Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2007

Definitely fits all the criteria for a featured list. I hereby nominate this list.--Jack Cox 03:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object The plot summaries don't actaully summarize the episodes. Some are single sentences that merely establish the episode rather than summarizing it. Some read like teasers, one even included a question. Wikipedia is not advertising for the show, nor does it ask the general reader questions. In addition, the fair use rationales are insufficient. Don't just say the image aides the plot outline, explain how it is aiding the plot. Tell us specifically why that screenshot was chosen. Right now, a non-fan cannot tell the difference between a carefully selected image that represents and a significant aspect of the episode and a randomly chosen image that just happens to come from the episode in question. The list entries are 75% redlinks. I believe the manual of style suggests that lists not use redlinks for its members unless at least two thirds of the entries are already blue links, in this case that would be 16 out of 24. Removing the redlinks may be better than making 10 to 18 stub articles. Jay32183 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Other issues: tiny lead and red links. Renata 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object The type of object against Fair Use in lists offered by Renata here can usually be ignored, but in this case there is a slightly different and valid "proportion of reproduction" concern: Proportion of reproduction is not just a number of images in one article - it is how many images you take from one work and what percentage of the work is reprodueced, it is WHICH images are used (as Jay refers to) and it is the image size and resolution. With that in mind here are my substantial objections:
  • All images need to go through {{fairusereduced}}. For the purpose of the episode article they don't need to be more than about 250 to 320 pixels wide.
  • The image summary pages need the treatment outlined by Jay above (See List of X-Men episodes or List of RahXephon media for how it can be done).
  • Either complete the episode articles, or temporarily remove the links to them. It is not certain that you should have articles to all episodes; perhaps only some were particularly notable for example.
  • The lead should be expanded.

Once those are done, we can look at prose and episode summaries. One idea: Since this is a single season - could this become a media list for the whole series including books and other media? --GunnarRene 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object The plot summaries on associated episode page are short and the episodes are non-notable. They could be merged into this list. I would also like to double GunnarRene's suggestion of making it a media page. Finally, the Japanese characters tag is useless template-spam. --Kunzite 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Bengali language author can come from two major countries - Bangladesh and India. As a result usually the publications on History of Bengali literature from either country tend to have more focus on the authors from the country of origin of the publication. Wikipedia is an ideal platform where a complete historical listing of Bengali language authors is possible to create / maintain. For this reason this particular list is specifically imporant. Further justifications:

• Addition of the life span of the authors chronological organization has made this list particularly useful for any student of Bengali literatur;
• Most entries in the list has link to an article on related topic which highly increases the usefulness of the list.
• Since it is a dynamic list it can never claim completeness. But it can easily be claimed that it doesn't leave-out any major candidate for entry.
• The talk page of the list provides another longer list of possible entries in the list - which may be a starting point for anyone interested to expand the main list.-Arman Aziz 10:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nice list. I removed all FA stars to avoid self-references. Could you expand the lead to include something about the history of Bengali literature that is relevant to the list and concerns the Bengali authors. In addition, remove the legend section and instead explain in the lead that 3 authors were Nobel laureates (in literature?) and they are indicated by this gold circle. CG 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not comprehensive, inadequate references.
  • I counted over 20 names in the category that weren't in this list. A few of these may be spelling differences, of which I also found several and should be resoved. A problem will be that I'm sure a language spoken by 230 million people will have more than 190 notable authors, but there will be a lack of en-wikipedians to create articles for them. Hence, this list should really be much longer but would then have lots of red-links.
  • The references you supply could be better. Some are OK but e.g. Banglapedia looks pretty amateur. You also need to give a full citation including access date for web sites (e.g. using {{cite web}}).
  • A dynamic list must have inline citations for each entry. It just isn't maintainable or easily verifiable without them. For each you need a source that confirms the person wrote notable Bengali literature (of course, some sources will cover many names).
  • The lead is too short and needs copyediting.
  • Why are all the "Ancient age" authors 9th century?
  • Some "Middle Age" authors lack dates. An approximate value is better than ugly ????
  • A Featured List should IMO contain more than just links to articles. Are they a poet, novelist, historian, author of religious texts? What are they notable for (briefly). Have they won any prizes (apart from the Nobel)? Without that information, the list is just a category sorted in a different order.

Colin°^Talk 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Banglapedia looks pretty amateur.

Actually, Banglapedia is a print encyclopedia published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. By NO means is this an amateur encyclopedia. --Ragib 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that mistake. They need to hire a new website team as that one is awful. Bad frames, missing pages, "under construction",... Colin°^Talk 08:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a nice effort.But it is tough to assess the comprehensiveness of the list. The fundamental problem of the list probably is the very dynamic nature. Just two examples, I did not see on a quick glance Narayan Sanyal (a well known author) and Maitrayee Devi (less well known, but notable for her book Na Hanyate). This is difficult job.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this is a great start, but how do we know it is comprehensive? Surely it does not contain everyone who has ever published a work in Bengali? How did you decide which Bengali authors to include and which to exclude? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the talk page, I see lots of further suggestions for names to add, so I will oppose for now. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination This is a list of Star Wars characters that make up the Max Rebo Band. The article includes appearances of the band in fiction and production and creation history for the band in general. What follows is a list of individual band members, their individual production/creation histories, and their role in the fiction. I'm new to Featured Lists, so any comments provided will be taken to heart and are appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dmoon1 23:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; This is in article format. It probably belongs on Featured Article candidates. — Deckiller 00:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what I had been debating. I'm not sure it would hold up at FAC since it is primarily a list, despite it being in mostly prose format (this is why I let it set as a Good Article for so long). The more I thought about it, it just seemed like a hybrid of an article and a list. It seems to meet the Featured List criteria, especially 1(a)3: The list contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the set's members are not notable enough to have individual articles. But as I said in the nomination, I'm not very familiar with lists on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Lists didn't really help me much. Dmoon1 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the lists are more along the lines of combining one liners and whatnot. The article as a whole isn't a list; it's just that section that describes the characters. But then again, I'm also not familiar with the FL process. I think it has a chance at FAC with a bit more work though. — Deckiller 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may be right. I don't suppose it would hurt to see what kind of feedback it gets here, though. Dmoon1 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have time to review it just yet, but it is similar to the existing FL List of Metal Gear Solid characters. Such list/articles could try their chances at either way of becoming featured. However, my personal view is that if there is a lot of prose, then it is hard to argue against the FA 1a criterion '"Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.' being applied to a degree. Lists that have no prose other than the lead obviously can't be expected to have brilliant prose. It is difficult too for those lists that have, say, a few sentences per entry, to write prose that flows or is compelling. Most lists concentrate on just giving the facts without the padding that makes for an easy enjoyable read. Colin°^Talk 09:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If the section entitled "Band members" were extracted to Max Rebo Band Members then that would clearly be a list along the lines of List of Metal Gear Solid characters, leaving Max Rebo Band as a short article on the band. I'm really not sure what would be gained by doing that, other than making it easier for us reviewers to decide what category to put it in! The whole thing is borderline for notability so splitting it up hardly helps.
  • In the "Concept and creation" section, the last paragraph on merchandise is out of sequence chronologically, and I found that confusing. Could it be moved up to before the Special Edition.
    • I've removed this section altoghether since it appears rather trivial. Dmoon1 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text is inconsistent in the use of quotes, often (but not always) using them for facts or opinions derived from the Databank (i.e. Expanded Universe info rather than the films). The whole article would be a fraction of the size if Expanded Universe background info was not included, and most of such info isn't in quotes. Therefore I think you should restrict the quotes to
    • Quotations of something a character says.
    • Quotations of notable figures such as Lucas or Hamil.
    • Titles of things, etc.
  • For example, if Lucas had said the new tune was "less dated" then perhaps that's an opinion worth quoting. Opinions from the Lucasfilm Databank text are anonymous corporate output. Also, there's no need to say "According to the Star Wars Databank, ..." as so much of this article is "according to..." anyway.
  • Rather than repeating "was one of nine characters added ...", could you just indicate this with an icon or something?
  • It would be better to have film clips of Evar Orbus and Tik Tali Talosh.
  • The Wam "Blam" Lufba ref (41) doesn't appear to support the text, and also looks to be a fan-generated story [1] which probably doesn't count.
    • This has been corrected. Dmoon1 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs should say which section of the databank (Movie/Expanded Universe/Behind the Scenes). Currently refs 40 and 42 look the same.
  • The text could be clearer as to which things are (1) Fictional movie information (2) Behind the scenes information and (3) Fictional Expanded Universe information. There is a kind of pattern to the entries, but sometimes I felt these aspects were a bit jumbled.

Colin°^Talk 12:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address these concerns soon, I'm somewhat busy in the real world today. Dmoon1 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite having some contribs to this article, going to have to Oppose because I don't consider it a list. Perhaps the Featured List criteria should be modified to really show what a list should be. — Deckiller 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some consideration, I think I have to agree with Deckiller regarding list criteria (how much prose can a list contain before it is no longer a list?). If passing the article off as a list involves splitting the article in two, I'm just not willing to go that far due to the notability factor. Dmoon1 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps after a bit more work, it can easily become a featured article. I'm game for that. — Deckiller 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the near future. I'm not exactly having a stress-free week. Dmoon1 00:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Not a list. (Mostly due to large amount of prose, and large amount of information besides the list of band members). Consider nominating for Featured Article status instead. (Should the non-list nature prove to be the consensus view, mention that if you put it up for FA). Tompw (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In no way would this qualify as a "list". Put it up for GAC or FAC, but not FLC. -- Kicking222 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - featured lists were created to allow a form of "featured" encyclopedic content that has insufficient continuous prose to be a featured article. This is an article, not a list. Please nominate it at WP:FAC. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it meets the FL criteria, thought it should be noted that most of the work has been done by User:Mollsmolyneux, and I am only the nominator that plans to get it to FL. Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight oppose - I am very happy that you broke the cliche of having screenshots of every episode. You earn my respect, but there are some things you could fix: Image:Dadsarmy 1.jpg needs proper description of source and fair use rationale; lead could be longer; table columns need to be of the same width; need to format web references better (suggest using {{cite web}}). Once that is fixed you have my support. Renata 02:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose let's see some more references. - Peregrine Fisher 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's got five of them. -- Ned Scott 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I meant inline refs. - Peregrine Fisher 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. -- Ned Scott 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm really not liking the episode summaries. Most are only one sentence and I find myself asking "and?" after most of them. Although they aren't written with the flare of teasers, they still have too much of an aspect of being a teaser by only setting up the episode rather than defining it. The remainder of this statement is a comment based on my personal preference, not an outright objection. The list could benefit from {{episode list}}. The template would shift the summaries under the heading for improved readability once the summaries are properly expanded, short paragraphs. It would also allow for the easy addition of writers, directors, and production codes, which are usually helpful in episode lists. Don't feel obligated to add images just because there is an image parameter in the template. If the primary editors of the list feel that images won't add anything then there shouldn't be any images. Jay32183 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inline references are a bit hard, since the BBC doesn't actually have an episode list (this was 1968-77 after all), although I think there are two unoffical sites that provides refs. In addition, I don't have the book to use page numbers for inline references. I'll try to improve the episode summaries (to two sentences each or so), but I don't like the look of {{episodelist}}, not least because of the squashed look and amount of white space without pictures, which would be impossible to get for every episode. I tried fidding with the width to set each column to a specfic width, but failed because it messed up the colour. Thanks for your input, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The squahed look came because you left the "image=" blank, if you instead delete it, it should appear fine. Take a look at List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes for a {{episode list}} without images. It's only the general formmating of the template I'm suggesting, not necessarily the template itself. Jay32183 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So far I've added a proper source for the picture, a specific FUR, inline references from a book and another from the BBC website, because I'm unsure of the fan website's reliability and fleshed out the lead. Can anyone help with the box width, or just show me how to do it on one series? It messed up the colours when I tried it. I'll get to the episode summaries tomorrow. Anything else? I know FLC usually stay here for 10 days, but any chance of an extension? Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure exactly what your "width problem" is. Are you attempting to use the template but the list is getting squashed? Jay32183 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Are these summaries copied and pasted? Look at this. - Peregrine Fisher 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think they were, but then I didn't fill them in - that was Mollsmolyneux - I'll redo them all later today anyway. - The width thing above was just that Renata wanted the width standardised for each column rather tahn varying in each series as it does now. I'm not that keen on {{episodelist}} to be honest, though if I have to, I will. Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 11:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to. I had suggested it and wasn't sure if you were trying it. If that's what was going on then I could help. You had mentioned a "squashing effect" or something when talking about using the template without images. I do remember that one user had a problem with the template when combining one line summaries and a high resolution moniter, so I just want to be sure. As long as not using the template doesn't reduce readability, I don't think anyone will press the issue to hard. Jay32183 18:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done some heavy editing, and hopefully addressed all of your concerns. This is the diff from previous to my revision up to now. Have I? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I no longer have an objection. Although I'll need more time to decide if I actually support or remain neutral. If I decide to remain neutral I will make suggestions that would switch me to support. Jay32183 02:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment my oppose still stands because of the column widths (it's easy to specify width=abc%, see help) and online refs that still need to be converted from external link format to something similar to {{cite web}}. Renata 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted the column widths and have converted the one online reference - its mostly book inline references. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 13:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After working on it for the last week, I think this is ready for featured list status. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The lead needs expanded and also rephrased. The second sentence, in particular, is badly worded. Can you find a source to explain why the number of deaths used to be so high and why it came down? Is an an up-to-date, satellite image relevant to this page? Seems more suitable for the more recent lists. Can an archive news photo be found? The map showing state divisions is a very fuzzy JPG, which should not be used for diagrams. Replace with a clean PNG or convert to SVG. There are editors who specialise in SVG diagrams if you look around. What is the source for the Deadly storms list? Why are there duplicate entries: "Around 1553" and "1553" and two "1559"? Colin°^Talk 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the lede. I didn't want to add much more because it would either be redundant with the body of the article, or would be inappropriate for this article (other statistics would be better for parent article List of Florida hurricanes). Information back in the 1500s is very poor and limited. The only reason we know of those deaths is due to the National Hurricane Center compiling a list of the deadliest hurricanes. Unfortunately, they only provided the death numbers, not how they died. It could possibly be explained due to the lack of any warning, though that doesn't explain why in the 1800s, when there is more population but not much more warning, the deaths went down. However, after trying a good google search I can't the answer, so I won't add it. I put the up-to-date, satellite image on all of the List of Florida hurricanes pages. Ultimately, the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject is going to develop an infobox for these List of XXX hurricanes pages, and I think that image is an appropriate one (either that or Hurricane Andrew). I've tried looking, but I have no idea where to find editors who specialize in SVG diagrams. Come to think of it, might it be better replacing it with an existing map with cities on it? The deadly storms list is taken directly from the article and doesn't need a source. The duplicate entries are there because they are listed in different places, and it is now unknown if they were different storms or are the same. Thanks for reviewing it. Anything I touch always needs a pair of fresh eyes to make sure I didn't do anything stupid. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I've found some old newspaper articles, though I'm not sure what you're looking for. Here, for example, includes a description of a hurricane that hit the Florida panhandle, but it's a bit long and narrow. Hurricanes back then rarely got the front page headline. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try asking WikiProject Maps to do you a nice map. The roadmap isn't readable at the size used and is also historically out-of-place. I see your source has some doubts over duplicates and accuracy of death information. I think that any doubts should be noted in the list. Given that your Deadly storms list gives "known deaths", it should perhaps exclude those entries with doubt about the numbers or doubt about whether it is a duplicate. The newspaper photo I was thinking of was a photo in a newspaper, not a photo of a newspaper. But the latter might be appropriate if cropped to mainly the headlines. I don't know the copyright status of the link you gave. Colin°^Talk 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've requested for an even better map, a map that includes the tracks of hurricanes from 1851 to 1899 over Florida. The person I asked is an admin and a bit busy, so I'll see if he has the time. Unfortunately, indicating my doubt would be original research, so I don't think I should. For the deadly storms, omitting them due to me believing they were duplicates is also original research. According to the official source, there were two storms that caused 700 deaths around the same year in a similar location, and unfortunately I have to accept it. I've only included those known to have caused a number of deaths. As stated, there are some whose death toll was described as "some" or "several", though for the purpose of that table they shouldn't be included. Photos in newspaper of hurricanes are rare, first of all, for that time period, and when they are available they're generally copyrighted. For a scan of the newspaper, {{newspapercover}} could be used. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no need for OR. Your first ref has "may" in the title (compare second ref). The 1553 events have a footnote "Peterson (1975), Douglas (1958), and Marx 91983) have similar descriptions of what may be just one event.". The 19 Sep 1559 event doesn't have a usable number-of-deaths in the refs you have. If you restrict the Deadly storms to just the accurate ref 2, then the problem goes away and fits nicely with the "known deaths" restriction. Wrt copyright: have a look at template "PD-art". Colin°^Talk 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, for that first one, it lists the number of deaths for some, but not others. I think due to the uncertainty and lack of a definitive answer, it should be left as it is. For the "PD-art", it says "life of the author plus 100 years", correct? I doubt that time has passed, as images in newspapers probably didn't become popular until at least the 1870s, and we don't know if the authors lived another 35 years or not. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, I put in the new image, and removed the others that were unneeded. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I would like to see the list data put into reasonably attractive tables. Such a layout makes it much easier for readers to navigate the list's data. It's also not too terribly difficult to do either. See List of Quebec premiers for a model that could be adapted (sans photos) to FL hurricane list. --Zantastik talk 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know, that is against the format for the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject, which uses this format. This was modeled on the other featured tropical cyclone lists; South America tropical cyclones, Delaware hurricanes, and New Jersey hurricanes. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. There's no requirement to use tables, and probably only makes sense if you can think of several columns. Colin°^Talk 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• previous FLC archive

Self-nomination. Resubmitting this list as I believe all problems from its last nomination have been adressed and it now fully meets FL criteria. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How can you be sure it's complete? Tompw (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the main references have been covered, if that's what you mean. But, like any Wikipedia article, I doubt it will ever be fully complete. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the dynamic list template. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand its a dynamic list. I should have said "comprehensive" rather than complete. Have you considered media other than film/TV/music? (e.g. radio, books, internet, comics, modern art, computer games...) Tompw (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mainly due to the references and not comprehensive wrt covers.
  • The lead paragraphs could do with some copyediting. For example, phrases and words are repeated. Adjectives are adoring ("massive"). Try to become a dispassionate music reporter.
  • Generally, IMDB isn't regarded as a reliable source as much of the content is anonymously user-contributed like Wikipedia, and has very limited editorial review. The trivia pages in particular are very much deprecated (which is the source for several movie items). The soundtrack might be a bit more reliable but if you have the film, then usually the soundtrack is detailed on the end credits. If AC/DC is mentioned in the credits then you can use {{Cite video}} and cite the movie directly.
  • TV.com has the same problems as IMDB. I can sign up and add any guff. This affects the Simpsons items. You may be able to use the episode as a primary source via {{Cite episode}}, provided you meet the WP:NOR policy on what you can glean from such a source.
  • The My Name is Earl source is a personal fan site. No editorial control means not a reliable source.
  • The Covers Project is based on data from MusicBrainz, which is user-contributed. Although this isn't a reliable source, their list of AC/DC covers should be helpful and appear to be longer than your list.
  • The "Tributes and covers by other artists" section appears to be unordered. I suggest you split tribute albums from individual cover songs (not on tribute albums). You might find it helpful to use a table (columns for date, artist, album, song, etc). The sort order could either be publication date or artist name.
  • A dynamic list such as this is rarely served well by general references (the bullet points). The general refs you list are either unspecific (the whole of Rolling Stone) or are personal fan sites (though they may be useful to you as an editor since their lists of covers gives you an idea of what to search for elsewhere).

I could list more but you get the idea. Finding reliable sources for pop culture is difficult. Try searching online quality newspapers and professional music and film magazines. Colin°^Talk 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: IMDb is reasonably authoritative on credits, since they get those from official sources. As you say, trivia, comments, etc. are user-contributed and fails Reliable Source. --129.241.210.96 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Best work: This information is completed with details that no other websites could offer. All York Regional Roads are listed, with its specific terminuses, cities, and additional notes.
2. Easy to navigate: All York Regional Roads are ordered in numerical orders, also provided York Regional Road shields to further enhance the reading.
3. Well-Constructed: Information sorted in a numerical way, with legends and notes on the top explaining the list.
4. Comprehensive: Covers all York Regional Roads, provide additional information from our WP:GHR members' experience.
5. Stable: Not in any edit wars.
6. Up-To-Date: All information is up-to-date. For example, recently the York Region governament added York Regional Road 24 (Highway 50), and York Regional Road 48 (Markham By-Pass) as York Regional Roads. These information are all included.
7. Images: Provides York Regional Road shields to further enhance readings, and give an idea to readers what those shields mean as an identification of a York Regional Roads.
8. Factually accurate: Information taken from atlases, and experiences of WP:GHR's workteam.
9. Layout: Easy to read, information divided into precise headings. Information is very easy to find.

The list should be nominated as a featured list because this list provides complete information of ALL York Regional Roads. The list is filled with complete information, and images to help explain the list. As stated in the criteria, the list is accurate, stable (not in any edit wars), and well-constructed. The list also provides references. No other websites could offer such a information-enriched list.

--Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Extreme Strong Support. I agree with Smcafirst. All information are included, and looks decent to me. The shields enhanced my reading a bit, but more image would be better. --Stephy100--A person who loves music! 21:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Note another suspected sock - < 100 edits, mostly to userpage. First non-userpage edit is to say hello to the nominator of this FLC. Has < 10 mainspace edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to get carried away. "Support" is sufficient, though your enthusiasm is nice :-) Tompw (talk)

• support. Could not agree more than Stephy100. Mix Precipitation 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Suspected sock. Only 4 edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose:
  1. Needs a proper introduction (Featured list criterium 2a), which includes such details as where this particular York is (especially as York is the English city). It should also include contents of "Boundaries of York Region" in prose form. The exsisting text in the intro should not be bolded italic.
  2. The material in the "Additional Notes/Traffic" column isn't referenced. (Featured list criterium 1c).
  3. The list does not have large majority of blue links. (Featured list criterium 1a). You could argue that some of these roads aren't notable to have articles of their own, but you haven't. Also, some of them clearly are, so it's quite hard to see why some are and some aren't.
  4. "&=Where the road loses its York Regional Road Identity." This means what exactly?
  5. "This page is part of the York Region Road Construction Project. For details, click here." This should not be on the article; the place for wikiproject info is the talk page.
  6. Reference needs to be properly formatted.
  7. "Twin Articles" should be entitled "See also".

  Tompw (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Without wishing to quench your obvious enthusiasm for roads, I suspect this nomination will fail since there's too much to do to bring it up to standard. Spend some time investigating WP style guides and policies, particularly on Original Research. The "Additional Notes/Traffic" is almost pure OR. I don't know what your Road Atlas contains, but if you've gleaned the information from looking at a road map, then that probably counts as OR too. Personally, I think trying to list all roads in a region falls into the indiscriminate collection of information category. Wikipedia is not a road atlas. If every road and intersection was listed in detail, it would become tedious. Some things are better handled visually, and by other web sites. While some of these roads clearly are notable, many won't be. The linking is odd: Yonge Street is linked to York Regional Road 1 rather than Yonge Street. The latter is a far better article. Looks like your project needs to coordinate article naming. You may wish to consider Peer Review prior to any future nomination. Colin°^Talk 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I oppose the reasonings for the two users above. I think regional roads make a lot of contribution to the local developements of economics and other areas. I agree with Smcafirst. It does not matter that there are dead links, it just reminds people to start adding articles about those items. All regional roads that I could think of are there.

--CSI or CIS 22:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Note suspected sock - total 10 edits, and see userpage for an interesting revelation. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong with a list containing redlinks. However, to become a featured list, then the list must have a large majority of links ot exsisting articles (blue links). That is part of the Featured list criteria. Also, there are other objections (references, formatting, introduction) that need to be addressed. Tompw (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Total oppose - The notes section is original analysis/commentary. Lead is too short and choppy sentences in the lead. Too many redlinks. Please use inline citations. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• References, footnotes? Appropriate pictures? Oppose for now. Daniel.Bryant 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self-nomination. This is a list of kinds of membranophones (e.g. drums). There are several ways to categorize membranophones, and these categories include an array of confusing terms. I think this list does a good job of presenting them and explaining their meaning.

Please also check out List of Caribbean drums - I plan on making a series of regional lists like these, so let me know if you have any suggestions there. Thanks, Tuf-Kat 04:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the title is a bit misleading, as it lists varieties rather than specific membranophones. Perhaps membranophone classification or List of membranophone types? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not comprehensive. This is more a discussion of ways of classifying membranophones than a list of instruments. The actual term membranophone is (to me, a non musician) a rather artificial classification itself rather than an everyday word. Therefore, I suggest this be merged into the classification-term membranophone, which is currently a stub. Colin°^Talk 07:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (oops)[reply]
• Oppose per guy that didn't sign. Just not comphrehensve, doesn't tell me much.--Wizardman 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to nominate this article as I believe that it is complete and that it won't see any substantial changes in the future.

It fulfills all criterias listed. It is accurate as far as today's research goes. The victories are sometimes adjusted afterwards when new material is available and that is also the case with this one - the numbers were corrected when entry to former Soviet archives was given in the 1990s. The article is stable and logically constructed. It has a concise lead section that describes its content. The images have also acceptable copyright status. --MoRsE 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The period/full stop is used as the decimal separator on English Wikipedia, not the comma. The first two columns of the first table have no headings. Also regarding that table, I would expect to see total victories somewhere more prominent. Perhaps name, total victories, breakdown, squadrons and notes - last of all. I prefer to see a key at the beginning of a long table rather than having to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the table or bottom of the page to see if it exists and then all the way back up. Rmhermen 21:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A : I have now tried to address the problems. The commas were a leftover that I forgot to change from my corresponding Swedish article. I have now also moved the columns in the suggested order. --MoRsE 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional oppose
  • Comment:
    • Plain text introduction could be much longer.
    • The tables interfere with the infobox - bad layout.
    • The tables could benefit from some color to make it easier to keep track of the crevices and usually the header is also colored. I suggest to take the standard color of military history infoboxes for the header of each table and a much lighter shade of it for the crevices.
    • Every single number has to be referenced for verifiability. Shouldn't be too much trouble with these two books.Wandalstouring 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Several issues:

• The lead needs to be expanded. It should at least include the definition of "ace" and a few sentences describing the Finnish Air Force's involvement in WWII.
• Is the infobox necessary? It messes up the formatting for me, the first table is pushed down. The lead should contain a link to the Finnish Air Force article, which would make the infobox unneccesary.
• I'm not at all familiar with air forces and such, and the column headings of the first table confuse me. I'm assuming "Fokker D.XXI", "Gloster Gladiator", etc. are planes. Do the numbers indicate how many of those planes the ace shot down? If so, why are there some half numbers (e.g. 2.5, 6.5)? This should be explained in a few sentences before the table. The plane types, if that's what they are, should be linked. Also, there should be a brief explanation of what the "Mannerheim Cross" is and why it is important enough to be included in the table.
• Okay, reading down a bit I see that "Fokker D.XXI", "Gloster Gladiator", etc. are indeed planes. Does "won victories with the Fokker D.XXI" mean "won victories while flying the Fokker D.XXI" or "won victories against the Fokker D.XXI"?
• The tables after the first one present a sorted view of information that was already included in the first table. If you make the first table sortable (see National debt by U.S. presidential terms for an example) then the other tables become redundant.

Jwillbur 01:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLC (07:14, 11 August 2008)

first FLC (15:51, February 9, 2007)