Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2008

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

The list was not promoted 22:08, 28 February 2008.

previous FLC (04:20, 5 January 2008)

After the last FLC, the list has gone a major overhaul, and I now feel it is ready to be scrutinised by the community on regards to whether it is to become a Featured List. I feel it meets all the criteria and hopefully you will feel the same. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • The Years Won column doesn't sort correctly (and I wonder if it needs to sort at all?)

 Done NapHit (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Don't think you need that notes column since you're referencing [1] 11 times in that small section.

Is there any way I could just have one column instead of 11 then? NapHit (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you'd need to tinker with colspan settings (I'm no expert I'm afraid!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking that the two of you mean "rows" and "rowspan" instead of "columns" and "colspan" ? If yes, I've updated the table to (hopefully) do what you had in mind. Otherwise, sorry, I missed the point. Schutz (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh that's what we meant, thanks for your help, much appreciated NapHit (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk. Silly me, I'm 90 degrees out of spec. Apologies for the confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it was helpfup; I let you let reproduce the code in the other tables, which could also benefit from this. Schutz (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think it's worth describing how the Community Shield could be "shared".
  • Similar concerns with the first appearances table, and since it's sortable, I'd wikilink Callaghan on every line.
  • Doig and Thompson should have articles in my opinion.

Will create them soon NapHit (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • These sections appear to have the same data twice, once in introductory prose and then, again, in the table. Is there a reason for this?

Not really just left over from when I previously edited the list for FLC in December,

• • You have a table which has different things in the same Total column - not too good. That same table also sorts incorrectly on the dates.

 Done NapHit (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • You have a season in amongst the total column for goals scored - looks poor.

 Done NapHit (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Goals record table is sortable on the total despite the totals being in different units.

 Done NapHit (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oldest, youngest goal scorer table - 17 years, 144 days, not just 17, 144 days.

 Done NapHit (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Overall I'm not too keen on the continual use of the sortable tables, particularly in sections which simply don't need tables (like where you have only two rows).
• So still some work before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments TRM, I feel the prose is useful in the player record section, but if you feel it necessary I will delete it in the club record section, as I'm not sure if it's needed. Thanks for your time NapHit (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Some comments.
• Could more articles be made for the honours? Such as the 1984 Football League Cup Final.
• Max Thompson and Ted Doig need articles.
• As stated by The Rambling Man, I'm not sure on the large usage of tables. I'm sure just using the "*..." layout of other lists, like in the featured Ipswich list, would be fine. For example, the table for youngest and oldest appearance holders.
• Could the International section be expanded?
• "Record Victory" - no need for victory to be capitalised.
• The fees in "Transfer fees" could do with being right aligned, so they match up correctly.

Thanks. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Outstanding comments
  • I'd say the Honours section feels a little incomplete with only links shown for created articles. Articles need creating for the remaining Leauge Cup finals and UEFA Super Cup, assuming they're notable.
  • "Most appearances" table needs a reference.
  • Captions for images need full stops.
    • Sorry to butt in. Captions need full stops if the caption is a whole sentence, but if it isn't, e.g. "Fernando Torres, Liverpool's record signing", it shouldn't have a full stop. See WP:MOS#Captions. Struway2 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer fees need to be correctly aligned, which could be done using {{0}}.
  • Could any more firsts be found? Such as the first match in Euorope?

Getting there. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This list is well-referenced and has appropriate images. It does need a bit of work on the layout, particularly with the use of (sortable) tables where a bulleted list or no list/table at all might be preferable. Some comments:

• Lead para 2. In sentence 1 Liverpool are one of the most successful clubs in England, in the 3rd sentence they're the most successful. You need to decide what this paragraph needs to say, and then probably rewrite it from scratch.
• Lead para 3. Have a look at the Ipswich para 2, it works quite well.
• Honours prose. In "domestically and in European Cup competitions", cup wants a small 'c'. If the number of times Liverpool have won any of the cup competitions is a record, then mention that in the prose, otherwise listing the number of times they won various cups only duplicates what appears in the table.
• Honours table. In "Years Won", won wants a small 'w'.
• Another way round the Notes column problem would be to close your prose section with a sentence introducing the table, saying something like "Liverpool's honours include the following:", and then put the reference at the end of that sentence. Then return the Notes column to one line per comp and use for specific notes.
• You may want to explain why the Lancashire League win is worthy of notice.
• Some of your links go to redirects (the League Cup finals are generally of the format yyyy Football League Cup Final rather than Football League Cup Final yyyy) which you may want to fix if you're going in there anyway.
• Appearances section. Your prose bits (apart from Elisha Scott) just duplicate what appears in the tables, which seems a bit pointless. If you don't like the bulleted format as used in the Ipswich list, I'd lose the tables and just keep the prose.
• Goalscorers section likewise.
• Top scorers table needs a reference.
• Club records section might work better as a bulleted list.
• Sortable tables in general. They don't necessarily render or sort properly if the table contains cells extending over multiple rows or columns, apparently even if the offending column is unsortable. See Help:Sorting#Limitations. For the transfer fee tables, you could work round it with an introductory All transfer details are sourced from LFChistory.net followed by the specific reference, then you can lose the Notes column.
• Transfer fees ought really to align on the decimal point. (Adding a {{0}} spacer before the single-digit-million amounts, like {{0}}£6m, seems to work, and doesn't affect the sorting in Firefox or IE6). Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You could add an external link to the club website.

Hope this doesn't sound like I'm saying rip it apart and do it again (though it probably does). I just had a look back at the appearances and goalscorers sections in the version I peer-reviewed, which was before you added all the small tables; thought it looked better then. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matters arising

• Sorting the transfer fee tables. For some browsers, if any cell of a table covers more than one row, it does mess up the sorting. Perhaps it isn't a problem on your browser, but what happens for me using Firefox 2.0 when I sort any column of those tables, is that a line appears dividing the Notes column into two sections, the footnote number appears in the centre of the lower of these two sections, and the bottom border of the notes column disappears. In IE6 the same happens except the bottom border remains intact.

• Also, the number column doesn't sort numerically if you start with a cell containing an equals sign in the top row.

• Top goalscorers table. It needs a reference - or probably more than one - that covers all the entries in the table. The book source supplied probably covers the older players, but the more recent ones, certainly Steven Gerrard, must have come from elsewhere. And as Matty says, the appearances table needs a reference/references as well.

• Arising from that, you've got a problem with anons updating. A featured list shouldn't really need updating every time Liverpool have a game. Don't know what can be done about that. (Incidentally, you may want to check last night's anon edits, I'm not convinced they got it right.)

• I took the liberty of adding your Lancashire League win (first ever trophy) to the prose in the Honours section. I see why you took it out of the major honours table but it deserved a mention somewhere. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• More comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) - I've done another run through since NapHit contacted me to say a lot of rework has taken place.
  • Please add punctuation (full stops) to notes.
  • "Most Overall " - small o(verall).
  • " Phil Neal, 417 (From" (et seq) - make it f(rom).
  • Link hat trick on it's first use (and make sure you get the right hat trick!!).
  • "(During" (et seq) - small d(uring).
  • Fastest hat-trick versus whom?
  • Link Wales to Wales national football team. Check all other first instances are linked to appropriate national teams.
  • Consider relinking things like European Cup if in a new section.
  • "Most league wins in a season: 30 wins out of 42 games (Duri" - cap D again! I won't say it again - there are more so check for them all.
  • Most and fewest league wins - which league?
  • Same with defeats, which league?
  • "Fewest goals scored in a season: 42 in 34 and 42 games (During the 1901–02 and 1970–71 seasons).[18]" - I'd say 42 in 34 games (during the ..) and 42 in 42 games (during the...).
  • Use the {{sortname}} template in the transfers tables - it currently sorts by first name.
• Certainly an improvement on when I first reviewed it! Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 17:44, 27 February 2008.

This list was based on another featured list I had promoted, The Corrs discography. I believe this article satisfies the criteria as it is well sourced, the information is extensive although she has only released two albums. Please take a look and voice your opinions. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 11:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's been a long road, but all of my suggestions have been taken into account or shown to be stupid suggestions in the first place. Definitely a great list! Drewcifer (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For some reason, a bunch of things I suggested have been reverted/undone. Changing my vote back to Oppose. Drewcifer (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assure you that this was reverted and changed. Further discussion is required before changing the layout is changed again. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 04:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been reverted, so I un-reoppose. Or re-support. Or something like that. And for the record, Scorpion has a good point (about citations in the table headers), though this isn't a deal breaker for me. Drewcifer (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the stuff I'd included already but someone reverted it. It is now there will further suggestions that you've made. Also, not sure about the source attribution, some sources don't have enough information on their attribution. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 23:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

1. We don't need album informatiom. If anybody wants to know album info, they can see in their pages. It doesn't look good and it is unnecessery.
2. How do you know that a song did release in some formats, but fail to chart?

--Langdon (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Comment Firstly, although the article is a discography, it still requires information on the discographies mentioned, particularly albums as it is the basis of the artist's work. Secondly, the songs that failed to chart are verified by the sources that I've provided at the table. It is kinda obvious for example in Bless the Broken Road was a digital download, hence it qualifies for the digital charts, although it did not make the chart. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 03:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all of my comments addressed, fine piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't like seeing citations in the table headers, so could those refs be moved to the bottom and used as general refs? (like this) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the two previous users were fine with it. I don't know, should we have a concensus? σмgнgσмg^(talk) 04:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had like them like that though. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

Repeat again. About All the Changes I really appreciate Omghgomg who work very hard on this discography. But I ought to point out the things I don't like.

1.Albums
Previous

Current

compare these 2. in the second one the notes make every row spacious. that is not a good thing. so I suggest several ways to avoid this, but Omghgomg did not listen.

1. the label: I suggest that we can move to a new column, like Reba McEntire discography. or if the artist has only a label at this time period, we can mention at the top. but it seems like that Omghgomg didn't allow any notes at the top, and he thinks repeating things is good, like his model example, The Corrs discography.
2. the format: this part is deleted, but I have to mention it again. most albums release in CD format, and sometimes in digital download form. they are similar in every album, so we don't have to repeat again and again. I think the best solution is add a note at the top.
3. the release date: like I've said, we can briefly know when a album is out by looking at the year column. month and date is not very important because most country artist do not release 2 albums in the same year. it is not really necessery. and, do we have to do the same thing to singles too?
4. the certifications: for this part, I prefer the first one because it is clearer than the 2nd one.

if over 90% of discographies are edited like that way, I won't argue again. I know some featured discographies did that way, but that is not a rule. we don't have to skick to other pages. if we can save some space, why don't we? and a my point is to factorthe same things out, and don't repeat the same thing so many times.

2.Singles & Other Charted Songs
I like the note system very much. it works much better. one day I will make a change in all country discography.
one thing I want to point out is the horizontal lines. the note says, ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." what do you mean? is it release to all formats but fail to chart some of the formats or release to that format but fail to chart? Like "Some Hearts", the song release to pop and AC format only. hot 100 contains any format of music, so I don't know if the song fails to chart. but it didn't release to country radio, the song don't have to chart. it is the same thing in other charted songs. the songs there didn't even RELEASE. the lines there should be deleted.

3.Miscellaneous appearances
I think the chart positions of "Do You Hear What I Hear" and others should be move to this section, either merge or create a new box. they are the same, but separated into 2 different sections. it is weird.

4.Music videos
it is an irony here. Omghgomg created another column to denote directors but didn't allow me to put label in a new column. what reason is that?????

5.Making Changes
since Omghgomg have come, making changes become more difficult. I've suggest a way to change this: "change first, then leave a message, and we can discuss keep it or kick it." I think it is better than "discuss first, change later," in that case we might never change a thing because no one answer to it at all. we should also copy the messages to the featured list discussion, so everyone can see them.
there are too few poeple to response to making changes, and because of the old way, we can never change a thing. compare to these 2 pages, 2006 in country music and 2008 in country music, you can see that the 2008 one is not worse than 2006 one. and please don't say "no other pages do that". it is ridiculous.

--Langdon (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Okay, I will aim to address these issues one by one:

1. A column should only be used if it is discussing another aspect of information, in other words, looking at the topic from a completly different view. The label column is not necessary as it only provides a few information about the CD itself. Mind you, I've simply using other featured list discographies' templates to create this one. Out of all the featured discographies, only Hilary Duff discography, Wilco discography and Red Hot Chili Peppers discography don't have this format because they don't mention the record label at all. Remember, this article must comply with the WP:WIAFL criteria, and in that, it must be comprehensive. Being comprehensive means that it covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject. This also applies for the format and release date(s), as the article needs to be thorough. So what if it takes extra space, it doesn't matter. As for the table on music videos, the extra column for directors is necessary as it is showing another aspect of the information, the director. If you think it is hypocritical of me, then we can delete the column and place the director of every music video in every row. I don't mind.
2. The certifications do not need to be in the way you proposed. Sure, you may like it, the users that have reviewed the article were fine with the current layout.
3. As for the dashes, I will quote from User:Drewcifer3000 who has had much more experience in writing discographies than me (he mentioned it in the discussion above):

"The little legend thing doesn't say "— denotes releases that were given to particular radio stations but did chart" and it doesn't say "— denotes releases that were official releases but did not chart". It just says "— denotes releases that did not chart" which takes care of all the bases. If a single wasn't given to a radio station, then it didn't chart. If it wasn't an official release, then it too did not chart. I think you're making things too complicated. The legend is worded broadly to cover all the bases, so that you don't have to worry about things on a per-radio station/per single basis. If it charted, put the number, if it didn't, put the dash. It's pretty simple. The only exception I could imagine is one like the CAN Hot 100, where the chart didn't exist. And the footnote explains that quite clearly."

1. I've already explained to you the differences between the miscellaneous appearances and other charted songs. Let me reiterate that: "There is still a very big line that seperates these two. Other charted songs are songs that have garnered attention to be popular enough to have airplay on the radio. Miscellaneous appearances are songs which Carrie Underwood has collaborated with, that are featured in other albums. These two can sometimes inter-twine, but their differences are still evident."

Hope that addresses your concerns. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course those answers don't address my concerns.

1. what about didn't allow any notes at the top? did you even see it?
2. please improve Reba McEntire discography. delete the label column, and use the same way as in carrie underwood discography.
3. Miscellaneous appearances: you've missed my point.
4. the ceritfication: if you are fine with original one, then I will change it back. it exists quite a long time before you came in.
5. dashes: if you don't mind, we can delete dashes in other charted songs and we can denote that the blank is that "release but didn't chart."
6. you completely ingore Making Changes section. please tell me your opinion.
7. answer these question:

• 1. why do we always have to follow other featured discographies? why can't we change?
  2. my whole point is: to factor out repeated words, and make it simpler. why it is not allowed?

by Langdon (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Please clarify what you mean... but I like the way that you've reorganised the layout of the article. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The layout did not work... let us make this simplier, the table of Other Charted Songs contains the peak chart position of songs that are from Miscellaneous Appearances and songs that are not her miscellaneous appearances but still weren't offically released as a single. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of all the disputing, so I've requested third opinions from other users. Feel free to voice what you think should be addressed in terms of the layout. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support - just add the album for "Bless the Broken Road". (Also, consider having the relase date of label of albums as seperate columns). Tompw (talk) (review) 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bless the Broken Road" didn't really have an album, it was only a digital release, so I'd just placed a dash on it. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 06:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The lede is a little short for my tastes, but it's well-cited, which is good enough. The layout is pleasant and easy to understand, and the color coding beneath the artist picture is a particularly nice touch. Citations check out as reliable, and everything looks good from the point of view of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the music industry. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There really isn't a solid consensus as to how discography tables should be sorted, but otherwise, everything looks fine to me. I see no reason to oppose; everything seems to meet featured list criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like some of the format edited by Omghgomg. I'm going to hold a vote. the catigories include: notes under albums, certifications, dashes, the position of albums in single and song table. I need everybody's opinions.

Please see WP:Voting, in particular the quote "Voting is not a substitute for consensus." My own opinion is that the scope of this particular discussion has gone beyond this single FLC. I would recommend closing this FLC with the intention of renominating it later, and posing the question of formatting elsewhere (Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or the WP:FLC talk page would probably be the best place to start). That way, a discussion (rather than a straw poll) can be started beyond the scope of Carrie Underwood fans. Drewcifer (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote for one of them.

• vote for 4. Langdon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]
  1. 4 as it's most concise. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Concise is not an issue in this article, what matters is readability and comprehensiveness. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Voting for 2. It contains the most information without sacrificing readability. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• voted for #4. BravesFan2006 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Voted for 1 - except we can get rid of the format section. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote for one of them.

• vote for the right one. Langdon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]
• Right one. It's easier to understand with a quick glance. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Right one. BravesFan2006 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Left one. Don't know why, maybe its just me. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Right, it's easier to read. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"—" denotes releases that did not chart.

"blank" denotes releases that did not chart.

Please vote for one of them.

• vote for lower one. Langdon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]
• Dashes is the way for me. Blanks are ambiguous and should never be used to denote anything.--Crzycheetah 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Blanks I don't think that blanks are ambiguous at all, and I think that dashes look ugly in a table. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We can't have blanks in an article because in the article, there is a table with blanks in it already. That is in the singles table. The blanks represent the fact that the CAN Hot 100 was not established at the time of the single. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blanks per TenPoundHammer --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dashes per Crzy. Blanks could be interpreted as the information not having been entered. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Blanks BravesFan2006 (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dashes per Crzycheetah. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote for one of them.

• vote for lower one. Langdon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)i7114080[reply]
• bottom one. BravesFan2006 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Top one. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Bottom, it synchronizes better with the song names. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relocated the voting in the talk page. So, this nomination can just simply be failed and archived. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 08:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that there is no consensus whatsoever on any of these formatting concepts. This FLC is not really the place to discuss a manual of style for these - I suggest (as I believe Drewcifer did above) you centralise this discussion at WP:MUSIC and close this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's fail this nomination for now so we can improve and resolve the ongoing dispute. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 07:29, 25 February 2008.

Self nomination. I have worked on this a lot over the past week or so and after reviewing the featured list criteria, believe this qualifies as a featured list. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 11:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at the moment. It's a monumental piece of work and I have a few comments:
  • Lead is very short indeed. I know there is prose further on but a couple of summary style paragraphs at the beginning would do no harm.
  • Year ranges need to use en-dash, not hyphens.

Y STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The "cruse" begins? Typo - check thoroughly for any more.

Y STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 12:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The tables in regular season results are malformed - there appears to be an extra column sneaking around there.

Y STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 12:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Bold, italicised and normal fonts for the seasons - I understand what they're for on a second reading but a key (or explanation, possibly in the lead) would be useful.

Y STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • A lot of overlinking - the tables aren't sortable so you wouldn't need to relink American League (say) every line.
  • "The first modern World Series, the Red Sox defeated Pittsburgh." - it looks like the third one to me? Confused.
  • Early years section starts with a full stop and new line.
  • The prose sections are nice but unreferenced.
  • Any reason for the (at least) three different results formats in the playoffs section?
  • Actual scorecards for individual games is getting really down into the trivia - the article is about seasons, not a specific season.
  • If you need so many sections, look at suppressing the table of contents to maybe level 2 - it's far too long at the moment!
• Hope some of the comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment

This is a good piece of work but I think that the post season tables etc look really messy and horrible. I think it would be better to get rid of them or to dramatically clean them up. 02blythed (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

• I’m not familiar with baseball, so what is “post-season” performance? Sports I’m familiar with (soccer, rugby, cricket), there isn’t usually any post season games unless they involve the national team.

Y STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 11:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ”Division champions” and “Wild Card Berth” mean nothing to the uneducated reader.

Y STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 11:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• January 2, 1920, not January 2, 1920.

Y   jj137 (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ”Hitting 29.” Balls? Home runs?

Y   jj137 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the comments from the headers, such as “The curse begins”, “the slump continues”, “Ted Williams and World War II” et al. Only the years are needed.

Y STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark about Earl Webb needs a reference.

Y   jj137 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• From the lead: where are the Boston Red Sox? To a reader unfamiliar with America, it could be unclear.

Y STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 11:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't see any changes here.. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y I think I fixed it, or is it too short?   jj137 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What is Major League Baseball? – professional, semi, etc? Look at the first 3 paragraphs in the lead for Boston Red Sox for an idea of what I’m getting at.
  • Boston Red Sox says "The Boston Red Sox are a professional baseball team based in Boston, Massachusetts…" something along these lines would help the lead. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y   jj137 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The term “charter member” and “upon its arrival as a major league” are utterly confusing to me and without explanation.
• In the ‘’’Key’’’ section, it may be worth saying “American League champion” instead of “AL champion”, as AL hasn’t been explained.
• A reference is needed for “Before the team was called the Boston Red Sox, they were the Boston Americans.”
• "As the Americans” – is it “Boston Americans”, or “Americans”?
• Merge the third sentence re 1907 with the first.
• Curse of the Bambino , Harry Frazee and Babe Ruth need expanding. I don’t want to click another link to find out, so even one sentence each would be better than nothing.
• I’m pretty sure “Legend has it” are WP:Weasel words and the sentence also need a reference. I’m skeptical on its encyclopaedic value, also.
• I don’t understand “Games behind” well, but I’m assuming it means how many game wins the Red Sox had versus the winner of that year. But how do you get to a half a game?
• The years in the headers should be en-dash, not dash.

Y   jj137 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • OK, now the colons need removing, too. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y   jj137 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• References are needed for each section’s paragraphs.
• ”era of the team sometimes called the "Ted Sox."” – is this WP:OR or can you find a reference?
• "Yawkey would acquire Lefty Grove, one of the greatest pitchers of all-time, Joe Cronin, an outstanding shortstop and manager, Jimmie Foxx, the slugging first baseman, and Wes Ferrell, a pitcher.” Is Lefty one of the greatest pitchers, or Joe Cronin? Is Joe an outstanding shortstop and manager, or is Jimmie? Etc. And also seems like original research and WP:Peacocky. References also needed.
• ”Williams is generally considered one of the greatest hitters of all time, because he consistently hit for both high power and high average.” ”Stories of his ability to hold a bat in his hand and correctly estimate its weight down to the ounce have floated around baseball circles for decades. His book The Science of Hitting is widely read by students of baseball.” Says who? The whole paragraph sounds OR, weasely and peacocky, and needs references.

• I’ve stopped at the 1940s, because there’s already too much that needs fixing before I continue. A peer review would probably help if it hasn't gone through one already. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 20:51, 23 February 2008.

This list is directly modeled on FL List of Maryland state symbols, and closely matches similar Featured Lists such as List of Indiana state symbols and List of Kentucky state symbols. There are no redlinks, and every item (except for the state nickname and the state motto) has an appropriate free-use picture in place. Horologium (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments again, not an area of expertise for me, but I'll comment in general terms nevertheless.
  • The lead is far too short for me.
  • Also, the article seems a little dry, very little in the lists themselves to describe the relevance of the selection of each symbol.
  • "A red saltire (diagonal cross) on a white background, with the seal of Florida superimposed on the center." is formatted strangely - does it have <br> in the table for a good reason?  Done Fixed by using fixed pixel values for columns.
  • Suggest a separate column for notes and references.
  • I think some of the images could be cropped to improve their appearance at the low resolution you have in the table.
  • You have the same image for Orange blossom and Orange. Could you not find another suitable image for either just to break the repetitiveness?  Done Changed Orange photo using image from Commons.
  • Link license plates.  Done
  • "...although the basic elements have remained consistent..." quantify this statement.  Done Quoted statute and linked.
  • "1913-1935" - use en-dash for year range.  Done
  • Not sure you should have a See also with Florida in it - I'd expect a link in the opening sentences to Florida!  Done by Crzycheetah. See also section deleted.
• That's about it for me. Of all the comments, the lead is the biggest deal for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and fixed several of the issues. The lead is short, but all three of the other featured lists of this variety (List of Kentucky state symbols, List of Indiana state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols) have leads of similar length, as does current FAC List of Alabama state symbols; all of these articles follow a fairly standard template. That is why there are no descriptions in the list, because none of the featured lists are written in that way.

For the flag text, I broke it into lines because of a formatting issue; without the breaks, that one table expands all the way across the screen to fit, and no longer lines up with the other tables. I am not sure how to fix that, other than using fixed widths for the tables (which is to be avoided), and while there is no requirement for all the tables to be the same size (look at List of Kentucky state symbols, where all of the tables are different sizes), it certainly looks much better. The other option would be to delete the descriptive text entirely, as at the Indiana and Alabama lists. Horologium (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely opt for either fixing the width of the columns (don't know why that's to be avoided really) and while there's no requirement for them to be the same size, it would look pretty poor if they didn't. I haven't looked at the other featured lists of state symbols, while I'm sure that's how they've done it sounds like a reasonable argument, I'm reviewing this completely fresh so I'm not swayed by previous promoted articles. The same really applies to the lead for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using fixed width columns is an issue for people whose screen resolution is rather low; if the fixed width is larger than their horizontal resolution, they end up with a horizontal scroll bar, which is a huge annoyance. I'll take a look at fixing the total width at ≈500 px, which should be both wide enough for the text/pics and still fit in a VGA display. Horologium (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems reasonable. I'm using a 12" iBook so I have a horizontal res of around 1024 pixels which I reckon is close to the min. These days I would expect 99.99% of folks to be operating 800 pixels or above horizontally... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I went ahead and fixed all of the column widths at 100px. 200px, 100px, and 100px (total 500 px), so that old displays will not have a horozontal scroll bar. FWIW, my laptop display is 1920x1200, so it's sometimes a bit difficult to gauge how it will look on a lower resolution display. Horologium (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well close this now, as the standards have obviously changed (since the Alabama list just failed, and it was structured largely along the same lines as this one, albeit with some redlinks). Horologium (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 20:51, 23 February 2008.

This is another "version" of List of members of Stortinget 2005-2009, whose nomination ended with an unanimous promotion to featured status after some issues had been adressed. To summarize it meets FL criteria 1a, b, c, d, e, f, 2a, b, c and 3. Punkmorten (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments - I have a couple of minor concerns outstanding...
  • a) Not essential but I'd write stubs for the two members who don't have articles.
  • b) Is it worth wikilinking the constituencies?
  • c) Again may be my lack of understanding of Norwegian names but Karita Bekkemellem Orheim sorts by Bekkemellem not Orheim, Magnhild Meltveit Kleppa by Meltveit not Kleppa, May-Helen Molvær Grimstad by Molvær, not Grimstad.
  • d) What does "met in her place" mean?
• Very nearly ready to support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks
  • a) done - except for Kvakkestad whose bio was not available at the moment
  • b) I don't know... they could be linked once, but then that link won't always show up if you sort the columns by party or name. On the other hand, if all instances of the constituency are linked, that would be redundant...
  • c) fixed two of them, but I think Karita Bekkemellem Orheim should sort by Bekkemellem. Reason: She was born Karita Bekkemellem, then married Karita Bekkemellem Orheim but has now reverted to just Karita Bekkemellem.
  • d) to "meet" is to be present in a parliament session. When someone is away, the deputy meets in place of that person. Could be reworded?
• Punkmorten (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem.
  • a) cool, not a major worry.
  • b) since the list is sortable I would link them all. I know there's an issue of redundancy as you point out but in general, sortable lists with repeated wikilinking is fine (in my opinion)!
  • c) I'll take your word for it!
  • d) Yes, I think a footnote or something similar for the non-expert (like me) if you don't mind.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 20:51, 23 February 2008.

During the wind-down of 2007, I expanded and greatly improved this article by filling out missing info, adding pictures, and referencing it. For example, before I started, it had no references. Now it has over 100 inline cites. I also put it on peer review, but there were no comments other than the automated stuff. Hence, I feel that this list is now ready for featurehood. That's why I nominating it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - the writing could use a little copyedit. Those two things - thing is one of those words that should be avoided. On average, the eastern north Pacific sees an average of - redundancy. I'd like if the units in the rainfall section had some consistency in units. IMO, if the original source was XX.XX, that is, four significant digits, then the converted units should also have 4 significant digits. The station for Hurricane Kathleen and Tropical Storm Norma is a redlink, but it doesn't specify what state. For tables that cite Hurdat, I'd like if there was merely a column that said Source: Eastern Pacific Best Track<ref>hurdat</ref>, as that would help cut down on how many times it is cited. Just a little tidbit - the "earliest storm forming by number" says "only storms forming... NHC, EPHC, and United States Fleet Weather Central". However, there were no storms on that list prior to 1970, which is when the United States Fleet Weather Central operated. Was that intentional including it? Also, the section on "Earliest system by Category" includes some of the latest storms; either the title should be changed or the latest storms should be moved elsewhere. Adolph in 2001 needs a pressure. In the "Listed by intensity" - should Ava and Ioke be tied? I think "Greatest Duration" should have a mention that John 94 had the longest duration worldwide. Do off-season storms only include storms that form in that basin? If not, then Carmen in 1980 should be included in the Central Pacific, as it was included in the strongest storms by month section. In the damages section - "$84 million (198 USD) in damage". Which year was it? All in all, it's mostly minor things that need fixing up. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have followed your suggestions. Also, the senmtence about the forecasters was supposed to make it clear that systems moving in from elsewhere are not included. Since you interpreted that sentence completely differently than intended, I have made that more explicit. And yes, off-season storms only include those that form in the basin. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll support now, but there's still a few other things. How come Costliest Eastern Pacific hurricanes adjusted to 2005 USD is not in 2007 USD? Given that Unisys gets their data from HURDAT, I'd rather cite the best track, rather than using Unisys. I have a slight qualm that Carmen is counted as a CPAC system (in the pressure section), but it is not included in the off-season storms section. A few aspects were still unaddressed. First, shouldn't Ava and Ioke be tied, since they both had a pressure of 915 mbar? I'd like a mention of John in the "greatest duration" section, given that it was the longest-lasting cyclone worldwide, which is pretty notable. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 2007 numbers are now given. John was mentioned in the greatest duration secion. Ava and Ioke should now be tied. I don't think using Unisys is a problem, especially since other featured lists use it, and it is easier to look at a map than plot coordinate in an atlas. The CPHC does not call Carmen an out of season storm but does include it in its climatology. That's why Carmen is the way it is. Should an EPac May system cross into the Atlantic or CPac and be called an out-of-season storm, rest assured I'll change Carmen when that happens. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool, thanks. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose because it just looks and feels extremely disjointed, like a list of facts thrown at a wall and presented in the order they fell down in. I'm not quite sure how best to remedy it, but I do think it needs it. There's a lot of small tables here separated by small bits of text, with different styles and formats throughout. It just looks a bit sloppy IMO. --Golbez (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the headings were originally based on those in List of Atlantic hurricanes, I have added another level of headings and reordered sections into what I hope are more logical groups, eg all location sections are under one heading now. The small bits of text provide context for the following tables. For example, the bit of text before the off-season storms sections provides info about why those systems are out of season; namely, when hurricane season is. It's unreasonable to expect someone bumping their way through the encyclopedia to know out of the blue when hurricane season is. Without that bit of text, readers may have difficulty knowing why the out of season storms are out of season. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. There are a few issues here, I can't help but feel.
  • There's probably a reasonable answer for this - but why is the article called the "List of Pacific hurricanes" when it's actually about notable ones only? Have you considered renaming it?
  • Shouldn't the caption to the lead image end in a full stop, seeing as it comprises a complete sentence?
  • I personally don't much like using the Retired Pacific hurricanes template in-line with text; it's kinda cool to be able to, but just seems lazy. The article is over-run with tables, and some prose might help tidy it up.
  • "These killed 100 or more people." - maybe this should be "the following storms" or something, something a little nicer on the ear.
  • Surely it would be sensible to make the vast majority of tables sortable, or at least the pertinent columns sortable?
  • For sections like "Seasonal activity and records", it might look nice to centrally align some of the cells in the tables.
  • "Except for a one system,[36], tropical cyclones" - what's going on here?
  • The first paragraph in "Named named storms per month" is exactly the same as one in "Seasonal activity and records#Lowest". That's just criminal!
  • "Earliest and latest systems by Category" - any reason you capitalise "category"? I'm sure there is, to be honest.
  • As for the "Earliest and latest systems by Category" tables, WP:MOS says you should fully link the dates. Also, why not merge the rows for each storm?
  • There's a "catehory" to be found.

Gawd, I don't have time to read on. This article's a behemoth. I can't even comment on the content, seeing as I know nothing on the subject, but style-wise it still needs beautifying and tweaking. Seegoon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • See either talk:List of Atlantic hurricanes, talk:List of Pacific hurricanes, or talk:list of tropical cyclones for the reason. Basically, it was because "notable" is subjective.
  • The caption has been changed.
  • The sentence has been rewritten.
  • Which cells?
  • The offending sentence has been reqritten to indicate that one system in the best-track during the period in question had a name (C) while the rest don't.
  • The paragraphs are the same because they provide necessary context to enable readers to know why the tables are the way they are. Is it really necessary to vary the expression of the same information just for the sake of doing so?
  • "Category" is capitalized because it is being used as a proper noun. See for example the NHC's FAQ. I have changed the heading and rewritten part of the paragraohs to make it clearer why "Category" is a proper noun.
  • Years are now linked.
  • Spelling corrected.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My main objections are the huge TOC and the short lead. There's a huge amount of info in here, so making the list easy to naviagte in more important than usual. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I added some more information to the lead about what criteria are used in assembling the list. The TOC now has 4th-level headings suppressed. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 22:11, 21 February 2008.

Complete list of all 100 individuals that have played for the Melbourne Storm club over the past 10 seasons, with an appropriate numerical summary of their respective careers provided next to each and every player. The list meets all of the featured list criteria. mdmanser (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • The lead is far too short for me.
  • Are there any images at all which could be used to brighten the page up?
  • In my opinion, there are too many red links. If this is trying to meet FLC criteria 1-a-1 then it needs to bring together a set of existing articles which this does to a degree but not sufficiently in my opinion.
  • Statistics correct as of October 1, 2007? It's now Feb 2008.
  • It's probably a good idea to set some criteria for inclusion (e.g. 50 appearances, club record holders etc) rather than include all players - that's what a category is for. Plus, this list could become unmanageably big in years to come.
  • Multiple spells are clear from the multiple date ranges, no need for asterisk.
  • Names should sort by surname, not first name, see the {{sortname}} template.
  • The appearances, T, G, FG, P columns do not sort correctly.
  • Check all articles linked to are correct. A random check found...
    • Danny Williams links to a disambiguation page.
    • As does Tony Martin
    • As does Ben Anderson
    • Wayne Evans links to a Welsh rugby player, not an Australian as indicated in the table.
  • So it's an oppose at the moment, quite a bit of work to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 22:24, 19 February 2008.

This follows in the wake of the FLC of List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records. It is a list that contains the key records and statistics of Aston Villa F.C It is part of a drive towards featured topic status. This article has undergone a very recent peer review which fixed most problems I think. Feel free to prove me wrong... ;) Woody (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few comments.

• Reference [10] needs unbolding.
• Article should be made for the 1961 Football League Cup Final.
• Captions for the pictures of Marcus Allbäck and Olof Mellberg need commas adding. And "world cup" needs capitalising in Mellberg's picture.
• Reference [19] needs gap removing.
• More references needed for "International" section.
• So does "World Cup participants".
• Maybe this could be made sortable?
• "Record transfer fees" needs clarifying - is it the record paid or received? Not clear on sight.
• After seeing it is record transfer fees paid, what about record transfer fees received?
• Could the "Goals" section be expanded?
• Don't think "Record Wins" and "Record Defeats" need to be capitalised.
• Could a "Record consecutive results" section be added, like in the Ipswich article?
• I think the table in "Aston Villa in Europe" could be modified to give separate columns for the home and away results, like in the Ipswich article.
• And maybe explain how Villa qualified, like in the Ipswich article?

That's about it. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the easy stuff (ie fix refs, captions etc) I am working on getting refs for the internationals. I personally don't see the need for a tranfer fees received table. I don't see them as that important for the club. Woody (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A couple of other comments to add to the above

• v for versus is inconsistent, sometimes in italics sometimes not. I'd rather see it without, but it needs amending either way
• Can you supply more dates for games, where either just the year or month and year appears. Peanut4 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done the versus, working on the dates, thanks. Woody (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments hey guys, guess it's partly my fault we're here (you'll be glad to hear if you haven't already seen ITFC stats made FL last night), so here are some comments...

• When you're in there editing, bear in mind that articles such as 1888 in football (soccer) have now changed to 1888 in association football so it'd be neat to reduce the redirection (but only if you're editing something else as well!).
• European honours - paragraph is cited with [7], Intertoto cup is cited with [7] but nothing on European Cup and Super Cup... appears anomalous to me.
• What does "(1*)" signify in the Charity Shield? I guess shared but you state that afterwards so is it necessary?
• Shouldn't Year in the appearances table be Years?
• Try to get the top appearances and top tables the same widths...
• Wikilink the foreign teams to national football team pages rather than just countries.
• "This section lists all players who have played in a World Cup Finals game." - no other sections have a "this section..." - try a sentence or two about Villa's euro heroes and let the table speak for itself thereinafter! Also, centrally align the year in that table. Probably also worth wikilinking to FIFA World Cup somewhere around there.
• What about record player sales?

That's it for me... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This list is well-constructed – the basic format was used in a similar recently promoted list – and has plenty of appropriate images. Still needs a bit of work though. (Sorry about the amount of comments, though many are minor. Since peer-reviewing this list, my ideas about how these lists should work have solidified rather.)

• Lead needs a bit of a copyedit.
• Honours. In "domestically and in European Cup competitions", cup wants a small 'c'.
• The club article MoS recommends including second places while accepting that For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places, so you wouldn't include runners-up spots in the corresponding section of the main club article. However I do think it would be appropriate to include them here.
• Charity Shield doesn't need the asterisk as well as (shared).
• Appearances. You may want to add the division/competition in which your youngest and oldest players made their appearances.
• Goalscorers. Likewise for Mr Waring's league record. "Most League goals" wants a small 'l', and that line doesn't need to wikilink Waring and the season again.
• International. If you lead into this with a sentence saying something like This section refers only to caps won while an Aston Villa player, it'd save having to repeat the club name in every record.
• For Brown and Vaughton, could add their opponents.
• Each of these records needs a reference.
• As do World Cup participants.
• I'd expect to see record transfer fees received as well as paid.
• Goals. League wants a small 'l'. Consider adding fewest scored and most/fewest conceded.
• Matches. Consider adding first league match, first match at Villa Park. Add divisions to record league anythings.
• Record defeats. What's the difference between the 0-7s and the 7-0?
• Some records in this section are unreferenced.
• Aston Villa in Europe. Consider making two columns for the scores in the two legs. Either way, clarify what the scorelines refer to.
• Consider noting how Villa qualified for each competition.
• Should 2002 InterToto Cup not be 2001?

all for now, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 06:44, 16 February 2008.

And another of those obnoxious county lists... Geraldk (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The counties in "formed from" are linked; in the other lists I've seen lately, they haven't been, probably because they're redundant links with the first column, just in different places. Since there appear to be no defunct counties, the lack of such a section is no problem; so I vote Support, except that maybe we don't need width=100%. --Golbez (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and done, dropped 5px from the population column. Geraldk (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The lead is rather short (FIPS info aside), and lacks references. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on adidng in-lines this weekend. Geraldk (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the lead to a list like this one to be inadequate unless it tells me something about the function and organization of counties in the particular state. There's a vast amount of info on that subject at sources such as this page on the Essex County website and this page on the Morris County website. I'd like somebody to distill that information into a paragraph or two for the intro section. --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "...groups of proprietors" seems a funny term to use for the governing bodies of the two original provinces. Is it correct? MeegsC | Talk 10:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not from New Jersey, but I believe that "proprietors" is accurate. See Proprietary colony. Remember that this was the 1600s. These weren't governing bodies in the modern sense; they were owners.--Orlady (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No reason to have a sort on 'Named for' column. Sorting this is meaningless. Hmains (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed that. --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Really can,t find much to nitpick. I don't like decorative coloring in tables much, but I've hardly had much success in arguing against it here. Circeus (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - no expert in New Jersey or US counties but getting better at lists. So, my thoughts...
  • The lead has a single citation which relates to FIPS county codes. What about all the other claims in the lead?
  • A number of references in the header of the table appear after line breaks. Why?
    • Otherwise, the columns get wider than needed.--Crzycheetah 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Wider than needed"? Currently the appearance is poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I meant to say is that when the footnotes are behind the line breaks, a horizontal scrollbar appears, which is very irritating (to me at least).--Crzycheetah 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I made some tweaks to the table formatting, including eliminating the fixed column widths and replacing the line breaks with spaces. That way, the column width adjusts to the content. The resulting appearance looks better to me, but your mileage may vary. --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why there's a distinct lack of full stops in the "Named for" column? I guess it's possibly because the text in that column could be a fragment. What it does do is make the reference placement look odd.
  • Your primary source for this information is www.getnj.com - I need to be convinced this is a reliable source (e.g. it looks like a student HTML project with plenty of advertisements...)
  • Surely the population column should be referenced to the census source?
    • Geraldk didn't use the census info, he provided the 2005 estimates.--Crzycheetah 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure I understand that. If there's a census available, it should be used and cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that census should be used instead. I am guessing the reason he provided 2005 estimates is that the census was done in 2000 and a long time has passed since then.--Crzycheetah 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since decennial census values are more stable than census estimates (which have a habit of getting revised), I prefer to see the 2000 values listed. Would it be sensible to list both 2000 and 2005? (That would add value to the table...) --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm happy to discuss any of the issues I've raised here. Like I said, I'm no expert so my intent here is to bring fresh eyes to the debate. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not the main editor here, but I had answers for two of your comments, so I thought I'd share.--Crzycheetah 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I made several changes to the table format in hopes of improving appearance on various display sizes. One change that people may object to was eliminating the setting that reduced the table font size to 95%. That improves its appearance for me by reducing the amount of blank space in the table cells, but others of you may object. --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I'll probably change my mind if there's a better introduction (see my comment above) and if the http://www.getnj.com/ citations are replaced by reliable sources. (That source may be OK, but it looks pretty insubstantial to me -- sort of like citing another Wikipedia article...) --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that GetNJ.com replicates the contents of Federal Writers' Program (1938), The Origin of New Jersey Place Names, New Jersey State Library Commission. Thus the content is good, but I'd feel better about it if the actual original source were named. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 06:44, 16 February 2008.

This is modeled after List of Indiana state symbols. It's comprehensive, and sourced to the Alabama archives. Also, it has pictures wherever Wikipedia has them. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Check through your redlinks to see if there are alternately titled articles that exist for them, as is the case with Longleaf Pine. Geraldk (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I got all of them, thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - well done. My only remining comment would be that the lead could be a little more comprehensive, but it's on par with the other FL state symbols lists. Geraldk (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I think at least some of the redlinks should be changed to bluelinks (e.g. Alabama State Bible) or retargeted in the absence of any relevant article (e.g. List of U.S. state quilts --> Quilt, perhaps). A little too much red towards the end of the list for my liking, but otherwise looks good. Bencherlite^Talk 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the lists, I have changed the redlinks to bluelinks. However, with regards to a lack of articles on such things as Johnstone's Junonia, there is no alternative to creating them, in my opinion. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you could always turn them to black text if you conclude that there's no valid encyclopaedic article to be written on Conecuh Ridge Alabama Fine Whiskey, for example. I've written a stub on the Alabama State Bible to help, as that was the one that was annoying me the most (and added a couple of categories) and will change to a neutral. This is not because of the quality of the list or the amount of work that has gone into preparing and presenting this list - praise is due for both - but because I think there needs to be a decision whether this is an (a)(1) list ("group of existing articles") or an (a)(3) list ("complete set of items not sufficiently notable for individual articles"). The amount of redlinks looks like a compromise!
    • One other thing (to be boring): some of the references have "update" dates (e.g. the State Bible's page says "Updated: November 15, 2007") and this information should be added to the citation using the "date=" parameter. Bencherlite^Talk 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although I am also wary of the redlinks under "Culture", I suspect half of them will eventually go black anyway. I'd have considered just using the main page instead of having a separate source for all but that's more of personal taste. Circeus (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Whilst it adheres to WIAFL, I think it could do with a little jazzing up. An image by the lead, or expanding the lead, perhaps. At the moment it just seems to lack that special something, that sparkle. Ya know? One easily fixable issue – works, such as plays, should be in italics. I can see a couple. Seegoon (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicized. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing yet again to support. A few of the redlinks have been retargeted or switch to black text, and I have added the dates to the {{cite web}} myself as this hadn't been done. Agree that the lead could be longer, or an image could be used up there (the state quarter, perhaps?) but won't oppose further. Bencherlite^Talk 01:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose as I came here I was reminded that "Featured content" should be Wikipedia's "finest work". This just doesn't cut it for me I'm afraid. I know the list is comprehensive but the lead is really weak. And before someone directs me to another List of X state symbols which is already a FLC, I know they do but it doesn't make it right. Six red links in such a brief list isn't good either. If this was an article rather than a list, it'd just about make GA, so perhaps this is a candidate for the currently non-existent Good Lists? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose My main issue with the currently is that it's very "bare bones"... I reall feel lists like these should include information about why a particular item is significant in Alabama. (i.e. it's not annotated with aufficient additional information, as required by WP:WIAFL 1f). Tompw (talk) (review) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI agree that we need more information in "state symbols" lists. Most of the editors take similar FLs and model after it, so maybe we should nominate other FLs, such as List of Indiana state symbols, for removal. At the same time, there is a problem of finding the necessary references to explain why each symbol is important.--Crzycheetah 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've nosed around a bit and there's not much. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Tompw. Rudget. 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 15:42, 14 February 2008.

I am nominating this list because it is complete and encyclopedic. FLC is a good place for feedback for this list since peer review does not accept lists. My biggest concern is whether I should attempt to further link the names. The first half dozen names I was able to link were quite notable. I have begun to try to link more and the notability has been marginal. Feedback here would help I am sure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick read, and my comments are pretty random... Your essay on notability and celebrity (and/or lack thereof) left a bad taste in my mouth. The content about g-test results definitely does not belong. However, I wondered why the intro or table did not provide information on the Byers Scholars who later received Rhodes scholarships (including the red-linked Brad Henderson). --Orlady (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson was under construction when you saw the redlink. It now exists. I took out the g-test controversy. Is the notability section still in bad taste? I added some commentary about other major awards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about criteria 1a1, which is sometimes excuseable if it meets 1a3, but I'm not entirely sure if a list of winners of a scholarship is a "significant topic of study". As well, since there is no "Walter Byers Scholar" article, the list should be moved there. Even if it is mainly a list, the article is predominantly about the scholarship. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list was originally at "Walter Byers Scholar," but I felt it was more of a list. The fact that it has a solid list does not really make it an article. I am fairly certain if I took it to WP:PR they would say it is a list. I feel it passes 1(a), but am not sure what your point is on what constitutes a topic of study. It is as much a topic of study as may episode lists or chapter lists that have passed 1a3, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion is right. If there's no article about the program (apparently correctly titled Walter Byers Postgraduate Scholarship Program, according to this link), then there's no purpose in a separate list of recipients. Rename the article. --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects exist so an admin will have to do the move.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not really a list. (Meanwhile, I have proposed the article for retitling.) --Orlady (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I personally think forking a list out of this would be wrong because persons who want to know about the scholarship will generally want to know about its past winners and people who want to know about past winners want to know about the scholarship, IMO. However, a fork would be easy to do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is a case where a well developed lead for a list is causing it to be thought of differently than a stubby lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to disagree. This is an article that includes an embedded list. Because the article is fairly short, there is no reason to split the list off as a separate article. This is a good thing; it is an informative article that does not need to be split due to length constraints. Isn't the the creation of useful content (not the accumulation of Wikipedia "trophies") main purpose of contributing to Wikipedia? --Orlady (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a debate about trophies. I am just stating that the only reason I can see for the article to be rejected as a featured list is that there may be a problem with the fact that only half of the the two most important columns have linkable articles. I think debating whether it is an article or a list with a thorough lead is a bunch of malarkey. I have seen lists that were only partly linkable make it and I have seen lists with leads this long make it. For example, a list I created List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry has a lot of unlinked content and an equally long lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to illustrate the foolishness of calling this an article by comparing it to the my successfull WP:FLC noms in terms of text before the main table:

Since this format is meaningful to you, I've taken the liberty of adding two more columns to your table (identifiable by different background in the header row) that I think highlight some of the key differences between the Walter Byers article and your earlier successful FL nominations. My issue is not the length of the introduction but topical focus. This Walter Byers article is a topical article that appropriately includes an embedded list. Those other lists were extensive sidebars branched off from parent articles into which the lists could not reasonably be embedded (with the possible exception of List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry, which I think could be merged into National Recording Registry). --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You stumped me for a second because I had not noticed the National Collegiate Athletic Association#Awards section. However, I do not follow the logic of your argument after further review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, under "Parent article", for the Walter Byers Award you changed my table entry of "none" to NCAA. I stand by my initial assertion. Note that all the other non-red links for awards programs in National Collegiate Athletic Association#Awards point to articles about the award (not lists of recipients). Most of those articles have embedded lists (specifically, NCAA Award of Valor, NCAA Gerald R. Ford Award, NCAA Woman of the Year Award, The Flying Wedge Award, and Theodore Roosevelt Award (NCAA)) and Silver Anniversary Awards (NCAA) and Today's Top VIII Award point to separate lists (in my opinion, both of those lists could be embedded in the main articles, but that's for another discussion). --Orlady (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first five of the articles you point to above are lists that are not good enough to be featured because they have not been put in tables, but lists nonetheless.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Those are articles. If they are to achieve featured-like status, it would be as Good Articles, not as Featured Lists. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to disagree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the list of 'other awards' needs cleaning up, it's poor form to just list last names like that I think, and it implies that these are the only people to be on both lists - make that explicit if true. --Golbez (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this better?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I tried to puzzle out a way to add the year they won they Byers scholarship to the list of multiple winners, but that doesn't seem possible. Circeus (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm struggling with the whole "significant topic of study" yet despite winning this award, these people are (generally) utterly non-notable and have, by and large, gone on to non-sporting careers. Some of the linked names are just two-line stubs that look destined for AfD. OK, it is a national award, but college scholarships aren't exactly uncommon. BTW: peer review does look at lists. Colin°^Talk 13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, a lot of concerns above but should they (somehow!) be addressed, the list doesn't work for me as follows:
  • Six paragraphs in the lead?!
  • Most of the people in the table are non-notable - I'm not sure what WP:FLC criteria this is attempting to meet. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 00:38, 13 February 2008.

Self-nomination I came across this article about two weeks ago by accident, and it's layout was really nice. Kinda similar to the Lost DVD releases and Smallville DVD releases pages, but without all the fair-use images of DVD covers. The information was all there, I just spent three hours or so today expanded the introduction and adding references (It looked like this beforehand).

I'm just testing the waters with this nomination. As far as I can see, no list of DVD releases has ever been promoted to FL, or even tried to be, and I'm interested in what is necessary to make such a list Featured. All comments are therefore greatly appreciated. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, It is nicely laid out and all, but I can't see that it meets WP:FICT for even existing. How is a television series' DVD releases notable enough that that they need to be in a separate list apart from either the episode page (where the basic info is already included)? I suspect that is why none have ever been nominated, because of the issue of notability. Collectonian (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. And if it was tagged and/or deleted, it wouldn't bother me too much. 3 hours from my life is nothing to cry over. I'm not sure how people involved with the articles concerning this (and every other TV show with a DVD release page) would feel, though. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 09:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose yeah, I'd have to agree. There's a real question over notability of this, and while I'm happy to set precedents, I can just imagine the swathes of articles which could be generated about DVD releases of TV shows.... Nice article but not sure that's enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised then that User:TTN hasn't come across all these pages and tagged them. I wonder what his feelings are on it... -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 09:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, I'm surprised you say that, too. Surely the same could have been said when the first List of (insert TV show) episodes was promoted, but there's still only a handful. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, tempting to quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm relatively new to frequenting each and every WP:FLC mainly concentrating on the things I know best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - no sales figures, no reception, suggest merging into the LOE. Will ^(talk) 14:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From TTN's talk page

Seeing as the topic is about DVDs, I don't see how FICT applies. It certainly fails WP:N, though. I suggest that you either find some kind of reception on the overall DVDs or merge it somewhere. TTN (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to all the comments about notability, then, other than sales figures and reception, what else would be good to include in order for another attempt for such a list to be promoted? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, unless there was something really unique about the release or it had extraordinary sales, I don't think notability can be established for DVD releases apart from the series or the episodes. Collectonian (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd support with that info, and I can't think of anything else reasonable to include; still, the others might be right that this would be better merged into the list of episodes. No information would have to be deleted, just combined with more data about the individual episodes. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did look for the info, but there was nothing on the internet that I could see. Anyway, I've now merged each DVD "table" into the relevent season article and redirected One Tree Hill DVD releases to One Tree Hill (TV series). Thank you to everyone who looked and commented.

Speedy close or whatever - article doesn't exist anymore. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 06:07, 7 February 2008.

Comprehensive, accurate, referenced list which appears to meet FL criteria. Similar to the Arsenal and Liverpool lists, which are both featured. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs quite a bit of work, I would have suggested a Peer review first.
  • On first glance, needs a WP:LEAD section that summarises the list. Needs an image as part of the FL criteria. It needs ndashes for the date ranges per WP:DASH. It needs a link from the Rangers template at the bottom.
  • Could you expand the acronyms?
  • Try and make articles for the redlinks. (Not compulsory).Woody (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say, a peer review would have caught these. Perhaps you should think about one? Woody (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Must have missed the PR for this (or perhaps there wasn't one) but either way, some comments before I can support.
  • Must use en-dash for year separators, see WP:DASH.
  • Lead could do with some work, I don't think the bullet pointed list helps with "brilliant prose".
  • No "correct as of..." - you have a number of current players in the list so an update date is needed.
  • Any chance of an image?
  • Why is the whole first sentence of the lead emboldened?
  • The Rangers template needs fixing so it points (with redirection) to this page).
• So an oppose for the time being. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest adding a note to justify the inclusion of each player with less than 100 league appearances as per List of Birmingham City F.C. players. Peanut4 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go along with that. While there's a discussion going on right now at WP:FOOTBALL about "notable players", for the time being it's a good idea to be able to justify players who don't meet the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, dashes fixed, image added, link from template added, bullet points integrated into lead, update date added, emboldening fixed, notes for <100 appearance player added. Regarding the acronyms, there is a key which is linked to from the top of the column. Any further input or suggestions? WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 14:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead needs a bit of work to describe the list. Have a look at some of the other featured list of players for some ideas. Good work so far though. Peanut4 (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Colin Jackson links to the Welsh sprinter. So I'd advise you check all names are correctly linked to... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, all bluelinks point directly to the correct articles. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment okay, the list is now in a much much better state. Some further comments before I can support its promotion:
  • "first-class matches " - a term which probably needs explanation. Especially when you go on in the second paragraph to say " competitive first-team matches only"
  • "Nine In A Row years" - this needs a further explanation (e.g. just add something like "when Rangers won the title for nine consecutive seasons..." or similar).
  • "A player's name in bold denotes that player is inducted into Hall of Fame." - this is just as well placed at the end of the lead and not in small text.
  • Eliminate the red linked articles by writing stubs.
  • Consider adding club record holders and colouring them.
  • Consider colour coding internationals (unless that's most of them, which I suspect it may be!)
  • I'm not keen on the key for the positions, I use the full position and wikilink it accordingly.
• Much better, good luck with the push. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First three done so far, and I have colour coded the internationals; less than I expected but still a fairly substantial amount. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 06:07, 7 February 2008.

I have been editing this list since yesterday, and I'm edited it so much to make it resemble a featured list. I will add more citations, and, hopefully, it will become featured! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose Fair-use images in a discography is a major no-no. Also there's alot of unsourced stuff (chart positions, sales, etc). Drewcifer (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Update on my Strong Oppose: As detailed below, I still have strong reservations with the list. Namely, some of my suggestions have been taken into account, but only in part of the list: so now the list isn't consistent with itself. Unfortuantely, I have been unable as of late to help Cuyler to the extent I did earlier, and it appears he is also unable to work on the article for the near future. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all of the fair-use images. If I added more citations, would you change your stance? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better! Now that that's taken care of, here's my more nitpicky suggestions:

• My main suggestion is to take a look at some other FL discographies, to see how tables are formatted, chart positions cited, etc. Nine Inch Nails discography is good, but there's plenty of other good ones too.
• As far as format/style goes, I think the tables in general could be squished a little better, so that they take alot less space vertically. What I mean is that, if you go by other FL discogs table formats, you could probably make each release take up maybe 3 lines, rather than 6. If you want me to be more specific let me know.

I tried to do this. What do you think now? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 17:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't see a difference at all. At the risk of sounding like I'm piling it on, here's a few tips to get you started: remove the width properties form the charts columns. Provide a reference for each chart column, in the same cell as the country abbreviation so that it covers the whole column. You can do the same with the reference for the certifications, instead of having the same citation in each row. Rearrage the general info to the following columns: Year (which just says 1988, or whatever it happens to be), Titl(which include the title, full release date, label, and formats), chart positions, certifications. Remove the "Carpenter's # album" as it's pretty obvious what the 1st, 2nd, 3rd is etc. Doing that should help alot. It's not required that you do things exactly like that, but that's just my suggestions to make things work a little better. Again, take a look at Nine Inch Nails discography as a good example. Drewcifer (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me? This is in fact the first list I've created. :( — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Take a look at my sandbox. That's how I would suggest doing it. Not necessarily the only way to skin a cat, but it's how I like to format them, and takes care of some existing issues with the list. Do you think it's better? Drewcifer (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, definitely! Do you change your opinion on strongly opposing it now? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've still got a ways to go, I think. That one section is looking good, but I was thinking the whole article should be formatted like that, obviously taking into account the different sections and what they would require. Would you like me to do that too, or do you think you can handle it? Either way let me know how I can help. Drewcifer (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you could do it (I have finals coming up). 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately I myself am busy pretty much all day for the foreseeable future. If it really seems undoable at the moment, you can always renominate the article at another time. Drewcifer (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't want to nominate it another time. You surely must feel better about it now. It looks much better than before. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if the change to "and videography" was really neccessary. I mean, I know those video things are videos technically, but really all they are just recorded concerts, right? I'd say it still fits within the scope of a discography. That, and most other discogs with video/DVD stuff have tended to stick with just "discography."

Alright, umm... How can I move it back? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same way you moved it in the first place, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 17:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Double platinum doesn't necessarily denote 2 million units sold, so you would need a source for the sales as well. Are these RIAA certifications? Please specify that.

Y Done. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Having the pound sign in front of the chart numbers is a little redundant.

Y Done. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does Ticket to Ride have 2 UK chart dates? Might want to make a note of that. And it's also not necessary to specify what year the album charted in the US.

Y Ticket to Ride was a weird one, because it didn't immediately chart. It wasn't until they became more popular that people started buying their records, so it only sold two to six years after its primary release. I'll take care of that. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't need to have the dash in the certifications column. Just leave them blank.

Y Oh, okay then. Finished. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The track listings in the video section should go: leave that info to the main articles.

Y Done. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid the external link in the text of the Video intro. Drewcifer (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Got rid of it. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments about the lead section - The lead (introductory) section needs work. Here are a few quick comments about some of the issues I see:

• If I didn't already know who the Carpenters were, the lead sentence would not help me much: "The discography of the American group Carpenters..." Can you insert an adjective between "American" and "group"? (And is "group" the right noun for a duo?) I'd be inclined to call them something like "pop vocal duo".

Technically, they're not a duo. The popular members of Carpenters were Richard and Karen, but they weren't the only people in the band, so it would be unfair to say that they are only a duo. There were many other musicians as well. I understand the confusion, though, as many people only think that Karen is Carpenters. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Later, the lead section says "This list also includes the Carpenters' videography as well." Notwithstanding the redundancy of "also" and "as well," I wonder if the article should be retitled "The Carpenters discography and videography". (How is this handled in other Wikipedia discographies?)

Alright. I guess I'll move it. Sorry about that; I can be redundant at times. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The next sentence after that says "Their monstruous musical career spawned Carpenters hit album after album." Should "monstruous" be re-spelled "monstrous", or is some other word intended? If "monstrous" was intended, does this mean that the Carpenters were monsters? (My point is that an encyclopedia article needs to follow higher standards of word usage than a fan site would... I also object to the verb "spawned" and informal language "album after album.")

Y Fixed "monstruous". Sorry about that. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I removed the two sentences. They weren't needed. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The last paragraph of the intro section includes a statement about "their posthumous two-disc compilation," which implies that both members of the group had died. Isn't Richard still alive? --Orlady (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Richard is alive. I knew I shouldn't have described it like that. Let me take care of it. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the new wording "Karen's first posthumous two-disc compilation" suggests that this was a solo album by Karen... --Orlady (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, hard to word, isn't it? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Pretty well written, I'd say that it is a FA. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 19:39, 5 February 2008.

First FLC (00:57, 28 December 2007)
Second FLC (17:54, 16 January 2008)

Failed last times becase there wasn't enough support. Thought I might as well try again. Buc (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Speedy Close According to the edit history, you have made exactly 0 edits to the page since the last FLC failed. You can't just keep resubmitting FLCs until they pass. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it didn't fail for any reason other than no one supported it. There is nothing more to do. Buc (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really need to learn how the FLC process works. There were concerns about the sourcing in the article, and you haven't addressed that at all. Perhaps you should withdraw this nom and get in touch with Colin so you can address his concerns. Once this is done, THEN the article should be resubmitted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buc, you had 5 people who commented on the last one. It was closed because you had not resolved the issues with references, and it had come on top of another nomination. You cannot keep pushing this through until you get the result you want. This should be closed. Woody (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok well tell what needs to be fixed and I'll see what I can do. Do FLC work diffrent from FLC so something? Buc (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me? Woody (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Colin expresses himelf far more eloquently than I can in the last FLC. Read his comments carefully, then read them again. Woody (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - can't see any differences from when the previous FLC closed. Perhaps consider a peer review? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What needs to be changed? I can't do anything if you don't tell me. Buc (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Buc but as I've said, a peer review can do no harm. Be constructive and humble - ask the community to spend their time helping you get this article up to scratch. A good PR and this will fly through FLC, just look at what happened to Leeds United A.F.C. seasons with the help of WP:FOOTBALL... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't arnswer my question at all. Buc (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, perhaps I can clarify. You need to take this article to a peer review where the community will discuss what they expect to see. It precludes an individual from making an article their own and helps to produce an article which everyone will support. Does that make it clearer? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've taken it upon myself to adopt this nomination, as Buc appears not to understand how this works - you don't keep throwing it at the wall until it sticks, if people don't support then oh well, come back later, but don't keep badgering us. It doesn't work. That said, I'm attempting to correct the issues brought up in the previous FLCs; please direct any complains to me. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For the following reasons:

• Explaining myself.

Basically, as far as I could tell the last nomination failed because there was no reason for it to pass. Now, normally with FAC Raul will re-start a nom where there is no consensuses to pass it, for whatever reason that wasn’t done here. This didn’t really bother me because I though re-nominating it would work just as well. Evidently I shouldn’t have done that, not entirely sure why but I will keep this in mind in the future and I apologies. But now this nomination is here we may well use it. This page is for discussions on how to get this article to FL status not having a go at me about why this nomination should or shouldn’t have been made. Please go to my talk page if you want to discuss that further. Now can we please get back to the matter at hand: what needs to be done to get List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks to FL status. Buc (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on Buc, the reason the last two nominations failed was because of your unwillingness to work with other's objections and suggestions. People would give you suggestions and you would make excuses on why their suggestions were wrong. It was either your way or the highway. A lack of support is just the same as opposition. And you would think that after the second nomination where 2-3 users asked for a close due to procedural grounds because you nominated right after it failed the first, this being after you canvassed for support in the second nom, that something would tell you not to immediately nominate the list again, especially after making 0 edits to the page. And FLC is not the place "for discussions on how to get this article to FL status," that would be WP:PR, where a bunch of editors have said you should brings this list. WP:FL is where we determine if a list meets the criteria to be featured, it is not a peer review forum. But whatever, Im tired of reviewing these nominations. Ill let others decide this one. Buc, for future reference, dont repeat what youve done here and be open to other's suggestions. Golbez, good luck on the nomination.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh Let me repeat myself:I will keep this in mind in the future and I apologies. Now can we PLEASE! get back to the matter at hand: what needs to be done to get List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks to FL status. Buc (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you've let your formatting get the better of you but please refrain from SHOUTING and talking in bold. It is easily perceived as aggressive and not conducive to constructive criticism. I would suggest you read the comments provided here and act on them. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to act on comments when can get some feedback on the article. Buc (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You put that well, thanks. --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It would be great if we could somehow find out how the 1967 pick was aquired.--Crzycheetah 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I'm not an expert on the draft process, but does it have to have come from somewhere? Looking at the 1967 draft, there were 26 first round picks but only 25 eligible teams, 9 in the AFL and 16 in the NFL. Is it possible New Orleans was given the first and last pick of the draft since they were an expansion team? Though the Oilers are shown as having two picks, neither of which is shown as being acquired from another team... There appears to be no other sources about this, though perhaps someone could contact the Saints organization directly and ask. --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brought up before. Couldn't find anything. But I only have the net at my disposal, someone might have a book that explains it. Can only hope.Buc (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- This FLC has been nominated twice already in the last month. The creator has canvassed, and issues still haven't been resolved. I'm not saying it's not a good article, but I don't see any way that this will pass now. Send it through a peer review, wait at least two months, and then resubmit it. -Mastrchf91- 00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why two months? Also I can't resolve issues if people don't piont them out to me. No one, apart from Crzycheetah, has given me feedback. Buc (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Get over this feedback thing Buc, the community has been patient enough to give you two FLC noms before this one. We justify this as enough feedback. Basically, no one really wants to deal with you. Everyone here notices that any suggestions they make are going to be shot down if you don't agree with them. You keep on asking for feedback, yet when people give you constructive feedback (and Im not only talking about this nom) you rarely ever concede any changes. People don't want to take the time to review a list and then have everything they say get shot down or receive an excuse not to make the changes.
      Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I agree with a suggestion I'm happy to put it in. If I don't agree with a suggestion of course I'm not going to compile, but I'm happy to try and come to a compromise of some sort. But if you don't say anything there is nothing I can do. Buc (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why 2 months? Well...I was originally going to suggest 4 or 6, but I knew that you'd probably not wait that long anyway. So, by saying 2 thought that'd be something you'd think was reasonable. -Mastrchf91- 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But what will be diffrent in 2 mounths that means I can't nom till then? Buc (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Buc, I suggested a few pages above that you should take this to a peer review. Why not do that? There's no time limit or prize for rushing things through to FA or FL. You should be thankful and, more importantly, respectful to the people who are generous enough to spare time to provide comments and suggestions on your various nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well that's just it, no one is providing comments and suggestions. Buc (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You want suggestions, and I'll give them. First, find out how the 1967 pick was attained. Look at a local library if you can't find anything on the net. Second, highlight any players that were Pro Bowl/elected to Hall of Fame, and create a key to detail this. That's all for now, I guess. -Mastrchf91- 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • First off thank you for istening to me. Ok there are no Hof players in this list and do you mean any player elected to the Pro Bowl at least once in there career or in there rookie year? Nothing I can do about the 67, all I have is the net and I can't find anything on there. Buc (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted 06:38, 1 February 2008.

Modeled after List of Pennsylvania State Parks but with park coordinates. I believe this article is now up to snuff (after it's 1st failed submission in march 06) -Ravedave (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• good, but Remarks column in the main table should not be a sortable field. Sorting these remarks is a meaningless exercise. Hmains (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure you can designate which columns are sortable when using wikitable sortable... but I'm no expert. Seegoon (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jonathunder has corrected the sorting. -Ravedave (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems to me as though the map in the upper-right corner needs to be altered a bit. Several of the parks are shown as being in Lake Superior, and several others are shown as being in other states (Wisconsin and Iowa). Skudrafan1 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the positions of some of those coordinates so they'd actually appear to be in the state. (Jay Cooke State Park and Saint Croix State Park were the ones that looked most obviously like they were in Wisconsin.) Several of those parks are actually on the borders you described, as there are several parks on Lake Superior and the St. Croix River, the borders of the state. (Then there's Interstate Park, which actually does span the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parks such as Hayes Lake, Minneopa, Sakatah, Myre-Big Island, Great River Bluffs, and others all appear to be located 6-10 miles or so south of their actual positions; some also appear to be shifted slightly to the east. Kablammo (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are only 6-10 miles off then color me happy. I manually guessimated their position based on this map which has a different projection and no county outlines. Feel free to move them where they need to go I don't think the s-e thing is systemic. -Ravedave (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kablammo (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ravedave at Talk:List_of_Minnesota_state_parks#Map the map displays differently in Firefox v. Internet Explorer. The map now displays correctly in IE, but the dots in Firefox are displaced. Kablammo (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]