Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2011

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 Giants2008 18:10, 23 August 2011 [1].

Nominator(s): AJona1992 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have fixed all issues that were stated on the first request and the peer review it just had. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is non-free and there is no Fair Use Rationale for this list. Are copyrighted images even allowed in lists? PumpkinSky talk 14:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are free images of her on commons. If its necessary I'll just pick one on there. AJona1992 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend removal of nomination by director. Article is in bad (not "good", and certainly not "featured") shape. The intro has textual problems; any English speaker who starts to read it will stumble a bit on the low-quality phrasing, grammatical errors, and redundancy. The infobox is incomplete and its links don't work. And that's just what I see before scrolling or spending much time studying the article.

Now it appears that the nominator has been indefinitely blocked, so the copious work necessary to bring this to FL isn't likely to happen soon. Sorry I'm not up to helping more myself. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from nom list. There are too many outstanding issues as usual that, the nominator getting indefd, isn't gonna help anybody. And I'm pretty sure nobody else heavily edits Selena related articles too, hence there's 100% chance that nobody will pick this up. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:33, 20 August 2011 (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 Giants2008 18:10, 23 August 2011 [2].

Nominator(s): Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a well-sourced list on a church of controversy, and notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Albacore

I think this list would be better if all the sub-sections would be combined into one list. Albacore (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref issues, what makes ref 11 (Myspace), ref 16 (Wordpress), ref 17 (blogspot), refs 18 and 20 (both Internet Movie Database), and ref 28 (Rooster Teeth.com) reliable? For the rest of the refs, remove the language parameter per Template:Cite web, the book refs need page numbers, and there is a URL showing in ref 22. Albacore (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd be able to get the book page number references, as I wasn't the one who added that in. Ref 11: That's the magazine's official site from what I can tell. Ref 16: It was a re-print of a newspaper article. Ref 17: It's his own, personal blog. Ref 18 & 20: The artist can at any time remove untrue information from IMBD. URL in ref 22 fixed. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Suggest you unbold the lead and link the church on the first mention.
• Don't over link minister.
• Suggest you could add nationality to the ministers as that would assist with the "universal"ness of the list.
• Universal Press is a disambiguation link.
• Perhaps if you have enough images, you can add them into the table as a column rather than the disparate set of images you currently have way off to the right of a very narrow list.
• Your external link has people that aren't on this list, e.g. Bromner, Bobbitt, Doctorow, Hoffman.... In fact, it seems that this list is pretty much a weak copy-paste of that webpage...

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical style seems to be to bold first, link later. But I did unbold "ULC" and removed the duplicate wikilinks. Nationality of the minsisters isn't usually mentioned in the references, and could be hard to add though I suspect most of them are American, thus negating the need for that sort of column. Adding the images in wouldn't be difficult, but we don't have images for everyone listed. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No typical style here, just WP:MOS. Nationality of every single minister can be found, I'm sure, and if not, what makes it "universal"? Images would be great, you have far more than you're using and the HUGE whitespace issue would be solved with adding it to the table (see BAFTA Academy Fellowship Award for instance). You didn't address the discrepancy between the external link and this list. And please make the table accessible by using row and col scope parameters. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose – Reliability of sources is lacking throughout. A lot of the below comments are repeats from TRM's review, but they're necessary ones.

• First off, why is NNDB a reliable source? I've never seen this considered a reliable source in any content process; now we're going to use it as a basis for an FL? The talk page of the article we have on it doesn't fill me with confidence.
• Myspace (ref 11) is definitely unreliable. If it's a magazine site, you're better off citing a hard copy of the magazine, rather than linking to something so questionable.
• Wordpress and Blogspot (refs 16 and 17) are also unreliable. The newspaper reprint could have copyright issues if the site didn't have permission to post the article; you're again better off using an offline cite to the paper. As for personal blogs, I see several cites to personal websites, and this bothers me. The best we can do for an allegedly controversial topic, which by association carries possible BLP problems, is personal websites? Too few of the people listed are cited to strong secondary sources.
• IMDB (refs 18 and 20) is perhaps marginally reliable for basic information on movies. For biographical details, it's not reliable.
• I'd also like to know what makes any of the following reliable sources: bloggamy.com (ref 3), AERO News (ref 4), csethna.com (ref 13), Beliefnet (ref 14), smodcastle.com (ref 27), Cleveland Scene (ref 29).

I'm not even taking into account that the lead is short and completely uncited. On the basis of the sourcing alone, this is nowhere close to FL status. I'd suggest withdrawing this FLC and coming back when the weak sources have been removed and replaced by cites that are more reliable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 07:33, 23 August 2011 [3].

Nominator(s): Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it now meets (and exceeds) the qualities needed to become a FL. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / Comments from KV5

I'm seeing some serious issues here.

• A lot of redlinks have been overridden to blue to make it appear that this list is full of articles when, in fact, many of them do not exist yet. And I do mean a lot.
• "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text" - per WP:ACCESS. Referring here to the table headers.
• Table is not sortable.
• Font size should not be forced smaller than 100%, especially considering that there are no images alongside the table.
• Blank rows between seasons serve no purpose other than a visual division and should be removed as they add no functionality and are a hindrance to screen readers.
• The article "Torneio Rio-São Paulo" needs to be moved and the links in this article corrected to match. Per WP:DASH, Torneio Rio – São Paulo is the correct title.
• The updating of the table to standardize results across seasons makes the table inaccurate unless the sources do the same thing.

I haven't done a full review of the lead for grammar and MOS compliance, but I saw some issues in passing that I'll go over once the above are corrected. — KV5 • Talk • 14:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the regs on redlinks and such. There is nothing stating that no one is allowed to changed "redlinks" to any other color. The only issue with red font is that it shouldn't be used on pages that exist; nothing against the usage of the other way around.
• I fixed this.
• Tables do not need to be sortable according to the regs. Plus, it would be impossible to make this tables funciontally sortable.
• Nothing in the regs about font sizes.
• Fixed it and made it MUCH better.
• Fixed and moved competition page to correct wiki standards.
• Fixed.

Cheers! Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to "the regs" like they are immutable isn't going to improve this list. Tables are supposed to, according to the featured list criteria, include sort facilities "where helpful"; in this case they would be. The assertion that "it would be impossible to make this tables funciontally sortable" is incorrect; it would just require a re-formatting of the list's style.

Key phrase: "where helpful". In this case, it is detrimental. Heck! I know of dozens of FL's that doesn't have sortability and they are currently FLs. If you tell me that it was because FLs had lower standards before, I will simply recommend that those lists have their feature status revoked since it obviously, according to you, doesn't meet your perceived reg. This are just a few that I have found. It is probably why the option is that: optional.

"I will simply recommend that those lists have their feature status revoked since it obviously, according to you, doesn't meet your perceived reg" - this is not my perceived "reg"; it is a featured list criterion, and to nominate all of those lists for FLRC would be gaming the system to prove a spurious point. Sortability would be helpful in this case and an unwillingness to attempt a re-format of the table isn't conducive to the spirit of cooperative editing. Your assertion that sortability would be detrimental to this list isn't supported by any fact; it's simply your opinion. You mentioned wanting to be able to compare seasons, and sortability is a big part of being able to do that. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, either the standards are set for everyone or none at all. Frankly, this is blatant double-standard. I have shown almost 40 articles that has no sortability and are FL but somehow mine should be the exception...hmm...

This FLC is not being singled out, it is not an exception, and it is not a double standard. Criteria change, standards change, older lists need updating, but new lists must meet the most up-to-date criteria. — KV5 • Talk • 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the red links, WP:REDLINK says, in part, "A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future, should be left alone rather than be created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information... However, it is better to leave this link red, than to create a 'placeholder stub'... with the sole purpose of turning the red link to blue" (emphasis mine). It also reads, "In the rare situation that it is useful to display a red link as a blue even when no page yet exists, it is possible to override the link color and force it to be blue with the {{bluelink}} template". In short, red links shouldn't be forced to be another color unless there is a "useful" reason; in this case there is none save to make it appear that the articles exist, which does not help users who might read this list and want to create the articles (most of which are valid article topics and should be created at some point).

I thought about using the template but I will eventually create articles for each season which is why I colored them individually.

You're not getting me. The template is only supposed to be used if there is a useful reason. In this case, there is not, and the false blue coloring should be removed. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to remove it. I will eventually build articles for each season (which I already started and completed one of them). The regs on coloring red links allow that in this type of situation.

Not so. This is not a useful reason; it's a deceptive reason. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and bluing all of those red links discourages users who think those articles exist from creating them (red links encourage article creation, and this format hinders that). — KV5 • Talk • 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "regs" about font size are thus: "Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose. Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates. Additionally, large tables may require a decreased font size in order to fit on screen" (from WP:FONTSIZE). This is not a "large table", at least not in consideration of width. Thus, a small font size should not be forced. — KV5 • Talk • 19:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table WILL be too wide. Hence, why I lowered the size of the font.

It will not. I have mocked up a couple rows of each table in my sandbox so that you can see it is not too wide. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from KV5

• Tables need "scope" parameters and captions; see MOS:DTT.

Most of that stuff is obviously obsolete. Again, this are just a few examples.

The WP:ACCESS requirements are not obsolete; they are, in fact, relatively new to the Manual of Style. This table is in fact obsolete. And please do not argue that other stuff exists, because it's not a valid argument. Just because other, older FLs are one way does not mean that your current FLC does not have to meet the most up-to-date requirements, because consensus can change. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will be frank and say that I am not going to do any of that since it is ridiculous, highly redundant and, frankly, almost useless; it is simpler using the "rowspan" and "colspan" format.

Then I will be frank and tell you that this list will not pass because it does not comply with the Manual of Style. — KV5 • Talk • 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Key table also needs headers and a caption.

Tables do, no lists. Especially when they are under a subject.

Your list is in table format; thus, these are required elements per WP:ACCESS. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above.

• In the "Cup" column of the second table, what is the difference between "N/A" and the em-dash?

N/A is in the case that the competition(s) didn't exist whereas the dash mean the club didn't qualify.

That needs to be clarified somewhere. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• I suggest choosing more legible symbols instead of the currency sign and approximation sign, especially since the extremely common *, §, and † are not currently in use. These are much more easily identified. Also, indicators that are at cap height (§ and †) should be superscripted, and there should not be spaces between the item and its indicator (for example, you should say "1987*" or "1984^§" rather than "1987 *" or "1984 §". If you choose to use the dagger (†), ensure that you use the {{dagger}} template, so that alt text can be added for non-sighted readers.

Done

• The colors used for the double and treble are not easily distinguishable; see Help:Using colours.

Done

Still haven't looked at grammar or anything in the lead. — KV5 • Talk • 19:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I ask for a new reviewer. Frankly, this one obviously lacks objectivity and neutrality and is, in the process, promoting double standards. I believe others would agree with this assessment if they were to review this a bit. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be a bit careful with what you say, the reviewer does not lack objectivity and neutrality he is merely upholding the guidelines that every editor has to follow, you're no exception. Just because other lists have got featured status and now fall foul of the guidelines, is now reason why this list should pass. It is the nature of wikipedia, the guidelines are constantly evolving. Seeing as you're asking for a new reviewer I'm happy to oblige. NapHit (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed it that out myself. I also even volunteered to recommend present FL to FLRC since the great bulk of them doesn't meet the so-called "present" standards. He pointed out that it would be using wiki to prove a point. He was legalizing double-standards which is vile and disgusting to say the least...it is that sort of thing that makes things like featured content, which should be for great works through fair and unbiased standards, seem like Mickey Mouse things that anyone should just put a star to if they felt like it. Sincerily, the more we go on here the more it sort of confirms itself.

If you want to challenge the validity of my review, I have no problem with it, as I am only asking that you fulfill the featured list criteria. If you like, you may ask the general populace at WT:FLC or ask one of the directors, well, directly. You're not being singled out, you're just being asked to meet the same guidelines as everyone else. And a mass addition of FLRCs would be disruptive and would likely be speedily procedurally closed due to WP:POINT. If you find an old FL with egregious problems, I encourage you to FLRC it, but submitting them en masse is not the proper way to do things. You can ask for a "new reviewer" if you wish, but FL candidacy is not determined by just one reviewer, and obviously at least one other reviewer agrees with me, so perhaps it's time to reconsider your position. — KV5 • Talk • 01:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
• As KV5 states above the table needs to sortable and your argument does not wash especially since there is this list that has a sortable table in it.

Show me a standard, regulation, anything that has "sortable" and "need" in the same sentence and I'll do it. BTW, that list is not even close to being like the 40+ that I have stated above. The list you have has seasons that only need one row. It is a small club, after all (before today, I have never even heard of it). Every list I have shown have seasons spanning more than one row, which is what makes the sortable option jumble up into random nonsense.

However, show me a table, which has seasons spanning 2+ rows, be functioning correctly with a sortable option and I will happily do it.

It can't be done with rowspans and colspans, which is why you have to re-format for sortability, but if you look at the example NapHit provides, it does show bi-level competition within the same row in a sortable table. Right now, if I want to see all the first-place seasons together, I can't do it. So the sortability is "helpful", per the criteria, and needs to be implemented. — KV5 • Talk • 01:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The table itself is awful to read, why is the top in white? Why are some parts of the table bold, this violates MOS:BOLD

Those rules only apply to article texts. There is nothing there that prevents its usage usage within a table. All of the articles above that I have pulled follow the same suit. Here is another one I found.

This is not true. The Manual of Style applies equally to lists, prose, images, and other article components. — KV5 • Talk • 01:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Colours are used yet there are no symbols next to them which violates WP:ACCESS

It says that colours shouldn't be the only thing used and to use something else as a symbol. There is "1st", "2nd" and "3rd" which are explained in the key section.

• On the table alone I'm opposing sort it out and get it to the standard that the Watford list is at then I will reconisder. NapHit (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This has been rushed to FLC before it is ready. It was nominated just 48 hours after a peer review was opened, and less than 24 hours after the first peer review comments. Unsurprisingly given the timescale, some of those comments are still unresolved, indeed some are repeated or expanded upon in the above reviews.

• Redlinks and bluelinks are a fairly fundamental part of Wikipedia. Obfuscating them in a wholesale manner is unacceptable.
• In the peer review I asked How can there be a top scorer in seasons where no competitive football was played? The response indicated that friendlies are included. The are two problems with this. Firstly, the list makes no such indication, which makes for a lot of misleading totals. Secondly, it is standard practice for football statisticians to exclude such matches.
• Two seasons have a footnote saying Santos abandoned the tournament due to lack of funds. What's the story here? Placings are still given, when usually teams are thrown out of the competition in such circumstances. I tried clicking on the season links for more information, but of course they were redlinks masquerading as bluelinks.
• According to the lead the club played a friendly for the first time in 1914, yet the table has rows for 1912 and 1913. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing candidacy as I am no longer interested in this. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2011 (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 00:14, 21 August 2011 [4].

Nominator(s): User:Spacepotato, Serendi^podous 09:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been properly sourced and is getting good commentary. Much of the material was taken from the now-redirected page Exasecond and longer, so I have included that page's main contributor as a co-nominator. Serendi^podous 09:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That yellow/gold seems a bit bright compared to the other, more muted colors. Perhaps tone it down a little? –Drilnoth (T/C) 00:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subbed. Serendi^podous 07:04, 11 August 2011 (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 00:14, 21 August 2011 [5].

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of the WikiProject for Grammy Awards, and it follows the pattern of previous FL of the same awards (Latin Grammy Awards). Thank you to all reviewers. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the table should be made to comply with WP:ACCESS using col and row scope parameters. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jae, take a look at the diff--this formatting should be used on Grammy lists going forward. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AB, I will take into consideration for my next lists. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: File:Juanes-live-02 edit.jpg isn't showing up for me; the alt text is being displayed. This may just be my computer, but I thought I'd mention it. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my computer I can see it just fine. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2011 (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 00:14, 21 August 2011 [6].

Nominator(s): --WillC 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to make two topics about TNA Championships. One about the reigns and one about the titles. All current title lists are done except this one. Then there are a few more from TNA's past but they need alot of work. So here is this one. The topics are located here (reigns) and here (championships); this may explain better.--WillC 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose no need at all to split from the main (tiny) article of TNA Television Championship. Suggest nominator withdraws as this is a clearcut abuse of 3b. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the same pattern as the rest of the articles. Also, the TV Title article needs to be rewritten as there is more that can be included into it. It can easily be made to be at the same size as TNA World Tag Team Championship or TNA Women's Knockout Championship. As well as it was agreed at WT:PW that once the history exceeds 10 reigns, it is to be broken off into a list. Isn't anything different from this and the others I've done honestly. Just recently the belt designs section was removed in the TV article because the title belt design today was conflicted.--WillC 07:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not about what other articles have done in the past, it's about whether this is capable of being a standalone list, given the paucity of the main article. My opinion is that it cannot. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with that is it is pick and choose, considering the other articles have the same format as this one, and this one was based off those. I did that for consistency purposes. If those pass, this one should pass. Large enough the article passed a GA review. If it is large enough to pass a GA review, I would assume the main article is fine, while this one meets the agreement at WT:PW and is fully sourced. It is also the same size at the most recent passed List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions. No difference in this one than those.--WillC 22:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not pick and choose, it's whether the list should be separated from the main article or not. The main article is small and there's no good reason to split the list out to a separate article. I have little or no interest in what WT:PW say, this is FLC. Having said all that, of course this is just my opinion, and I'm sticking with it until I see a better reason than "others are 'like' this and have passed". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good reason: Article needs re-expansion. Main article passed GAN with table, so some information was left out. Article passed GAN in 2009, has not been expanded since.--WillC 23:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I'll withdraw the oppose when the main article is re-expanded sufficiently to enable this list to be standalone. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I shall begin re-expansion as soon as I can.--WillC 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Let me know when you're done, good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2011 (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 00:14, 21 August 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): Kurykh (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco Bay Area has its share of FLs, most of them station lists. Here is yet another list that I believe meets the criteria. --Kurykh (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FLC review, so with that caveat, to me this looks very nice. The only thing I notice is that in ref 3, it says "p. 273, 462." but it should say "pp. 273, 462." (pp for plural) as there is more than one page listed. Consider this a support when that's fixed. PumpkinSky talk 22:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Kurykh (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the list include all the census-designated places in the Bay Area?—Chris!_c/t 00:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It used to. I took that section out because I thought keeping this list in line with similar ones (which include only municipalities) would make it more useful. Keeping the section would lengthen the article and the title into some unwieldy mess, but adding it back (and subsequently renaming the list) is only a few revisions away. --Kurykh (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is fine to leave them out then.—Chris!_c/t 04:50, 21 July 2011 (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 00:14, 21 August 2011 [8].

Nominator(s):
  – HonorTheKing (talk), 03md, 01:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this along with 03md, for featured list because it follows the same format as the two other Manchester United player lists which have been promoted to Featured List, Please note Iv'e fixed all previous issues. (nationality case). Thank you.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes MUFCInfo.com a reliable source?

Even tho it is not an official ManUtd website, the website author Mark Graham is well known in the community for his accurate and reliable statistics, same as Bert Kassies is well known for his UEFA competitions statistics.

Will leave this one unstruck in case other reviewers want to comment on it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, I have addressed some of the issues you referred to. If there is any issues please let me know.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, Does any more reviewers maybe have more comments on improvments, or they feel it meets all of the FL criteria, it will be welcomed.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please can I be credited if the nomination is successful, as the editor who put the list and prose together, and was involved in the previous nomination (which I still don't know why it didn't pass). 03md 01:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ofcurse mate, Iv'e added you to one of the nominators.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2011 (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 00:14, 21 August 2011 [9].

Nominator(s): SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this list fulfills FL standards. SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• " different occasions, which are the following:" - just have : after occasions, you don't need "which are the following"

• Corrected.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sortable table, link everything linkable every time.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I will correct it if you tell me that it does not violate overlinking and repeatlinking policies.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I went and did it anyways in an attempt of being bold, so if it is wrong so be it, which the article now has many redlinks with respect to the courses.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good, well they weren't policies in any case, they were guidelines. Plus we've always relinked things because in a sortable table, there's no way of knowing which item appears first once it's been re-sorted. And if red links upset you, you can always create some articles...! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank for the explaination, I found out guidelines are different than policies on Wikipedia. I will pass on the creation of these articles at the present moment because just not enough time to dig up information and sources on them. So, basically are policies like laws in society and guidelines are norms and customs in reality, just curious, if you think that is appropriate rationales.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's about right. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I just wanted to get some perspective on Wikipedia. I think more reviews are needed on this article. God, help me! This process is taking forever like on those others, which took almost 50 days. I guess that I better be a Job, when it comes to FLC's.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to have notes, which are references for each years event, or can we delete them and use a general one for all the list to meet FL criteria and verification measures? Just curious?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to have a See also section with these respective articles on golf list for them to be FL?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2011 (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 00:14, 21 August 2011 [10].

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be a comprehensive, detailed article. I spent a long time researching the films for their respective articles and have condensed that here to provide as much intimate detail where possible on the characters and otherwise provided a brief summary of the characters actions plus an additional reception section. Everything here is everything I believe it possible to find through research in regards to the characters and I believe it to be a quality article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Might I suggest limiting the table of contents to the primary headers? It's a bit much to have a TOC with 40 to 50 items in it. It kind of consumes the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply How do you do that? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• {{TOC limit|limit=}} In the "limit" field, you put either 1, 2, 3, etc. to indicate which level of header you want to display. "1" would be the primary header, 2 would be all primary and the next sublevel header, 3 would be the first sub level and the sublevel of the sublevel. You don't have any that extreme, so "1" is probably the one that I would suggest.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I had to do Limit=2, 1 didn't seem to do anything. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'd look at the article in detail but I haven't seen the more recent film and I'd rather not spoil things for myself. :(  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Neutral Crystal Clear x3 23:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC) *Fix Variety in ref 37 [reply]

On a side note, kudos on your hard work towards fixing up the Scream articles! Crystal Clear x3 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Done all but:

• Is Internet Movie Script database a RS? If not, ref 23 needs to be replaced: I believe it to be reliable, the script provided varies little from the actual film and commentary on the DVD confirms some of the altered events found in the particular scripts, I don't know if anyone has any more experience with the site but I do believe it to be accurate.

*Ref 17 is a fansite: Removed info and ref, cannot find a better source

• Ref 20 is also a fansite: Not sure on this one, the actual part linked is backed up by dvd commentary. I can replace it with a ref to the commentary instead.
• Is popmyculturepodcast.com a RS? If not ref needs to be replaced 22: Don't know about the site but the actual sound file is reliable, it is Lillard's voice and photos of him with the people running the podcast at their offices are on that page. Don't know if that makes it good enough.
• Ditto for ref 31: Looking for alternative, cannot find any other page that lists nominees, just winners.

Thanks for the compliment btw, was NOT easy. Took like 2 months to find all the information for a 16 year old film. As an aside, I was not sure what you meant by formatting of certain refs you picked out, they APPEARED ok to me but I had a go with them anyway so hopefully I did what you meant me to. I also tried to improve the rationale for the lead picture but if you still think it is unsuitable I am happy to cut it.

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - please note, I'm very short-tempered(!) and waiting for my dinner, so if I repeat something that's already been said, just ignore it (but tell me you've ignored it). This is a "from-the-top" review.

• Lead image would be sweet. I think it would be fair enough to put Cox or Campbell up there...
• "from Wes Craven" don't repeat Wes.
• "The series includes four films" -> comprises.
• Minor point, I guess because the films always call her "Sssssiiiddnneeeeeeey" then you refer to her as Sidney, but encyclopaedically she should be referred to as Prescott.
• "self help" is hyphenated.
• Where is Woodsboro? Is that somehow relevant? i.e. mention that the films are set in/around this fictional area.
• "with Gale Weathers-Riley" just "Gale" would work here I suppose.
• "The killer is revealed as Roman Bridger (Scott Foley) who also reveals that ..." reveal x2 boring prose.
• Link the first film in the first sentence of the Scream section to help differentiate it from the series.
• Directly cite the Saturn award nominations.

That's enough to start with, I reckon I'm 10% of the way through the article. This sort of nomination really should have seen peer review before being presented here. All the things I'm pointing out are pretty basic. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done all but the Prescott renaming. WikiProject film guidelines are to go with the name people know them by. People do not know her as Prescott like audiences don't know Ripley as Ellen. There are also 2 other Prescott's which won't help.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment : So any other notes or opinions? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you asked other reviewers to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought I had but maybe I'm mistaking it from my Scream film FAC. I will ask at Project FIlm. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments (from Scream section onwards)

• You link all of "slasher film" in the lead but just "horror" of "horror films" in Loomis' section.
• "When a series of murders occur, ..." make more active so say "Following a series of murders, ..."
• "When a series of murders occur, Billy becomes a suspect after he is found at Sidney's house shortly after she is attacked but is later released when evidence points to other characters" tense jumping -> When (current), after (past), shortly after (near past), later (future). Reads very poorly, may help if you change some of the prose to my suggestion.
• "answer horror film trivia " trivia what? trivia questions presumably?
• Is it just "Ghostface" or "the Ghostface killer"? Be consistent.
• " leaving her hung and gutted" do you mean "hanged and disembowelled"?
• "Film within a film " link it the first time, not the second.
• "Barrymore was already a successful actress when she appeared in Scream at a time when casting a big name for a horror film was uncommon." is this supposed to be referenced by a television (of E!) episode? Looks like POV to me.
• "was severely cut down " can you be clearer here, i.e. heavily edited?
• In the Weary section, Scream 2 is linked, but you've already mentioned it in the Loomis section.
• " by Billy Loomis and Stu Macher, who then framed Cotton" who's who? Both colluded to frame him? Can you be specific?
• "travelling" is that USEng? I thought it only took one "l".
• "Following the script leaking..." again, more active, i.e. "Following the leak of the script..."

Down to Dewey. Lots more to do. Oppose and suggest you take it to peer review as this much prose really needs a careful eye. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It had a peer review. I'm not a Barrymore fan so it isn't POV, it's from the E! special. Have done everything. Changed most of The Ghostface Killers, I left in Ghostface killers where it was plural because I'm not sure what the plural of Ghostface would be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it needs a second peer review. Deep breath. Next few sections.

Comments

• So when E! says something it's a reliable source? Can you back that up?
• Wouldn't plural of Ghostface be Ghostfaces?
• Didn't seem to change "hung and gutted" to "hanged" and "disembowelled" which is, after all, grammatically correct and encyclopaedic...
• "After a series of murders occur ..." see previous advice, more active, or in this case, just remove occur and add a comma.
• "Dewey has married Gale and returned to.." both of them or just him?
• "of Billy and Stu's spree" should that be "of Billy's and Stu's spree"?
• What makes IMSDb a WP:RS?
• "but Craven filmed an additional scene where he survives" replace "he" with Dewey, you've lost who "he" is when you mention Craven in the midst.
• " in case test audiences" perhaps (be more active and) say "to ascertain if" or "to gauge"?
• "and Arquette's character survived" this (subtly) implies the audience wanted Arquette to survive, but wasn't it the character? So say "and Dewey survived"...
• "When Arquette was brought in to audition for Scream, it was for the role of Billy Loomis. Arquette however liked the character ..." tighten this up "Arquette originally auditioned for the role of Bill Loomis, but preferred..."
• Is "Stab 3" another fictional movie? Not clear but I assume it was a movie-in-a-movie in Scream 3?

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I made some of these changes before you added your suggestions. I've tried to match them up with the edits I have made. I'm not sure how I can ascertain that E! is an RS. Nor with IMSDb. The information sourced by IMSDb is backed up by the director commentary which I can use instead if necessary. IMSDb does seem reliable and I have ejected sources I didn't feel were trustworthy but I don't know how I can back it up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed on the British Film Institute website for what that is worth. http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/gateway/categories/scriptsscriptwriting/online/ Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very well but I'm commenting on most lines in most paragraphs. I'm not even a quarter of the way through. I oppose the nomination simply because I don't have the time to review every line in it, which, it appears, I would have to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2011 (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 00:14, 21 August 2011 [11].

Nominator(s): Found5dollar (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i feel it is complete and of a topic that is under represented in FL. There are a few red links, but that is to encourage the creation of those pages as opposed to just leaving the topics unlinkedFound5dollar (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, stupid question time. Why is this notable? There's all of one citation to any other body than the one that awards the award. We need more independent sources to establish notability, though I've no real question they could be found. Courcelles 01:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be very easy for me to add more references to this list, but they would only be re-referencing stuff the main reference link does. I could add more filler in the opening paragraphs with fluff from other reliable sources, as there are tons, but I feel that that would degrade the quality of the opening. It was much easier, and more reliable, to reference the AIA's own list it keeps on its webpage instead of individually referencing each years award with a different news article saying that building got an award that year. This sort of relying on primary sources seems to be very common with award featured lists such as Rumford Prize ( 2 refs not from the awarding body), List of Nobel laureates in Economics andList of Nobel laureates in Chemistry (1 ref each not from Nobel), just to name a few. I don't think you would say that the Nobel Prize in Chemistry isn't notable because only one cite is from a source other than the Nobel Commitee's website. --Found5dollar (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notice, though, that List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry clearly establishes the notability of the subject in the parent article, Nobel Prize in Chemistry. This has no parent article, so we do need to establish the notability of the subject; an award that no one but the awarding body bothers to write about should not have an article, and this article appears like one of those as it stands. Courcelles 04:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added in more references from varied reliable sources.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... Just a few little things from a general point of view:

• In the first sentence, it should be exemplify instead of exemplifies. Since that's not exactly what the quote says, you should put the word in brackets.

done

• Also, according to the MOS, punctuation marks like commas and periods should generally go outside of quotation marks.

done

• "Buildings with Eero Saarinen as one of the architects..." seems a little clunky. I'd like to see it reworded.

done

• "...and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe has been honored for three of his buildings in America." It should probably be United States instead.

Done

• And the the red links are bothering me. Are FLs allowed to have red links?

I have stated above why i left the four or so red links. I am also not sure if they are allowable, or if i just should unlink them. --Found5dollar (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly know this process at all... Am I allowed to edit this article myself? Does that mean I surrender my right to support it? I still see a few more niggling points I'd like to clear up... Bobnorwal (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to help copy-edit the list, you're more than welcome to. Just say that you did so when you go to review further or support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me comment on a couple of the things above. If the source has punctuation inside the quotation marks, it should be that way in the article (haven't checked on whether that's the case). And the FL criteria allow for a "minimal proportion" of red links. It's questionable as to what percentage is acceptable, but the current five red links seems reasonable to me. Anyway, welcome to reviewing! We always need more people checking articles and lists at these processes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Alright, I've taken another couple of looks over this article. Notice, I made a couple more small copyediting changes. I'm just about ready to pledge my support but I have a question. Maybe it's been addressed already... but, what about the entries that don't have images? I'm not sure the rules on that... it's not really a deal breaker for me. But, hopefully, pictures could be found and added, someday? Bobnorwal (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been under the impression that as long as a picture can be added in the future, and that a minority of the entries are missing images, it is ok. There does not seem to be a written FL rule on the subject.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, then... It really is a nice article. Honestly, I don't know why more people don't hurry up and pledge their support. It seems like a no-brainer, really. Bobnorwal (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2011 (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 17:49, 19 August 2011 [12].

Nominator(s): bender235 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is finally completed and entirely sourced. In my opinion it meets FL criteria. bender235 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest a rename to "List of pre-1600 Atlantic hurricanes". There's no notion of season introduced in the article, and the word 'season' appears in the prose and list exactly twice. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think it should be moved to something like "List of Atlantic hurricanes before 1600", to be along the lines of List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 17th century. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you that the current name is inconsistent. However, there are still articles like 1800–1809 Atlantic hurricane seasons (and so on) although there weren't officially defined seasons at that time, either. Also, your argument has a flaw: if we can't use the term "season" because it wasn't defined until 1850, we also can't use the term "hurricane", don't you think? --bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, to be fair, the storms listed here have retroactively been labeled as hurricanes. That isn't the case for the seasons. As far as I know, there are any indications of a hurricane season until the 1900s, but the project has it labeled back to 1850 for convenience. As for the 1800-1809, I think that will and should be changed at a later point once that article is made better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a heads up, the article was moved. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding an issue raised by TRM, count me in favor of merging the list and adding sorting. You probably don't need to make the notes column sortable, but sorting would be beneficial in the others. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support and in favor of the name changePumpkinSky talk 01:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is no source for the 1529 hurricane in Puerto Rico. Another thing is that reference #57 is missing the author (Al Sandrik and Chris Landsea), the date (May 2003), and the publisher (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Actually, one more thing, reference #35 is missing the publisher (Puerto Rico Hurricane Center).--12george1 (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say split-up the damage or description and the notes column into two like is done on List of Kraft Nabisco Championship champions, so that it could be more easily accessed instead of having to find them at the end of sentences. I would gladly Support if that is done!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "This is a list..." FLs don't start like this anymore. Also, in the damage/notes columns, sentence fragments should not have periods at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - could you split up this sentence? It's incredibly long. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even data from the early years of the Columbian era is suspect and incomplete because the distinction between a hurricane and an extratropical system was not drawn by Renaissance scientists and sailors and because European exploration and colonization of the regions affected by hurricanes did not begin in earnest until the mid-16th century."

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 Giants2008 19:20, 7 August 2011 [13].

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my EP nomination this is another list that I believe is interesting and, having created it in 2009, didn't required much to get it to what I hope is FL standard. All comments gratefully recieved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this doesn't relate to the "featuredness" of the article, but is there any chance it could be linked to from anywhere else? Currently only one actual article links to it, making it technically an orphan...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would make a great "see also" for the articles on the songs listed. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell there is no reference(s) to show the listed songs are instrumental. The article says that instrumental tracks are those without any lyrics, then goes on to list such songs as Mouldy Old Dough which used the lyrics "Mouldy old dough, dirty old man". Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• I'm a little concerned over the list title. "List of number-one instrumental singles (UK)" suggests to me that there's some kind of instrumentals chart in the UK, and that this list contains all the songs that have reached number one on it. Maybe "List of instrumental number-one singles (UK)" would work better, or perhaps "List of instrumental number ones on the UK Singles Chart". Personally, I prefer the latter.
• I don't think the opening sentence quite follows WP:BEGINNING; it mentions the singles chart, but doesn't mention number ones or establish who defines an instrumental track and how.
• As of today, there have been 1166 number-one singles, so would it be more precise to say "nearly 1,200" rather than "over 1,000"?
• Maybe it's just my monitor, but the image of Flat Eric is displacing an edit link and the entire table. Could its size be reduced to prevent that?
• "Flat Eric who featured in the video" – should that just be "Flat Eric featured in the video"?
• "Multiple" seems a bit overly formal to me.
• "9 weeks" -> "nine weeks"
• Maybe I'm just misremembering, but didn't "Flat Beat" contain some lyrics at the start? "Oh yeah, I used to know Quentin... He's a real... He's a real jerky."
• If "Hoots Mon" isn't technically an instrumental track, then who is it that classifies that it is? Is it the OCC, or Guinness?
• What makes When We Were Kids reliable?
• Spaced hyphens should be spaced en dashes.
• "Allmusic" isn't italicised in ref 19.

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I agree with A Thousand Doors concerning the title.
• Per SunCreator - "Mouldy Old Dough" is unverified
• guardian.co.uk ref needs publisher (Guardian Media Group)
• Now a nitpick: MOS:ITALICS - Allmusic should not be italicised

Otherwise, nice work as usual. —Andrew_stalk 01:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Several problems highlighted above. The main one being a lack of references to cover the claims. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator hasn't edited in two weeks. If we don't see some activity soon, this will have to be archived. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 4 August 2011 (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 Courcelles 00:43, 7 August 2011 [14].

Nominator(s): —Andrew_stalk 01:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat strange award, the award for Best Fight has been around since 1996. I'm on a notebook, so let me know if you think another image or two need to be added. —Andrew_stalk 01:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Table is well-presented and accessible
• The images would benefit from alt text.
• Am I missing something? Cam Gigandet has won twice, but isn't mentioned in the intro, although the other two-times winners are.

This is an unusual subject, and I would have liked to read more about the background to the award, but that's just personal taste. Nice work. --RexxS (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Oops, I have mentioned Gigandet in lead. I have carried out a long web search but can't find any background/history, unfortunately. —Andrew_stalk 08:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• one of the Twilight films is not linked correctly in the lead
• I would prefer to see the images currently in the lead moved down into the image column. Having them in the lead emphasizes their importance and there is plenty of room for three additional images along the right-hand side of the page, at least on my computer. Consider replacing the images with Template:Infobox award for consistency with most award FLs.
• The lead is quite short, and will look even shorter if the images are moved. It would be great if more detail could be provided about some of the most memorable fights. Any upsets in reliable sources? Particularly noteworthy winners? Trends? Are there eligibility requirements, and how are winners chosen? I think readers might appreciate more detail, if possible.

Kudos for taking on a unique award! --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Done the first two, researching more info now. —Andrew_stalk 05:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]