all. Check all of these, because you said they were released and didn't chart. Prove it.

• Fixed

• • Same for all singles in all charts.

• Fixed

• • Ref 1 doesn't have a URL but it does have an accessdate, what's going on?

• Fixed

• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "the band's sound incorporates nu metal, hard rock and alternative metal elements" <- mentions of a band's genre is always going to be subject to people arbitrarily changing it based on how it sounds to their own ears, so you should probably find a cite for this to make arguing over it more difficult.

• Fixed

• NME, BBC, etc, should be linked in the refs. naerii 12:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.chartstats.com/index.php
  • http://acharts.us/
  • http://www.trht.net/
• Sources that are not in English need to have their language listed in the reference.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• First two sentences need a space
• WP:OVERLINKING on Welsh
• Lead switches from singular to plural tense when mentioning the band. "The band were was established"
• UK spelling on "debut" please ("début")
• What is a "hardcore band"?
• Is Mike Lewis still in Public Disturbance?
• "Their next studio album. Start Something," change the full stop to a comma
• ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." So they were all definitely released in those markets, then?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:14, 28 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 07:36, 28 August 2008 [15].

Self-nom I worked on this for a short time. Short discography. Any comments are welcome. Burningclean _[speak] 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Did their singles chart anywhere?
  • No they didn't. I added a note in the lead.
• Videos --> Video albums
• Maybe added catalog numbers?
• Mvdbase.com is not recognized as a reliable website because it is user generated
  • I found another source for "Take My Scars", but I can't find anything for "Davidian". What do you suggest I do?

Did any of the song's single formats feature an enhanced section with the music video? Almost all of the time the credits will contain information on who directed the video -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niether of those songs are enhanced singles. The only enhanced CD single thay have is "Crashing Around You". Otherwise some of the CDs are enhanced but Burn My Eyes-Supercharger are not. Burningclean _[speak] 03:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Specify which chart is being used in the Videos section
• Add a note to the studio albums section which explains to the reader what the dashes mean

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to the group's bio on their official website, their live DVD also went to #4 on the UK charts. Can you find out which chart this was with the use of a reliable source, and add it to the discography? Thanks.LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I would like to give you my support, but I can not because they are missing references to the directors of videos. Cannibaloki 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something somebody suggests I do with the videos because I can't find direcotrs? Should I take them off the list, remove the directors name? Burningclean _[speak] 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.hardradio.com/metalmama/machinehead.html
• Should we be linking to http://www.clipland.com/Summary/944437527/? We're not supposed to link to copyright violations.

Ya, I'm not sure about the Clip Land link either. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Hardradio suspicious? I really don't know what to do about the directors. Does anyone have any suggestions? I can agree with the clipland one. Burningclean _[speak] 17:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Note that given the context on Hardradio and the information it's supporting, I'd call this on the fence. If it was a non-internet radio station, it'd be no question, but it is internet only, and that causes some problems. On the other hand, it's a long standing internet radio station, so that helps. This one is more of a "note for other reviewers" than a "it's got to go" type thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for sure it is an internet only radio? That interview was in the mid-nineties, when the internet wasn't nearly as popular. Burningclean _[speak] 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The World's First .com Internet Only Radio Station Online Since 1995." is right there at the bottom. Like I said, it's borderline in my mind. Would depend on what's being cited to it (and as this is FLC and it's a discography, that's nothing terribly contentious.). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 24 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 06:48, 28 August 2008 [16].

Nominating another list. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty threadbare lead. I see that the multiple award phenomenon has petered out over the past few decades; worth commenting on this? Average number of years between awards? Certain types of director getting multiples?
• What makes [17] a reliable site? No named author, either.
• People take "who", not "that".
• Pic covers up column name at left. Tony (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 25 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 06:48, 28 August 2008 [18].

Trying this format out. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Good prose, I just don't like the table.
  • I feel the ceremonies do better in a separate column, the way they are now stretch out the award the actor won.
  • I find, in it's current format, the nominations not relevant because it's just a number and their is no info on what they were nominated for etc.

--S_RX 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ceremonies in a separate column would be odd, as they should be matched with the respective category, which means I would have to put the relevant award in parenthesis or similar. I can collapse the table if you want. As for the nominations, I thought that in a sortable list, they would be a nice inclusion, and the general reference backs them up. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it would be add, but maybe putting them in a bulleted format would keep it from stretching the column very wide. I also agree the nominations should stay per the general ref.--S_RX 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cut out the extra spacing for the ceremonies. Is the format better? sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Using ceremony numbering instead of years is thoroughly counter intuitive. Using both (as in the director list) is just weird given the format. Circeus (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's obvious that the article is about "Academy Awards" and that they take place at the "Academy Awards ceremony" I think just putting in the article "45th and 67th" should cover it.--S_RX 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. The average person couln't care less which xth ceremony, world championship, festival edition it is, they only care which year's you're referring to. Circeus (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; Absolutely requires the names of the films they were nominated for. --Golbez (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And while we're at it, at least one of the links is wrong - Jack Nicholson links to the 55th awards for his best supporting actor win, but he wasn't nominated that year (I couldn't tell you which awards you're aiming for). All of the links need to be checked for accuracy. --Golbez (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—prose needs scrutiny.

• no years in the table?
• "since it was established in 19??".
• Second occurrence, just "Awards".
• "there have been actors and actresses that have received multiple"—eeeuuw; "who" for people. "actors and actresses have received".

And more; please get someone else to look throught the prose. Tony (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 00:09, 28 August 2008 [19].

I am nominating this article because I believe it should be promoted to a featured list.—Chris! _ct 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Lead
    • Players receive 5 points for a first team vote, 3 point for a second team vote, and 1 point for a third team vote. - I'm pretty sure 3 point should be pluralized.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 05:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Table
    • Something in the parameters must be faulty since at the bottom, the table has grid lines all around, but as you go up, they disappear.

I don't see any problem on my browser. Not sure how to fix it.—Chris! _ct 05:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--S_RX 01:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

• Since 1946, there were only two teams. But in 1988, the All-NBA Team was extended to three teams. Run-on sentences. Also, why did they choose to make three teams?
• First paragraph in lead is rather long. Recommend dividing.

Done. As for your question about why they choose to make three teams, I will try to find out.—Chris! _ct 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find out why they choose to make three teams in 1988.—Chris! _ct 19:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• About the legend, I feel that you should either use the symbol or use the color. Personally, I'd go with the color, but it's your choice.

Per WP:ACCESS, both symbol and color have to be used. For example, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/NBA Sportsmanship Award.—Chris! _ct 23:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• From 1946 to 1955, players were selected without regard to position. But since 1956, each team consists of two forwards, one center, and two guards. Run-on sentence.

Done —Chris! _ct 23:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm think whether or not if its relevant if a player received the NBA Most Valuable Player in the same year. You don't have to remove it yet, I'm still pondering.

I think it is relevant. —Chris! _ct 23:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm not seeing the reference "Olojuwon and Knobler" (current ref 7) listed elsewhere in the references.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remove it. Don't know why it is there.—Chris! _ct 19:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm really unhappy about the small text. Wikipedia should be Accessible to all, not just those with perfect vision.

Well, I am aware of WP:ACCESS. The reason I didn't use regular text is because the page doesn't have enough room for the table.—Chris! _ct 19:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I solved the problem. I increase the width of the table and resize the text.—Chris! _ct 19:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but to reduce width you could remove the flags. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The All-NBA Team originally had two teams, but it has since been extended to three teams in 1988." --> "The All-NBA Team originally had two teams, but was extended to three teams in 1988."

Fixed —Chris! _ct 19:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:NUM, number under ten in prose should be spelled out, instead of digits.

Fixed —Chris! _ct 19:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I dislike the navbox in the lead. Why isn't it at the bottom of the page?

All other award pages are like this. —Chris! _ct 19:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Chris_Mullin, Detroit_Falcons, St._Louis_Bombers, and Walter_Davis are ambiguous links. — Dispenser 00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed —Chris! _ct 04:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cr. 6—Given that two columns contain a sea of US flags, couldn't the dire shortage of horizontal space be addressed by removing both columns and using superscript footnotes to indicate non-US nationality, with a note at the top that US is the default? Tony (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The table is too wide; there are too many columns. I strongly suggest splitting the table into at least two sections.--Crzycheetah 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to two editors above: I guess I will not split the table yet. Instead, I will follow Tony1's suggestion and try cutting the nationality column. If that doesn't work, then I might split the table.—Chris! _ct 23:31, 27 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 09:21, 25 August 2008 [20].

This list is an edited version of List of numbered highways in Maryland, a FL. This list is super long, has been accepted on DYK and has 221 references. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I-605 is proposed, yet never actually planned, and has been proposed in one form or another for decades; it seems odd to include it on a list of extant highways with a minor note saying it's "proposed". Maybe it should be separated somehow. --Golbez (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you suggest making another section, called Proposed Interstates? ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - In the references, it probably isn't necessary to have multiple citations for the same map with the only difference being the section number of the map. Just one simple citation to the map, reusing the reference name as necessary should be enough. Also, in the tables, you may want to put spaces in between the reference tags so that they don't skew the column widths. In addition, although it isn't a major issue, you may want to consider renaming the page, since it doesn't actually list all numbered highways in Washington - the state routes are on a separate page. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Comments - Agreed, renaming to something like List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Washington --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then would List of numbered highways in Maryland and List of numbered highways in Utah have to be renamed? Also, the map will be fixed. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 16:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, they should be renamed, too, as they also only list Interstates and U.S. highways. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Utah is already renamed, as it was suggested earlier, and I had just not gotten around to it --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It has been moved to List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Washington. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments The external links need to go, as they are self published websites, and ushighways is a deadlink. The Interstate shields on the map do not look right with the black box, they should be "cut out." In the lead, why are you referencing Washington state highways when this article is about Interstates and U.S. Highways? All of your references are great, but in the table, after every five can you add a break in, so that it doesn't stretch the page off to the side of my monitor, as I have to scroll left-right to see the whole article. Otherwise, ref links check out, images check out. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the websites and I will separate the references as soon as I can. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about a small white box? I only have MS Paint, and I need help. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 16:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about asking the MTF for a new image. It should be done fairly quickly as this is a FLC. Also, they can create one as an SVG for you, which maps should be. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I requested a map at MTF. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no limitation against an external link to a SPS. The links could have stayed if they are 1) quality links that add to the article and 2) likely to be found on a Google or Yahoo search of the topic. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — This list should be split into two list articles: one for interstates and one for US highways. As a result, it feels like a forced marriage on one hand, or it's missing a sibling (state highways) on the other. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Imzadi, Maryland's similar list passed its FLC with interstates and US routes intact in one list, so this shouldn't be a problem right?
    • Had I known about that FLC, I would have opposed it on the same rationale at that time.Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - US and Interstate routes are both federal highway systems, which is why I think they belong together, separate from the state highway system. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • US Highways are just state highways that share a common numbering scheme and shield across state lines. Interstates are set up the same way, except there are minimum design standards and a federal funding scheme. This list has cherry-picked two of the three types of state-maintained highways in the state and left out the third. The first highway FL is List of Interstate Highways in Texas which focused on one subset of a much larger highway system in Texas. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment, the quantity of references does not make something feature-level. It's the quality of the references used. Many of the references here are actually the same map with different individual sections called out. This pads the reference count, making 221 an inflated number. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand your reasoning, it's just that featured lists that had interstates and US routes only have passed before. But I did not realize that some references were the same; I assumed, with two-hundred twenty-one references, well, you know, assuming just sucks sometimes :) CL — 21:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are three featured lists for all of WP:USRD. One is List of Interstate Highways in Texas, the second is List of highways in Warren County, New York and List of Interstate and U.S. highways in Maryland. The first focused on one part of that state's highway network. The second was comprehensive of all the highways, Interstate, US, state and county in that one county and the third is the template used for this one. That template is cherry-picked though, just like this list. Until this list either adds in the rest of the state highway system or splits into two lists based on the two parts of the system listed I can't support it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Title has been fixed and has all the references you want. One comment that doesn't pertain to the article all that much, the shields for I-605 and I-705 probably shouldn't be in Series B, the signs I've seen for the two are in series C most of the time. I'll go to the shields request page and see what can be done, as some other shields' numbers are too widely spaced - CL — 19:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why does there need to be a ton of references for each route? Furthermore, it's mostly all the same map being referenced. It would be better to just make a general reference list and only have in-line references for specific anomalies not covered by the general references. --Polaron | Talk 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed all the specific WSDOT map references. I took away more than 100 references. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 18:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The opening sentence leads me to believe the article covers Interstates, U.S. and State Highways, yet the list itself only includes two of the three. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 1 (Washington State DOT "State Highway Log) is lacking a last access date.
• What makes http://www.interstate-guide.com/ a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.ushighways.com/usbt.htm?
• And http://www.westcoastroads.com/?
• You don't need to specify (in English) or (HTML) in website references, it's assumed to be the case unless otherwise noted (Examples include current t ref 57, 59)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 24 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 09:21, 25 August 2008 [21].

previous FLC (11:13, 3 August 2008)

Gary King (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #2 only appears to support the 16.5 million sales in the US statement, and doesn't appear to support 30 million worldwide.
• Ref #1 only supports the Billboard chart position, and not the stated 5 million sales. I think such a figure needs a cite. naerii 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both done Gary King (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cite you added for the 30 million sales (ref #3) is a dead link. naerii 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. It's a secured website so you need to accept the security certificate; it's also a newspaper so it can be accessed offline if needed. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Only quibble would be to spell out abbreviations in the references. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 24 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 09:21, 25 August 2008 [22].

The first nomination for this article. I believe it meets the criteria, and although this contains a good deal of prose, the first, second, and third seasons are all FL, so I decided to keep the consistency and nom it here. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 20:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "in Region 1" ... "format"? Or do you mean in all the countries in Region 1? Minor point but clarification would be useful.
    • Fixed.
  • " The show is based upon the British series created by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, who are executive producers on the show" starts and ends "the show" which reads poorly and you probably should emphasise that Gervais and Merchant are exec producers on the US show.
    • Clarified.
  • "who is both a member of the WGA as well as an actor on the show" we know he's an actor on the show, that's been mentioned (and he's been linked) in the previous para.
    • Fixed.
  • Couple of clunky short sentences there which need to be improved, around how long the strike was on and when it ended.
    • Fixed.
  • "sad eyed" looks like it could use a hyphen.
    • Added.
  • Writers strike is overlinked (I think it's linked at least three times...)
  • Removed one.
  • ‡ explanation could be before the table, like the explanation of the series #.
    • I'm going to leave this one where it is unless it's deemed to be a significant point.
      • Just seems odd to split the explanation of parts of the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, you're broken me then. It's been changed. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for overlinked writers and directors (e.g. Greg Daniels in the first episode)
    • Cleaned it up.
  • What happened to production codes 4001, 4003 etc?
    • I have no idea, I'm just going by the official Office website. I can't really find anything on them, my best guess would be that they were designated for ideas such as the Christmas episode that ultimately never came to fruition.
  • Not convinced pizza needs to be linked!
    • But clicking on it produces such a delicious picture!
  • "and Dwight isn't," avoid contractions.
    • Fixed.
  • Probably better to link HR than golf course.
    • Got it.
  • New York Times references could use a date.
    • Added.
  • What makes Office Tally a WP:RS?
    • Its source is a site which receives information directly from the Nielsen ratings service.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've either made the changes requested or stated why the change wasn't made on each. Thanks for your review. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The season consisted of 14 episodes." past tense.. the season doesn't exist any more?
  • Fixed.
• "in which both writers and actors from The Office went on strike" -- The actors weren't on strike. They just couldn't work because they had no scripts.
  • No, many of the actors as well as the writers were on strike. This is explained in more detail shortly after that.
    • But only because they are also members of the WGA, otherwise they wouldn't have been on strike. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "The second season of the show was produced" This is the fourth season
  • Fixed.
• That entire paragraph seems suspicious to me. It mentions that Gervais and Merchant were writers, but they weren't. That's the only thing that screams out at me because I know it's not true, so it appears the paragraph was copy/pasted from the second season article.
  • Both are designated as writers on the show.....as is Jason Kessler, even though each didn't write episodes for this season.
    • Well that reference ([6]) is dated 2006, so it certainly doesn't reference them being writers for this season. I'm also unsure that the site itself is a WP:RS, even if they are just posting press releases. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Originally, NBC ordered a full season[11] consisting of 30 half-hour segments," no need for the word "consisting", and the reference should be placed after the comma.
  • Fixed.
• EDT in the lead, but Eastern Standard Time in the main section. No need to wikilink the second occurrence either
  • Going to leave this here. First is referenced by an EDT, while the later is referenced as the entire title.
    • OK, but the first time, it is the acronym, the second time it is written out in full. It should be the other way around. And both link to the same page, Eastern Time Zone: WP:OVERLINK Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Filming of The Office immediately halted on that date, as Steve Carell, who is both a member of the WGA, refused to cross WGA picket lines." Both the WGA and what?
  • Fixed.
• Does the first episode have only the production code 4002, or is it 4001 and 4002, considering it is made of two 30 minute produced segments?
  • Each contains only the single production code.

Ues the field Rtitle= in {{episode list}} for the ‡. Then it won't appear in the quotes and appear as if it is part of the title.

• • Fixed.
• Wikilink fields in references. "TV Shows On DVD" --> "TVShowsOnDVD.com"
  • Fixed.
• Because some of the page uses paragraphs from season 2, some of the references, such as #9, are no good here.
  • Fixed.
• Sorry, but OfficeTally.com isn't a reliable source as it is a blog. Source the viewing figures straight from the horse's mouth if necessary, or use ABC's thingy that many other FLs and episodic FAs use.
  • I really don't see the problem here. Yes, it is a blog. But regardless of that, just being a blog doesn't simply kick it out of contention for being a reliable source. As long as it has a set source of fact-checking, as is readily apparent here, it's fine to use.

I really think this is one of those lists that should have been Peer Reviewed before bringing here. FLC isn't a substitution. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you didn't mean that to come off as it did. But, in the event you did, it's pretty apparent that this venue isn't to be used as a peer review....Anyway, I've commented on most of these things, and a few I'll leave for sometime later. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these have been dealt with. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.officetally.com/
    • Each instance of use of this source uses reliable fact checking.
  • http://www.celebrityspider.com/
    • These show reliable fact-checking, as they show their source, mostly NBC Press releases.
  • http://www.tvsquad.com/
    • I'm in the midst of finding a more reliable source here. Found one.
• See also sections usually go before the references.
  • Fixed.
• The New York Times should be The New York Times (if you're using {{cite newspaper}}, I think using the work field for the name of the paper will fix that)
  • Fixed this.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All requests have been dealt with. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 17:14, 24 August 2008 (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 User:Gimmetrow 21:16, 24 August 2008 [23].

Modeled on the featured Olympics medal counts. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 19:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The "Changes in medal standings" section should be expanded. You should add which nations were given the medals, and it wouldn't hurt to have an English language source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 17:09, August 13, 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment  Done. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 08:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm wondering why is this list named "medal count" while Olympic lists are titled "medal table"? Maybe some consistency would be better. And I prefer if the "Changes in medal standings" section is put after the medal table, since the table is the main subject of the list. Eklipse (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Done. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Avoid bold links in the lead.
  • Lead could use expansion, probably doubling in size. Include an overview of the doping scandals to hit the games post-competition.
  • No need to abbreviate to NOC if you don't use it again in the list. Same with PASO.
  • Only link dates which are useful.
  • Grammar in first image caption needs attention.
  • The pdf linked seems to take forever to load so it's not really an appropriate link. I've got 2Mbit/s link and I'm still waiting after ten minutes...
  • I imagine it'd be useful to make the 25 into 25= to emphasise the fact all those countries tied.
  • Is Falcao's nickname referenced anywhere (you use it in the caption)?
  • And shouldn't the tense there be "won a gold medal"?
  • Caption for first medal doesn't need a full stop.
  • I think the First gold medal explanation in the key needs a little expansion to make sure it isn't confused with first of this games, rather it means (I assume from the lead) first ever gold medal for the country in the Pan American Games...
  • Avoid the bullet point text in the Changes... section. Stick to a prose introduction and then hit it with the facts in tabular form if you see fit.
  • Some odd bolding and italicising going on in those tables, not needed.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 24 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 16:02, 24 August 2008 [24].

The Final Countdown. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got much help from Aphasia83

Strong oppose

• A few days you give up working in Lostprophets discography alleging lack of time to cover my objections, and now comes with this, with so many mistakes as the previous one, really lost my time trying to help in Lostprophets discography and I am being made of clown here. Cannibaloki 02:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "four DVDs." - not mentioned in the infobox, while video albums and music videos are (despite not being mentioned in the lead). Done
  • EP isn't mentioned in the lead either. Done
  • Ref 1 has incorrect title. Done
  • Three consecutive sentences referenced by [1] and nothing else? If the whole lead is referenced by [1] then just use it once at the end of each paragraph. Done
  • It looks like those sentences in the lead which aren't referenced by [1] have no reference so that needs sorting out. Done
  • Is section 6 about Music videos or Video albums? Done
  • Are you 100% sure that all albums were actually released in all those countries? I can't necessarily see a reference for that. For instance, what proves that Europe was released in the EU charts? It couldn't have been because the chart has only been around since 2005. You need another way of identifying "Not released" as opposed to "Didn't chart". Done
    • Don't just fix that one - fix them all. And don't leave blank cells. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for the singles. Done
  • Release dates don't need to be linked. Done
  • Rock the Night is overlinked in the singles table. Done
  • Why no director column for the music videos? Cause none of the directors has reliable sources
    • So the list is incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well i know thst Nick Morris has directed all the music videos from the final countdown, but i have no reliabe source to prove it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So the list is incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Well i found a reliable source for one of the music videos. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs [16] [17] and [24] are not specific. Done Its no ref 24
  •  Not done Ref [24] still needs to be fixed.The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done it was ref 23. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done it's still 24. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done New link http://irish-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Europe --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't know where to begin with this list; the first few words of the first sentence are not bolded, signifying the start of an article; there is some pretty bad grammar and lots of mistakes throughout; only one music director is noted. Overall, this article is nowhere near Featured status. NSR77 ^T_C 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Aphasia83 fixed the grammar and i added more directors.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's no absolute requirement to have bold text in the lead, but I agree with the rest of your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've manage to get a reliable source for five music videos directors. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The directors for nine of the music videos have now been sourced. Thanks to Cannibaloki for the sources. - Aphasia83 (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This list really is not ready to be a FL. Cannibaloki 17:44, 16 August 2008 (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 User:Gimmetrow 21:16, 24 August 2008 [25].

Modeled closely on the 1896 Summer Olympics medal count. Le comte de monte christo (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw I suggest you withdraw this article as you only edited this article twice. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm... what? 1st, I don't see anywhere in WP:WIAFL where there's a minimum number of edits required before submitting. 2nd, I had four edits, two listed under my IP rather than my account because my account timed out and I didn't notice. 3rd, if you take the time to compare the 10th of August version with the most recent, you'll see that nearly all the text in the article is new, I re-referenced most of it, and added all of the images. Le comte de monte christo (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On WP:FLC, first prargraph, last sentence, it says, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list prior to nomination." I was just making sure. Sorry for your inconvience. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having looked at the diffs, I'd suggest that Le comte is entitled to consider himself a major contributor and therefore I'm happy to allow this FLC to continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...}

• Three paragraphs for the lead kind of seems like a bit much for such a short article. It makes the article seem more choppy.
• It's great that you have so many free images for the list, but I think you might be overdoing it with three lined up across the side like that. Maybe you should reduce it to two images?
• "Mixed team" is linked and a short description (following the i.e.) is given, but then a longer explanation is provided in the next section. It might be best to combine this somehow or rearrange it for fluency in the article.

Hope that helps. Looks good otherwise. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 15:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to juggle the lead and mixed team sections around, and reduced the images to just the poster and the mixed team image. Let me know if it works better. Le comte de monte christo (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, but one more thing has to happen before I can support, and that's that the lead has to be copyedited. I think there's some issues with sentence fluency in the lead that need to be addressed and it doesn't read smoothly. I suggest you find someone else who is a native speaker or an expert in English to do this for you. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Only quibble would be to spell out the abbreviation in the footnotes (TSN in ref 4) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 24 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 16:02, 24 August 2008 [26].

Timely, and I think it's up to speed. Le comte de monte christo (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Happy with the changes. Support now. Woody (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Simply put: we have Peer review for a reason.

• Oppose The most significant thing to me is that the lead needs a lot of work. Simply put, there is plenty of information to add, what with this being a current event and all. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have expanded lead. Let me know if there is more that you think is worth adding.Le comte de monte christo (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better now, so I have struck out my oppose. Gary King (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't some extra detailsto introduce the "temporary" venues section be added? Although it makes sense when you think about it and some articles do mention their temporary natures), at first I was just confused. Circeus (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unclear as to what you mean - just an explanation of what is meant by a temporary venue? And if so, do you think it would be better placed in the lead of at the beginning of that section? Le comte de monte christo (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe saying the types of temporary venues (some will be converted afterwards, other won't, I think), and if they are particularly numerous or not compared to the average games? And definitely in the lead to that section. Circeus (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What, no link to 2008 Summer Olympics?
• date format please. The Olympics are an international competition, and dates should be dd-mmmm-yyyy format.
• "A total of US$1.9 billion (RMB¥13 billion)" Is there a reason this isn't "A total of RMB¥13 billion (US$1.9 billion)"? I'm sure they spent Chinese money, not American
• I'd prefer a separate reference column in the tables. The references cover all three entries in the row, not just the name.
• According to the MOS, {{reflist|3}} shouldn't be used. |2 is the max

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My concerns are still outstanding, and five days should have been enough time to sort them out. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool (that I accessed by myself (sniffles)). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 24 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 07:07, 22 August 2008 [27].

I think this discography about the British singer is comprehensive and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • It reached reached number one and went nine times platinum in the UK.[3][4] - "reached reached?"

Fixed this -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The record enjoyed international success with sales of over twelve million.[5] - enjoyed? is there another word for this, this word, in my eyes, is very wordy, in other words not right here.

I changed it to "experienced". Does it sound better now? -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the singles table, you have general references for the charting of the singles, yet their is an individual ref for some of them, while this doesn't hurt the article, if they are covered by the general ref, their really isn't no use for individual ones. Now if this is the opposite, then they can stay.

The extra references are for the chart positions not covered by the general references at the top of the table. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • For the misc, what makes them notable to be in her discography, if they haven't appeared in an album or chart?

This section is included in other featured discographies. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--S_RX 22:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • For a list of this length I'd prefer to see the lead expanded - there seems plenty to talk about.
  • "Dido" used in first three sentences, can we be more imaginative?
  • The lead is a series of quite choppy trivia-esque short sentences, I'd recommend a copyedit to improve the flow and hence hit criterion 1, prose.
  • Don't think those dates in the releases need to be wikilinked.
  • Extended plays has a note B but a note A underneath the table.
  • No need to overlink DVD in the videos section.
  • Still concerned over Zobbel being an RS.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I got everything. As for Zobbel, I used it as a reference because it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The text has a lot of information about this artist and awards, but the article is a discography rather than awards list.
• Why the image is so small?
• Singles
  • Title → Song
    • "Don't Think Of Me" → "Don't Think of Me"
• Videos → Video albums per The Rambling Man comments on Opeth discography FLC page;
  • Title → Video details
    • Dido: Live At Brixton Academy → Dido: Live at Brixton Academy
• Music videos
  • Director → Director(s), per Dr. Dre and Philip Atwell;
  • "Here With Me" → "Here with Me";
• Miscellaneous? → Other appearances;
  • "Do They Know It's Christmas?" → Album...?
• I could not understand why to be used Title instead Album details.
• Sales= 12 or 9 million where?
• The tables aren't aligned.

Oppose For all that I saw and read, not yet ready for such a FL. Cannibaloki 02:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added your comments into the article. As for the information on awards, I have included them in past featured discographies and haven't received any objections. Also, on my laptop using Firefox the tables appear to be aligned. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 07:07, 22 August 2008 [28].

--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLC (22:16, 23 January 2008)

• Support - it can't be said this list wasn't supported. Nice to have images available for all the rulers. Does the mode of death really need its own column; comments about events during the reign or succession might be more appropriate. And dates aren't usually linked. Historicpastime (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note images for all rulers except Glycerius. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a picture. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments in response, once again, to a drive-by, pointed support.
  • "...probably the best-known Latin expression where the word imperium denotes a territory..." - probably? Not encyclopedic. Done
  • " approximately 5,900,000 km² (2,300,000 sq mi) of the worlds surface." - citation required. And context - is this all of it, 1/5 of it? In fact, first two paragraphs are uncited. Done
  • "In the late 3rd century AD after the Crisis of the Third Century," comma before "after" Done
  • Basic grammar issues - "worlds surface", "Roman Empires downfall". Done
  • " While The Eastern Empires downfall gave birth to the successor state Empire of Trebizond." - not a sentence. Done
  • "For more information, see History of the Roman Empire." - No, use a See also or {{more}} template. Done
  • The statue caption "The famous Augustus of Prima Porta" - famous? Not required. Done
    • Also "The" is not required. You really need a native English speaker to read through this. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death notes are incomplete sentences so must not take full stops. Done
  • Why is Common Name capitalised? And Imperial Name too?  Done
  • No need to wikilink the dates in the table.  Done

The years to?--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Don't wikilink the dates in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • How was Caligula assassinated? Done
  • The article linked to suggests it should be The Year of the Four Emperors (capitalised). Done
  • Where's the fourth emperor?  Done
  • Flavian dynasty's portrait column is unnaturally wide.  Done
  • Titus' Imperial name is weird. Thats how its supposes to be
  • "Peaceful death"? according to whom? It has a source a the bottom of the page, all those books carries that information, checked it myself
  • I think (?) should be explained in each case. Done
  • Five Good Emperors linked to but not explained here. Done
    • It's worth explaining this here, in brief. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geta's imperial name?Didn't have one
  • Either ? or (?) but explain. Done
  • "IMPERATOR CAESAR MARCVS AVRELIVS SEVERVS ALEXANDER PIVS FELIX , AVGVSTVS" - he had a " , " in his Imperial name?  Done
  • Gordian I, why italics in his reign? Done
  • You should explain why part of the imperial name is in bold at the top of the list.what?
    • Part of each Imperial name is in bold. Why? Explain it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you talking about the common name is in bold, the imperial name looks just like the other once.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balbinus' imperial name?Didn't have one
  • Volusianus' birthplace is currently "IMPERATOR CAESAR GAIVS VIBIVS AFINIVS GALLVS VELDVMNIANVS VOLVSIANVS AVGVSTVS" and he has no imperial name. Done
    • You can search for him, surely? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I miss it or have you not identified which empire the relevant emperors ruled over after the Crisis of the Third Century? That information is very important.  Done Arcadius and Honorius
    • Yes, and in the lead you say they had to split east and west because of the vastness of the empire. Who ruled east and who ruled west? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dies in battle by drowning in the Tiber." why the change in tense? Done
  • Vetranio's imperial name? Didn't have one
    • Why not? It needs footnote, references. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has references, the books and the same with all the other that didn't have an imperial name, they got killed before they had the chance. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "died in suspicious circumstances." which were...? Unknown, thats the only historical fact we have about his death
  • Imperial names missing from most emperors in the Western Empire section.  Done they didn't have an imperial title, got killed/died before they had the change to get it
    • Then don't just leave blanks. Footnotes with suitable references should be used. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • See also links need to use en-dash, not hyphen to separate the years. Done
• The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comments II - if I have another list nominated with this many fundamental issues, I will quick-fail it. Please use peer review for all your future lists before bringing them to WP:FLC - a lot of time is being wasted on picking up your grammar and style issues. It was at the peer review. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the land surface" earth's surface was fine, you just needed an apostrophe. Done
  • Align the tables so the columns are the same width from table to table. Done
  • Use en-dash in year ranges and page ranges (in the See also, external links and References sections. Done
• The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 07:07, 20 August 2008 [29].

My first featured list candidate which isn't music related. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of heads of state of Gabon/archive2. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ain't a stub and its much longer then List of heads of state of Gabon. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only five items in this list and I think the unofficial minimum number of items in a list is ten. Gary King (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are goin to come more Russian presidents. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in a few years, but not for now. Gary King (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a guidline which sais a lilst can't be a FL cause its not as long as others. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability grounds. This list will inevitably grow, and it is comprehensive and appropriate to the subject, which *are* FL criteria. Historicpastime (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, so, hypothetically speaking, if the new country "Newrovia" came into existence with a duly-elected President every four years, you'd happily promote the list of one as Wikipedia's finest work? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, anarchy and fratricide would make the list grow much quicker. Historicpastime (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you'd still support it when it had one entry? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One item would not be widely considered a list. Some would also argue 2 items are pair, and not a list either. Historicpastime (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two items are a pair, by the definition of pair. So is three a crowd or a list? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment and you're happy this meets all criteria? Really? I'm surprised. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not commenting on other aspects of the article; I don't think a list of heads of state should be dismissed based merely on a subjective number - five, in my opinion, is a good start for a notable list that we can expect to grow. Otherwise how many decades would it take for a list of Russian presidents to even qualify, based on number. Historicpastime (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well thanks for your comment but it's clear you haven't reviewed it against the criteria so I'm afraid your support counts for nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It meets the criteria of comprehensiveness, structure, visual appeal and stability, but should not be dismissed based on number. Historicpastime (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It fails the criteria of engaging lead, prose and manual of style as you would have seen had you reviewed the list properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments about the lead: Many parts in the lead are irrelevant for the subject of the list, especially information about Russia and its political system in general. Instead include what is missing from the lead: Information about the President, How presidents are elected, more information about Viktor Chernomyrdin and why his term is not counted, what powers does he have...  Done Eklipse (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - excluding most of the community's concern over the length, the following need to be fixed urgently before anyone could really support this list.
  • "This is a list of the Presidents of the Russian Federation." articles don't start "This is an article about..." - lists shouldn't either.  Done See criteria 1 and 2 - engaging lead and professional prose.
  • Four paras in the lead for such a small list is about three too many. Done See criterion 5, manual of style.
  • "For Russian leaders prior to this ratification, see Leaders of the Soviet Union." try a {{see also}} or a see also section. Don't say "...see ..." in the lead. Done
  • Para 2 is interesting but doesn't relate to the presidents. Done
  • "The fact that Yeltsin was not voted into office does not affect the numbering, which makes him the 1th president." - reword. And I guess you mean 1st i.e. first, not 1th? Done
  • No need to capitalise "Supported" in the table. Done
  • Why are the names in bold and italics? Done
  • Can't you split the info in the left hand column into multiple columns and then make the list more interactive?Would only make more mess
  • "December 31, 1999 - May 7, 2000" no hyphen here please, see WP:DASH. Done
  • Birthplace of Chernomyrdin? Done
  • Non-partisan without support - what does this mean? Done
  • "(Resign)" - you mean (resigned)? Done
  • And what happened to end Yeltsin's first term?
  • Sverdlovsk Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union are all overlinked. Done
  • Where is the information about the presidents (e.g. birthdate, place etc, terms of office etc) cited? Done
  • Eight external links are really relevant to this list? Done
• The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Not a proper table. Do not use a table cell to have more than one piece of information. Separate out into columns of took office, left office, etc. Question need for birthplace. I'm sure I could find more reasons to oppose once the table is put into good order, but that's the most glaring one at present. --Golbez (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• "This is a list of Presidents of the Russian Federation" eugh. Please introduce the article in a more enthralling fashion
• "Yeltsin came to power" Who?
• "But Yeltsin never recovered" sentences shouldn't start with "But"
• For a list of five entries, the lead is way too long, both in the number of paragraphs and words
• That said, an explanation of why Viktor Chernomyrdin was President for one day would have been nice
• Table is set out strange compared to our other FLs of Presidents and PMs.
• A list of five does not exemplify the best that Wikipedia has to offer.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:06, 20 August 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 16:20, 18 August 2008 [30].

I've been working on this on and off for a while. Any constructive critisism is wanted. Thanks, Burningclean _[speak] 00:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• DVDs → Videos
• "—" denotes albums/singles that were released but did not chart. → "—" denotes a release that did not chart.
• Remove the B-sides; discography not songography (on infobox)
• width="200" → width="+220" (I was under the impression that the scales are very kneading on the left-side).
  • Width above 200, between 220 and 250. (is your choice);
• Why are the countries are in the current order? (Peak chart positions);
• Music videos → It has no references?
• Videos → Perhaps you can combine Platinum in the same column, avoiding repeat the same word three times.
• Chaos in Motion 2007/2008 → If not yet been released, must be hidden;
• VHS → VHS (only on the 1st link);

Cannibaloki 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments and suggestions:

• References need to be provided for all the directors in the music videos section
  • I have sources for all but one. I can't find a director or source for it.
• Don't force the bolded title in the lead section
• WP:ELNO #9 says to "avoid links to the results pages of search engines" such as the RIAA website and EveryHit.com. More specific sources should be used instead
  • That is as far as I can get. If I use the direct link, it leads to an error page.

OK. That's understandable. I see you have removed the UK chart positions, but I have used this website in the past. It contains charts up until 2006.

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks really good. I just have a few more minor concerns.

• Change vinyl to LP album
• Change "videos" section to "video albums"
• Specify which US chart in the "videos" section
• Add notes to references that link to a search engine such as the RIAA website. See the Garbage discography for what I mean. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comments

• New York, New York is a bit overkill. New York City alone will suffice
• "...recorded with Explorers Club..." perhaps say "...recorded with their side projects, Explorers Club..."
• "Majesty recorded a few demos" be more specific if possible
• "Dream Theater was signed to Mechanic Records and recorded its debut album, When Dream and Day Unite." provide a year, please
• "After a few promotional live shows, Dominici was asked to leave the band. After two years Dream Theater found a new permenant vocalist" -- "a few", again, be more specific, and try to recast one of the sentences as they both start with "After"
• "recieved substantial radio and television airplay." Where? The source doesn't verify "substantial" either
• "a short time into recording Awake" Sentences begin with capital letters :)
• "Derek Sherinian replaced Moore." Too stubby, especially as it is used to open a paragraph
• Change "LP" in the format to "vinyl" or something similar
• "US rock chart peak" --> "US rock chart peak position"
• Director is needed for "The Silent Man" music video please
  • I can't find one whatsoever.
• Not sure about the "Official bootlegs" entries. If they were released commercially, aren't they not bootlegs? Also, Majesty Demos doesn't suggest it's a bootleg.
  • Are you saying I should remove the section?
• Ref 19 need formatting correctly

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "Platypus, Transatlantic, True Symphonic Rockestra." - "Platypus, Transatlantic or True Symphonic Rockestra."
  • Ref [1] has 29 linked - what is that about?
  • 2nd para of lead is really clunky and choppy - needs to improve to meet Criterion 1.
  • " a few " doesn't sound particularly encyclopaedic.
  • "Dominici was asked to leave the band" why?
    • Is it important for the discog?
  • " A single from the album, "Pull Me Under", recieved substantial radio and television airplay.[2] Because of the single's success, Images and Words was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America with access sales of 500,000 copies" consider merging these - should gold link to certification levels? Recent discogs capitalise Gold. What's "access sales"?
  • "After a short tour, Dream Theater entered the studio again. a short time into recording Awake, Moore announced his departure from the band. Derek Sherinian replaced Moore." - poor clunky prose.
  • There needs to be more substantial reasoning (with references) for the repeated changes in personnel.
  • "over two million copies in " copies? what do you mean?
  • Unlink release dates.
    • Those are supposed to be linked if they are a full date.
  • Ref 9 mentions "Score - 20th Anniversary World Tour " - this isn't in your list.
  • Ref 7 isn't specific.
  • Ref 3 isn't specific.
    • I can't do anything about it. Please read the above discussion.
  • Where is the 8m album sales referenced? I can't find it in [4] or [5].
  • Ref 4 - "Marketingtomenconference.com (February 9 2007). " is an odd publisher - why the date there?
  • Refs 18 and 19 have odd formatting.
  • I've heard it said that mvdbase.com is not considered a WP:RS by DISCOGS.
  • What does Series mean under the bootleg section?
    • I still need to see if that section is staying.
  • Why is "The Majesty Demos 1985-1986 " called that? It links to "The Majesty Demos".
  • Director for "The Silent Man" is missing.
    • I can't find a director or source.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if the rules have officially changed or something, but when i started doing discogrphies, I was told that there was absolutly no need to source the music video directors because they are sourced by themsleves. Guidelines say that the only things that need to be sourced is stuff that is debatable. What is so debatable about the director of a video when their name is displayed when the video is played most of the time? If somebody asked for a source, Mvdbase was accepted as reliable. Why such a change? Burningclean _[speak] 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The director's name is added by the networks, and is not a "real" part of the video, therefore they are not self-referential. Additionally, networks in many European countries do not put director information. It seems mainly to be added in the United States. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• According to User:Drewcifer, mvdbase.com is not considered to be a reliable source. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#MVDBase
• You could wikilink the music video directors' names. David Roth and Roger Sanchez articles exist, but I'm not sure about the others.
• I won't oppose because there is one missing music vid director, but it would be nice if it could be found.

-- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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