Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2009

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:33, 31 August 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think the list meet the criteria. Cannibaloki 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The General references don't show the lists info, as far as I see. Try to find a general reference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The Allmusic link was fixed.--Cannibaloki 20:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. The Year should be the first column for consistency between all records discography lists.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   No. See Wikipedia:LOW#Discographies (I just did a small modification in the guideline).--Cannibaloki 20:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Huh? I don't see how this applies at all. MOS:DISCOG seems much more relevant, not to mention label discographies that have already been promoted to FL (such as Dischord Records discography). Drewcifer (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with the above comments. The Allmusic link does tell us anything. Take a look at Load Records discography to see how to handle this type of reference (basically add instructions on how to find the info). Also, after a quick scan of the general reference that does work, this list doesn't seem to be complete. I found a number #106, and a release that are cataloged differently than what you've put ("Dommedagsnatt" is cataloged as "SUNNONELP", and "Genevive" is cataloged as "SUNN67CD"). What's up with that? Also, numbered columns, ie the year and Cat number, should be centered. Drewcifer (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied. Just two new releases already added to the list. SUNN67CD [one is 1 and Drewcifer is 3000] is the "Product ID" in the online store of Southern Lord Records. Why?--Cannibaloki 20:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered-columns (year and catalog number) should be centered. Done--Cannibaloki 00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure everything is cited appropriately. Just as a random test, I tried to confirm 100.777 from the two general sources provided, and I couldn't find it. Any idea where that source is? Drewcifer (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when these concerns are resolved, after which I will review. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use discogs.com as an additional source? Not reliable but...--Cannibaloki 20:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said, it's not reliable. So I'd go with no. Drewcifer (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found other sources.--Cannibaloki 00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawal, due the lack of reliable sources.--Cannibaloki 19:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:30, 25 August 2009 [2].

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is completed in its entirety. If the redlinks need to be removed for a successful nomination, I will take care of that. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The types of road section has no references. Comments in the table also need references.—Chris! _ct 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will add refs to the Types of Road section. Most of the comments are based on physical objects one can see driving down the road that label points. How would I go about referencing these real-life objects or distances? (It would be impossible to ever provide textual references outside of using a map and calculating) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/Suggest withdrawal There are too many fixes that need to be made before this list meets the current criteria. This page must have had at least Peer review before coming here.
  • How do you know that all roads together are 910.4 kilometres (565.7 mi)? I hope it's not WP:OR

By adding the lengths of the listed roads.

• • "The 49 numbered roadways..." Again, how do you know it's 49 and not 51 for example?

By examining the cities official map of numbered roads and counting.

• • What's "King's Highways"?

Got me on that one.

• • "167.1 kilometres (103.8 mi) of provincially maintained highway.." Where do you get that figure from?

Again, by adding the individual lengths which I can provide references for.

• • If Highway 46 is notable to have a separate page, then so do the other highways.

Seperate issues. Almost every other highway in Ontario does have an article.

• • This page states that Highway 46 is now known as Kawartha Lakes Road 46, yet the latter redirects to the Highway 46's page.

Highway 46 was a King's highway. It's notable enough to warrant its own article. Kawartha Lakes Road 46... not so much

• • Explain why the readers need to know that "Victoria County contained 3 secondary highways prior to 1998"

Because history is as important as the present.

My main suggestion is to go and ask for suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. --Cheetah (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't go for peer review first, didn't know that was a prerequisite ("Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review."). I have addressed many of your points as they aren't original research, merely calculations on official figures. I will take this to peer review though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A peer review is recommended, but not required. It's good practice to have editors who are not primary contributors to the article take a look beforehand. Often, they can spot things that are overlooked by the principle editor(s). If you do wish to submit this for peer review, this FLC should be withdrawn first. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - see editing summary on FLC page history—Chris! _ct 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [3].

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. All the concerns of the previous FLC have been taken care off and the article has been expanded a little further.--Music26/11 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Staxringold

• "The Bet" in the reception is a disambig link.

• Fixed.--Music26/11 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of the reception section, seems a bit thin. Isn't the "Master of [His/Her/My] Domain" episode one of the most famous Seinfeld eps out there, along with The Soup Nazi? Are there no real reviews of eps out there?

• I'll search for some critical reviews.--Music26/11 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I searched, but most reviewers combine season 1 with season 2, and usually review the show in general, maybe someone with access to LexisNexis or something like that can help, but I can't find anything useful.--Music26/11 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• David Fuchs (talk · contribs) has access to LexisNexis. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I could send him a message, but do you really think reviews are necessary, I mean look at Seinfeld (season 3), Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2); The Simpsons (season 1) doesn't even has sections.--Music26/11 10:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All of those lists you named were promoted a year ago (or more). Our "best work" should be comprehensive. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've send him a message, though he said it could take while.--Music26/11 10:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still waiting.--Music26/11 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. I'll take a look at the episode summaries tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still no news from David, but I found some sources myself, its not alot, but I think it will do, what do you think?--Music26/11 12:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh wait, why is there "Master of his Domain" stand up on the DVDs if it's a season 4 episode? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the extras have names, the commentaries, for instance, are called "yada, yada".--Music26/11 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any data on viewership #s like Neilsen (sp?). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add some.--Music26/11 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Nielsen Rating/Share of each episode is included on the DVD set, however, I can't add them to the table, because it is a special kind of table designed for Seinfeld lists and an extra aux can't be added. If anyone can change this I'll add the numbers.--Music26/11 16:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the Nielsen Ratings info.--Music26/11 14:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the list meets all FL criteria with previous issues adressed.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, I noticed the expansion, and will review later today or tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.--Music26/11 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Sorry for delaying so much. I think it will be easier if I make edits myself, and post comments here when necessary.

• The alt text for the cover image is pretty good, but it omits information about the words at the top.

• I know, but how do you the describe the yellow sort of flat circle-like thing behind the word Seinfeld.--Music26/11 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The background really isn't that important. I improved the alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Filming of the show moved from Desilu Cahuenga, in Hollywood, California, to CBS Studio Center, in Studio City, Los Angeles, California." So were these both filming locations, or was the Hollywood Studio for only the previous season?

• Only the first season was filmed at desilu cahuenga, I changed it a bit.--Music26/11 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Helen and Morty Seinfeld, who had previously appeared" Both of them, or just the latter?

• Both of them, should this be clearified?--Music26/11 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, I did this. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the episode summaries tomorrow (promise!) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cherones said that Padnick reacted relieved and they both discussed the problem with Charles" "reacted relieved" doesn't make sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Ironically, a woman at the party does to Jerry what George had planned to do" Vague. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "They question her, and Elaine walks away and loses the wager." "They question her" sounds strange here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "George, who lacks pay phone etiquette, " What does the "pay phone" phrase mean here? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What are the air dates and DVD release dates sourced to? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all your comments.--Music26/11 11:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Amazon considered reliable for release dates? What makes ezDVD reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frequently, when you try to find refs for DVD releases other than region 1, you'll get in trouble. The issue was briefly discussed during the House FAC (bottom of the page), in which Amazon.com and EzyDVD were doubtful refs.--Music26/11 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [4].

Nominator(s): Abeer.ag (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprhensive, and meets WP:FLC. Abeer.ag (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Support, final comment is that the first paragraph in the lead is only two sentences, could u expand to three or four sentences for style purposes?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't any general content left to add (only test n odi specific). btw, just below this comnt an itch was noted, consecutive lines begin with "He, His". Hometech (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Space needed after reference 5.
  • Done.
• Remove the spaces around the dash in the second paragraph.
  • Done.
• Many sentences start with "He" or "His". Is it possible to change a few to provide for a more engaging lead? Even using his last name would be better.
  • Hmm.. I tried to do it but failed miserably. Any suggestions?
    • Done Hometech (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Lots of whitespace between the second and third paragraphs.
  • How do I fix that?
    • Done Hometech (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Photo in the lead needs spaces after commas in the alt text, which also has a typo: "backgrounf."
  • Done
• Photo of Queens Park Oval: Comma after Port of Spain in caption. Alt text reads: "A stadium with a people playing...". Remove second "a".
  • Done
• What makes http://www.cricbuzz.com/ a reliable source?
  • Replaced
• Bullet needed before the external link. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done

Thank you for your comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Much improved from the last such list submitted here.

• "but is yet to score a century in a Twenty20 international." Then why mention it?
  • There are three major formats in cricket: Test, ODI and T20.Just to be thorough, I mentioned it.
• "Out of these centuries" "out" is an unnecessary word.
  • Changed
• Can you put "Key" in bold?
  • Done
• "The innings in the Test match." No period at the end.
  • Changed
• "Remained not out." Remove period at the end.
  • Changed
• "The Queen's Park Oval in the Port of Spain where Sehwag made a century in the 2007 World Cup" Comma after "Spain".
  • Changed
• There's probably a good reason for this but why don't you list strike rate for Test?
  • SRs are somewhat irrelevant in Test, since matches last five days and the rate of scoring isn't that important.
• ODI centuries, No. 2 – Date should be September 22, 2002, not
  • Changed
• ODI centuries, No. 10 – strike rate should be 128.8, not 121.8
  • Changed
• List all strike rates with two decimal places. If it is rounded to the tenths place, add a trailing 0 to the end.
  • Done
• Is there a ref for footnote 7?
  • Ref 8.
    • It looks uncited as is, though. Suggest putting it in a separate section and inline citing it. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wouldn't it be better to create a list of achievements by Virender Sehwag and have a section there for centuries? Something like a basketball-related List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant or a golf-related List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus. I am sure there are other cricket records that Virender Sehwag is a part of. Why can't we put all records in one page?--Crzycheetah 03:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What other records are possible in cricket? Golf or baskt exampls are pointless. Hometech (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only other significant achievements for batsman would be Man of the Match awards.. that list would be largely redundant, since most of his MoM awards would be in these games only. Abeer.ag (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of info in the "Achievements" section in his main article. It is usually discouraged to have lists in biographical articles, especially long tables; therefore, if a list of achievements by Virender Sehwag is created with all these centuries along with all that stuff in the Virender Sehwag#Achievements section, the main article will look a lot better.--Crzycheetah 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated mos of the things in the "Records" section. The awards and man of the series lists are definitely notable enough to be in the main article. Abeer.ag (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they're not notable. I am saying those tables are long and make that article look like a list; thus, they should be split off. List of career achievements by Virender Sehwag can contain these tables along with the tables in the List of international cricket centuries by Virender Seehwag. --Crzycheetah 01:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks good to me just a few minor quibbles with the references.

• On Ref 13 the publisher is stats.cricinfo.com yet plenty of other refs with the prefix stats.cricinfo.com simply use Cricinfo as publisher, be consistent.
  • Changed
• Ref 3 and ref 4 are similar but on 3 a mdash and colon are used, on 4 two ndashes, be consistent.
  • Umm.. I don't understand. Could you please make the change.
    • Done
• I realise it is the headings on the window but placing Cricinfo Statsguru in the middle of the reference title seems slightly odd. Cricinfo is already the publisher so does it need repeating. Take ref 6 as an example and I'd prefer to see a more logical order of 'Statsguru - Test matches - Batting record - Double centuries by Indian openers'.
  • Changed some- is this what you meant?
    • Partly. I'd prefer to see the Statsguru part at the start like ref 16.
• As you use the date format of 'Month Date, Year' repeating that for the references would be better than YY-MM-DD.
  • I believe there's a script that does this. Do you know where it is?
    • I don't know anything about scripts, sorry.
      • Fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• On the Ref 7 issue that Dabomb mentioned, is there even a need to mention Chappell and Samaraweera, if they were all level on two or three then I could understand it but Sehwag is ahead of them. You don't mention who's second in terms of fastest triple hundred so it seems slightly odd to have that ref.
  • It just seemed interesting...
    • Fair enough, I was just offering a solution to a outstanding issue which may be stopping Dabomb from supporting. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing to do with refs but on the fourth image you use vs. which looks a bit amateurish to me, change to versus or against.
  • Done

--Jpeeling (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [5].

Nominator(s): Mario1987 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i think it is featurable material Mario1987 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be pedantic, but by "projects" do you mean wind farms that are, well, "projected", that is to say ones that are under construction or are planned, or is this intended to include all wind farms in Romania. Whatever the definition it needs to be spelled out in the article. Boissière (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By project I mean under construction or planned wind farms. Mario1987 20:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image needs alternative text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done Mario1987 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add alternative text, which is different from a image caption. Alternative text describes the image without naming the elements of it. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Examples for what I mean. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that better? Mario1987 09:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. This is what we need: [[File:Tihutawind.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|alt=Describe the image here|The [[Tihuţa Pass]] at an altitude of {{convert|1200|m|ft|abb=yes}}]] Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put it like you said ^ but it doesn't change anything. It's exactly the same. Mario1987 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. Mario1987 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the total rows don't sort correctly. Besides that, I don't understand why these rows are unnecessary.—Chris! _ct 02:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. I don't see why you didn't include already installed Wind farms. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • Because there aren't any wind farms only scattered wind turbines. Mario1987 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     • 76 Mega Watts of Wind Turbines? And from "In 2009, Romania will add 1,200 MW " I understand that some of these should already be finished.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
       • Yes only wind turbines and all are espected to be completed by December 2009. Mario1987 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Could u change the title to List of wind farms in Romania? or Wind power in Romania?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • Because these are all projects. Mario1987 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     • Being Projects the list would be very unstable because each month new farms are created and become actual farms and not projects anymore.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
       • Yes but I'm willing to modify the list each time something new appears. Mario1987 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Could u add information about the dates of proposed completion of these wind farms ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • Because many of these farms don't have a projected completion date only estimates. Mario1987 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     • My main problem is that till the end of this year 1,200 MW of Wind Energy will be added to Romania. Which of these farms will manufacture this energy and would they be removed from this list because they aren't projects anymore?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
       • What do you suggest? Should I keep the completed wind farms in the table and mark them as complete? Mario1987 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• I don't like the article's beginning. "As of 2008" makes it sound like the article is out of date.
  • What should i replace it with? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "Local authorities" a company?
  • But if the investing body is the local or county council what should i put there? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are you using US$ as primary units? This is about Romanian wind farms.
  • Should i use the Romanian leu or the Euro? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You link some companies but not others.
  • Some of the companies have an Wiki article and are linked and others don't. Should i link all of them or none? Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In the table, instead of putting "MW" after each number, you might make the header "Capacity (MW)" and remove "MW" from the individual values.
  • Done. Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is there an empty row in the table?
  • Fixed that Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest that you make the totals a separate table. Otherwise, when you sort the table, they get jumbled up with the rest of the rows.
  • Done. Mario1987 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Put em dashes in the blank cells. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good with regard to link status and citation formatting. I do not know Romanian and therefore could not evaluate the sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note A native speaker has assured me that the sources are OK WRT reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now:

1. The authors seem not to understand the difference between watts and watt-hours. The phrase and a power-generating capacity of 23 terawatts is quite meaningless.
   • Fixed. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not fixed. Power can not be measured in watt-hours. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     • How about now? Mario1987 13:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. The second stage will be operational by 2010 and produce 252.5 MW. The second stage will never produce 252.5 MW, because it is just the installed capacity. By the same reason I do not like the following phrases: producing 2.5 MW each, one that will produce 700 MW, one that will produce 400 MW, that will have a combined power output of 600 MW, producing a nominal output of 700 MW, will consist of 100 wind turbines producing five MW each.
   • Fixed. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ref 4 does not support the majority of claims made about Fântânele Wind Farm (139 2.5 MW turbines, blade diameter and height).
   • • Done. Mario1987
   • Fixed. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not fixed. I do not see refs for height and blade diameter. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     • Check ref 4. Mario1987 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. I can find nothing about Maranchon Wind Farm in the ref 5.
   • You don't even have to because it's in ref 6. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not fixed. Ref 6 is empty. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     • Done. Mario1987
5. The ref 8 does not support the claim that the wind potential of Dobruja is 10,000 MW.

   Fixed. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. The country's technical wind potential is between 3,000 MW and 9,000 MW. Can you explain the meaning of this sentence and how it relates to the previous sentence, where it is claimed that the wind potential of Romainia is 14,000 MW?
   • Total wind power capacity that can be assimilated by the national transport grid. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not fixed. I do not see any changes. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     • How about now? Mario1987 19:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. The sentence The Romanian company Blue Investment will invest US$84 million in a 35 MW wind farm in Baia, Tulcea County that will have 14 Nordex N90 turbines producing 2.5 MW each should be moved to the next paragraph.
   • Done. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Can you provide some background information about Dobruja region? This region is not mentioned in the table and its relevance is not clear.
   • The Dobruja region is composed of Constanta and Tulcea counties. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not fixed. No changes. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     • If you look i added the two counties The Dobruja (Constanţa and Tulcea counties) region has the second-highest wind potential in Europe. Mario1987 09:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Where in the ref 10 can I read that The Italian company Enel plans to build several wind farms with a total capacity of 1,400 MW ?
   • My mistake it is only 350 MW. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Where in ref 13 can I read that which have plans to build wind farms that will have a combined power output of 600 MW with total investments of $800 million?
    • Tweaked that a bit and added new numbers. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      I do not see 310 MW in refs. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Ref 17 states that the Green Company will invest in three 70MW wind farms which equals 210MW. The second ref states that Electrica will invest in one 100MW wind farm. And 210+100=310 MW. Mario1987 13:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. In the table the Capacity should be changed to Installed capacity.

    Done. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. I do not have time to check all references but until they all are checked I will not support. For instance, I checked ref 17 and found that it does not contain any information about the size of investement (1400 million) or Blackstone.
    • No because it's in euro. One billion. Mario1987 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      I meant that you should check all other refs and report results. Ruslik_Zero 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 08:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of references Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE I spent time on this list assuming that the nominator has done his job of putting adequate references for each of the numbers. But whan I went and checked each article I was shocked to find out that at the first couple of them at least one of the cost/capacity was missing, or even worse, wrong! I am not going to spend more time on this since wp:assume good faith doesn't seem to work here. Nergaal (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the cost column but please show me a single ref that states the installed capacity wrong. Mario1987 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Valul lui Traian; (and I checked only the ones in consturction minus the money.ro refereces)

You're right on this one. Doesn't have any reference about the 10MW. I'll remove it from the list. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember well, the ref actually said something like 30MW; could you actually check the ref first? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Liteni should probably be Liteni-Dolhasca;

Fixed that. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. are you sure that Blue Investment Baia and Blue Planet Baia aren't the same thing?

No it isn't. Blue Planet is a separate company that is part of the Blue Investment holding. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. the project name column falls into the wp:OR. Absolutely none of the refs I just checked gives names for the project; they might end up with these names, but since most of the names aren't referenced I suggest switching the column name to Localoties or something like this. Furthermore, you seem to have created 20+ stubs about the farms that uses article names that have no reference. I strongly suggest merging those stubs into the localities they refer to, since that way at least there is no citation problem (at least for those under 100 MW or so).

Yes but wind projects usually get their name from the location in which they are constructed so i can't agree with what you posted above. Mario1987 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: this list is noway near FLing. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ref 2 redirects to the main page of the site rather than going to the exact source page. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Mario1987 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, but I hope to be able to support it soon.
  • The text at the beginning of the article seems disjointed -- the logic of the sequence of topics is not completely clear.
  • Also, there are "language" problems in the text at the beginning of the article. It needs to be copy-edited to become native-speaker-quality English.
  • A particular issue in rewriting the text is to ensure that the article does not make Wikipedia into a crystal ball. In describing future projects, use language like "is planned to be" or "was scheduled to be", not "will".
  • I am troubled by the lack of sources for some facts in the table. This is a difficult type of list to assemble because there is no single convenient source for all of the information. Nevertheless, it cannot become a Featured List until all of the information is supported by cited sources. --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [6].

Nominator(s): Truco ₅₀₃ and --WillC 07:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truco ₅₀₃ and myself are nominating this article for FLC after an extensive expansion from what it once was to what it is now. I feel it passes the criteria at the moment, as for him I don't know. He probably does but I would rather not speak for him. Any comments will be handled by either one of us.--WillC 07:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclaimer - I won't be on Wiki from 8/6-8/11.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've read a lot (not all from what Wikipedia would label reliable sources, admittedly) about the way this title was treated, particularly during the 24/7 period. People seem to consider the title a bit of a joke, so I was thinking that covering that sort of reception might be appropriate. For example, one page 201 of The WrestleCrap Book of Lists!, it discussed Terri Runnels holding the belt. Some relevant passages include: "...the WWF Hardcore title was largely a joke throughout its brief history" and "...the Hardcore championship was so prestigious that it was being defended not only in the ring, but at other locations, such as airports, hotel rooms and the local Chuck E. Cheese." This editorial is also a good source covering this aspect of the title. I'm also confused as to why the title changes from the Hardcore Battle Royal aren't included. The title changed hands 10 or 11 times during the match, and each time, someone was announced as the new champion. I realize you're using wwe.com as the source, but I think this is at least worth noting (Solie's lists all of the title changes in the match; do you know if the Will & Duncan Wrestling Title Histories book does?). GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I would add the reception aspect to the article but I feel that is better fit in the main article. As for the hardcore battle royal, I don't have a source that says they were even considered champions in the first place. I would need something that says they were recognized first to even consider adding them. Only Solie includes them, but Solie includes alot of things this time. As for Wrestling Titles, it only goes to late 99.--WillC 10:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking, wasn't the hardcore battle royal just an early version of the Championship Scramble? If so, then maybe they were interim-champions and not actual champions.--WillC 10:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, it was a version of the Scramble and I remember watching that match and the commentators did state that the wrestler last holding the title would be the champion, nothing about the other wrestlers if they won the title during the match. In addition, I also feel that information about reception would be better off in the main article, maybe a note in this article, but further info should go in the main article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I forgot about the article splitting, so the reception is better in the other article. As for the Hardcore Battle Royal, they definitely made it clear that each of the falls during the match was a legitimate title change. From a video on YouTube whose title rhymes with "Trestlemania '00 - Hardcore Battle Royal 1/4", referee Tim White discussed the match beforehand with the participants: "...there could be as many belt changes as there might be within that time frame. It could be one, could be two, could be ten times." Announcer Jim Ross then clarified: "The title can changes hands any number of times, and whomever is the champion at the end of fifteen minutes leaves with the gold." After the first of many falls in the match, the ring announcer stated, "Here is the new Hardcore Champion: Tazz!" This is also supported by the writeup on WWE.com ([7]): "WrestleMania 2000 saw the Hardcore Championship change hands 11 times, as a result of the unique stipulations of the 15-minute Hardcore Battle Royal. At the end of the match, Hardcore Holly was the champion." GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I'll add them in.--WillC 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found this article which says the exact rules of the match and is dated around the time of WrestleMania 2000, and it says that only who is champion at the end of the match is important.--WillC 23:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • That article confirms that each of the falls was a legitimate title change. Interestingly, it points out that this will make it difficult for people keeping title lists. I see that John Powell is as prophetic as ever. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess it is a matter of one's own opinion after they read it because "The match will go on for fifteen minutes and although anyone can be pinned for the title, it doesn't matter because whoever is still holding the belt at the end of time limit hangs is the official winner." says to be that the final person to get a pin will be the official champion after the 15 minutes.--WillC 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The final person to get a pin will be the official champion at the end of the match, but everyone in between who gets a pin becomes champion. The "it doesn't matter" part would refer to the fact that being reigning champion is more important than being a former champion. However, I'm feeling like having a debate on the content is out of place on the FLC page. Perhaps this is better suited for the WT:PW page? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that probably would be beter. I see them being interim champions, alot like the Scamable. Maybe WWE refs to the interim changes.--WillC 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Consensus seems to have been reached, which states that the reigns should be included in the table as unofficial reigns. They are included as such. However, because they are unofficial by this standard, they should not be counted in the "Reign" column, nor should they be included in the "List of combined reigns" table. At present, the article is factually inaccurate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at WT:PW the section does not read "List of combined official reigns" nor does the column in the main table say "official reigns". We have several sources say they are official and then ones which say they aren't, so at the moment there is nothing inaccurate.--WillC 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one, Wikipedia is not censored or obligated to go by what WWE wants their title histories to read. The fact is that the championship reigns that occurred during the battle royal occurred nevertheless. Which makes them official reigns because the WWF did not specifically state during the battle royal that the reigns would not be official, it was only until the title was retired in 2002 that it was noted as such. Many of my lists had unofficial reigns or reigns that occurred but were not mentioned by the promotion, what I did was added the reign because it actually happened but I denoted that the promotion does not recognize it due to so and so. Same here. --Truco ₅₀₃ 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As have I. With List of TNA X Division Champions I did the same as with here. If it happened and WWE recognized them for even a single second as champion, then the reign is official, even if the promotion does not ever again.--WillC 10:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, what was the purpose of the discussion at WT:PW if you are unwilling to go with the consensus? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those reigns are "unofficially" recognized by the promotion, but they actually did occur-> we aren't saying they are official or not, we are just counting the reigns as they happened, which is needed for sorting and stats purposes. It is denoted, or it should be, that those reigns aren't recognized by WWE but they did occur or that the "rules were unclear, so they are counted for sorting and statistics purposes only". This is what we do for other lists for unofficial reigns.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The discussion was whether to add them or not, not how to add them. At the moment I see nothing wrong with the article in history stand-point. The reigns occurred so they should be counted. If not counted then what is the point of them being in?--WillC 16:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was asked to revisit this FLC and update my comments. Since nothing has changed, however, I continue to oppose. As shown in numerous precedents (Antonio Inoki#Early years and The Rockers#Tag team title controversy are good examples), the promotion controls the official title history (hence, Inoki is not recognized as a WWF Heavyweight Champion, and The Rockers are not recognized as WWF Tag Team Champions). This is not a case of censorship; it is simply a fact of life when it comes to a staged sport. Sources indicate the there were numerous "belt changes" at WrestleMania 2000, but they are not included in the official title history. They should be included because they show the transitions the belt took and consensus was to add them as unofficial reigns. To say that someone with an unofficial reign is a former champion, however, is inconsistent. The reigns should be listed as they are, but they should not be counted in the "Reign number" column, and they shouldn't be in the combined reigns table. Saying that they need to be counted (and that Wikipedia needs to give false information) so that a table will sort properly makes no sense. As far as "statistical purposes" go, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. If the problem lies with the column title or the table's name, the title and/or name should be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We are based on facts, the facts on the reigns happened, they are, or have been, recognized by WWE, which makes them official. Tomorrow WWE could say Randy Orton was the first WWE Champion in 1899. Should we rewrite that entire article because that is what WWE recognizes? No, we note it, but do not list it as official because we know it never happened.--WillC 05:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your example is ridiculous. Arguing by strawman doesn't prove anything other than an unwillingness to have a sensible discussion. But yes, there are examples in which wrestlers are said to have won titles that they simply didn't win. Countless titles have been introduced and/or have changed hands through "tournaments" that never existed. They are counted as legitimate title changes, because it is the promotion that controls the title history in a fictional sport. As another example, the Eastern Sports Association states that Jack and Jerry Brisco held the ESA International Tag Team Championship in 1976. The Brisco Brothers never wrestled together in ESA. Once again, though, it's counted as an official reign. At any rate, consensus was to include them as unofficial reigns. You have chosen to ignore the consensus. I oppose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You act as if a consensus at WT:PW is the final decision. No, they aren't. Again, they have been added as unofficial, but the columns do not read official reigns. There was no questions on how exactly they would be added. Just added as unofficial reigns.--WillC 01:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capping only, due to the discussion above on whether or not reigns should be included in certain tables. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look mostly good, though reviewers are invited to comment on the below. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PWtorch and WrestleView have been identified as iffy before. I'll let other reviewers comment on this as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PWTorch is backed up by plenty of other third party sites and James Caldwell and Wade Keller, the main journalist, have been involved in wrestling for several years. WrestleView is usually only supposed to be used for results and non-controversial material. It is safe to use in this instance I do believe.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having reviewed all wrestling lists to come through FLC in the past 9 months, I'm aware of this. I'm just mentioning it so that other reviewers can comment on them too. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the highs and the lows. The comment was mainly for future reviewers.--WillC 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are a few errors that need to be addressed. Mshake3 (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? Be exactly please.--WillC 06:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 [8].

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have fixed all the issues addressed in the previous submission and I think its good to go know. Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The sorting of the location column is strange. For example, "on the French front" comes after "Off Pula, Austria-Hungary". You may need to use sortkeys with {{sort}}.
• Em dashes in the blank image captions cells.

Not sure what you mean here, are you talking about the column where the image is? If that is the case should I put the no image image rather than an endash in the middle of the cell? --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "cells". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• What makes http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Surprisingly, Medal of Honor isn't linked at all in the prose; it should be linked the first time it is mentioned.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "and Edward Rickenbacker, who became an American flying ace." - I think the inclusion of "American" is redundant as, considering the MoH is a US decoration, this is already assumed.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the United States did not officiall enter the war until 1917, I think this should be mentioned. If a person was reading the list at the moment, they might mistakenly assume the US joined the war straight away.

Done. I also made mention of some americans going to fight before the US actually declared war. --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the dual MoH recipients of World War I should probably be mentioned in the prose.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endashes should be used between date ranges, rather than "to".

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make mention of a couple things I will be doing to hopfully wrap this up. It will likely be end of the week before I get all this done.

• I am going to create articles for the recipients that don't have them yet as well as for a couple of the ships (Chestnut Hill) or other red links.
• I am going to remove some of the red links of some of the locations.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to go through each and every note to make sure that quotes are quoted or paraphrased and ensure there are periods (full stops for you brits :-)) were there should be and none where there shouldn't be. I think its good to go but I might have missed one here and there. --Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I also checked and fixed a ref and I checked the alt text and fixed woodfill. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Alt text is mostly present, but is missing for three images (see "alt text" button in toolbox at upper right of this review page). The alt text that is present is of low quality: every entry says "An image of a man in his military uniform" which conveys almost no useful information in this context. The alt text should say what's visually distinctive about each image. Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could give me an example of a good one that would be appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert in describing military uniforms, but for File:Johannes Anderson.jpg you might try something like "Head and shoulders of a clean-cut square-jawed young man in brown army uniform, U.S. Army World War I style with a campaign hat, in front of a U.S. flag". Perhaps an expert can make it briefer. Eubulides (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with the current descriptions several if not all could be described the same way or similar. This is the biggest problem with alt text, how to describe a picture in less than a thousand words and have it still be meaningful to the reader. This is especially problematic with lists like this with multiple portrait images. I am going to leave the alt text as is for now, but I am still open to changing it if someone has a good way of describing each one in a way that identifies them uniquely. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all the images look alike, then what's the point of including them at all? But they don't all look alike (obviously), and their differences can be described briefly. Putting the same alt text in all the images is worse than omitting the alt text entirely. Better would be to describe the first image in some detail (as I did above, for the 1st image), and then have the later images briefly describe what's different about them. Eubulides (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To try to help out, I added alt text for the first few portaits. They don't look alike, and their alt text differed too. Please try to use this as a guide for the remaining portraits. Also, alt text is needed for the non-portrait images. Eubulides (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• There appears to be some inconsistency with regard dates over two days most are American style (e.g. September 26, 1918 – September 27, 1918 for Deming Bronson) and some are in British style (e.g. 2– 8 October 1918 for George G. McMurtry). Other British style ones are Samuel I. Parker and Charles W. Whittlesey, also the date for George S. Robb uses "and" instead of a dash, is this significant? --Jpeeling (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Not sure why we wait three whole paras in the lead before we're told what the MOH is.

Just because it takes a while to explain WWI. I Can break it into a different section if you think that would be better. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'd unlink Canada and link U-boat.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also not sure we need to link to "causality" in this article.

Done. I delinked it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Within a month, much of Europe was in a state of open warfare with over 60 million European soldiers being mobilized,[2] and more than 40 million casualties, including approximately 20 million deaths." - reading this a couple of times, it implies that there were 40 million casualties and 20 million deaths "within a month". Suggest a reword.
  • "to broker a peace." just reads a little odd to me, "a peace".
  • Format of dates in references should be consistent i.e. all human readable or all ISO.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "violation ... U.S. ideas of human rights." - another odd sentence. What, exactly, does "ideas of" mean here?
  • You quickly abbreviate United States to U.S. but then go back to using United States quite a bit...
  • "Due to the nature of this medal" - it's not the nature of the medal, it's the criteria associated with its award. Rephrase I think.
  • " the Medal of Honor was established, only 19 recipients have received the Medal of Honor twice" - MOH repeated, reads poorly.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "are copied in their entirety from the actual Medal of Honor citation" - is this okay, copyright-wise?

Yes, the citations are not subject to copyright as a work of the US Government. With that said I have shortened most of them so that the entire citation is not in it, they are just too long.--Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "machinegun" or "machine-gun"?

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Check in the Notes for numbers below 10 which could be written in words per MOSNUM, e.g. "lead 3 other" - led three other...

Is this really appropriate if I am quoting something? --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Near" or "near" in place of action.

Does this mean you want me to remove the word completely or choose one or the other?--Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Should all the "near"s sort together? Probably better if they sorted by country or something rather than "near"...
  • USS Mowhawk appears to link to a dab page. I'd check the other ships if I were you.
  • What particular relevance do the two "unknown soldier" See also links have to this specific list?

They where awarded the Medal of Honor but because they are unknown I did not include them in the list. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose On top of the problems listed above:
• Why are there some variations in the date format in the dates column

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• October 2, 1918 – October 8, 1918 for Holderman, should be October 2–8, 1918

Done. For consistency I made them all the full dates because some had different dates or spanned different months. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be better to say official MoH citation not actual MoH citation in the italics at the top of the table
• Inconsistencies in the location column: Why are some of the places linked and others not? e.g In the forest of Argonne, France and in the Boise de Belleau, France
  • The locations that can be linked are, all the rest don't have pages yet. --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:REDLINK, how are you going to know when they are linked so that they can be turned blue? Redlinks aren't bad things, they show us gaps in knowledge. You might find as you go along that some of these places do have articles, they are just under slightly different spellings. Woody (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I linked all the locations and then went back and removed the redlinks for 2 reasons. 1 The new rule saying there can't be too many red links in the article and there were a lot of them and 2 I could not tell from the locations where they were. In some cases there were multiple locations in france with the name and it was impossible to identify them specificially without pointing it to a DAB page. --Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I initially found that with the VC list but I went through to the unit page, found out where they were operating, then went through to the particular operations page to check and then checked a few sources and every time you could pinpoint the correct one. I don't think that the column should be inconsistent. Woody (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also note that the inconsistency in capitalising "in"
  • Sorry I don't understand could you explain this? --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the locations use "in" some use "In," note the capital "I". Woody (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I also think that perhaps sort the "nears" according to the location
• Why has Latham got a huge citation compared to the others?
• Why do the citations differ at all? Some are short succinct versions, some are full quotes eg Sampler: His company having suffered severe casualties during an advance under machinegun fire, was finally stopped. Cpl. Sampler detected the position of the enemy machineguns on an elevation. Armed with German hand grenades, which he had picked up, he left the line and rushed forward in the face of heavy fire until he was near the hostile nest, where he grenaded the position. His third grenade landed among the enemy, killing 2, silencing the machineguns, and causing the surrender of 28 Germans, whom he sent to the rear as prisoners. As a result of his act the company was immediately enabled to resume the advance This could be reduced to Sampler detected a machine-gun position that was firing on his company, he grenaded the german position and caused the surrender of 28 germans.
• Why do some of the notes column list citations but others such as Talbot list what amounts to trivia.(First Marine aviator to receive the Medal of Honor.)
• I think you need some way of indicating the double recipients.
  • Any suggestions? --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Random symbol such as ‡, or use a footnote. I used {{ref label}} for the VC ones but then there are only three VC and Bar holders. Woody (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm reliable? Seems self-published to me

• So, quite a few issues for me. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:43, 12 August 2009 [9].

Nominator(s): Drdisque (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this list in December 2007. Back then it had numerous deficiencies and the FLC process helped me identify the deficiencies, not only with regards to the official criteria, but in more qualitative ways.

I currently feel that this list is written in consistent and neutral prose, is extremely well cited, is exhaustive and suffers from less recency bias as in the past (the recency bias that remains is largely due to older violent events not being well documented). It has clear criteria for inclusion and is covers a notable topic. -Drdisque (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal This list is quite interesting, but still has maintanence tags and inline citation requests. In addition, the lead is not long enough and has the non-engaging "This list of violent spectator incidents in sports includes" start (see recently promoted lists for examples of better and more engaging lists). Please resolve the maintanence tags before FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the maintenance tags as they're outdated (and one was incomplete and had no justification). In the whole list, there's 2 or 3 citation needed tags. They're both events that from a confluence of non-journalistic sources did indeed happen, I just can't find the journalistic source that backs it up as the events happened awhile ago. -Drdisque (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags are not acceptable as Wikipedia:Verifiability is a part of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria.—Chris! _ct 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed those few items. It does not substantially affect the quality of the list. Every item in the still very exhaustive list is now cited. -Drdisque (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Issues raised by User:Dabomb87 has not been addressed. Also references aren't formatted correctly and consistently.—Chris! _ct 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What issues have not been addressed? All citations meet the requirements of WP:CITE. Using the citation tool templates is optional per WP:CITE. What is not "correct"? It seems to me you fellows are picking nits with regards to things that are not official policy. -Drdisque (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to be expanded, the start "This list of violent spectator incidents in sports includes" needs to be rewritten, web references are missing last access dates, others are missing publishers or web titles. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose now because nominator has made no attempt to fix the two major issues above beside comprehensiveness.—Chris! _ct 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]