Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2009

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 [1].

Another anime episode list. Don't worry, this one's a lot shorter than season 9. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)

• "The 4Kids dubbed version uses "Pirate Rap V3" performed by Russell Velasquez as opening and "Pirate Rap Instrumental" as ending theme." -> I'd prefer "as the ending theme"
  • Changed. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The 4Kids adaptaion's DVD releases did not go as far as season five." -> Wouldn't it be "have yet to go"? You don't know if it is or isn't going to reach that far, do you?
  • Well, technically, I don't know. But technically, I'm not implying that it won't either. - Fact is, they no longer hold the license. And they "did not" release season five to DVD while they had it.
    • Haha, didn't know that. My point is now rendered moot. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further "adaptation" is spelled incorrectly.
  • Changed. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Robin accompanys him as he goes to replace the spilled liquid." -> "accompanies"
  • Changed. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• On the note of spelling, this list desperately needs a copyedit. I'm hardly a FL-level copyeditor though, and you'll need to find one of those...
• Is the only General Ref supposed to have +s breaking up the words? I'd assume it should just be spaces...
  • If the MOS requires +s to be replaced with spaces, then I'm not aware of it. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dunno, it just looks better to me... Leave it if you wish. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There are very few refs in general for this list. I'd personally suggest referencing as much as possible, i.e. the licensing info, the U.S. air dates, etc.

NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to refrain from supporting as of yet until a copyeditor or another, more grammatically-minded reviewer appears. Good work though on the list itself. Like the colors :D NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I've no time to copy-edit; there are plenty of prose issues:

• Why are there no references for the theme music? Even though they may be covered by the general reference, I think that an inline citation should be good here.
• "A small group of navy ships chases the Straw Hats around."
• "To escape them, they sail through an area of wild currents, surrounding an almost uninhabited island."-->To escape them, the Straw Hats sail through an area of wild currents, which surround an almost uninhabited island.
• "Only an old man named Zenny lives there with a group of goats."-->The lone inhabitants are an old man named Zenny and his goats.
• "Because they are pirates" Who? The old man and the goats, or just the goats?
• "It is at the end of the day, as they are about to leave, that Chopper reveals the horrible result of his examination—that the old man will die within three days."

These are just examples, please find someone to look through the whole text. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've copyedited the summaries, so can you take another glance and let me know if there are any other issues? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 05:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I share the views above about is needing a thorough copyedit.

• Watch out for colloquialisms in the episode summaries (e.g. "his place")
• Expand WP:CONTRACTIONS
  • I couldn't find a single one. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 1 is not reliable due to it being in the encyclopedia part of ANN (editable by anyone), it would need replacing or a second source (possibly foreign language).
  • Changed. Technically, ANN is reliable for the theme songs, but I'll continue looking for a better reference and replace it if possible. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What is citing the airdates??
  • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you use a non ANN source to replace ref 4. I know you have said "Technically, ANN is reliable for the theme songs", but I think we have different ideas of reliable. Anything user edited (for example Wikipedia) is not reliable by our standards. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the episodes themselves source the theme songs, I feel it is largely unnecessary to source them otherwise. I can cite the episodes if you prefer, and I will continue to look for sources. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if the episodes would actually cite the title and artist. But I'm not too fussed about this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The title and the artist are actually sourced in the credits. Every anime that I've seen and that I can remember has done this. Do US television shows do this as well? I'd expect they would have to for copyright purposes... Anyway, cited. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "It was then licensed and heavily edited for a dubbed release in English by 4Kids Entertainment." However ref 3 cites none of this. It might possibly cite the sentence following that the "re-adaptation of the series has yet to reach the fifth season" but I'm not sure. So I am concerend with the sentence about airing on Fox Television Network (you should possibly mention as part of the FoxBox block) and that it aired "omitting seven of the season's thirteen episodes". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There technically isn't anything citing that, as ref 3 cites the dates it was aired, so I've added sources. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a random sample of two episode summaries:

• Ep 125, 99
  • "snags" to colloquial
  • "As the bandits aim the finishing blow, Zoro returns and takes over." | "finishing blow" does that mean killing? aimed at who?, takes over what?
• Ep 142, 103
  • "the Henzo he once knew" -> in the past Henzo
  • "slingshots" | I don't understand
    • You need the context of the show. As Luffy can act like rubber, he stretches himself out and "slingshots" himself to other locations. It's impossible to explain without context and reading Luffy's article should inform any reader of what "slingshots" is referring to. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikilinked. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The town's large tower falls onto the water" -> into the water

Out of interest are you familiar with the One Piece? If you are, it would be worth getting someone who isn't to take a look. Then they can give you an idea of what parts are missing context or are unclear. I realise you have done copyediting yourself but sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fixed with a single note. I am familiar, but not well-acquainted with the series. As such, there are plot holes I wish to fill but cannot, as I neither know the episodes very well nor have them on hand to write summaries from. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may not have time for more than a handful of edits per day at the moment, but I could certainly fill those holes, if you would name them. I probably won't even have to look at the episodes to do it. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, some comments then.

1. Nami's mapmaking can be expanded in ep132.

   I'm not sure how. She really is only drawing maps. Though I could expand on what the rest of the crew is doing... -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Epi134 - "Usopp then takes matters into his own hands and fulfills her parents' dreams." needs to be more specific. I could guess at what happened, but I don't want to put false information.

   Specified. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Epi135 - "Later that day, a group of bandits, led by a man with a much higher bounty, plunders the village." -> Is the original meaning still present after I copyedited this line? I was unsure of my fix here.

   Yes, it is still correct. But -- not wanting to mess with your copyedit -- this sentence seems wrong: "As the bandits prepare to kill the pair, Zoro returns saves Johnny and Yosaku." -- Should it be "returns to save" or "returns and saves"? -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   "Johnny and Yosaku become his followers. " -> Quick, if irrelevant, question: Is it just me, or do we never see these characters again? What becomes of them?

   They travel with the Straw Hats during the Baratie and Arlong arcs. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Epi136 - "do his work in his place." -> What work? More specifics needed.

   Specified. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Epi137 - "Chopper's diagnosed three days have long passed, which Zoro realizes, much to his chagrin." is definitely unclear. What does Zoro's reaction have to do with anything?

   Well. The episode is very comedy heavy and the plot doesn't really make sense. The point is as follows: They work like mad, while Zenny's condition is constantly improving. Zoro gets suspicious, while the rest of the crew try to make the man they think is dying feel better. But by the time he convinces the others of that and they decide to leave, Nami already lost ownership of their ship, thus stranding them. (Don't even get me started on the random party they're having afterwards...) -- I tried to make that more clear, but the summary will never make perfect sense, because the episode itself does not. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Epi139 - "Sanji encounters a tax collector who wears an electric battle suit." <-- Relevance of the electric battle suit?

   The suit is not relevant outside of their fight (rewrote to make more clear that they have a violent "encounter"), but the whole scene revolves around it. So I think, mentioning it is giving it due weight. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Epi140-143 - I was incredibly unclear as to who the Pumpkin Pirate were, and why they were referred to as "children" when they were children several years prior. If Hanzo has grown, why haven't the children?

   The Rainbow Mist is some sort of alternate dimension/time travel phenomenon, but it isn't sufficiently explained in the series to write about it like one probaly could if it were an episode of Star Trek (for example: I can't make a quality statement like, "inside the mist, time flows slower," because that would be original research). Facts are: Fifty years into Henzo's past, his friends, the Pumpkin Pirates, entered that mist. For them, inside that mist, much less time has gone by (more than a few days but less than years). And during the last episode it is shown, that they left the mist some decades ago. That is how they can then suddenly show up as marines and arrest Whetton and his gang. -- I did a small change. I hope that makes it clear enough. If not, let me know. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Epi143 - "There, Luffy fights Whetton and destroys Whetton's suit." <-- Similar to epi139, if the suit has relevance, can you make it more clear?

   Same as above, the suit is completely unimportant to the overall plot. It's an interchangable weapon (like Don Krieg's "Great Battle Spear", Arlong's saw-toothed sword, or Sir Crocodile's poisonous hook, ...), that is the focus of attention during the fight and the destruction of which marks a changing point but is otherwise neglect-able. Mentioning it is merely giving the length of the scene due weight. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can think of right now, but there may be more. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 01:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alrighty then. A couple as quick remarks because I'm far too lazy to respond individually to your points (if you'll forgive me). As long as there is a reason for not expanding on some of the sections I marked, we should be fine. I keep forgetting to suspend disbelief when it comes to anime, but that's beside the point. I think your fixes should do the trick, and hopefully Rambo's Revenge and Dabomb will agree with me when they review this again. Thanks for your hard work! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I apologize for my slow/non-existent replies. This FLC has been open for quiet a while and I currently don't have the time I had at the time of nomination. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to "take over" this? I doubt I can push this through, but I can take care of some of the concerns... NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'd like that. Here's a few things that might help:

Reliable sources for all but one English airdate

• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/the-click/2007-09-22
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/the-click/2007-09-01
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/the-click/2007-08-04
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/the-click/2007-08-11
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/the-click/2007-08-25

Possibly reliable sources for all Japanese airdates

• http://www.myst.cn/article/1140760826.html
• http://www.meoo.com/ask/dongman/112271.html

-- Goodraise (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [2].

Nominator(s): Lampman (talk)

I should probably explain the purpose of this list. The upper nobility of medieval England can best be compared to modern-day government cabinet members, except that they were much more important, because in addition to administrative duties, they were also politicians, generals, patrons of art and religion, and normally the wealthiest people in the country. A list of the nobility at any given time will almost inevitably be a list of the most important people in the realm – with the exception of the royal family and a few churchmen and courtiers.

Unlike cabinets, however, they were not changed at set periods, but came and went individually with the accidents of birth, death and forfeiture. This makes it more difficult to present them in a systematic manner. Lists of succession, like the list of Earls of Warwick can give a good vertical view, but for a horizontal view we need to take snapshots. At first I started making lists for individual years ending in 0, like the list of the Peerage of England and Ireland in 1310, but this way certain individuals could fall through the cracks. Then I got the idea from User:Ugen64, who had created several lists based on decades, such as the List of peers 1200–1209.

I have limited the list to the titled nobility, which at this point is only the earls, because if I should also include barons the list would become too long and unmanageable (the baronage was not very well defined at the time). Hopefully I've found a good formula which can serve as a model for further lists. Lampman (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The following is a list of the titled nobility of England and Ireland in the years" FLs don't start like this. See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging opening sentences. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've tried to fix this. Not sure about the use of wikilinks in the bolded part though; WP:BOLDTITLE didn't quite answer the question. The problem is that these words don't reoccur, or not until a bit further down. Lampman (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If all the decades are going to have similar numbers of entries (with lots of overlap), i think this is still too finely divided. How many entries would 1300-1350 (or 1337) have? I think such lists only needed to be separated due to length reasons or historical reasons. This doesn't seem to have either. A 100 year range would be more useful to a reader, imo (or 50 year if 100 is too long for readability).Yobmod (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list covering a 50-year period (1300-1350) would contain around 50 individuals. This probably wouldn't be of a prohibitive size, but it would defeat what is the primary objective of the list: to present the political situation at a given point in time. It would be near impossible for the reader to get an overview, as it would cover several changes of personnel in most cases, and include the reigns of three different kings. An analogy to this list would be the List of state leaders by year, which in my opinion is a bit too fine-tuned, with annual lists. Lampman (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But with sortable lists, readers could sort by date of birth and date of death for example, making a combined list more useful in every way. If they are interested in a decade, they can sort by date and see that decade. If they are interest in 1308-1311, they would currently have to read 3 short lists, combining them in a sortable table would make this far easier.Yobmod (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I had with sortable lists was the wide variety of different date formats (c., before, shortly before, 18/19 etc.) Is there any way to use a sortable list even when many of the dates are approximate? Lampman (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using a sort key, you should be able to sort approximate dates as normal dates, or even to before or after the precise date. So approx. 1308 could be made to sort to before or after 1308 depending on if the uncertainty ranges to before or after. Maybe no one else minds the overall list being split into the smallest possible ranges that give "10 or more" items, then i wont oppose just for this (many of the reviewers do this themselves to get the highest number of FL) - but weak oppose from me, the places, names dates can be sortable even withing this date range.Yobmod (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not my intention to maximise the number of FLs, my only concern is to present the information as clearly as possible. If this can be done with a sort key that would be great, but I'm not quite sure what template you're talking about. I've loked at {{Template:Dts}}, but I don't think that can do it. Lampman (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the general sort key (template:sort), i think you can sort in any order you want. As this list will not be changing and is comprehensive for the dates, you can even sort them using a number, although i recommend using the date. If a date is ambiguous, then simply changing this key can place the entry at the beginning or end of the year.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! Lampman (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [3].

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk

I have worked significantly on this list, adding references to every listing, greatly expanding the monument descriptions, and writing a lead. I'm not great with prose, so specific comments would be helpful, including any additions or changes to the lead I have forgot, as well as anything needing a reference. The biggest problem will surely be the images, so simply give me the name of the monument and I will fix or replace the image. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

LEAD

• The aim was to protect all historic and prehistoric sites on United States federal lands and to prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities.[2] - remove the ref from here since the following sentence is also source with ref#2
  • Done
• The first National Monument was Devils Tower in Wyoming, proclaimed by Theodore Roosevelt on September 24, 1906. - add "built" or "created" before was
  • Done
• Most recently, George W. Bush created three new Marine National Monuments in the Pacific Ocean on January 6, 2009. - the Pacific is pretty big, any more precise location?
  • No. They are three different monuments in different parts of the Ocean.
• Arizona has the most National Monuments, with 18, followed by New Mexico, 11, and California, 10. - add "with" before the other numbers
  • Done
• National Monuments are in 27 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Minor Outlying Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. - 1)(optional) But you should add "location" before in 2)add "in" before the District of Columbia
  • Done
• Fifty-four National Monuments protect places of natural significance, including 9 geological sites, 7 marine sites, and 5 volcanic sites. - be consistent with the number formatting, fifty-four should be "54"
  • Done, though a reviewer said in a previous FL not to use a numeral to start a sentence. But I don't want to write them all out.
• Twenty-four National Monuments are associated with Native Americans. Twenty-one are other historical sites, including 10 forts. - twenty four should be "24"
  • Done
• Fifteen presidents have created National Monuments since its beginning; only Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush did not. - 1)fifteen should be "15" 2)Since what beginning? 3)did should be "have"
  • Done; removed have instead.
• Bill Clinton created the most monuments, 19, and expanded three others. - be consistent with the number formatting, three should be "3"
  • Done, but for single digits you're not supposed to use the numeral.
    • Yeah, but for other single digits in the lead you use numbers, so you have to go through it and review it for accuracy in its formatting.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Theodore Roosevelt designated 18 National Monuments, though only nine remain. - 1)Teddy Roose is already linked and spelled before, so it should only be mentioned as "Roosevelt" since FDR is not mentioned in the lead. 2)though should have a comma after it
  • I just delinked him. To be consistent with the other presidents I kept the full name. No, another comma does not belong there.
    • Its not correct however when you already spelled it out before, it clutters the lead and is repetitive. Sorry, I was thinking about the word "however".--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sites that are no longer National Monuments can be found at List of areas in the United States National Park System#Decommissioned National Monuments - period needed at the end
  • Done
• Some of the paragraphs need to be merged together, such as the second and third; and the fourth and fifth.
  • Done

MONUMENTS TABLE

• The table and wording on the monuments maintained by each bureau should be made into a separate section.
  • Will this be done?--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was done, unless you were looking for something else. Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I recommend seeking a copyedit of the descriptions, these are just some of the problems I found.
  • Will this be sought?--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Part of Tongass National Forest in the Alaska Panhandle, Admiralty Island has more brown bears than the entire lower 48 states. - the last part is a bit trivial. Is it that notable?
  • I took all the information from their respective articles. There isn't much about Admiralty Island, so I took that, but I can remove it if you really want.
    • I would because its trivial and not really adding to the description (the part about the bears)--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It was discovered in 1991 during excavations for a new Federal building. - federal doesn't need to be capitalized
  • Done
• Surprise Lake within the volcano's six-mile wide, 2,500 ft. deep caldera is the source of the Aniakchak River. - comma after caldera
  • Done, and after Lake

REFERENCES

• Ref #1 needs a publisher.
  • Done, though that one's harder because the three links come from a template.
• Are different cite templates being used? I see different formats of the dates.
  • Yes, but that's not it. I just copy and pasted the dates from the monuments' websites, and they were in different styles. Fixed.
• --TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review! All comments are fixed. I hope with some more reviewing you can support. Reywas92^Talk 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I don't have time to go through the entire article; please find someone to proofread it.

• • I will be asking some others to copyedit.
• "mostly prehistoric Indian ruins and artifacts — collectively termed antiquities — on federal lands in the West." Em dashes should be unspaced.
  • Done
• "There are one hundred National Monuments in the United States." Not sure why the number is not in numerals.
  • Done
• "though Congress can create monuments as well" I don't think "create" is the correct word here. Congress did not build the monuments themselves.
  • Changed to designate
• "Many National Monuments would later become National Parks." Unnecessary.
  • Removed
• "The first National Monument created was Devils Tower in Wyoming, proclaimed by Theodore Roosevelt" Add "as such" after "proclaimed".
  • Done
• "National Monuments are located in 27 states"
  • Done, but that's what Truco said
• "54 National Monuments protect places of natural significance, including 9 geological sites, 7 marine sites, and 5 volcanic sites." Don't start sentences with numerals. It is better to change all these numerals in this sentence to words, because numbers under ten should be written out and comparable quantities should be written the same.
  • Done
• "24 National Monuments are associated with Native Americans. 21 are other historical sites, including 10 forts. 15 presidents created National Monuments since the program's beginning; only Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush did not." Same comment here.
  • Done
• "some of which later became National Parks."
  • Done
• "though only nine remain."-->although only 9 remain.
  • Only did although, so the numeral isn't inconsistent with the others.
• "Sites that are no longer National Monuments can be found at List of areas in the United States National Park System#Decommissioned National Monuments." I would put this in the see also section.
  • Done
• "There is also the Greens Creek mine and the Point Retreat Light on this seventh-largest US island."-->The Greens Creek mine and the Point Retreat Light are also on the seventh-largest US island. Watch the inconsistency with "US" and U.S. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks for your comments, I will get further proofreading. Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose from Nev1 (talk · contribs)

• It feels like there should be a lead image, perhaps a shot of one of the better known monuments or maybe a map. (I know there’s a "map of all coordinates" link, but maybe have a map outlining the states with colour coding for the number of monuments in each one. This would give an overall impression of the distribution of monuments.)
  • I have added a lead poster of the first NM. I could make a map if really necessary, but that's a lot of work and there's already the coordinates map as well as an external link with one.
    • Nice. It's not necessary to draw the map; it might be useful, but isn't important. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "… prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities": that’s not actually what the source provided says. Buried material can be excavated as part of preservation.
  • Reworded.
• It's mentioned that some of the monuments Roosevelt designated have since been delisted. I think it would be worthwhile explaining under what circumstances this can happen and whether it's happened to any other monuments.
  • Well, it can happen under any circumstance. It's often the president's call. Some were upgraded to National Park, others given to state control. It has happened to a lot of monuments, and the link to the partial list is in the see also, per Dabomb's comment. I'll see what I can do.
    • Can a site be a National Monument and a National Park? Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. I'll mention something along those lines.
• Is the year the monument was formed really relevant? Surely the date it was formed is pretty much on a whim? By all means, mention it in the monument's individual article, but I'm not convinced it needs to be mentioned here. Maybe it would be more useful to give the date the monument was built/formed (in the non-legislative sense).
  • I find it to be plenty relevant. It says how long it's been protected and one can tell what president proclaimed it, and it can be sorted. The formation date would be impossible because half are natural and millions of years old, and a quarter are Indian and are only estimates as well.
    • Fair enough about not having any foundation date. The date they were listed surely just reflects the topic of interest of the day or the president rather than the importance of the site; they're all NMs so are presumably all equally important. But it's not as if the column's taking up valuable space that could be used by another column, so it's your call. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually wasn't the one who originally put all that in there. I find dates interesting so I'd like to keep them, and the space is fine for now.
• What is meant by "pre-contact times" as used in the row for Alibates Flint Quarries?
  • Before the Spanish made contact with the Indians. I changed it to Pre-Columbian.
• "Pueblo" is inconsistently capitalised, but I'm not sure if this is intentional.
  • Some are Puebloan peoples, others are pueblos, which are their buildings. I double-checked the caps and all are correct.
• Some of the descriptions seem poorly written to me. For example: "Buck Island is an uninhabited 176-acre (0.71 km2) island with a large elkhorn coral barrier reef that provides cover for a great variety of reef fish, sea turtles and Least Terns. Most of the 19,000-acre monument is underwater" feels like it's the wrong way round. Shouldn't it describe the monument first and then significant features such as the island? Another example is the Bandelier NM: "Frijoles Canyon contains a number of Ancestral Pueblo homes, kivas, rock paintings and petroglyphs. The monument is also a historic district" doesn't explain what the whole monument is, only one part.
  • I have fixed these two. Just give me the name and I can work on it.
    • Better, I'll list any more as I come across them. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think {{convert}} needs to be used more widely. Some units have metric equivalents, but not all. This should be consistent.
  • If you hadn't noticed, most of the information is taken directly from the NMs' articles. Some used convert and some didn't. I will work on adding this template to all units.
    • Although nps.gov doesn't always provide conversions, using the convert template prevents you having to do any working out yourself; just plug in the starting value, tell you what you want it to be converted to and from, and it does the hard work. For example, {{convert|4|mi|km}} gives 4 miles (6.4 km). There are other fields which allow you to choose rounding, and whether hyphens and abbreviations are used, so I'd recommend checking out the documentation that goes with Template:Convert. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe all units now are in both Imperial and metric.
• "The monument includes a statue of Cabrillo and coastal artillery batteries built to protect the harbor of San Diego from enemy warships": when were the batteries built?
  • I've added 16th-century. Specific dates are not in the article.
• "The crater is 400 feet deep and its rim is a mile in circumference": what might be more useful than circumference is the diameter of the crater.
  • Okay then, it now says "over 1500 feet in diameter."
• Re the Carrizo Plain: what is a "native grassland"?
  • A grassland with a native species of grass. Now linked.
• Some of the descriptions could be a bit more detailed, for example about the Casa Grande Ruins: "This monument preserves a group of structures surrounded by a compound wall in the Gila Valley that were built by the Hohokam people in the 1100s to 1300s" what purpose were the structures? Just habitation? Also, when did they go out of use? The phrasing of the description is that they were built over a 200 year period. Also, 1100s and 1300s means the first decade of the 12th and 14th centuries respectively when I think the entire 12th and 14th centuries are meant.
  • No, 1100s and 1300s almost always mean the entire century, just as the 1800s should be taken the same as the 19th century; context would show it in their rare use as the decade. Again, these short descriptions were just taken from the key points of their articles without getting too long. I have expanded on this NM; just give me the names and I will expand others.
    • Fair enough, but WP:CENTURY from the manual of style would prefers the use of centuries over 1300s etc. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done then.
• Castillo de San Marcos: "This Spanish fort, called Fort Marion when first protected, served for 205 years under four different flags" when was it built and when did it fall out of use? Who used it? Is there nothing more to say, was it involved in any battles?
  • Expanded.
    • Better. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There's also some inconsistent spelling between archaeology and archeology; both are correct, the second one is the US spelling. It doesn't matter which you use IMO, but pick one and stick to it.
  • All are now archeology.

There may be more issues, but this is enough for me to oppose I'm afraid. It's a reluctant oppose though, as clearly a lot of effort has gone into compiling the information. I think the article would benefit from a thorough copy edit. I've made a couple of changes to the article myself, and Reywas92 might like to check them over to check that I haven't changed the meaning of any sentences. Nev1 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for you comments, and any other specific suggestions would be appreciated. I hope that with further review you will be able to support, though apparently that may need to be at a later FLC. Reywas92^Talk 00:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because response has been prompt, I'll make an effort (probably tomorrow) to go through the rest of the list. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 03:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References question

Reywas92, I see you added a reference to each description pointing to the main federal page for that monument. I'm not sure in all cases though that that page is actually a reference for all the points made in the lede. I worked on many of these articles back in September as well as reformating into the table with descriptions, dates, etc. I'm not sure I always used only the single reference to write the lede. Wherever possible, I used multiple references to build the articles. dm (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the information about the monuments was taken from its article, so not all of the information is actually listed on its NPS page. I'm not sure how it relates to the lead section of the list though. The NPS pages are not extremely detailed, so not everything in the list is backed up by them, though what isn't given probably isn't major. Let me know what facts are problems and need additional sourcing and I can fix it, though lists are generally allowed to be more general. Reywas92^Talk 21:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [4].

Nominator(s): I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon

And another contribution from WP:Poker.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 08:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - prose, table, and references problems.

Lead

• The World Series of Poker Europe (WSOPE) is the first expansion effort of World Series of Poker-branded poker tournaments outside of the United States.| 1)Unlink United States, its a common geographical term 2)Unbold World Series of Poker, its not the literal title of the article, you can, however, link it.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since 1970, the bracelet events have occurred every year in Las Vegas. The inaugural WSOPE, held in 2007, marked the first time that a WSOP bracelet was awarded outside of Las Vegas.| It should be better explain here that the WSOP bracelet represents the winner of the event/tournament.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With the purchase of these casinos Harrah's decided to expand its WSOP label into Europe.| comma before casinos

Done Are you sure? It looks wrong to me, but grammar is not my strong suit.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• European casinos typically have a different environment than those in the United States.| I suggest abbreviating the United States to "US" or "U.S."

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On July 5, 2007 Harrah's announced an alliance with Betfair, one of the largest online gaming companies in the world located in England.| 1)Unlink the date 2)Comma before located

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the third and fourth paragraphs.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The U.K. Gambling Act of 2005 allows for legal regulated online poker sites.| Spell out U.K. to "United Kingdom"

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore, as the laws governing the age of gambling differ in England than the U.S. The WSOPE admitts younger players.| 1)Remove as 2)It would be best to merge these two sentences with a semi colon 3)Typo on "admits"

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2007, one of these younger players, 18 year old Annette "Annette_15" Obrestad became the youngest player to ever make it to win a WSOP bracelet event.| 1)Remove the nickname, its not proper/professional to place it in the prose. 2)Remove make it to

About the nickname, I disagree. Annette_15 is her online handle, and she is also known for her online poker playing. It is also common in Poker to use nicknames: "Greg 'Fossilman' Raymer" "Chris 'Jesus' Ferguson" "Stu 'The Kid' Ungar." So, while it may not be appropraite to use nicknames with a Football player or basketball player, I would argue that with Poker Players we are dealing with a culture where nicknames are expected. I did the other change.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The second World Series of Poker Europe took place between September 19 to October 1, 2008.|1)Unlink the World Series of Poker Europe 2)Add ",2008" after September 19

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the extra space between the lead and the first section.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key

• The title of the columns should be in bold because that's how they are represented in the table.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results

• Add a colon after References in each entry.

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would make all table sortable, it would be best.

Disagree. None of the tables is longer than 9 records, 2 of the 3 records are sorted descending. Thus, the only column that somebody might sort on is the players name, and I don't think for a table that is 8 or 9 records that it is necessary to make them sortable.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't the currency in which is used here explained in the lead, it confuses readers, like me.

Added note in the table to that effect. Think making it a line in the lead would be superfulous---it is in England, most people would expect it to be in pounds our Euros.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Which citation templates are being used? There is an inconsistency with how the fields are presented, like the dates.
• Error with the citation template in ref #9.
• Consistency with the publisher of Poker Listing: is it Poker Listings? or Poker Listing?
• Ref #5 is missing a publisher, in addition to being dead.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 02:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment- The word "results" in the article name should be lower case. I don't know if moving it during this process will break anything so I won't. Otto4711 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "outside of the United States"
• "Since 1970 if one wanted to compete in the World Series of Poker, one had to travel to Las Vegas."-->Since 1970, participants have had to travel to Las Vegas if they wanted to compete in the World Series of Poker (WSOP).
• "While the WSOP held circuit events in other locations, the main tournaments, which awarded bracelets to the winners were exclusively held in Vegas."-->Although the WSOP held circuit events in other locations, the main tournaments, which awarded bracelets to the winners, were exclusively held in Las Vegas.
• "awarded outside of Las Vegas"
• "in the London area - Fifty, Leicester Square" Should be en em dash (—).
• "U.S.." Double periods.
• "did not relying upon its reputation alone" Wrong tense.
• "On July 5, 2007 Harrah's" Comma after "2007".
• "Harrah's announced an alliance"-->Harrah's announced its alliance
• "is intended to play on Betfair's European reputation" "play on"-->build on or take advantage of.
• "In 2007, U.S. laws prevented the WSOP from accepting" Confusing, were the laws passed in 2007?
• "youngest player to ever to win a"
• "Leicester Square, London" Don't link common geographical terms such as "London".
• "Three time bracelet winner " Hyphenate "Three time".
• "The 2008 WSOPE was particularly notable as Jesper Hougaard became the first person to ever win a bracele"-->The 2008 WSOPE was particularly notable, as Jesper Hougaard became the first person to win a bracelet
• "Ivan Demidov made news as he was one of the November"-->Ivan Demidov was one of the November
• Captions that are not complete sentences should have periods at the end.
• Link seven-card stud. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Ref 5, the "BluffMagazine.com. Bluff Magazine" is not necessary; just put "Bluff Magazine".

Comment: RL just got real hectic for me... will try to take care of the above issues this evening or weekend.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real life is taking its toll... I won't be able to work on these last few chages. I'll see if somebody else from the Poker project will tackle this FLC, but if not, go ahead and close it with the next batch.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 03:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to see it fail, so I will resolve most of these myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [5].

Seems to be complete, and obviously comprehensive. I reckon it meets all of the FL criteria.  GARDEN  20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph needs citations for the information regarding the group's founding. Gary King (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ack, sorry about that, completely overlooked it - done now.  GARDEN  21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup comments

• The compilations album still needs to be sourced.

• On it.
• All the references for the DVDS, and etc. need to be located on the name of the title not the release date, because that implies that the ref is only verifying the release date.

• Oh, alright.

• Some of those sources aren't really reliable from my view point, but I will let User:Dabomb87 to review them, until the sourcing issue is resolved, I can't support.--TRUCO 21:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I'll double check.  GARDEN  22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked Dabomb to do a check on them, so he should get to you as soon as possible, I support the list prose/content wise, but the sourcing could be a issue, I hope you understand.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This list is ready, and I agree that most of the comments above are somewhat silly. iMatthew // talk // 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I definitely agree with a lot of Truco's points above. These lists should be in perfect shape, and this article isn't there yet.

• "were formedbegan as"
  • Done.
• Unlink the years, like 1980s
  • Done.
• "they had major member changes" – "Major", according to the reference? Or whom?
  • Done.
• "was received well" – "was well received"
  • Done.
• "chart very highly" – Why the "very"?
  • British thing, I guess. Like, saying "I didn't do very well" rather than "I didn't do well". No idea. Gone.
• The word "Billboard" in "Billboard 200" needs to be italicized.
  • Done.
• "butand reached"
  • Done.
• "Their sophomore album, Bridging the Gap, reached a peak position of number 67 in the Billboard 200,[4] but reached its highest peak position in New Zealand, reaching number eighteen on the country's album chart." – This sentence uses "reach" three times. Cut that down.
  • Done.
• "TheirThe group's breakthrough"
  • Done.
• "which featureds Justin Timberlake"
  • Done.
• "Their breakthrough single came in 2003 with the release of "Where Is the Love?", from Elephunk, which featured Justin Timberlake." – Can probably be written better, like "Their breakthrough single was "Where Is the Love?" in 2003, from Elephunk, which features Justin Timberlake."
  • Done.
• "It reached a peak position of number eight on" – These sentences can be written more concisely, like "It peaked at number eight on"
  • Done.

• Some of the references have errors of missing title fields.
  • Will fix.
    • Done.

There are similar issues throughout the prose, which I haven't gone through completely. Gary King (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done most of those. Thanks,  GARDEN  10:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, all issues resolved. Will fully support when the final source issue is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• The Amazon issue needs to be resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overall looks pretty good, but there's a few issues that I'd like to see addressed:

• The first sentence "The discography of..." reads very poorly, try looking at some other FLs for some smoother introductions.
• The singles table's year column is kind of wierd right now.
• The singles table still has 11 columns.
• The singles table is also getting a little wide. The certifications and album columns could be much slimmer, as there's alot of wasted space there. I also think that if you manage your column widths better, you wouldn't need to make the font smaller.
• Some catalog numbers of the releases would be good.
• "U.S." and "US" are both used. Stick with one.
• Consider writing "number 67" as "#67".

The above concerns have yet to be addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Contrary to what Drewcifer said, I prefer "The discography of..." over the current sentence. Many of the recent promoted discogs begin this way. I think the current sentence is creeping back to "This is a list of...", which has fallen out of favor.
• You do need to be consistent with "U.S." vs "US". In this case, "US" is correct because "UK" is used
• The album was well received ... but did not chart highly. where? the US or in all markets?
• You may wish to say that Renegotiations: The Remixes was only sold in Best Buy and iTunes stores in that bullet point "Remixes of songs on Monkey Business"
• "Union" has a music video according to Monkey Business (album). This is missing from the music video table. I'm not saying the album article is correct, so just make sure
• Wasn't "Mas Que Nada" released as a single?
• Label: Interscope vs Label: Interscope Records No need to link in the EP section either
• Any reason you haven't given the certifications from BPI?
  • Where is the Love -- Platinum
  • Elephunk -- 4x Platinum
  • Shut Up -- Silver
  • Monkey Business -- 3x Platinum
• There are also other certifications you could include for the albums and singles from their articles.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JD554 (talk · contribs)

• Similar columms should be the same width: Album details/EP details/Video details, the certifications columns, and the year columns.
• The singles table needs to have the font increased and the 100% width removed (this will help with the above).
• The album titles in the singles table don't need to be wikilinked again (already done in the albums table).
• The charts in the singles table should wikilink to the chart not the country (there's a list at List of record charts).
• Either remove "Boom Boom Pow" or add a citation and note to say it's a future single and (if you go for the latter) remove the dashes, or (if you go for the former) change the hyphens to mdashes.
• I disagree with Drewcifer about #67. As you've already used a word for eighteen, it would be better to say number sixty-seven per MOS:NUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words.
• Can you provide formats for the albums, EP and videos?
• Have they never released any compilations, live albums or had an otherwise unavailable track released on a various artists compilation? --JD554 (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• 7, 8, 9, 11, 26 and 29 need language tags.
• 12 needs to say what search term is to be used.
• 13 needs to give instructions on what to do.
• 31 and 33 can be combined.
• 40 has (DVD) and [DVD] and doesn't need a retrieved on date. --JD554 (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 19:36, 20 February 2009 [6].

I will fix all of these issues, and post this FLC again as soon as FLC has a better backlog. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare _(Talk), Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Prison Break

If you feel you too have worked on this article, please feel free to add yourself to the Nominators section.

I cleaned this up, mostly today, actually. Do you feel that this meets the FL Criteria? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Finally completely cleaned up. Fixed the widths myself (TAKE THAT, SCORPION!). Good work! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One last thing before I fully lend support, can the section headers such as "Season 1" be made into subheaders of the "List of seasons" header?--TRUCO 23:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, with a slight reorganization. . NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• File:PB S4 Intro.png fails NFCC.
• Since this FLC we no longer transclude episode lists.
• "the Tattoo", doesn't merit a capital letter
• Can we cite the Specials as they are not covered by IGN.
• Can you make season 3 have black title headings as the white is a bit difficult to read
• Was PB simulcast in any other countries? I think it was, possibly Canada and/or the UK. If so that needs mentioning, to adhere to a worldwide point of view.
• Mention digital media releases after DVD/Blu-ray bit. These may include Amazon Unbox, Hulu, iTunes Store, Xbox Live Marketplace etc.
• I would be strongly in favour of including the viewing figures. This is a recent series and they are not difficult to find.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has withdrawn this candidate.[7] Please leave {{FLC}} on the articles talk page until the bot processes it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 19:36, 20 February 2009 [8].

I'll fix these errors, but I am going to withdraw this now until my other two are further down the list, to give you guys some additional breathing room. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare _(Talk)''

What would you do if 23 nuclear bombs went off in the United States?

Does this meet the Featured List criteria? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have three FLCs going on, all of which have been nominated in the past two or three days. Please let up a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Scorpion, and he said that it was OK to nominate these as long as I didn't break Gary King's record of 18. I am in no rush; please feel free to review other articles, even if this FLC gets close to the bottom of the list. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I will ;) It would be nice if you did too. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that's probably a good idea. I've asked a lot from you guys recently, and I have only really done one small check for Ironholds. I'll do a couple. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Like Dabomb stated its best to hold off on the nominations due to the backlog and lack of reviewers.

Lead

• Jericho is set in the fictional town of Jericho, Kansas and follows the town's struggle to survive in the aftermath of nuclear attacks on 23 major U.S. cities. -- Comma after Kansas.
• The first season begins almost immediately with the detonation of the bombs, and initially focuses on the physical effects of the bombs. Later on, the focus shifts to a battle against a neighboring town.[1] The second season begins with the arrival of the new government, and focuses on the transformation of Jericho into a police state, as well as Jake Green (Skeet Ulrich) and Robert Hawkins' (Lennie James) attempt to expose the masterminds of the attack. -- A lot of repetition of the word focus, can a synonym be used at least once?
• (Opt.) Some of these types of list state the timeslot and day of the week it aired, which would be located in a sentence like Jericho originally aired from September 20, 2006 to March 25, 2008 on CBS in the United States.
• After a large fan outcry[5] CBS agreed to order seven additional trial[6] episodes for a second season, which began airing on February 12 and ended on March 25, 2008. -- (1)Be consistent with the date formatting, the previous sentence stated the date as February 21, 2007 to May 9, 2007 [which has the year in both dates, unlike this one] (2)Comma after outcry
• Jericho went on hiatus after the "fall finale" episode of November 29, 2006 and returned with a recap episode on February 14, 2007. -- Comma before and

Seasons

• Remove the colors from the column headings or use lighter colors, the ones in place now are too distracting.
• There are a lot of redlinks, consider creating some stubs or not link any at all.

Footnotes

• Remove the full stop, the statement there is not a complete sentence.

References

• There is a problem with the bolding in some of the references. This can be resolved by not listing Jericho as the work because IGN publisher their information and it is their work (as in writing it). Some, like Ref 5, I'm not sure; there could be a bolding issue in that citation.--TRUCO 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has withdrawn this candidate.[9] Please leave {{FLC}} on the articles talk page until the bot processes it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 04:11, 19 February 2009 [10].

Nominator(s): JayExperience (talk)

Originally posted on top of the former FLC page here. I have archived that one and started a new one here. Someone may need to add the things that the preload normally does. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that nominator support is assumed and isn't taken into account at FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail/Strongest Oppose. This isn't as bad as the others (as it is a Former Featured List), but still has many problems. The lack of references is very worrying. Epguide is not a reliable source, and none of the directors/writers are cited. We do not start lists like "The following is an episode list for" anymore. The whole lead is effectively uncited, with the exception of the "Kids' WB" channel is aired on. That source doesn't appear reliable either. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail for the reason that the same issues plague your other FLCs. Insufficient summaries, no refs for the episodes and airdates, and I am not sure what makes any of those sources reliable. I would advise to withdraw some or all of your FLCs and submit them to peer review one at a time. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick-Fail -- Lead needs expansion and better referencing to reliable sources. Does not meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, I didn't read the criteria properly, I'll continue to work on the page and hopefully resubmit it one day. Thanks for your help anyway. ^The Scarecrow... 02:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hope to see you back soon! Don't remove the {{FLC}} template from the talk pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 15:58, 19 February 2009 [11].

These are the previous FLC's of this when the article was under difrent names. 1st FLC, 2nd FLC and 3rd FLC --129.25.31.103 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): JayExperience (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it qualifies and I have put in a lot of effort in fixing up the page. Thanks in advance. ^The Scarecrow... 08:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail. This still has old tags for cleanup that have been there since April 2008! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail Sorry, but if articles have cleanup banners, those issues should be taken care of before FLC. One- and two-sentence episode summaries do not suffice. The tone is not always encyclopedic, and there is a section full of original research. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick-Fail -- Lead needs expansion and better referencing to reliable sources. Does not meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note. This candidate was withdrawn by the nominator. Please leave the {{FLC}} template on the articles talk page until it is archived automatically. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 04:11, 19 February 2009 [12].

Nominator(s): JayExperience (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meet shte criteria and I have put in a lot of effort in fixing the page as it looked very messy before I begun editing it. Thanks. ^The Scarecrow... 08:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail. This still has request for expansion tag from November 2008 and cites no references at all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail No references, insufficient episode summaries, the lead isn't large enough and there is an expansion tag. I will also that it is bad form to nominate two FLCs in quick succession, please consider giving at least a day in between. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick-Fail -- Lead needs expansion and better referencing to reliable sources. Does not meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been withdrawn; don't remove the {{FLC}} template from the talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [13].

This list is well structured, illustrated and includes references to all entries. I believe it deserves to be featured.Silin2005 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We don't start lists out "This is a list of..." anymore. I can tell you right now that the lead needs expansion (summarize the list more and talk about the university more) and that all web citations need titles, URLs, publishers and last access dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail You have not made a single contribution to this list and are therefore not a significant contributor. You do not appear to have consulted any of the significant contributors either. Aditionally this list has quite a few flaws. All references are missing publishers, the lead seems too short. For the image of the seal you uploaded, did you make the seal? If not then surely you are not the author and cannot release it into the public domain. This also needs an image review for bad/incomplete licenses (e.g. File:Skovoroda.jpg). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there have been 87 edits to this list. The nominator has made 77 of them. Ostap 02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I'm very sorry I was using the contribution tool on the wrong FLC, and confused the multiple tabs I had open. I have struck my qf, but I still Oppose due to the other issues mentioned. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [14].

I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all of the qualifications and I have made improvements to the article based on a recent peer review session. I believe I corrected all concerns raised during PR, except that I left the 13 chart columns on the album discography (I do not think it is excessive, and according to MOS:DISCOG approximately 10 charts are suggested; 13 is close to 10).

Also, it was suggested that the Operas section be deleted, though I would like to get additional feedback regarding that request. I realize this is a Discography, and the opera has not yet been recorded and distributed as an album. However, this is a major work and I still wonder if it is worth listing. At the same time, I am more than willing to remove the section if consensus reveals it should be eliminated from the list. Perhaps a list of composition could be created, since Wainwright has composed other pieces as well? If there is a "List of compositions" template or example I could follow, I'd be interested.

Sorry so long. Anyways, I think that apart from the aforementioned concern, this is an informational, highly-referenced list that I would love to see join the other FL discographies. Thank you so much for your time, consideration, and assistance. -Another Believer (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://www.soundtrackcollector.com/catalog/soundtrackdetail.php?movieid=75992 a reliable source?

Comment: I'm afraid I cannot find any newspaper articles or other more reliable sources with the track list. If this, this, this, or this cannot be used, I will simply have to remove the entry. I think part of the problem is that this film was released in France so there is little English text about the film/soundtrack. -Another Believer (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show that any of these listed sources are reliable through support by a reliable third-party institution, being cited by a reputable publication/institution, or methods of fact-checking? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've gone ahead and removed the entry. I can add it back later if I come across a reliable source. -Another Believer (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise http://www.radio-canada.ca/radio/emissions/document.asp?docnumero=51525&numero=1354?

Comment: radio-canada.ca is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's French site. I've update the reference to display Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as the publisher, rather than Radio-Canada. I hope this helps.

• You need to add a publisher to the Billboard sources. Billboard is the work, and Nielsen Business Media, Inc is the publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you so much for your time and assistance! -Another Believer (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very thorough, but I do have a few complaints that I hope you can address.

• My complaint has to do with the 13 charts. Yes, 13 is close to 10, but I see no justification or rationale for going past the suggested 10. On the contrary, there are many reasons not to go past 10, which are in fact the same reasons why 10 is suggested in the first place. I think it would be very easy to trim the fat on this: the German, Austrian, and Spanish charts aren't particularly notable or useful in my opinion, and that would bring it down to the magic number.
• My other main complaint is that the list is over-referenced. (Yes, there is such a thing as too many citations). For instance, it's extreme overkill to provide a citation for every single release, when one or two general references would suffice. Take a look at the reference section of The Prodigy discography for an example of what I mean.

I have some other more minor style-based complaints, but those are my two main ones. I don't have time to do a full review at the moment, so I'll save those for if and when the other two are addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. The difference between the Rufus Wainwright and The Prodigy discographies is that the latter does not list 77 contributions to soundtracks, compilation albums, and albums by other artists. I do not think the article would look "over-referenced" if it were not for that extensive list. However, I feel the contributions list is very helpful and necessary, showing the extent of his involvement with many projects. If I could find a single reliable source that listed many of his contributions (including track name, album title, etc.), I would reduce the number of references. Since I cannot, I will leave the list as is for now. Thanks again! -Another Believer (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting getting rid of citations that aren't coverable by general references, and if the soundtrack contributions need specific citations then that's fine. But for a start, a citation for every studio album, live album, compilation, EP, and video album seems unnecessary. A single link to allmusic covers alot of this. And a single link to his website covers alot of other stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So just use the allmusic link you provided to reference all of the albums? It just seems the references provided (that direct to Billboard) note more information--album name, date, release formats, peak positions, etc. In other words, they provide details allmusic does not. In no way am I unwilling to change/improve the article, nor do I take offense. I am really just trying to make sure I understand why the article should be edited to contain fewer references when those references may be more useful to the reader. I hope other users will express their thoughts on this issue. Are there any other issues that need to be addressed in order to earn your support? -Another Believer (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well let's compare the Poses pages from Allmusic link and Billboard link. They both have title, label, catalog number, and release date. Billboard has some chart positions (though so does Allmusic, it's just one click away rather than on the same page). So for this one release they're essentially the same. The difference being allmusic has a all-inclusive discography page link, where as Billboard does not. So that is why I would say Allmusic is better, since one link can provide information for a whole bunch of releases, rather than one link per release. Hope that makes sense. It also looks like Allmusic is a little bit more inclusive, as it includes Yellow lounge, but Billboard does not. I think this may be because Billboard only lists things that have charted, though I could be wrong.

The reason less citations is preferable is because 124 of them is just data overload, and it implies that if the reader wants to find out more they need to go to 124 places, rather than a few all-inclusive ones.

Aside from the citations bit, there's still the 13 charts thing that needs to be addressed. And I'll try and find some time soon to do a more thorough style-based review of the list. Drewcifer (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [15].

I'm nominating this because I believe it meets all FL criteria. It's comprehensive and cited with reliable sources. Pyrrhus16 13:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be: "List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson"? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no nominations listed. It would take forever to find every award he has been nominated for. Pyrrhus16 14:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Pyrrhus on that point, the logistics of having every award Jackson has won and been nominated for would be entirely overbearing on a reader. There would be difficulty loading the page for a start. — R² 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is only for the awards Jackson won, shouldn't the result in the table be removed. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a way to remove that column. Besides, it's also used to differentiate between awards won and hall of fame inductions. Pyrrhus16 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming the list to "List of awards received by Michael Jackson"? Gary King (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what Gary King said is OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Frcm1988 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the nominated work is missing: for example in the Soul Train Awards, in the Best R&B/Urban Contemporary (Music Video), what video was nominated?

• The book in which I used for reference doesn't state which video won that award.

• Did Jackson actually won the BRIT Award for Best British Album?

• According to the reference book, yes.

• Africa should be replaced for Gabon.

  Done

• In the International Awards there are only the names of the countries but not the name of the Award, and also what was the nominated work.

• Again, the book doesn't state and I wouldn't like to assume.

• In the Golden Globe Awards, which award did he won? Best Original Song I suppose.

• Done

• The MTV European Music Awards should be in a table like the rest of awards.

  The MTV Europe awards? They are in a table, unless I misunderstood the comment?

• Some of the awards are lacking a description, like the Smash Hits, or in Mix Magazine he won for Best Foreign Male Singer but it dosen't said from which country is the magazine.

  Added the countries. Pyrrhus16 18:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• The seventh child of the Jackson family, he debuted on the professional music scene at the age of 11 as a member of The Jackson 5 and began a solo career in 1971 while still a member of the group. - comma before and

• Done

• Rename the article to List of awards received by Michael Jackson (per consistency with other awards lists)

• I can think of a few FL lists that aren't 'consistent'... but consider it done. Pyrrhus16 09:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will move after FL discussion, it was messing with the link to here - despite a redirect. Pyrrhus16 10:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead needs to be expanded a bit, I see many many awards listed, some of those should be summarized further in the prose.

• Added a bit more info to the lead. Pyrrhus16 10:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List

• Some of the entries are missing the description/purpose of the awards.

  Little is known about some of the awards. Pyrrhus16 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Research will have to be done then because you can't just have some awards that don't list their purpose, it questions the reader as to what they were nominated for.--TRUCO 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the entries are missing references for the description/purpose of the awards.

• Which descriptions do you feel need a reference? Pyrrhus16 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of them, some of the awards have descriptions as to why they are held, but this is not verified with a reference. It seems redundant to source it in this article, but you can't have original research in the article.--TRUCO 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this is a list of his awards and not his nominations, I find it redundant to list the result in every entry.

As I said above, I don't think there is a way to remove that column. However it's also used to differentiate between awards won and hall of fame inductions.Pyrrhus16 09:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, this should be discussed at the template page or the respective project page to see if the "result" field can be made optional per lists like these. What above my first 2 comments in this section?--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also

• This section goes before the references per WP:SEEALSO
  • Done — R² 07:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• The grammy award reference should have Grammy award piped linked in the publisher field.
  • Done. — R² 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pipe link to Grammy, not Grammy award.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done — R² 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The RIAA should not be piped to www.riaa.com, it should be just RIAA, or the acronym should be spelled out.
  • Done — R² 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The reagan-utexas.edu should be linked to the appropriate article
  • It doesn't have a corresponding article on Wikipedia, that I know of.
    • It looks like its an alternative to Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, so that's the best to place in the publisher field.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I see, thanks, done. — R² 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ABC News needs to be linked.
  • ABC News is linked in the footnotes once, on the first occasion it is used. Do we need to keep relinking the same publisher each time in the notes? I'm not a fan of linking for the sake of linking. — R² 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--TRUCO 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I didn't see that it was linked already. No, no need to link it again.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. — R² 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There are some basic errors that result from not having an outside editor looking through it with a detailed eye. Luckily, the problems aren't large; a twenty-minute proofread by someone new to the article should suffice. A larger problem is that lack of description for awards. Examples:

• Birthdate not necessary; this isn't his main article.

• Done

• "The seventh child of the Jackson family" Another irrelevant detail.

• Done

• "at the age of 11"
• "and a RIAA certification" Spell out RIAA on its first appearance.

• Done

• "has also been honoured "

• Done

• "is an organisation which helps"-->is an organisation that helps

• Done

• "whilst facing"-->while facing

• Done

• Jackson has went on to collect 22 "-->Jackson has collected 22

• Done

• Why is there no description of the American Video Awards?
• "BET Awards" Once again, there is no description.
• Many of the awards have no description.
• "The Billboard Music Awards, sponsored by Billboard magazine" Comma after here.

• Done

• "has won a total of 40 Billboard related"-->has won 40 Billboard-related

• Done

• "hem as royalties to those members" Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Pyrrhus16 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were only examples; please find somebody to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done

Sources

• Citations with multiple page numbers should use the notation "pp."

• Done

• Dates should not have leading 0s. Example: "Retrieved on February 03, 2009"-->Retrieved on February 3, 2009 Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done

• http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2008/11/07/prnewswire200811071005PR_NEWS_USPR_____NY44689.html (ref 26) deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Pyrrhus16 10:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• When does the Michael Jackson ceremony take place? What I mean by that is that List of Saturn Awards, List of BAFTA awards, List of Grammy Awards would be okay, because they are awards of Saturn, the BAFTAs, Grammys. There are no Michael Jackson awards, only awards received by Michael Jackson. The page title should reflect that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We will certainly find a more suitable name when the FLC is closed, as you can imagine, this is not the best time to go changing titles. — R² 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think you need to start with "Michael Joseph Jackson". It isn't the name he goes by as a performer, and it is given at Michael Jackson.
  • Done. — R² 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any progress? I still have not heard a reason for why many awards have no descriptions. Language concerns still – "Bravo is the largest teen magazine within the German-language sphere." Why such a jargony and vague word like "sphere"? "Its membership comprises hundreds of music companies including" Comma after "companies". "a weekly publication devoted to the music and coin-operated machine industries which was published from July " "which"-->that. "Jackson was awarded with a humanitarian award, from the Crenshaw Community Youth & Arts Foundation, in 1994.[14]" Repetition of "award" and the comma is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather difficult to find a description and reference for all 80+ awards. It would certainly take more than the 10 day allocation, therefore, I suggest withdrawing this and resubmitting when all concerns have been met. Probably submitting it for Peer Review beforehand. I hadn't anticipated the work that goes into Featured Content and submitted this way too early, as you can see here. Pyrrhus16 10:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we know what needs doing, it's just going to take some time. Best to let this close, we will be back. :) — R² 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [16].

previous FLC (23:14, 20 January 2009) Rambo's Revenge notified

I have addressed all the issues that caused the list to fail last time including copyediting and finding sources that were requested.じんない 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]